Oddities that defy conventional wisdom - POPULATION edition

[interstatefan990]

So...we need bigger cities in upstate NY to promote tourism.

Because everyone wants to go to Wichita.

I'm almost offended by your comparison of Kansas and New York! 

Hey, everyone wants to go to Las Vegas, and that's practically in the middle of a desert. It's what's in the city that counts.

Which is why I find your focus on city size more than a little headscratching.

Because the larger the city, the more attractions it has, the more hotel rooms, the more tourist destinations, the more visitors, etc, etc, etc. Las Vegas has a population of over 641,000 in case you forgot.

St Louis, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh are "mid-sized" while El Paso, Mesa AZ and Aurora CO are "large" then?

Well, obviously when you get closer to the boundaries of my approximation of a "rule" for midsized or large cities, or a lot of "rules" for that matter, the rule gets fuzzy, but I think it's still a good guideline. I admit there can be other factors considered as well, like actual city square mileage and quality of tourist attractions.

You're saying NY needs more cities the size of Buffalo and Rochester?

Honestly, either that or the larger cities, but I was leaning towards the latter because of the disproportionate population drop between the state's #1 and #2 cities. I guess my main point is I kind of want NY to be known on a national scale for more than just NYC, Buffalo, and Rochester.

[kirbykart]

Here's a fun one: NYC is more populous than all of these states combined:

Another fun one is that Alaska is more populous than Vermont. When Alaska is seen as so desolate, it actually has some pretty good-sized population centers.

[CtrlAltDel]

Another fun one is that Alaska is more populous than Vermont. When Alaska is seen as so desolate, it actually has some pretty good-sized population centers.

Well, to be fair, Alaska is 69 times the size of Vermont.

[JayhawkCO]

Another fun one is that Alaska is more populous than Vermont. When Alaska is seen as so desolate, it actually has some pretty good-sized population centers.

Well, to be fair, Alaska is 69 times the size of Vermont.

Nice.

[DTComposer]

Which is why I find your focus on city size more than a little headscratching.

Because the larger the city, the more attractions it has, the more hotel rooms, the more tourist destinations, the more visitors, etc, etc, etc. Las Vegas has a population of over 641,000 in case you forgot.

Pedantic reminder that, by far, the largest driver of tourism (the Strip) is located outside of the Las Vegas city limits.

The eye test tells us that the relationship of city size to tourist draw is not parallel. Who is getting more tourists:
Charlotte or San Francisco?
San Jose or Boston?
Indianapolis or Washington, DC?
Jacksonville or Miami?

The use of MSA/CSAs probably makes this relationship more parallel, but there are still outliers that "punch above their weight" - Orlando vs. Detroit or Houston; Las Vegas, Nashville, or New Orleans vs. Cleveland, Charlotte, or Sacramento; etc.

[Rothman]

So...we need bigger cities in upstate NY to promote tourism.

Because everyone wants to go to Wichita.

I'm almost offended by your comparison of Kansas and New York! 

Hey, everyone wants to go to Las Vegas, and that's practically in the middle of a desert. It's what's in the city that counts.

Which is why I find your focus on city size more than a little headscratching.

Because the larger the city, the more attractions it has, the more hotel rooms, the more tourist destinations, the more visitors, etc, etc, etc. Las Vegas has a population of over 641,000 in case you forgot.

That's not true.  If what you said was true, even more people would be running to LA than Las Vegas, when in reality, LA receives millions of fewer visitors than Las Vegas.

[kphoger]

Because the larger the city, the more attractions it has, the more hotel rooms, the more tourist destinations, the more visitors, etc, etc, etc. Las Vegas has a population of over 641,000 in case you forgot.

And, in case you forgot, its population was less than half that just 30 years ago–yet tourists were nevertheless flocking to it in droves.

For what it's worth, the population of Branson (MO) is less than 15k, but there are twice as many hotel rooms in Branson as there are in Wichita (KS).  In fact, there are more hotel rooms in Branson than there are residents.

