Feeling burned out with architecture and cathedrals

Totally relate. We are getting on a bit with limited stamina, so much prefer to see only those things in which we have a particluar interest, which may include a museum or an art gallery, or sea life exhibit, or a short wander round a cathedral, hoping to hear some music.
Other than that, a gentle wander through the streets, with frequent stops for a drink, snack and people watching.

When it comes to travel, I listen to what other people say and then do what I want. I know what interests me and what doesn't. I know what I like to do when traveling and what I don't.

Remember, it's your time and your money. Do what you want.

We limit the number of churches, castles, monasteries, whatever, on our trips. Otherwise they all start looking the same and one doesn’t appreciate them.

As Frank stated, see what you want to see and do what you want to do on your vacation, not what some unknown person said is a must see.

As someone who likes cathedrals and architecture, good for you.

First, running from one must-see sight to another, checking off boxes, is more than emotionally challenging. It is also physically tiring, which is a reason that people too often get sick during their trip or, in my case, immediately after they return home.

Second, everyone's must-see sights are different. Of course, you sometimes don't know what you love until you visit. I have learned that I like churches (to a limit), organized walking tours, long random walks, food tours, time in pubs, and visits to museums and locations related to some peculiar historical and other interests (like visiting sites where favorite movies have been filmed). I don't particularly like castles, art museums (except the d'Orsay), general history museums that cover 15 centuries (though there may be a few sections that I can spend hours in), and meals at expensive restaurants.

For example, despite many trips to London over decades, I have never been to the Tower of London, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the National Galley, the National Portrait Gallery, the Tate Modern, or the Tate Britain. I see no need for a second visit to or for Westminster Abbey (well, perhaps one more visit), the Changing of the Guard, the British Museum, and the British Library. But I can spend nearly every day taking a London Walk and nearly every night at the theater, and I always visit and spend extended time at the Imperial War Museum and St. Paul's Cathedral.

So what's the common thread, other than indulging in some odd interests and admiring the architectural and natural beauty of some places. For me, it's playing anthropologist or sociologist--it's trying, as best I can, to get a "feel" for how other people live, for how they are different or how they are alike. It may be a glimpse of different worlds, but I find just walking through street markets and department stores and visiting bookstores and pubs can be a rich introduction.

I understand the feeling. I am totally burned out on churches. I now only go if it something truly special, in my eyes. My last two trips included no churches and in Spain we only visited the Mesquita which is spectacular. We did not enter any other churches on that trip. Maybe the fact that I grew up attending the fourth oldest church in Massachusetts which is quite beautiful in its own right (designed by the same architect, Keeley, who designed St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York) has something to do with it and I find most churches more or less look/feel the same.

I also no longer visit museums that only have art that does not appeal to me (Renaissance, Baroque). I find I prefer either Ancient art or the periods starting with Impressionism or later. I used to feel like I was missing out on something if I did not visit the must see sights, now I enjoy spending my time the way I like with no regret.

I love both categories, but my favorite thing in Lisbon was the aquarium. I also highly recommend the "wildlife" in the Largo Argentina ruins in Rome.

I don’t know if I ever got burned out on anything. But I realized early on that there are things that I enjoy and things that I do because … sometimes you must.

Basically, an ancient church as a monument to visit and admire is about a 5 out of 10 on my enjoyment scale. But an ancient church as the backdrop of a café where I am sitting talking to the guide from the morning, or the guide I met last year and just met up with just for a cup of coffee is a 10 on my scale.

The evening Danube boat tour is about a 7 for me, but make it a wine tasting tour where the representatives of the wineries are present to discuss their business, life and yes, the wine; well, that’s another 10.

Funny thing is that I am not comfortable with people, but they become a necessary evil for enjoyment of travel.

The architecture in places like Budapest is attractive and for that it gets a 7. But when I walk into a new retail establishment in a 150 year old building and thanks to crumbling plaster I can see some of the original construction technical details that were meant to be hidden, details hand crafted (how in the heck did they do that!) then it becomes a 10.

