That's what Budget Travel is asking its readers before publishing their own list. You can have your say here. I find it interesting that they've asked their readers to submit travel wish lists before releasing their own. Last year, the New York Times travel section came out with a controversial list of 53 places you should should go that received hundreds of comments and provoked some rather passionate debate. If anything, what the overwhelming response from NYT readers demonstrated was that when you get it wrong travellers aren't going to hesitate to let you know. Perhaps Budget Travel is thinking it's better to play it safe and gauge trends first. Or perhaps the editorial team can't agree themselves. What do you think?
The image? Morocco naturally, a perennially popular destination with travellers, and with a number of fascinating cities that still aren't on the mass tourism travel radar yet - I'm surprised we're not seeing those on any wish lists.
We all love a good list, don't we? The travel media have been busy publishing their 'places to go in 2009' lists, the hot 'new' destinations that guidebook publishers and travel publications think you should visit this year, 'it' places they want everyone talking about. Last year I posted a list based on places I'd been that I believed more travellers should visit and it included: Syria, Buenos Aires, Morocco (by road), Western Australia, Antwerp & Brussels, Thailand (road trip rather than beach holiday), Istanbul, Baltic Cities (Tallinn, Riga, Vilnius), Dubai, and Oman. I chose destinations I felt were emerging (the Baltic Cities), often overlooked (Syria, Oman), underrated (Western Australia, Antwerp), misunderstood (Brussels, Dubai), too hot to ignore (Buenos Aires, Istanbul), and places I felt people should experience differently to how they ordinarily might (Thailand and Morocco, which I encouraged people to drive). I'm still mulling over my list for 2009, which I'll share with you tomorrow. For now, here's a taste of the travel media's 2009 lists:
* CONDE NAST TRAVELER/CONCIERGE: Tel Aviv, Bolivia, Utah, Acapulco,Vilnius, Central Philippines, New York City, Rajasthan, Toronto, and Beirut.
* DK TRAVEL GUIDES: Vilnius, Buenos Aires, Gdansk, Seattle, Bristol, Fez, Washington DC, Copenhagen, Cape Town, and Vienna.
* LONELY PLANET: top 10 countries: Algeria, Bangladesh, Canada, Georgia, Greenland, Kyrgyzstan, Oman, Peru, Rwanda and Sierra Leone; and top 10 cities: Antwerp, Beirut, Chicago, Glasgow, Lisbon, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Shanghai, Warsaw, and Zurich.
* FROMMER'S: Cartagena; Cape Town; Saqqara, Egypt; Washington DC; Waterton Lakes National Park, Canada; Civil Rights Trail, Alabama, USA; Lassen Volcano National Park, USA; Berlin; Belfast; Istanbul; Cambodia (But Not Angkor Wat); and Waiheke Island, New Zealand.
It's interesting to see the same places popping up, such as Vilnius, Beirut, Istanbul, and Oman. I've long been bewitched by Beirut myself (Terry and I wrote two editions of Lonely Planet's Syria and Lebanon guide, and wrote the Lebanon chapter for the first edition some 5 years ago), but the city hasn't yet stabilized and I can't see it having wide appeal. Ditto Georgia, where heavy fighting with Russia occurred in July this year, and Sierra Leone, where UN peace-keepers pulled out just eight years ago. But part of the point of these lists is to provoke discussion, get us excited about traveling, and influence us into buying books and magazines, isn't it? So, what do you think of the various hot lists floating around?
Pictured? That's the Corniche in Muscat, Oman.
These are the 10 places I think you should experience in 2008, based on places I have been myself, and here are some quick reasons why. I'll give you my own wish list of 'it' destinations for 2008, places I have never been but hope to visit, in the new year.
1. SYRIA: colossal history confronts you at every corner, the world's best archaeological sites, crusader castles, sublime Umayyad Mosque, bustling medieval souqs, the Mid East's tastiest food, beautiful Damascene houses, artisans at work, Euphrates River, Dead Cities, Palmyra, Bosra, and the friendliest people in the world.
2. BUENOS AIRES: because it is as buzzy as they say it is, atmospheric barrios, architectural mishmash of architecture, lively markets and parks, fabulous bars and restaurants, great meat and wine, all-night nightlife, traditional peñas, Feria de Mataderos, gritty backstreets.
3. MOROCCO: do a road trip for moonlike landscapes, sublime desert scenery, abandoned mountain palaces, Berber desert citadels set amid date palm oases, then stay with Maryam in Marrakesh.
4. WESTERN AUSTRALIA: Broome for Australia's best beach and sunsets, Monkey Mia for WA's most tranquil beach and best indigenous walk, spectacular Kimberley & Pilbara regions, Margaret River's wild coast and wonderful wineries.
