Underrated? And How?

Today, MSNBC posted an article detailing Top 10 Underrated Cities - places one should consider visiting that are off the typical beaten path of most vacationers. I am an 'Off the Beaten Path' person myself (I did inherit some of my father's "anti-do-what-everyone-else-is-doing" genes), so I read the article with enthusiasm.

Instead of discovering great potential gems for future vacations, I was largely disappointed. I agreed with a couple - Portland and Minneapolis are definitely fantastic cities. I've barely skirted Portland, but spent a fair amount of time in Minneapolis (in the middle of the winter, nonetheless) and found both it and its residents to be charming. They are right about Baltimore, I guess, as it has sunk millions into boosting its sex appeal, but I know too much about it to find more than superficial charm in it beyond the glitzy tourist sites on the waterfront (on a side note, I do love Baltimore's museums - especially during dollar days, when they are great and free).

The rest? I haven't been to some, but I'm not sure I concur with their conclusions. Providence? If you're headed to RI, Newport, even with its WASPy money and such, is far and away the best part of the state. Sacramento? I've never been to Sacramento, in all fairness, but it really is honestly better than San Fran? Monterrey? The central coast? Redding? Cheaper maybe, but better? I'll give them Houston. But Fort Lauderdale? It beats the western coastal cities in FL? (Disclaimer: I don't particularly love Florida, but the Gulf side is definitely superior to the Atlantic side). There is nothing underrated about Ft. Lauderdale - it rates just like any other over-hyped beach party town.

I guess I was expecting more quaint uniqueness, not some schpiel about formerly blighted cities (in many cases) trying to make a comeback against their more picturesque, well-known neighbors. I'm all for underrated, if there is actually something to rate. Something tells me I won't be changing my travel plans anytime soon.