[webny99]

Another fun one is that Alaska is more populous than Vermont. When Alaska is seen as so desolate, it actually has some pretty good-sized population centers.

Well, to be fair, Alaska is 69 times the size of Vermont.

Yeah, it seems crazier to me when you put it the other way: Alaska is less populous than Rhode Island or Delaware.

[interstatefan990]

Which is why I find your focus on city size more than a little headscratching.

Because the larger the city, the more attractions it has, the more hotel rooms, the more tourist destinations, the more visitors, etc, etc, etc. Las Vegas has a population of over 641,000 in case you forgot.

Pedantic reminder that, by far, the largest driver of tourism (the Strip) is located outside of the Las Vegas city limits.

The eye test tells us that the relationship of city size to tourist draw is not parallel. Who is getting more tourists:
Charlotte or San Francisco?
San Jose or Boston?
Indianapolis or Washington, DC?
Jacksonville or Miami?

The use of MSA/CSAs probably makes this relationship more parallel, but there are still outliers that "punch above their weight" - Orlando vs. Detroit or Houston; Las Vegas, Nashville, or New Orleans vs. Cleveland, Charlotte, or Sacramento; etc.

I know that. I wasn't referring to tourism strictly within city limits. As a ***general*** rule, a city with a larger population will have more tourism in its own limits and/or within its surrounding region, or MSA/CSA like you said. Walt Disney World isn't within Orlando, but that doesn't mean the two have nothing to do with each other. Yeah, the Strip isn't within Vegas limits, but I'm sure if you just plucked it out and placed it in some random location in a Nevada desert it would cease to exist. Also, you can't just draw these comparisons without considering other factors. Weather? Reason for tourism? Even more crucially: in state tourism or out of staters? Sure, Jacksonville or San Jose may not matter that much to people not in their respective states, but for those that are, it's a different story.

That's not true.  If what you said was true, even more people would be running to LA than Las Vegas, when in reality, LA receives millions of fewer visitors than Las Vegas.

Why do you all love to assume that when I, or anyone really, say something, I am speaking in the strictest and most specific terms possible? Of course there will be exceptions, that's basic human (geo)anthropology.

Also, you're joking me, right?

And, in case you forgot, its population was less than half that just 30 years ago–yet tourists were nevertheless flocking to it in droves.

Love the combined bold and italic to address me. Really nice touch. 

Of course, but what you're forgetting is that the area's population has grown along with its tourism numbers. In 1989, there were about 18.1 million visitors with a metro area population of about 673,000. In 2019, there were more than double that number of tourists, with about 42.5 million visitors and a metro area population of 2.621 million. Take a look for yourself.

[Rothman]

Pfft.  Instead of "Discover California," go with the CEO of Los Angeles Tourism and Convention Board, who claimed only 31m visitors in 2019 -- 11m less than Las Vegas.

[doorknob60]

I know this is a result of the classic MSA vs city population thing, but I find it weird that Boise has a higher population than Salt Lake City. As I've spent plenty of time in both, SLC feels way more like the "big city".

But even Salt Lake City's MSA is pretty weird. The city of North Salt Lake, directly bordering the city limits of Salt Lake City, is not in the same MSA. All of Davis County is part of the Ogden MSA. While I do see justification of having separate SLC and Ogden MSAs, splitting at the county lines creates this silly situation, to the point where I'd probably just make it one MSA (there is of course a CSA containing both, as well as Provo). If you could split it more granularly, I would split the MSAs at Farmington. This also means SLC's MSA population is pretty misleading and punches kinda above its weight.

[DTComposer]

Pfft.  Instead of "Discover California," go with the CEO of Los Angeles Tourism and Convention Board, who claimed only 31m visitors in 2019 -- 11m less than Las Vegas.

The Discover Los Angeles website is run by the L.A. Tourism and Convention Board, so they can't even get their own statistics consistent...

Yeah, the Strip isn't within Vegas limits, but I'm sure if you just plucked it out and placed it in some random location in a Nevada desert it would cease to exist.