My most cherished memory from the Eiffel Tower was watching the pickpockets in action. I can still see the grin on her face as she tossed the empty wallet in the bushes next to me. My most cherished memory of Rome involves a small child and 6 cats, London the cheese toastie and the conversation with the young lady selling them.

I wrote something similar in response to a prompt about whether our travel preferences have changed as we age. Don’t need to go to every church, done with climbing bell towers, don’t need to visit a museum just because it has a vast collection. I love finding interesting places to visit, walking tours, food tours, wandering around markets and grocery stores, finding historical tours that tell stories not commonly covered in western history etc. Learning one’s own preferences and following those is a much more enjoyable way to travel for me than running around to check off the “must see list.”

Traveling is a privilege, and only those with disposable incomes can indulge in it. I say 'to each their own'. However, since you asked, I'll be a contrarian. I only want to see art and architecture. Secondary interest is aviation. When it comes to museums, paintings are all I want to see, bypassing everything else. Science museums - only if they have intact aircraft. Lastly, food - couldn't care less. A kebab and a supermarket salad are all I need. I will make an exception for a granita, foie gras, or a Liege waffle!

This is me. I am certain everyone here has tastes that they passionately pursue. The point is, as someone already mentioned, 'it's your money and your time'. Do as you please.

alomaker,

You like aviation? There is a place here in Budapest where you can do Tupolev flight simulators. I can look it up if you are interested.

There is the air museum at the airport https://aeropark.hu/en/museum/ which has some aircraft you wont often find in the US.

BUT the most enjoyable thing I have done in recent years was a 30-minute flight in a PO-2. In Budapest it’s affordable and with so few lawyers you can do a few things in that plane that might not be possible elsewhere. https://youtu.be/4KZoXHkDiuY?si=2J9JiiT6eoInK511

They also have a Li 2 that they take up a few times a month in good weather. http://www.goldtimer.hu/ On that topic Tan-SAHSA, not too many years ago, used a C47 for passenger service from San Pedro Sula to Roatan. That was a fun trip. https://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/airliners/2/9/1/0733192.jpg?v=v40

A bit more than 4 years ago I also had a blast in a 2-seat ultralight out of Odesa and over the Black Sea. Unfortunately, that plane has since been “repurposed” with remote control and a one-way ticket.

I totally agree with you. It took time and experience to identify what sights we truly enjoyed, and what we were doing just because everyone said it was "a must." We came home from Rome and confessed we hadn't visited the Colosseum (gasp) and were chastised by friends - oh well! I do enjoy a good church or museum, but we space it out with strolls in the park, eating and people watching. I love to dig though the guidebooks and find those cool little places that I will LOVE, not just like (the jute museum in Dundee, and the sea life nursery in Padstow for example.) Those are the places that feature in our travel photo books.

I feel ya. Half way through our first trip to Europe, my wife proclaimed that she would not set foot into another church, and she had a point.

First is fatigue, when you do a lot of anything, the joy and wonder wanes. I run into this at art and other museums, after some amount of time you are "meh, there's another Rembrandt"

Then next comes apathy, basically what should be interesting, just isn't.

So even with an interest in art, architecture, history, I limit how many of anything in a day, even on a trip. One art museum in a day is enough, if I do a second venue, it needs to be different, either history, or some other subject. I also excuse my wife from going. Her interest is not as strong as mine for most things, so I pick only very few things she "must" see. Otherwise, she wanders and does her thing, I take my time, and thank God for Google location sharing, when I am done, I check where she is, and walk right up to her having a coffee or in a shop.

Travelling is also a bit of trial and error to discover what you like or not. See it positive and learn from your mistakes and try to find the style you prefer. Sometimes having a break can help for charging the battery and get the energy to visit those places that caused fatigue.

I can relate exactly in a number of ways to pursuing both the famous and esoteric culturally and historical etc. places and sites, in terms of museums, architecture, cathedrals , churches, chateaux (Schloesser), etc. based on my specific and particular interest .

This is merely one among numerous reasons of the primary reasons, the so-called the driving force for repeatedly going back and traveling in Europe. ...yes, that way and style of traveling, over and over mainly solo or with family members, when those occasions take place, depending where to specifically.

