Vacation in Detroit ?

[night-timer]

For the most part, planes going to Detroit are for 3 purposes :
a.) someone coming to Detroit for Work, employer sent them
b.) someone returning to Detroit, after being somewhere else
c.) some coming to see a family member

When I lived out of state on the East Coast, I could fly a LOT of places cheaper
than the airfare back to Detroit Metro merely to see family, friends.

If your best buddy wanted to come to Detroit for a VACATION
where would you go, what would you do, that was not specific to an event ?
Spending hours and hours and hours in car, doing big mileage, doesn't cut it

What would bring someone to Detroit, spend their hard earned cash,
- If it was NOT related to a sports game, and NOT related to the casino ?

Phone the Visitors Center and ask them what visitors seem most interested in. If they're just here to visit relatives or because their job sent them, they won't even go into a visitor center. Those who do will be asking for info on the best attractions and the Visitors Center will know what are the real crowd-pleasers.

Curiosity about Detroit's history could be one of the main drawcards - the automotive history, the musical history, the architectural history...

[Király]

I have made two vacation trips to Detroit since 2011 and would come every year if I could afford to. You probably could not find two more different cities in North America than Detroit and Vancouver, where I live. I find everything about the city completely fascinating.

[Don K]

Then what exactly is the point of going on vacation in any other city?

IDK, why do I enjoy vacationing in San Fran, Seattle, NYC, and Boston?

Maybe it's for different scenery, the various waterfronts, various parks, different "feels" to the cities, and foods that I just can't find here. The only zoo I've been to on vacation was San Diego's, and that was so worth it. Well I guess the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum in Tucson counts, but that was worth it too.

In the Detroit metro, I'd say the Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village are unique and worth a visit for an out-of towner. Same with the Edsel and Eleanor Ford home, Fairlane Mansion, and Meadowbrook Hall.

[Don K]

Depends on where you go. Europe and the Caribbean is a minimum of 10 days for me. No point on getting on the plane and burning a day of vacation for 6-7 days.

I personally would not want to vacation in NYC [[or Vegas) for more than 4 days.

Totally agree. If I went to Europe it would be for 2 weeks, but I doubt I'd stay in any city more than 4 nights. That's my pattern for the U.S./Canada too. Pick a region, go for 2 weeks, but only stay in any city for 2-4 nights. I've never been to the Caribbean, but I expect I'd be bored silly of beach/pool sitting after a few days. And since I don't gamble and are severely allergic to floor shows, you can't pay me enough to go to Vegas.

[Gpwrangler]

Nothing silly about the cold hard facts -- Detroit sucks for a vacation.
To a complete OUTSIDER, never having been to the INNER City of Detroit, its lame.
Landing in Detroit Metro Airport, staying near the airport, driving all day, every day,
- a full 20 to 30 miles ONE WAY , for a 60 mile round trip to see a few sites - sucks !

We need to do better if we want people to come to Detroit, Michigan
- and I mean Detroit , not the suburbs , or Alpena or Traverse City or Pictured Rocks, etc.

Other cities, other countries, have ALL the same major stuff, a tourist trap of crap.
Just can't see what the big draw would be to get someone to fly to Detroit, spend their money, here

A few 20 minute trips is not driving all day. And part of visiting the Motor City is experiencing the freeways, 8 mile, etc.

When I have business visitors they always want to go to Comerica or Ford Field, drive through some of Detroit's neighborhoods, see some of the places from movies they have seen etc. as well as the Henry Ford, U of M etc. and of course a drive throu In a couple evenings we get it all done.

[ThisIsForTheHeart]

For the most part, planes going to Detroit are for 3 purposes :
a.) someone coming to Detroit for Work, employer sent them
b.) someone returning to Detroit, after being somewhere else
c.) some coming to see a family member

When I lived out of state on the East Coast, I could fly a LOT of places cheaper
than the airfare back to Detroit Metro merely to see family, friends.

