Vacation in Detroit ?

[Bham1982]

I could write a very similar reply to just about any city in the world discounting it's biggest assets.

- Sure, New York has Central Park, but even San Francisco has a bigger park!
- The Empire State Building is cool, but I've seen other tall buildings.
- Broadway is fun, but I can see a play in my own city. Even a Broadway play!
- The Met is great, but everywhere has museums.
- Times Square is just a big plaza with nothing to do.
- etc.

I don't agree, at all. These places are unique, unlike the places you list.

Central Park is probably the most iconic park on the planet. It's nowhere near the largest park in NYC, and is not noted for its size.

ESB is probably the most iconic tower on the planet.

Broadway/Times Square probably the most iconic theater district/urban crossroads

Met probably the greatest comprehensive art museum, etc. etc.

Detroit doesn't have stuff like this. It never did, and it probably never will. It was never a visitor-oriented city. There is no globally iconic neighborhood, building, park, etc.

Saying "Gee well Mt. Clemens has a tall building and Paris has a tall building, therefore the Macomb Courthouse= Eiffel Tower" is rather silly. Eiffel Tower isn't famous for being a building, Central Park isn't famous for being a park; these places are iconic beyond their specific uses.

[Spartan]

I don't agree, at all. These places are unique, unlike the places you list.

Central Park is probably the most iconic park on the planet. It's nowhere near the largest park in NYC, and is not noted for its size.

ESB is probably the most iconic tower on the planet.

Broadway/Times Square probably the most iconic theater district/urban crossroads

Met probably the greatest comprehensive art museum, etc. etc.

Detroit doesn't have stuff like this. It never did, and it probably never will. It was never a visitor-oriented city. There is no globally iconic neighborhood, building, park, etc.

Saying "Gee well Mt. Clemens has a tall building and Paris has a tall building, therefore the Macomb Courthouse= Eiffel Tower" is rather silly. Eiffel Tower isn't famous for being a building, Central Park isn't famous for being a park; these places are iconic beyond their specific uses.

I already addressed this argument. You discounted everything that makes Detroit's attractions unique. I don't agree with the things I said about NYC either, and you refuted the claims just as I refuted yours about Detroit. I know Central Park isn't just "another big park" but neither is Belle Isle. I know The Empire State Building isn't just another skyscraper, but neither are the Guardian Building nor the Fisher Building. Granted, New York isn't a fair comparison because it's a city 10 times the size of Detroit and more well-established. The thread was asking why people would travel to Detroit. I'm providing reasons people would. Why do people travel to Portland? Or to Denver? Or to Phoenix? Or Atlanta? Every city has its own fabric and its own attractions. Do I expect people to choose Detroit over New York or Chicago very often? Hell no. But it's assinine to suggest that no one would ever come here because it doesn't have anything "unique" despite a multitude of evidence otherwise.

If you're looking for a truly unique selling position for what would make people come to Detroit over other major cities in the US/world, I argue this: dichotomy. It's a fascinating story that you can see and feel. The failure of the auto industry and general economy vs. the recovery. The "greater Downtown" against the neighborhoods. The "big business" against the independent art and shops. It's about how the past and present has shaped the way the city is and was, and how it's blue-collar history has provided it's "never-say-die" attitude. It's not about what "things to do" or "things to see" are in Detroit. It's about how all those things shape the city as it [[barely) stands today. THAT is something that is truly unique to the city of Detroit.

[Bham1982]

I already addressed this argument. You discounted everything that makes Detroit's attractions unique. I don't agree with the things I said about NYC either, and you refuted the claims just as I refuted yours about Detroit. I know Central Park isn't just "another big park" but neither is Belle Isle. I know The Empire State Building isn't just another skyscraper, but neither are the Guardian Building nor the Fisher Building.

This is where you're wrong. They aren't apples to apples.

You don't understand why visitors don't come because you don't understand our local attractions are just that, local, and not particularly unique.

The Guardian Building isn't the Eiffel Tower, Eastern Market isn't SoHo, Somerset isn't Madison Ave. or Bond Street as much as you may personally like these places. Every town has a few nice old buildings and the like, that will never be enough to distinguish Detroit from the crowd.

Someone can just as easily go to Cleveland or Buffalo or Cincy and get a similar taste of grand 1920's office buildings, for example. It isn't something that will draw from anything other than niche audiences. Cleveland might even top us on this count, as the Terminal Tower complex cannot really be matched among Detroit's prewar gems.

[Spartan]

This is where you're wrong. They aren't apples to apples.

You don't understand why visitors don't come because you don't understand our local attractions are just that, local, and not particularly unique.

The Guardian Building isn't the Eiffel Tower, Eastern Market isn't SoHo, Somerset isn't Madison Ave. or Bond Street as much as you may personally like these places. Every town has a few nice old buildings and the like, that will never be enough to distinguish Detroit from the crowd.

Someone can just as easily go to Cleveland or Buffalo or Cincy and get a similar taste of grand 1920's office buildings, for example. It isn't something that will draw from anything other than niche audiences. Cleveland might even top us on this count, as the Terminal Tower complex cannot really be matched among Detroit's prewar gems.

It's not about understanding, it's about agreement. I totally disagree that Detroit's attractions are strictly "local." There are things here like the Henry Ford, the Motown Museum, the Piquette Plant, the Wright Museum, the Fisher, and Guardian Building that are unlike anything in the world. There are attractions that while not as unique, are still worth seeing, such as the DIA or Belle Isle. There are great entertainment attractions to fill your evenings such as the Fox, St. Andrews, multiple breweries, Baker's, or Cliff Bell's.

Detroit is not going to compete with New York or Paris, and it shouldn't try. At least not now. This is a blue-collar city with a rich industrial and cultural background. I don't think we should be discussing whether Detroit can compete with trendy world-class vacation destinations, we should be asking how the city can leverage its assets to draw more interest. We're not trying to pull visitors away from LA or London, but from Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland, and New Orleans.

Detroit has the first paved roads, built the Auto industry, invented multiple kinds of music, and was once one of the largest and richest cities in the USA. To some extent, there is a niche market of travelers that Detroit will attract, but it does cover quite a few niches. It can be a destination for people who are interested in economic trends, manufacturing history, architecture, the underground railroad, music history, and more.

The question is, how can we extend that to a wider audience? Many non-Michigan people I talk to [[and even many from Michigan) often don't realize there are things like the Henry Ford, or the DIA, or the Fisher Building. The Fisher Building and Guardian Buildings are National Historic Landmarks [[unlike the tower in Cleveland you referenced, as far as I can tell). Part of the problem is a lack of attractions, but a bigger part is lack of awareness and marketing. Discounting the attractions we do have here isn't going to help change that.