Often times the fact that a certain particular cathedral , church or museum or site, is located in a given town is enough reason, or I am desperate enough to see it , to go out of my way , whatever that means, to get to that town.

Bottom line....I don't feel burned out on this at all. That and the loneliness factor regarding the interests have nothing to do with it, basically irrelevant.

Most of us have engaged in check-the-box travel and I am happy that I am (mostly) past that. This brings to mind the saying that 'life is what happens while we are making other plans'. Many of the memorable events/sites during my recent travels have happened on the way to do something else. When walking back from the Presidential Palace in Athens last year I discovered massive colonies of wild parakeets nesting in the trees. One of my favorite pictures from the trip is of my wife playing with one of the thousands of community cats in Nafplio.

On our last few trips to Europe, we make a point of visiting parks/gardens in towns. This is a great place to relax and watch people but also to engage with the nature of the place. We have moved beyond site seeing and really strive to get to know a place as much as we can.

Sounds as if a number of folks have experienced the dreaded "ABC Syndrome". Most common symptom is people shaking their head while muttering under their breath "Another blooming cathedral / castle / church".

TC, we call it AFC Syndrome. You can choose your own F word option there!

I'm afraid we are still in check the box travel mode, but I hope to migrate toward stroll through the local park mode eventually.

I expect our Portugal trip this year will be fairly castle heavy as Nick likes castles. I haven't seen too many castles in my time so I'm looking forward to it and will gauge my tolerance as we go.

Interesting comments here. I must admit I am amused (maybe amazed) when I see someone ask 'what are the must sees and dos? Because it should be a little different for everyone. I contentedly sat in the sun with a latte and a thriller while my partner went into the Pantheon. Call me a philistine! I'll happily accept that. And despite being in Rome for 5 days, never went to the Colosseum. No interest. But I saw the balcony where Mussolini bellowed out his fascist speeches and the streets where Bellini chased his feckless brother Lorenzo after the latter had repeatedly raped Bellini's mistress (so the story goes). And the Banksey which is just in a side street in Naples. There for free! I ask myself, why am I going to a particular place and what do I love? And yes, people watching is a superb sport!

@Mr. E: Yes, since my early teens, and never grew out of it. I am much more of a model builder, admire from afar, watch videos, and read about them kind of avgeek than fly in an open-cockpit, rickety WW1 type of adventurer. I try to visit aviation museums wherever I go. Cosford, Hendon, Duxford, Write-Patterson, Chino, and the Smithsonian have been highlights. Still on the bucket list are EAA-Oshkosh, Pima, Udvar-Hazy, and Monino. Though a visit to the last one, along with the Hermitage, is not likely to happen anytime soon for the same reason, the ultralight you rode on is not coming back. Favorite Soviet era aircraft are the An-2, the Mig 15, and the dearly departed An-225. I am sure you have seen the excellent series 'Wings of the Red Star,' narrated by Peter Ustinov.

Travelling is also a bit of trial and error to discover what you like
or not.

I agree. My first time to Europe was 2014 and I didn't even know I wanted to go until my wife told me I did. I had no idea what I wanted to see and don't regret doing the popular things, but now, 12 years and 12 European adventures later, I'm more picky and see what I want-sometimes the popular stuff, sometimes not. One thing I never want to miss though are castles. If I had a bumper sticker on my car it would say "I brake for castles," crowded or not.

So many of us contributing on these forums have visited Europe many times. On my earlier trips to Europe, I thought I had to visit the "must-see" sights.

Even after many trips to Europe, I probably give, if visiting someplace new, too much weight to Rick's three-star attractions. But far less than I would have given when I was younger. And for places I have previouusly visited, I know what I really liked.

As my interest in visiting churches resides in the general vicinity occupied by whale scat, I loved reading the OP. So many European tourists seem to make them the raison d'être for visiting, which doesn't resonate with me. (And I'm not an atheist or anti-religion in any way.) Just more data to support the idea that everyone has different interests and preferences, in travel as in everything else.

Now, nothing beats Saturday morning in a local Synagogue or I presume Sunday in the Cathedral.