If your best buddy wanted to come to Detroit for a VACATION
where would you go, what would you do, that was not specific to an event ?
Spending hours and hours and hours in car, doing big mileage, doesn't cut it

What would bring someone to Detroit, spend their hard earned cash,
- If it was NOT related to a sports game, and NOT related to the casino ?

Same can be said for any other city. I been to Manhattan and saw what I wanted to see in two hours and do not have a desire to go back for a day or week. Was even kinda disappointed by how small Rockefeller ice rink was compared to Detroit's campus martius one.

[Bham1982]

Same can be said for any other city. I been to Manhattan and saw what I wanted to see in two hours and do not have a desire to go back for a day or week. Was even kinda disappointed by how small Rockefeller ice rink was compared to Detroit's campus martius one.

These are the kind of posts that pretty much define naked homerism.

No, Detroit and NYC do not have similar visitor profiles. No, you cannot see NYC in two hours.

The rink at Rock Center is specifically famous for its tight confines, so it's quite odd you were surprised it wasn't big. Please don't compare Campus Martius to probably the greatest art deco urban assemblage on the planet.

If you wanted a big, urban rink, the much bigger ones in Bryant Park, Central Park, Prospect Park, McCarran Park, the Seaport, Chelsea Piers and the like would fit the bill.

[ghettopalmetto]

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this thread. It is intended to be a "woe is us", Detroit-is-a-red-headed-stepchild thread? Is it intended to build a case for a publicly-subsidized tourist trap? Or is it, perhaps, an opportunity to see what Detroit can do to encourage more tourism [[both "domestic" and "foreign")? I prefer to believe the latter....

I travel as much as I can, and honestly, I'm not one of these "sit-on-my-ass-on-the-beach" types. So destinations like Florida have very little appeal to me. Typically, what compels me to visit a place is a sense of history and culture, and maybe something a little different than home. After all, isn't that why we leave home--to have different experiences?

I don't think Detroit needs to emulate anywhere else. It would be folly to advertise Detroit as a great beach destination, for example. But there are plenty of strengths that can be capitalized. That's not to say, create a tourist-trap atmosphere, but really think about helping potential tourists instead of just trying to take their money.

When I visit a place, one of my favorite activities is to get a cup of coffee [[preferably from a locally-owned shop), and walk the streets. I find you get a good sense of a place from that perspective. Unfortunately, in Detroit, one can only walk so far before the pedestrian environment becomes hostile, if not bleak. That's not to say one can't drive at all [[especially since most visitors to Detroit are likely from within the Great Lakes region), but it's nice to get out of the car and stretch and *experience* a place.

So, if I may, below is a bit of a "wish list"--things that I appreciate as a visitor in other cities, and things I would pursue if I worked at the Detroit CVB:

1. Can I get there? How easy is it to drive around? Downtown Detroit is notoriously difficult and disorienting to drive for novices. Any efforts to reduce the amount of driving necessary would make Detroit an "easier" place to visit. Signage helps.

For those flying, is transportation from the airport convenient and reasonably priced?

2. Lodging. A good mix of hotels appeals to travelers at varying price points and tastes. Are they close to attractions? Conveniently located? Walking distance to a good range of dining options?

3. Wayfinding and information. Clear, concise pedestrian-oriented wayfinding is often overlooked, but perhaps the most critical importance. I might have heard of a new DIA exhibit, but if I don't know where it is, or I get lost looking for it, I'm not going to enjoy myself.

An *extremely* visible Detroit CVB office would be helpful! Hiding away in the financial district isn't going to be one bit helpful to leisure visitors.

4. Good restaurants: Locally-owned places with quality fare. I'm a bit of a foodie, so if I visit Detroit, I could care less if there's a Cheesecake Factory if you show me something special and well-executed. Again, a range of options for different budgets and tastes.

