Ok, I guess there are two exceptions to some degree. One is the Hockey Hall of Fame, which you can't do anywhere else because it is only in Toronto. Secondly, there is the CN Tower, the tallest structure in the Western Hemisphere. I guess also in theory Niagara Falls is within 90 minutes or whatever, but you get the point - there's nothing too unique about Toronto. The AGO is a fantastic art museum, but there's dozens of equally good art museums in myriad cities. But despite all of that, I love Toronto anyway.
That got me thinking, what are my favorite cities that have no real unique, defining feature. Where there is no super specific history, or site, or natural beauty feature, or cuisine (for instance, Lima is worth visiting due to the Peruvian food itself, despite not having any of the prior things in any real "you must go there" sense). I'm not going to rank them because I don't really know how to do so but I just wanted to talk through them.
= Toronto (closest thing to a "site" = Hockey Hall of Fame)
Won't rehash this one since I spent three paragraphs talking about it, but again you can have a great three day weekend in Toronto without ever doing something that you can't do anywhere else (again, except for teh HHOF)
= Minneapolis (closest thing to a "site" = the Sculpture Garden)
Ok, this is a fun one. It crystallized in my mind when I realized when I first went there and realized there aren't any mountains around (I guess to me Minnesota = North = Mountains...). But still, there's amazing stuff in Minneapolis, from breweries, to food, to a great art museum (taht will be a running theme here), to the Skyloft, but many other cities have all of these to some degree or another plus something more unique.
= Houston (closest thing to a "site" = honestly, nothing)
I got nothing or Houston other than it having some amazing food. Go there in winter, when it is quite temparate, and explore the various food villages from Sugarland, to the Woodlands to Downtown, and have amazing Mexican food (obviously), but more than that graet Vietnamese, Korean and many other cuisines. I guess drive through Rice or whatever, but yeah there's almost nothing that woudl qualify as sightseeing.
= Chicago (closest thing to a "site" = The Field Museum??)
This might be my most controversial pick, but I stand by it. Chicago is an amazing city, one of the best the US has to offer. It is a mecca of business, culture, charm, etc., but truly - if you are not from the US, I don't know if I would recommend visiting. The Field Museum is great (so is their art museum) but I'm intentionally downplaying museums from this unless they're truly one-of-a-kind (arguably, the Field is). The lake is nice, but many places have a fun coastline. The skyline is amzing, but many places are. The closest actual interesting natural beauty spot is hours away. Still, absolutely go there!
... in case you thought these were just going to be US/Canada places....
= Helsinki (closest thing to a "site" = The Orthodox Cathedral?)
Helsinki is lovely, but truly other than vibes and coolness and some good food, nothing all that notable to see. Some nice museums on design and art and what not, and everything in the city just oozes pleasantness (in summer at least), and the Finns are a good ol' time, but there's also no reason to rush a trip there vs. so much else of Europe.
= Brisbane (closest thing to a "site" = Lone Pine Koala Sanctuary)
Actually.... you know what, Lone Pine is too good. It's a site. It's a must visit - life is not complete until you pet a koala.
= Melbourne (closest thing to a "site" = The MCG / Rod Laver Arena)
Melbourne is a great place to live (assuming you are wealthy). It has some amazing food - Australia's answer to Houston, a food mecca of all asian cuisines. The museums are fine, the gardens are fine. I guess it isn't fair to rank it here when it hosts a tennis grand slam, but every other city that hosts one has way more to actually offer.
= Singapore (closest thing to a "site" = Singapore Airlines / Changi Airport)
Singapore has done an amazing job becoming a pristine, modern, beautiful city. It also is fairly soulless (apart from some graet food) and capitalist and all of that by design, whacking the culture away that defines so many of its Southeast Asian neighbor metropolises. I don't even think this is that controversial a take. I'm not even kidding saying the best way to understand, if not outright experience, Singapore is to flying through it on SQ and roam around Changi.
Circling back to America, before my last two super controversial picks....
= Atlanta (closest thing to a "site" = probably nothing... Magic City??....)
Lovely city, great southern food, great nightlife, a world famous strip club (famous for its food as much as the... you know...). Atlanta is a burgeoning metropolis for a reason, but that also explains why so much of this list is places where it is great to live, but not necessarily visit.
***And now maybe a quick aside... let's give my quick three "Only Site Cities" where tehre is little to no reason to visit other than their unique element, which is good enough to be worth a trip - to be fair, I'm only going to choose cities with 1,000,000+ people (so to not say like Victoria Falls, which only exist due to the site):
3.) Amritsar
The sights are amazing, from the Golden Temple to the Waga Border, to the museums around Indian independence (where Punjab was such a central figure), but the veg heavy cuisine (which even within that purview, I prefer South Indian veg food) and lack of real nightlife, and all the other annoyances of India (roads, dirt, crowds) are present, make it super tough to really enjoy.
The sights are amazing, from the Golden Temple to the Waga Border, to the museums around Indian independence (where Punjab was such a central figure), but the veg heavy cuisine (which even within that purview, I prefer South Indian veg food) and lack of real nightlife, and all the other annoyances of India (roads, dirt, crowds) are present, make it super tough to really enjoy.
2.) Rome
This may be controversial - but let me put it this way, few places in Italy have more important and/or better sites - from the entirety of Vatican City, to the Colosseum, to so many other ruins and museums and what-not. But food? It's good, but so many other places in Italy are better - same with nightlife, vibes, culture, etc. If you want to experience Italy, go many other places. If you want to experience Roman History - well no better place.
This may be controversial - but let me put it this way, few places in Italy have more important and/or better sites - from the entirety of Vatican City, to the Colosseum, to so many other ruins and museums and what-not. But food? It's good, but so many other places in Italy are better - same with nightlife, vibes, culture, etc. If you want to experience Italy, go many other places. If you want to experience Roman History - well no better place.
1.) Cairo
This will likely never be topped. Cairo is a combination of maybe the most staggering sites in the world - from the Great Pyramids, which combine grandeur and oldness in an unparalleled way, to Saqqara to the Egyptian (and now Grand) Museum. Few cities have better / more insane sights. Few cities have so little else to offer, with Egyptian food being the scourge of Arab food, and it being crowded, limited nightlife, and basically nothing but its incredible sights.***
= Tokyo (closest thing to a "site" = well many things, but I'll explain...)
This is the reverse of my thoughts on Rome. Tokyo has some great sights, it's just many parts of Japan have better ones that don't require you going miles and miles and fighting through maw after maw. If you want sights - Kyoto is way better. If you want nature - go to Hokkaido, or the mountains of Northern/Western Honshu. That said, Tokyo has some great nightlife, great restuarants and food (even cheap options) and anyone going to Japan has to visit it (helps when there's few other places to fly into from distance), but yeah Japan is an amazing country and the best way to see it is to get away from the worlds metropolis to end all metropolises.
= Madrid (closest thing to a "site" = The Prado)
This is a weird one - as I have Madrid as my #2 favorite city to visit in the world. And I stand by that fully. It is an amazing place. I find it better than Barcelona - but.... if I was talking to someone who has never been Spain that was planning a trip to Spain, I would recommend going to Barcelona, Granada and the Basque Region before going to Madrid (hey... that was our friend group trip in 2021!). Do those first, get your fill of Spanish sights and Pintxos and Alhambra's and then go to Madrid and just experience life as it is meant to be lived man. Madrid is a perfect city, even if there is truly nothing unique about the place. Call it "Bernabeu's Paradox".