What makes a religieus building beautiful is that it is home to a community. Otherwise it’s just a beautiful building. If you only look for architecture for the looks than you miss an essential element.

That was my point. But thats because I am an architect.

The thing about must-see sites is that in the end they're all too often really only someone else's must-see - another's curated list. I can see getting burned out on another's list when it isn't really your own.

My must see list and what interests me is not someone else's. I have an interest in what ties England and Virginia together, iron & iron making history, or Industrial Revolution technology. I don't get burned out on my interests.

What makes a religieus building beautiful is that it is home to a community. Otherwise it’s just a beautiful building. If you only look for architecture for the looks than you miss an essential element.

I dare say, that is the essential element to you. Mr E's I am sure is based on his interest in architecture. My interest in Cathedrals is based on the English reformation and the dissolution of the monasteries. Expecting everyone to have the same essential element is how we get to burnout on architecture and cathedrals.

I definitely agree with VAP that "I don't get burned out on my interests." However, for many of us, part of the point of travel is to be open to expanding our interests. That sometimes means trying other people's curated lists. The challenge is finding a balance that works for you between sticking with what you know you will enjoy and trying to expand your experience, often with the constraints of limited time. I have not found a perfect strategy. One exercise this thread made me try to do is to think of places I didn't think I would enjoy very much but ended up surprising me.

I know from my European travels that by the time I get to the last few days that I'm all churched/ museumed out. I'm expecting this when my upcoming Italy trip finishes in Milan, though I still think I will see the Duomo. I hoping to do a bit of browsing / shopping for one of my hobbies when I'm in Milan and hope to find a good place to sit and do lots of people watching,

A few of my fond travel memories are serendipitous conversations with people I have met: a conversation in my high school French with a native French speaker in Brussels' Grand Place, and a conversation in a restaurant with a fellow diner that learned I was from Canada, so the conversation included Joni Mitchell and how we enjoyed Portugal so much..

"I don't get burned out on my interests." How true ! Well put, eloquent !

”So from now on when using organized group tours I will pay just for the accomodation, transport and whatever free walking tours they have and spend the rest on food and the above mentioned interests.”

It sounds like you know your likes & dislikes very well. Why not just travel by train or rental car and go see what you want without the limitations of a group tour?

This post may apply to you - how travel priorities change over time for us: https://community.ricksteves.com/travel-forum/trip-reports/thoughts-on-changing-travel-mindset-as-i-age-commenting-before-later-trip-report-italy

VAP, but most miss the source of my appreciation, which I think I share with many architects. Three great but diverse architects were Gaudi, Wright & Le Corbusier but they held a common understanding that describes it well:

• Antoni Gaudí: the most important requirement for an object to be considered beautiful is that it fulfills the purpose for which it was conceived.
• Wright: beauty in buildings arises from harmony with their environment and purpose.
• Le Corbusier: architecture's beauty comes from the scientific precision of meeting human needs.

So, an empty church that no longer serves the community or purpose has trouble demonstrating itself as great architecture to me. A common synagogue hidden in the courtyard of an old apartment block tucked deep in the most spoiled district of a great city becomes amazing architecture each Saturday morning.

Now there is a second interest. That is engineering, not architecture. I love the detail of the engineering that makes the structure possible, and I can find beauty and enjoyment in that even in unused half ruined buildings.

It's interesting that @VAP mentions his interest in the links between Virginia and the UK, as I've been in a long correspondence this week with someone on that kind of subject- and an AI purported link between Whitehaven in the Lake District and Glasgow.
While the AI link in question is a bit tenuous (but believable after a fashion, it concerns the Lowther family) it has highlighted the Glasgow to Virginia link.

There is a significant body of grand Glasgow architecture dating from the over 60 years between the Act of Union in 1707 and the American Revolutionary War when Glasgow was a centre for the importation of Virginian tobacco to both the UK and Europe (France especially).

The Glasgow tobacco lords were hugely rich- one of whom was Andrew Buchanan- after which Buchanan Street (and the Bus Station) are named after.

Before the Act of Union (and resultant changes in customs laws) Whitehaven had been the chief centre for that trade.