5. Detroit has wonderful places to visit, but they're all over the map. I would employ a "district-based" approach. Divide the region into subareas [[downtown, midtown, Corktown, Dearborn, etc), and provide localized area maps with amenities marked on each. For example, if I know that Dearborn has an amazing Middle-Eastern enclave, I'm more apt to have lunch there on a jaunt to Greenfield Village. Clear driving/transit directions to each area would be helpful.

6. Highlight what you have--not what you don't have. Walking tours [[guided and unguided) should not be overlooked, especially ones that highlight Detroit's history and industrial heritage. Maybe don't try so hard to sell the "sports" message--most sports fans already know that you have professional teams. But why does Detroit never play-up its diverse ethnic heritage? Talk about something unique!

7. I think Detroit is a fantastic place to visit. And don't underestimate how many people will see the "Pure Michigan" commercials and completely bypass Detroit on their way Up North or to Lake Michigan. Stopping in Detroit for two or three days is a perfect addition to those destinations. What's the CVB doing to capitalize on that, and make such a "combo visit" easier for folks?

Be what you are, not what you think other people want you to be. Make it easy and enjoyable for people to get to know you. Those are just my thoughts.

[Willi]

I was going the direction-- """" what Detroit can do to encourage more tourism""""
"" Detroit has wonderful places to visit, but they're all over the map""" YEAH !
I have relatives in Germany that want to visit, but without holding their hand and escorting
them to every single location, personally, I doubt they would enjoy themselves for vacation.
I foresee a LOT of time in the car, driving here, driving there, again, and again - tedious.

I like Detroit, I kayak downtown, Belle Isle, ride my bike, attend events, etc., etc.

[Islandman]

Totally agree. If I went to Europe it would be for 2 weeks, but I doubt I'd stay in any city more than 4 nights. That's my pattern for the U.S./Canada too. Pick a region, go for 2 weeks, but only stay in any city for 2-4 nights. I've never been to the Caribbean, but I expect I'd be bored silly of beach/pool sitting after a few days. And since I don't gamble and are severely allergic to floor shows, you can't pay me enough to go to Vegas.

I'm not a sit at one beach kind of guy either. My home of PR boasts tropical and desert climate, rain forests, mountains, caves, and hundreds of unique beaches. And then there is the food. And no need for passports!

But yeah, I've had friends come down there and be perfectly happy sitting at one hotel/resort and one beach in San Juan. Love it or not, that is how the majority of Americans vacation.

[Spartan]

I'm not a sit at one beach kind of guy either. My home of PR boasts tropical and desert climate, rain forests, mountains, caves, and hundreds of unique beaches. And then there is the food. And no need for passports!

But yeah, I've had friends come down there and be perfectly happy sitting at one hotel/resort and one beach in San Juan. Love it or not, that is how the majority of Americans vacation.

Yeah, but those people aren't coming to Detroit regardless, so it's not really a target market. Detroit is competing with cities like New Orleans, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, etc for tourists. Not New York or Chicago. Not Miami, Hawaii, or Puerto Rico.

[Willi]

AND its getting colder, more rainy days, and soon the ice and snow will arrive.
The only truly worthwhile skiing is far up north in the state, and we don't have mountains.

[nain rouge]

Bham pulled one of his classic "moving the goal post" techniques by focusing only on international tourism in Chicago. I don't know why he loves subterfuge so much, but battling his deviously insane methods of debate is a favored pastime in the Nain Rouge household, so I just had to come out of lurking to take him on.

Chicago excels at domestic tourism [[ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-be...b_3423656.html ). It thrives off of the fact that most Midwest big cities suck or are boring. You think The Loop would be half as nice without tourists from Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Columbus, and etc. pouring money into it like no tomorrow? Detroit, once being a top 5 city, lost a lot of easy cash by not playing to its strengths as an urban center.

If I had to guess what Bham's endgame was with his line of reasoning, it was probably something along the lines of: "Tourists just like the coasts, so Detroit isn't missing out on anything by sucking at tourism." That's sort of his shtick. It's useless for Detroit to strive to be anything else because the world has proven the futility of it.