Would it? Assuming you're also taking infrastructure and services for workers, wouldn't you just have a larger Branson, but with a gambling focus?

That said, Las Vegas was a random location in a Nevada desert when it was founded in 1905. Even by 1940 when the Strip really started to grow, there were only 16,000 people in Clark County. Had the strip happened in Winnemucca (another mid-desert railroad stop along a cross-country US highway) would it now be Vegas-sized? Possibly not, as additional factors for Las Vegas include its relative proximity to Los Angeles, and the Hoover/Boulder Dam project in the 1930s. But certainly for thirty to fifty years, the Strip was the primary driver of growth in Clark County.

Why do you all love to assume that when I, or anyone really, say something, I am speaking in the strictest and most specific terms possible? Of course there will be exceptions, that's basic human (geo)anthropology.

My apologies, I'm not trying to raise anyone's hackles here. But you made an assertion (city size drives tourism numbers), gave a statistic (Las Vegas city population) but then used additional information (the Strip, 42 million visitors) that includes the metro area - I am a little pedantic about city vs. metro when it comes to these types of conversations.

For the assertion itself, I was trying to make the counter-assertion that population is not the primary driver of tourism, and that it's more than "there will be exceptions."

To support that, I give you the 25 US metro areas with the largest number of foreign visitors in 2019, compared with the metro areas' population rank.
I am sure that including domestic visitors as well might change these numbers, but in 20 minutes of Googling I could not find a consistent source for domestic tourism.

METRO AREA	Tourism Rank	Population Rank	Difference
New York	1	1	0
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale	2	9	7
Los Angeles-Anaheim	3	2	1
Orlando	4	23	19
San Francisco	5	13	8
Las Vegas	6	29	23
Honolulu	7	56	49
Washington	8	6	2
Boston	9	11	2
Chicago	10	3	7
San Diego	11	17	6
Houston	12	5	7
Seattle	13	15	2
Flagstaff	14	291	277
Atlanta	15	8	7
Philadelphia	16	7	9
Dallas	17	4	13
Tampa	18	18	0
San Jose	19	36	17
New Orleans	21	47	26
Phoenix	22	10	12
Denver	23	19	4
Riverside	24	12	12
Buffalo	25	49	24

Source: https://www.yahoo.com/now/30-most-visited-cities-u-145000465.html
Note that I combined the metropolitan divisions on this list (Los Angeles and Anaheim, Miami and Fort Lauderdale) so that the list was consistently metropolitan areas.

Even taking out the outlier (Flagstaff), the average difference between tourism and population rank is 11. Seven of the top 25 metro areas by population (Detroit, Minneapolis, Baltimore, St. Louis, Charlotte, San Antonio, Portland) don't make the top 25 of tourism.

I'm happy to see additional statistics that support or disprove either side of this discussion.

[kphoger]

Yeah, the Strip isn't within Vegas limits, but I'm sure if you just plucked it out and placed it in some random location in a Nevada desert it would cease to exist.

Would it? Assuming you're also taking infrastructure and services for workers, wouldn't you just have a larger Branson, but with a gambling focus?

That said, Las Vegas was a random location in a Nevada desert when it was founded in 1905. Even by 1940 when the Strip really started to grow, there were only 16,000 people in Clark County. Had the strip happened in Winnemucca (another mid-desert railroad stop along a cross-country US highway) would it now be Vegas-sized? Possibly not, as additional factors for Las Vegas include its relative proximity to Los Angeles, and the Hoover/Boulder Dam project in the 1930s. But certainly for thirty to fifty years, the Strip was the primary driver of growth in Clark County.

That's what I was thinking.  My maternal grandparents visited Las Vegas on their honeymoon, and my mom is 70 years old, so that must have been in the 1940s (considering that my mom was adopted after my grandparents had tried for years to conceive).  At that time, it was teeny-weeny, but it was nonetheless a place that two people on their honeymoon would stop and visit.