For Mr E, a difficult issue as St Andrew's in the Square Church was the Parish Church of the tobacco Lord's and a fine piece of architecture. However it is not now a Church, but a Cultural Centre which has embraced the architecture.

Just got back Tuesday from a week in Madrid.
Living across the road from a corn/soybean field,seeing the churches and cathedrals and museums are never tiresome!

Well isn31c funny that you mention the Glasgow tobacco merchants. I recently worked on a small video touching on Alexander Fordyce, the 1772 credit crisis and the impact on the Virginia economy and just finished another on Virginia's place in the English Civil Wars.

isn31c, not sure how or why there is anything difficult, from your perspective, in what interests me?

"One exercise this thread made me try to do is to think of places I didn't think I would enjoy very much but ended up surprising me."

This thread had me trying a new way of looking at our upcoming trip as well. I listed 9 categories of things that we generally enjoy. For example, 'gardens, nature and wildlife' OR 'how things are made, how things work, history of an industry or craft, single topic museums, exhibits'. Then I went through my recent travel journals and jotted down all the things I had written about that fit into these categories to sort of reinforce or expand my understanding of what we really like while traveling. Then, I went back to our itinerary for our Spring trip and listed things that fit under the 9 categories. I shared the list with my husband, W, and we were able to identify a few things that didn't fit those categories but that we wanted to keep to try something different. We identified a few things that didn't fit the categories that we wanted to skip to slow down our pace. Mostly we were reassured that the plan for the trip fits very well into what we enjoy.

I've spent the last three years wandering around Europe on weekends and vacations, seeing places I haven't visited before, and some old friends. I like technology, history, architecture, art, and earth sciences. I've stuck my head into a lot of churches, and some of them are fabulous. But the first two that come to my mind are Mainz (with the Chagall windows) and Eichstatt (beautifully Baroque), which are not on most peoples lists. After a while you just OD on religious artifacts. And frankly, even in the art museums, I pretty much just pass through the iconographic stuff.

What I find myself doing, a lot more, is just walking the streets, looking in windows, and sitting and watching the rest of the world go by. You're complaint strikes a chord, because I've been there. i don't do organized tours for a lot of the same reasons you outlined. Just take a deep breath, and travel with fewer goals other than to enjoy your time. It's amazing what you can discover when your not chasing after something.

What makes a religieus building beautiful is that it is home to a community. Otherwise it’s just a beautiful building.

Some religious buildings are no more home to a community, but they were, and what communities. For example, San Marco in Florence was left with only two monks and at the end Dominicans had to sent them elsewhere. But it is still memory of a multi-century history that has left it with the works of Beato Angelico painted on walls, and a story going from fra' Savonarola to Giorgio La Pira, the 1950 "saint mayor" of Florence who lived in the monastery.

VAP – It makes a difference how reading my post. About architecture I agree with Mr É, he explains it well.

What I mean is that buildings are made as a home for people and also to be treated as such. That can be literally someones home, but that’s also the same for religious buildings. If it is still in service, consecrated, with a visit you enter someone’s home, in this case that of a community.

I can remember my visdt to Ely Cathedral, England a few years ago very well. It was just before closing time and only a handful of visitors were inside. The building felt a bit empty. While preperation of the service in the Lady Chapel was ongoing, suddenly the choir boys and girls in their traditional clothing appeared from a side door. With this members of the community entered the cathedral too. Within no time the cathedral got a special vibe, it came alive as you can put it that way. That’s the moment you can experience it at it’s full glory. So the building as home for it’s community with everything that belongs to it, makes it the building where it is ment for. Without this experience it would have been not so memorable. And that is the “essential part” I talk about. In other words it’s an essentail part of the building not to me.

So if you only see it as a beautiful building than the experience is actually to my opinion limited, a bit one sided, it lacks depth. As many hotspots like cathedrals are overrun by tourists the role of the community moves to the background and with this you are not completely in touch and so miss an essential part that belongs to the cathedral. So what’s actually left is only a beautiful building (as a matter of speaking).