[Honky Tonk]

AND its getting colder, more rainy days, and soon the ice and snow will arrive.
The only truly worthwhile skiing is far up north in the state, and we don't have mountains.

Mt. Elliott....

[DetroitPlanner]

Mt. Elliott....

Mount Clemens, Mount Trashmoor.....

[Honky Tonk]

Mount Clemens, Mount Trashmoor.....

Detroit's answer to the Continental Divide.

[Bham1982]

Bham pulled one of his classic "moving the goal post" techniques by focusing only on international tourism in Chicago. I don't know why he loves subterfuge so much, but battling his deviously insane methods of debate is a favored pastime in the Nain Rouge household, so I just had to come out of lurking to take him on.

Sorry, but no. You are the one not moving the goal posts, but pointing to imaginary ones.

Chicago is not a major tourist center. I focused on international tourism numbers, because it's quite easy to identify international tourists, as they are recorded upon entry. It's almost impossible to identify domestic tourists, as there is no such tracking system.

And I have never heard of a big tourism destination that doesn't attract people from outside the host country. That makes no sense, and excludes 98% of the planet. If a place doesn't draw from afar, it isn't a major destination.

Chicago excels at domestic tourism

Except you have no such data. Please show us data on domestic leisure visits. You posted a link to visitors, which makes no distinction between visit types. Obviously the biggest cities will have the most visits, because they have the most business and the most people to visit. Visiting Aunt Jane in Skokie or the Chicagoland office park branch of your firm isn't the same as leisure tourism.

If I had to guess what Bham's endgame was with his line of reasoning, it was probably something along the lines of: "Tourists just like the coasts, so Detroit isn't missing out on anything by sucking at tourism."

No, many of the biggest U.S. tourist destinations aren't located on the East or West Coasts. Somehow places like Vegas, New Orleans, Niagara, Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Yellowstone, and many others are quite popular with visitors, despite being inland, while very attractive coastal cities like Seattle and Philly lag.

Detroit isn't a tourist center because it doesn't have stuff for tourists. That's all. If you put it in New Jersey, it still wouldn't get tourists. There isn't one thing in Detroit that will cause someone from the UK or China to cancel their trip to NYC or SF and come to Detroit instead.

And it isn't because it's in the Midwest. Chicago isn't as big of a tourist center as a NYC or SF or LA because, while the beast of the Midwest, doesn't really have many unique draws. It's considered the archetypal big American city. It isn't hurt by its location, its hurt by a lack of [[or perceived lack of) unique attractions for visitors relative to other U.S. cities.

[Willi]

Perception is indeed a hindrance to many potential visitors.

[Spartan]

And it isn't because it's in the Midwest. Chicago isn't as big of a tourist center as a NYC or SF or LA because, while the beast of the Midwest, doesn't really have many unique draws. It's considered the archetypal big American city. It isn't hurt by its location, its hurt by a lack of [[or perceived lack of) unique attractions for visitors relative to other U.S. cities.

I would argue that Chicago is helped by its location, to some extent. If it were located closer to LA/SF or New York/Philly/Boston, it would lose a lot of it's regional visitors. A lot of people I know from Michigan [[anecdotal of course) vacation in Chicago relatively often. Many of the foreigners that I've met make a trip out to Chicago, because it's the closest "major" city to here. Chicago gets visitors as much because it's the biggest city in its area than from its "unique" attractions. It would have a hard time competing with some of the other major cities, which is probably why its international numbers aren't super high.

[Willi]

Let them come to Detroit for the Auto Show in WINTER, loose their luggage, and force them to drive around in the snow/ice/slush/salt in a rental vehicle, and hope they get a flight back out
Yeah that sounds reasonable

[Bham1982]

I would argue that Chicago is helped by its location, to some extent. If it were located closer to LA/SF or New York/Philly/Boston, it would lose a lot of it's regional visitors. A lot of people I know from Michigan [[anecdotal of course) vacation in Chicago relatively often. Many of the foreigners that I've met make a trip out to Chicago, because it's the closest "major" city to here. Chicago gets visitors as much because it's the biggest city in its area than from its "unique" attractions. It would have a hard time competing with some of the other major cities, which is probably why its international numbers aren't super high.

