This is a very big development for the tourist board in my hometown — Long Beach, California.

The New York Times, easily the most relevant newspaper in the country … and possibly the most significant in the world … has included Long Beach in its “36 Hours” travel series, in a story posted this past Thursday.

In recent weeks NYT’s “36 Hours” also featured New Orleans, Tallinn, Estonia; Bruges, Belgium; and Austin, Texas.

That’s some fast and flattering company for The Beach to be seen with.

Observations on the story:

The author acknowledges Long Beach’s “gritty” reputation right off but doesn’t give in to it. Though, yes, in several areas of Long Beach things get a bit grim rather quickly once you get a few blocks north of the beach.

I am fascinated that the author, Freda Moon, seems to have located many/most of her activities on Fourth Street. When I was growing up in Long Beach, Fourth Street was in serious decline … and even when we left for Abu Dhabi, in October of 2009, it seemed not-quite-together. The author seems to believe it has pulled itself up and is, in fact, perhaps the most important area to LB tourism. Interesting.

I also am fascinated that the author did not mention Belmont Shore. At all. It’s become touristy, and expensive, and a little too Mainstream Corporate now … but it’s still amazingly vibrant, and the first area I would take a visitor — and would most like to live. Actually, I wish I were there right this minute.

No visit to the Aquarium of the Pacific? I would go there, too, if I had a tourist in tow.

The main thing here is … getting people who read the New York Times to think of Long Beach as a travel destination. Not just someplace to live that happens to have some of the world’s best weather. And even less, as a rough place best known for its port.

It made for a very good day in Long Beach. Many of them are. Now quite a few more people know about it.