Detroit -- A Must-See Destination?!?

So says the NYTimes. For the record, I love the travel section of the NYTimes because of its good writing, great global coverage, and a knack for going off the beaten path. Imagine my excitement when I saw the list of "53 Places to Go in 2008." I love these kinds of lists because they get met excited about traveling and I find exotic places to put on my personal "must-see" list.

The list starts off great -- Laos, Tunisia, Hvar, Prague (one of my favorite places in the world), ... and so on. And then at #40 I see Detroit. Wait. What? Back up. Yup, it really says Detroit. So now I have to read the blurb, anxious to see what new developments have so radically transformed my hometown. The answer is apparently --hotels. Really? The hotels in Detroit are so great that it makes it to the must-see list?!?!? Granted I haven't stayed at the hotels they mentioned, the new ones associated with the casinos, but I cannot possibly imagine that they would be soooo fantastic. And why would you travel somewhere just for the hotels??? The article also mentions the newly renovated Detroit Institute of Arts, which has always been one of my favorite places to see in the city, but I'm not sure that would even qualify it for a list of the best places in the world to go in 2008.

I tried very hard to be a supporter of Detroit when I lived there and even now I can certainly come up with some great things about the area. None of them, however, could compete with a place like Prague. Not to mention all of the horrible, depressing aspects of the city that you inevitably experience ... unless, of course, you never leave your hotel room.