I would generally agree with this.

To me, Philly would be a good example of a relatively under the radar city due to location. It's too close to NYC to really get its own reputation, and I think it's bypassed by too many domestic and international tourists, despite having some pretty marketable assets. I could see Philly gaining some tourists. Detroit will a tougher task, but no harm in trying.

[prokopowicz]

Here's some data showing that Chicago is a top tourist destination in the US - ranked #2 by TripAdvisor members, behind only NYC. http://www.tripadvisor.com/Travelers...ions-cTop-g191

I don't think TripAdvisor is being frequented by people travelling to their families' houses in suburban Chicago.

[Bham1982]

Here's some data showing that Chicago is a top tourist destination in the US - ranked #2 by TripAdvisor members, behind only NYC. http://www.tripadvisor.com/Travelers...ions-cTop-g191

I don't think TripAdvisor is being frequented by people travelling to their families' houses in suburban Chicago.

Sorry, but no. That would be an online ranking of preferred destinations. It has nothing to do with tourist numbers.

[nain rouge]

I focused on international tourism numbers, because it's quite easy to identify international tourists, as they are recorded upon entry. It's almost impossible to identify domestic tourists, as there is no such tracking system.

Oh really?

"Included in the total visitor tally [[for Chicago) are both overnight leisure and business visitors, as well as day visitors — segments that aren't nearly so likely to be the kind of big spenders the city has indicated it wants to attract more of in years to come. Overnight leisure travelers accounted for 18.65 million of the 2013 domestic total and overnight business travelers for another 7.23 million. Combined they represent well over half the total 2013 domestic tourism count."

source: http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/n....html?page=all

But hey, you already know it all.

And I have never heard of a big tourism destination that doesn't attract people from outside the host country. That makes no sense, and excludes 98% of the planet. If a place doesn't draw from afar, it isn't a major destination.

Yeah, it's a regional tourist destination. And it turns out that, in Chicago's case, that's a lucrative market.

No, many of the biggest U.S. tourist destinations aren't located on the East or West Coasts. Somehow places like Vegas, New Orleans, Niagara, Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Yellowstone, and many others are quite popular with visitors, despite being inland, while very attractive coastal cities like Seattle and Philly lag.

I do stand guilty of only halfway paying attention to some of your "points". What does the Grand Canyon have to do with Chicago? I just don't care.

[MSUguy]

Most of these things aren't unique, though.

Belle Isle is pretty ill-maintained and big urban parks aren't rare.
A riverfront isn't a rare thing. Almost all cities have waterfronts of some sort.
Big cities tend to have big festivals and events. Also not rare.
Campus Martius is the main intersection. Not rare.
Sports are a function of population. Not rare.
Architecture, on average, kind of sucks. There are some notable buildings, but this is true in almost all big metros. Nice pre-war office buildings though.

Motown Museum, ok, that is unique, but it's a house.
Henry Ford/Greenfield is unique but less of a museum and more of a rich dude's weird collections of random stuff from random locations
Factory tours are kind of unique, but most people don't care. "Hon, forget Aruba this year, let's fly to Detroit and tour an auto plant".
Heidelberg is totally unique and horrible and that's not a good thing for Detroit's competitiveness
Zoo and art museum are quite good but, again, not enough of a draw on their own

Read reviews of the people that've done sightseeing tours and visited the sites in this city. Our art musem not good enough to be a draw on it's own? Visitors to the DIA couldn't disagree with you more. People won't visit for our architecture? Wrong again The two recurring you see the reviews there are small number that do come here because of the unique thing we offer. The other larger category, is the people who come here and realize the level of quality of our attractions. So the idea Detroit is lacking high quality and worthwhile draws isn't true. Because as you say a lot cities have parks, festivals and the like, but the thing is they aren't necessarily better they're just more well known. Much of that has to do with media narrative around the city, but I can't help thinking it doesn't help when out of towners are more impressed with our city than someone who lives here.

