cocofromdijon

As they wrote "It is not a popularity contest, but rather an assessment of authenticity and stewardship."
You can click on any destination of the list to see why.
http://traveler.nationalgeographic.c...ated/list-text

And I'm sooo happy to read that it listed Dijon (and Burgundy) as the 9th recommended place to visit out of 109 exactly!!!! \/

StCirq

And I was thrilled to see Khajuraho, India, on that list.

Challiman

Wahoo! Indiana made the list: Columbus. My goodness, I had no idea.
Very interesting and could encourage visitors to try some of the less popular destinations.
Good find, cocofromdijon.

StuDudley

Coco - one of the reasons I like Dijon so much is that there seems to be a tremendous "Civic Pride" there. Architecture has not been messed up, always seems to be something going on, we still have not visited a better Patrimony Weekend than the one in Dijon, and lots of pedestrian only streets.

We're going to Wachau/Melk next fall (#1 on their list) and Cesky Krumlov - #16.

Stu Dudley

tower

coco


good read for a Sunday morning. I was pleased to see Bukhara and Samarkand on the list...brought back memories of a fascinating 1985 journey to what was at the time, Uzbek SSR..now Uzbekistan.

http://tiny.cc/juta4 (just a few selected scanned pix)

Also surprised and satisfied to see Malacca and Macao...Malacca (Melaka)a colorful former Dutch possession, now a Malaysian seaport. A friend of mine who barely survived the Japanese occupation, took me to visit his birthplace, an amazing Chinese "long house" in the heart of Malacca.

Macao was a fun take-in during an earlier trip to China ('84)..biggest casino I've ever seen. Hydrafoil ride from HK.

I'm going to check the list more closely to see which of the listees I have yet to see.

Thank you for the thoughtful gesture. Coco.

Stu T.

lincasanova

A Dutch port after they defeated the portuguese who had built up the city to a great trading port.

cocofromdijon

bump!

SallyCanuck

Thanks for posting - interesting to see that the Rideau Canal made the list.

flanneruk

Phnom Penh gets rated for stewardship, or visitability, or something but Siam Reap (Angkor Wat) doesn't?

Bukhara is rated ahead of Samarkand?

Galle's rated but Sigiriya and Polonnaruva aren't?

San Gimginano's the best something or other in Italy?

And Stratford on Avon's worth listing for anything?

Puhleeze.

tower

flanner old boy...I was also surprised that Bukhara outweighed Samarkand...I fail to see "why"..in the latter, the Registan and all surrounding tiled structures, the medrassas, etc...are overwhelming.

stu t.

joliane

Ottawa, Montreal and Lunenburg all made it!

It's a little weird how Old Quebec City didn't make it but Old Montreal did. It's usually the other way around.

Thank you for sharing!

Fra_Diavolo

Is this The Onion or National Geographic? Some ridiculous omissions, inclusions and rankings, imho. Portsmouth beats Boston beats Bologna? We're entering bizzarro travel world.

nukesafe

Well, Coco, I'm really glad that Dijon scored so well, deservedly, I must say.

You might also note that Port Townsend, in Washington, ranked 24th. That's only a ferry ride away from us.

We have visited Dijon, when will you be coming our way?

zwho

No offense to whoever came up with this, but it's got to be the stupidest list I've ever seen! Jeez, rating Galena, Illinois before Istanbul or Budapest? Seriously??? And excuse me, Israel-- the OLD city? That's pretty historic. Maybe I missed the point of this list. dumb list.

Otzi

I must've got the bonus issue: Mine lists "The top 109 Places"!

Aramis

I just love how everyone thinks that their favourite places deserve to be rated more highly than another persons favourite.

Travel is subjective, folks, and articles are written to provoke discussion.

I think the article has a purpose and it is not just about the "best place".

laverendrye

"No offense to whoever came up with this, but it's got to be the stupidest list I've ever seen!"

Perhaps if zwho had taken the time to read about the purpose of the list, which was posted by the OP, it might not seem to be the "stupidest"

Here is an excerpt from the article for those who haven't read it:

http://tinyurl.com/5pzekt

"This survey—our fifth "places rated" effort—evaluates the qualities that make a destination unique, measuring "integrity of place." It is not a popularity contest, but rather an assessment of authenticity and stewardship.

"We asked panelists to evaluate just the places with which they were familiar, using six criteria weighted according to importance: environmental and ecological quality; social and cultural integrity; condition of historic buildings and archaeological sites; aesthetic appeal; quality of tourism management; and outlook for the future. "



For those who are even more curious, they can find the four other lists which cover "global destinations", islands, world heritage sites and national parks, at this site:

http://tinyurl.com/5vcrkg

LJ

Just so very pleased to see Lunenburg, Nova Scotia (Canada) on there at number 27. Any criteria that included the words 'authenticity' and 'stewardship' would reward communities like this (and Dijon and Edinburgh and so forth).

zwho

LAVENENDRYE, You're right, I didn't read the whole thing until now. It was late. I still think it's at the very least, a peculiar list. I guess its just not the criteria I use when deciding somewhere I'd like to visit, but my sincere congrats to all the city planners and concerned citizens who apparently did the right thing for their own place.