Going to Ghent in Belgium visiting Saint Bavo’s Cathedral I have another experience with visiting the church of Saint Stefanus. With the latter you feel as soon as you go through the front door the vibe of the community and so entering someones home. The first with all it’s tourists feels more anonymous, so having lesser the feel entering a communities home. So actually miss something, what is actually a shame.

Reading the many posts on the forum I get the idea that many look too much after (chasing) “beautiful things”. What I want to say is just look further than this, there is more than that to experience and gives more depth and variety to what you visit. With this you don’t have to face getting burned out on interests.

Cathedrals are just part of my many interests btw. I am interested for instance in the historical ties between Belgium / the Netherlands and England, more specific the period around the rule of Henry VIII and with this the English Reformation too. That will be one of the goals coming trip to the UK. So comparable with your interest in the ties between Virginia and England.

KGC says, "Just take a deep breath, and travel with few goals other than to enjoy your time. It's amazing what you can discover when you're not chasing after something."

Agree totally. But my guess is that one has to have some level of travel time before embracing KFC's insight. If I have never been to Paris before, can I leave Versailles (saw on second visit) and the Louvre (saw on first visit) off the list? I visited both years ago. Glad I went to Versailles--I found the experience interesting. Didn't get much out of my rushed visit to the Louvre. Have not returned to either. Today, my only must-see attraction in Paris is the city itself, though Sacre Coeur and the d'Orsay are favorites.

lachera - With the widely spread secularization in Europe many communities leave their churches and abbeys. Even I am not religious I regret this. Good that we care about our heritage, but it remains a shame they lose their original purpose.

What I mean is that buildings are made as a home for people and also to be treated as such. That can be literally someones home, but that’s also the same for religious buildings. If it is still in service, consecrated, with a visit you enter someone’s home, in this case that of a community.

I've said above that I have little interest in churches, but attending service at Westminster Abbey was the highlight of my last summer's visit to London. Just underscores your excellent point. I guess for me, churches are for worship, and it feels a bit skew to visit them for other reasons.

Mr É – I have worked many years as a technical draughtsman, more specific making drawings of steel constructions with an industrial and civil purpose. Worked several years for a company specialized in special projects and so in several cases had to deal with architects. Later I did also some engineering and designing the interiors of buildings and so got more interest, however limited, in architecture.

It was always my wish visiting the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona. Visited Palau Guëll the next day. Frankly speaking I was a bit disappointed, it was a bit too bizarre for me. On the contrary the highlight of my visit there was Mies van der Rohe’s Paviljon. Amazing what you can do with a minimum of material. Thanks to my visit to Bauhaus in Dessau, Germany I had a better idea about modern architecture / design and so could enjoy my visit. What also helped making it memorable was discussing the construction details of the steel frame with the museum’s curator.

Will, the physical manifestation of the principal is the wildcard LOL ... I agree with you on Gaudi. I'm more of a Bauhaus kinda guy if we are talking style, but urban environments are a bigger calling.

However frowned upon, until I visit every country in the world that I truly want to see, I will be, alas, the check-every-box tourist. If I think it's worthwhile, whether be it a church, building, museum, or ruins, I'm going. I'll figure out a way to beat the crowds, save the money or make the time. To balance that, I do spend time walking, watching and eating. You can have both. For those looking for a change of pace, may I recommend ethnographic museums? I rarely see mention of them here, and we have found them to be good value-for-money, uncrowded, and fascinating not only in terms of ethnography, but also history and urban vs rural societal development.

Wanderlust58, not a thing in the world wrong with that.

Kia ora. Not in Europe, but pertinent to this thread....in Myanmar, the Plains of Bagan have 100s of temples- stupas as far as the eye can see. And to our delight, as we cycled around, so often people would zoom up on their bikes and go inside to pray. We were enchanted and had lots of mutual grinning and handshaking. It was a lovely combo of living temples and tourist attractions. Never crowded as very under touristed. For obvious reasons.