5. ANTWERP & BRUSSELS: because Antwerp is Europe's most underrated, easygoing city and Brussels isn't boring at all, superb dining scenes, laidback bars, pubs and atmospheric brown cafes, multicultural neighborhoods, lively jazz scenes, excellent museums, cutting-edge fashion, and those fantastic mussels!
6. THAILAND: road trip it off the beaten track, through lush green landscapes of limestone mountains and impenetrable jungle, eat tasty food in small town markets, meet the world's sweetest people, and well, okay, squeeze in a spa treatment at beach resort if you must.
7. ISTANBUL: after the umissable historical sights, the Blue Mosque, Aya Sofia, Grand Bazaar, Topkaki Palace, and whirling dervishes, explore modern Istanbul, its lively backstreets, vibrant restaurants, bars and cafes, and get on the water for a cruise up the Bosphorus.
8. BALTIC CITIES: TALLINN: beautiful walled old city with perfectly preserved pastel-colored medieval architecture, kitsch experience of trying medieval food, sublime contemporary cuisine; RIGA: elegant art nouveau architecture, great walks, pretty parks and squares, lively pubs; and VILNIUS: laidback vibe, beautiful baroque churches, hearty food, and wild nightlife.
9. DUBAI: for reasons most travel writers won't tell you: Emirati and Bedouin culture and heritage, the courtyard wind-tower architecture in the Persian Bastakiya neighbourhood, gritty backstreets, Deira 'Creek' views from Bur Dubai, hospitable people, superb restaurants, and a lively contemporary art scene.
10. OMAN: majestic forts that make you feel like a kid again set in lush date palm oases, the Musandam peninsula, the Arabian Norway, the pretty waterfront at Muscat with its stunning harbour, and laidback Muttrah souq.
So now I'm wondering if the New York Times was really so naive... perhaps they intended from the outset that their 2008 travel destination list should be as provocative as it has been? Could they really be that smart? Because in those 450+ comments (and rising) they have some high quality research there, stuff that airlines, tour companies and tourist organizations pay top dollars for. They now know - because they certainly didn't before - what kind of travel their readers actually do, which places they really want to go to, and what inspires them to travel. If I was the NYT travel editor and ad sales guys I'd be studying those reader comments, identifying the trends, and determining what destinations are really going to be hot in 2008. And I'd be making sure my editorial and advertising calendars included content on those places and topics, not the silly ones their journalist dreamed up while reviewing the year's luxury assignments over a bottle of bubbly. (It seems Jaunted must have been sharing the bottle because they unquestionably agree with the much-criticized list telling us to grab our pen and pad and - wait for it - not to miss San Diego's Hard Rock Hotel!) I only had to spend ten minutes reading the readers comments to detect some common themes - the rise in popularity of the road trip, slow travel, experiential travel, meaningful travel, authentic travel, volunteerism in travel, responsible travel, and the desire to live like a local - and identify some desirable destinations - Dubai, China, Chile, Sarajevo, Mostar, the Baltic countries, Iceland, Alaska, Quebec, anywhere in Africa it seems, Madagascar, Columbia, Peru, India, and Goa in particular were all mentioned often. Many of those are on my list too.
"The most outrageous travel essay in recent history" is what budget travel guru Arthur Frommer called the New York Times' '53 Places to go in 2008' in a superb analysis of the list. I'd only seen the online version, so if it really took up the amount of space he claims, it must be one of the worst wastages of column inches ever. I wonder if they'll publish an apology. I can't recall the last time travel journalism caused such controversy. I love Arthur Frommer's blog; he makes some brilliant points. But so do the NYT readers. Check out their comments: "shallowest piece of travel writing I've ever read, but thanks for cluing me in on exactly the places to AVOID in 2008. Luxury hotels indeed - what about seeing the actual country as its residents do?"; "This list is a thoughtless mish-mash... but to be fair, this is just for 2008. I suppose traveler(s) could take in Detroit this year and put off seeing Petra (one of the most spectacular and mysterious sites in Jordan) and Paris (the one in France, not the one in Texas) until 2009."; "I would go anywhere that this doesn't list... this list is meaningless."; "Money, money, money... the recent article compiled by DENNY LEE on 53 destinations for EXTREMELY RICH travelers to go to in 2008 is sick!"; and from a New Yorker: "This is disgusting. Does the entire world need to become an extension of our capitalist excess? "Seeing" the world maybe, but you're certainly not going to "experience" other cultures from a luxury gated tourist community."; and - my favorite - "Since when have must see destinations become synonymous with luxury? In my experience the quickest way to isolate yourself from a cultural experience is to check into an exlusive resort. What about all the places where you evaluate the success of your trip by the accumulation of dirt and dust on your rental car?" I can relate to that. We wiped a lot of dust off our hire car at the end of a road trip through Morocco, pictured, and even more red pindan dust after our 17,500 km drive through Western Australia last year, two extraordinary destinations that also went unmentioned.