[Scott5114]

Las Vegas population:

[SectorZ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_census

Marblehead MA, with only 20K people in 2020, was the 11th most populated city in the USA in the inaugural census.

Nantucket, then called Sherburne, has only twice the population in 2020 of its 1790 count.

Even Gilmanton NH was #38 in the US, with 2613 people then, to 3945 centuries later.

[interstatefan990]

Would it? Assuming you're also taking infrastructure and services for workers, wouldn't you just have a larger Branson, but with a gambling focus?

It's hard to say. One can't really quantify the relationship between the Strip and Las Vegas itself. But there has to be significance of people who come for both, or people who come for purposes not primarily related to gambling.

I give you the 25 US metro areas with the largest number of foreign visitors in 2019, compared with the metro areas' population rank.

[table snipped]

Even taking out the outlier (Flagstaff), the average difference between tourism and population rank is 11. Seven of the top 25 metro areas by population (Detroit, Minneapolis, Baltimore, St. Louis, Charlotte, San Antonio, Portland) don't make the top 25 of tourism.

I'm happy to see additional statistics that support or disprove either side of this discussion.

This weirdly proves and disproves my rule at the same time. Going off your list, the top 5 population centers are all in the top 25 for tourism, as are the next 5. However, after that, starting with population size #14, some aren't included in the list. Nor are #16 and #20, and so on. The seven that you are referring to that don't make the top 25 for tourism also happen to not make the first 14 for population. So while this may appear to disprove a link between tourism and population on one end, I think it's a double edged sword and also roughly proves the link on the other end. Maybe this rule just disintegrates the further down a population list you go?

[SkyPesos]

I know this is a result of the classic MSA vs city population thing, but I find it weird that Boise has a higher population than Salt Lake City. As I've spent plenty of time in both, SLC feels way more like the "big city".

But even Salt Lake City's MSA is pretty weird. The city of North Salt Lake, directly bordering the city limits of Salt Lake City, is not in the same MSA. All of Davis County is part of the Ogden MSA. While I do see justification of having separate SLC and Ogden MSAs, splitting at the county lines creates this silly situation, to the point where I'd probably just make it one MSA (there is of course a CSA containing both, as well as Provo). If you could split it more granularly, I would split the MSAs at Farmington. This also means SLC's MSA population is pretty misleading and punches kinda above its weight.

NC have two of these "separated MSAs that should really be one" examples: Greensboro-Winston Salem and Raleigh-Durham

[Rothman]

This weirdly proves and disproves my rule at the same time.

That would be disproving it, then.

[kalvado]

Pfft.  Instead of "Discover California," go with the CEO of Los Angeles Tourism and Convention Board, who claimed only 31m visitors in 2019 -- 11m less than Las Vegas.

The Discover Los Angeles website is run by the L.A. Tourism and Convention Board, so they can't even get their own statistics consistent...

Yeah, the Strip isn't within Vegas limits, but I'm sure if you just plucked it out and placed it in some random location in a Nevada desert it would cease to exist.

Would it? Assuming you're also taking infrastructure and services for workers, wouldn't you just have a larger Branson, but with a gambling focus?

That said, Las Vegas was a random location in a Nevada desert when it was founded in 1905. Even by 1940 when the Strip really started to grow, there were only 16,000 people in Clark County. Had the strip happened in Winnemucca (another mid-desert railroad stop along a cross-country US highway) would it now be Vegas-sized? Possibly not, as additional factors for Las Vegas include its relative proximity to Los Angeles, and the Hoover/Boulder Dam project in the 1930s. But certainly for thirty to fifty years, the Strip was the primary driver of growth in Clark County.

Why do you all love to assume that when I, or anyone really, say something, I am speaking in the strictest and most specific terms possible? Of course there will be exceptions, that's basic human (geo)anthropology.

My apologies, I'm not trying to raise anyone's hackles here. But you made an assertion (city size drives tourism numbers), gave a statistic (Las Vegas city population) but then used additional information (the Strip, 42 million visitors) that includes the metro area - I am a little pedantic about city vs. metro when it comes to these types of conversations.

