Another thing you have to remember is that there are a lot of southern Vietnamese in the US, who brought their food with them. The average American has experienced more of south Vietnam than north without ever having visited.
Seeing the difference between a city that I perceived to be kind of emulating western culture (Ho Chi Minh), versus Hanoi, which has a culturally distinct feel about it, can reasonably lead a person to see a touristy city as a more cultural experience.
From an ameri-centric point of view, HCM is inundated with a kind of unpleasant or generic tourism (eat at these places, eat on a boat, go to this market, go to this tower, go to these museums, go to these "palaces," climb into vietnamese tunnels) compared to Hanoi where a lot of the tourism is related to both food and how beautiful the country is. It's kind of the difference between "this food is objectively good" and "this food is new and interesting."
Beautiful pictures!
I am also surprised there's no mention of train travel. I found this the best way to get to know a country and its people. When you're stuck on a train for hours you end up talking to your fellow passengers.
India was great for this as everyone was chatty and spoke decent English. Vietnam was a bit more of a challenge on the language front but you still got to have some interesting conversations in basic English with some help by showing pictures.
I did not go very far off the beaten path in Vietnam but I really enjoyed the vibe and night life in Huế.
And then there are people like me who always disliked chatty strangers, even back in 2000.
>The US equivalent is to go to Indianapolis instead of NYC or Houston instead of LA.
This is a really odd thing to say when Hanoi is the second largest city in Vietnam (larger than LA) and a huge tourist destination in itself. It's more akin to choosing LA instead of NYC.