So why should we care so much if publications like the New York Times get their 'hot new destinations' lists so wrong? Because our leisure time is important to us. For those of you who don't travel for a living, those one or two trips a year should be special. They should be memorable. They should be life-changing. You don't need to be swayed into visiting places where the streets are more crowded with tourists than locals. What's most disappointing about the NYT list is that many of its choices have been based on whether the place has a new golf course or luxury hotel. Now, I love a luxe hotel as much as the next person, but unless that hotel is extraordinary, one new hotel doesn't make a place a great destination. So, shouldn't this logic tell us something about NYT readers? You'd think so, until you read the 450 readers comments. These are the precise things readers object to about the NYT's choices, which reveal more about the publication and its writers than they do about global travel trends and travellers' aspirations. And this is why travel wish lists matter. Because these lists are about inspiring us to travel. And our travel dreams shouldn't be driven by a publication's advertisers or business imperatives, or, perhaps, quite simply, one writer's lack of instinct and imagination.
So what's wrong with the New York Times list?
* LAOS, over Cambodia and Vietnam, because they are "so 2007", and yet Vietnam is included further down the list (?). Does the NYT not realise most travellers visit all three together, and all three are only going to get hotter;
* LISBON: NYT tells us it's "emerging" as a cultural destination. Where have these people been? My husband and I wrote a book on Lisbon a few years ago and it is appealing but for a whole lot more reasons I'll share on my 2008 wish list;
* TUNISIA: the NYT's argument is the same as they one we gave in Lonely Planet's Blue List book last year;
* MAURITIUS, but Mauritius is "so 2005" to use NYT reasoning:
* DEATH VALLEY: who hasn't been here? My alternative: two hot destinations with easily as much dramatic appeal, Western Australia's Kimberly and Pilbara regions, for breathtaking gorges with tranquil natural swimming holes, ancient indigenous rock art, beautiful wildlife, dazzling native Australian wildlflowers, and for the movie buffs, Baz Luhrmann just completed filming his new epic 'Australia' here with Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman;
* BUENOS AIRES: NYT tells us "the Argentine capital is becoming South America's next party capital". It has only been South America's party capital for the last ten years! I love the city (wrote a book on BA too) but in 2008, we'll be heading to MONTEVIDEO.
* KUWAIT CITY: p-lease! Even Kuwaitis acknowledge it's the most boring city in the world. The Gulf's next hot destination? ABU DHABI: new eco-resorts, fab new film festival, a Formula One coming to town, and a new museum precinct on Saadiyaat Island with a Guggenheim (set to be the largest), Louvre, and sleek museums designed by the world's greatest architects.
* MAZATLAN, ST LUCIA, ANGUILLA, TUSCANY, MALAGA... give me a break. These are all destinations that have become saturated with tourists.
* MUNICH, LIBYA, IRAN, QUITO, ALEXANDRIA, RIMINI, ESSAOUIRA... now NYT gets it right. Although these are places we'd prefer remain a secret.
There are so many amazing destinations the NYT has missed that you must to go to in 2008. I'm going to start making you a list now. The image here is of one of those magical must-do destinations that tops my list.
It's that time of year when we all go crazy creating lists: gifts we plan to give, goodies we're going to buy to eat, the Christmas Day menu, New Year's Eve resolutions we're going to make, and places we're going to go in 2008. It seems just like yesterday that we shared some of our own wanderlustful wish lists, and now the New York Times has published its '53 places to go in 2008'. The idea of these 'what's hot next' travel lists is for the travel writer or team of editors to predict the places we are all going to go in the year ahead. The writers should base this on a combination of their own travel experience i.e. they know which destinations have reached tourist saturation point, and which hidden gems are still waiting to be discovered and deserving of some attention; their knowledge of the industry and what's in store for the year ahead; their understanding of global travel trends; and their gut instinct. In this case, the New York Times gets it so very wrong. Not only is their list just plain bizarre, but even its readers are, at best, confused, and at worst, incensed at the choices and reasoning. Go take a look and tell me what you think.
This image, by the way, is a pic of a destination they do get right: Alexandria, Egypt. We were there a couple of years ago and took this from our hotel balcony. Anyone know which hotel it is?
That's what Budget Travel is asking its readers before publishing their own list. You can have your say here. I find it interesting that they've asked their readers to submit travel wish lists before releasing their own. Last year, the New York Times travel section came out with a controversial list of 53 places you should should go that received hundreds of comments and provoked some rather passionate debate. If anything, what the overwhelming response from NYT readers demonstrated was that when you get it wrong travellers aren't going to hesitate to let you know. Perhaps Budget Travel is thinking it's better to play it safe and gauge trends first. Or perhaps the editorial team can't agree themselves. What do you think?
