NYTimes: 45 Places to Go in 2012 (Luxury spending mostly required)
I love travel lists, but the focus on luxury travel will forever confound me. I get that the NYTimes’ travel readership has an influential affluent demographic, but the simultaneous desire for “authenticity” and “luxury” will always be hypocritical. In one breath they praise St. Vincent in the Caribbean as a gem because it’s remained largely untouched by mega-resorts, and then in the next breath they excitedly detail the opening of a 360-room resort with “five restaurants, a spa, a soccer camp and performing arts center.” Obviously, the point for them is to get in early on new luxury locales (when the effect on local culture and commerce is still low), and not on maintaining accessibility for others.
Also, their entry on Lhasa, Tibet is unsettling:
On the upside, it’s the first time that travelers can get high-end amenities in a city where even basic hospitality has been a challenge. On the downside, the openings — like Lhasa’s booming population, new business districts and shopping malls — are seen by many Tibetans and interested outsiders as more cultural colonization and exploitation of a sacred land.
“Upside: Everything I want! Downside: Who cares! Gimme my hot towel!”