"On May 20th 2014, I took the show me Detroit tour. What a fun trip it was. We saw the good Detroit [[ which I knew little about) what an eye opener! Who'd a thought Detroit had so much to offer, stuff you never hear about. Pat was our tour guide and it having a fun relative show you around her home town [[she obviously loves Detroit). But she didn't hide Detroits bad side, also fun [[and a little sad but not without hope). Still and all, now I feel much better about Detroits future. Take this tour, you won't regret it.

"I recently went on a "Mystery Trip" with 8 girlfriends and our destination ended up being Detroit. Living in northern Michigan I had to admit that I never would have picked Detroit as a special place to visit. After our amazing tour with Show Me Detroit tours, I have changed my mind completely! We had a 3 hour tour of the city with stops along the river front, Belle Isle, the Heidelberg Project, Comerica Park, Greektown, Indian Village and Shineola just to name a few of the many stops. Our guide, Kim, was great and we could tell she loved her city and was proud to share it with us"

"We were referred to Bob Goldsmith by our concierge at the Book Cadillac Hotel. It was the last minute and we thought we'd be told "no way" but instead, Bob said "I can work you in and I'll be right down to pick you up". Talk about a knowledgeable guy! Wow. We didn't expect to love this city but after a few hours with Bob, we did. He didn't sugar-coat the bad parts but instead gave us a deeper understanding of the city's history, the art and culture, interesting quirks, and current and future plans. We left with a more complete picture of the textures and undercurrents of Detroit and became champions of this amazing city in renaissance.

No idea why but I really had no great expectations when tagging along on a Sunday afternoon to this place. Having been to loads of museums & galleries in Europe I didn't think I would see much that could impress me. Must admit I was wrong: brilliant exhibit on American art but also plenty of European, including an impressive Dutch Golden Age display.

"I was recently in Detroit for a multi-day conference that I was organizing. This means that I did not leave my hotel in three days and so got to see almost none of the city itself. On the morning of my flight, I decided that I had to see SOMETHING before I left, so I came here.

Their permanent collection is astonishing, and this is coming from someone who goes to the NYC museums fairly often. I didn't get a chance to see all of it, which was a shame, but I really loved their Modern and Contemporary collection. Also, while I was there they had a photography exhibition of Detroit in the 70's and present-day which really showed the spirit of the city.

And of course, I cannot finish this review without writing about the Diego Rivera murals! One of the best things I've ever seen. The murals are beautiful and splendidly done, and the museum had a staff person who would give you a small tour of the murals and point out interesting symbols in the work.

If you are in Detroit, don't leave without seeing this great museum!!"

We visited the DIA for the first time in March and were so taken with it that we drove back to Detroit again in August to go again. We are seniors so it was $6 each admission but the regular admission was only $8 and it was absolutely worth every penny

Wow blown away by the collection
Very guest friendly with places and supplies for people to sketch their favorite artwork. Even for kids. EuropeThis rival some of the best in Europe.... Definitely better than anything in Canada or even Washington DC... Maybe only NY's may be better.
an collection was very good with great explanations. Lots of impressionism and cubism [[Monet/Renior/Degas/Picasso/etc...), old school [[Peter Paul, Titan, etc) , and even modern art [[Warhol etc....). Also ensure you go to The Henry Ford Museum in Dearborne. These are both gems of Detroit. Too bad its gets such a bad rap but I guess it's better for other to enjoy as less crowded

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractio..._Michigan.html

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractio..._Michigan.html

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractio...n.html#REVIEWS

http://www.yelp.com/biz/detroit-inst...t_by=date_desc