For the assertion itself, I was trying to make the counter-assertion that population is not the primary driver of tourism, and that it's more than "there will be exceptions."

To support that, I give you the 25 US metro areas with the largest number of foreign visitors in 2019, compared with the metro areas' population rank.
I am sure that including domestic visitors as well might change these numbers, but in 20 minutes of Googling I could not find a consistent source for domestic tourism.

METRO AREA	Tourism Rank	Population Rank	Difference
New York	1	1	0
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale	2	9	7
Los Angeles-Anaheim	3	2	1
Orlando	4	23	19
San Francisco	5	13	8
Las Vegas	6	29	23
Honolulu	7	56	49
Washington	8	6	2
Boston	9	11	2
Chicago	10	3	7
San Diego	11	17	6
Houston	12	5	7
Seattle	13	15	2
Flagstaff	14	291	277
Atlanta	15	8	7
Philadelphia	16	7	9
Dallas	17	4	13
Tampa	18	18	0
San Jose	19	36	17
New Orleans	21	47	26
Phoenix	22	10	12
Denver	23	19	4
Riverside	24	12	12
Buffalo	25	49	24

Source: https://www.yahoo.com/now/30-most-visited-cities-u-145000465.html
Note that I combined the metropolitan divisions on this list (Los Angeles and Anaheim, Miami and Fort Lauderdale) so that the list was consistently metropolitan areas.

Even taking out the outlier (Flagstaff), the average difference between tourism and population rank is 11. Seven of the top 25 metro areas by population (Detroit, Minneapolis, Baltimore, St. Louis, Charlotte, San Antonio, Portland) don't make the top 25 of tourism.

I'm happy to see additional statistics that support or disprove either side of this discussion.

What I see in the list is a couple different -partially overlapping - groups:
1. One-of-a-kind natural attraction. ( Buffalo, Flagstaff)
2. (almost) one-of-a-kind man-made attraction (Las Vegas, Orlando)
3. Crossroads (Atlanta, and Chicago as huge airline hubs)
4. Gateway to common vacation (Miami, Denver)

Group 3 has most correlation to population size. WHat can someone do in Atlanta other than seeing US on the cheap due to a direct flight to big Delta hub?

[MATraveler128]

Bristol County, Massachusetts has more people than the entire state of Wyoming, which is crazy to me because the area feels very rural to me.

[Rothman]

Bristol County, Massachusetts has more people than the entire state of Wyoming, which is crazy to me because the area feels very rural to me.

As someone who grew up in "rural" Massachusetts, all you have to do is look around.  Unlike other truly rural areas of other states, you'll see driveways/houses everywhere in MA, even in the "deep woods."

[kirbykart]

Not a super crazy one, but Erie County, NY has over 150,000 more people than the state of North Dakota.

[formulanone]

NC have two of these "separated MSAs that should really be one" examples: Greensboro-Winston Salem and Raleigh-Durham

If the former is The Triad, and the latter is The Triangle...Welcome to the Tridangle / Hex Cities / Sexboros!

Maybe it's best they stay apart; it's a roughly 75/90-minute drive between them.

[interstatefan990]

This weirdly proves and disproves my rule at the same time.

That would be disproving it, then.

Not necessarily. I did say it was a general rule and that there would be exceptions.

[DTComposer]

This weirdly proves and disproves my rule at the same time.

That would be disproving it, then.

Not necessarily. I did say it was a general rule and that there would be exceptions.

It depends on how many exceptions you allow before they become not exceptions. In this list, 40% of the entries have differences of 10 or more between population and tourism. I'd consider that difference significant, and that amount enough to become not exceptions, but it can be up to personal interpretation.

For what it's worth, the next two entries on the tourism list (and the last two provided in the source list) are:
Monterey - #26 tourism, #124 metro population, 98 difference
Naples - #27 tourism, #141 metro population, 114 difference