I guess I never get tired of visiting houses of worship because I like finding things that are similar about them. In churches, the vaulting, if they are old (pre 1500s, a pentacost hole) or the graves with the women standing on dogs and the men on lions. I try and find things that are different too. The Union church in Idstein with a ceiling made of 36 oil paintings. St. Stevens in Mainz with all of the Chagall windows. The cathdral in Leon with the most stained glass in any church. The octagon towers in the many churches in Germany, following the Carolingian style of Charlemagnes cathedral in Aachen. The oldest churches in Spain, like in Fromista or the Eunate near Uterga. The oldest ones in Germany, like St. Justinus in Frankfurt Höchst. The basilica at Eberbach Monastery near Eltville. The unique style of organs in Spain or the bells, which are both very different than in Germany. Ceiling paintings that date back to the 1200s like in St. Goar, or in Limburg. Sometimes it is the history of what happened there that attracts me, like the elections and coronations of the Holy Roman Emperor in the Kaiserdom in Frankfurt, or the church library in Heidelberg that had all their books stolen and sent to the Pope in Rome.
The Sagrada Famila is in its' own special catagory and I was thrilled to see it.

Enough about churches and move on to Synagogues. The new one in Mainz is stunning and very unique, the old ones in Colmar, Baden-Baden, Obernai, or Krakow are all quite lovely. The huge one in Strasburg that is half Sephardic and half Ashkenasi. The rebuilt ones in Worms, or in Michelstadt, or the one that survived the Night of Broken Glass in Frankfurt. I haven't been able to see as many of them as I would like, but am trying. Germany destroyed around 1500 Synagogues, so being able to see any them at all is special.

Haven't been to any mosques except a small one in Frankfurt, but am sure they offer a completely different style of architecture.

I do like them preserving them as they often have special features, you just have to look for them. If you go on a tour in many of these places, you might find them to be more interesting then you originally thought if you just walked in and strolled around.

I do enjoy creative skyscrapers as well as towns with lots of half-timbered buildings.

wanderlust58, I have pretty much the same philosophy as you. I do want to see the major sights at a destination, along with some lesser-known sights. And we always include extra time for walking, wandering, exploring neighborhoods. And I love ethnographic museums. I've only been to a few so far, but they are so interesting and generally much less crowded.

We do find a way to beat the crowds, too. We've been to many popular and crowded destinations that many people advise others to stay away from, but we've gone and had a wonderful time, such as to Santorini, Dubrovnik, Cinque Terre, etc. Go when there are no or few cruise ships in town, travel during the off-season which I know is becoming more popular but certainly better than going during the summer months. And stay overnight. Daytrips are the worse because you will be there when all the daytrippers are there.

Though I may not spend inordinate periods of time visiting, I do enjoy seeing houses of worship. The reason is that they, as well as some government buildings like those often housing the nation's legislative assembly or featuring great music, represent the best in artistry and creativity that a society at the time was able to produce.

Two churches I feel compelled to visit are St. Paul's Cathedral and Sacre Coeur. And a third I would visit again, were I return to Barcelona, is Sagrada Familia. Indeed, I have have had the pleasure to attend services at St. Paul's and Sacre Coeur and the international Mass at Sagrada Familia.

Cathedrals are just part of my many interests btw. I am interested for instance in the historical ties between Belgium / the Netherlands and England, more specific the period around the rule of Henry VIII and with this the English Reformation too. That will be one of the goals coming trip to the UK. So comparable with your interest in the ties between Virginia and England.

Also why I enjoy visiting the Netherlands. Haven't been since 2018 so I'll be going back to Delft. Maybe I will get the nerve up to face the climb up the stairs in the Nieuwe Kerk.

Visiting the Nieuwe Kerk can be certainly interesting as it is the burial place of our Royal Family. You can see there the tomb of William I of Orange, the founding father of the Netherlands. He was also the great-grandfather of King William II of England, who invaded England during the Glorious Revolution. What is I think interesting for you.

If of interest you can also visit in Delft the Prinsenhof where a French Catholic fanatic killed William I of Orange.

First I have to be careful not going too much in detail and actually hijacking the thread. Nevertheless I want to show you how I see (some of) the links with mainly England from the Belgian / Dutch perspective. Hopefully it’s not disturbing others.

I know that Virginia is named after “Virgin Queen” Elizabeth I, the daughter of Henry VIII and his second wife Anna Boleyn. Don’t have to tell you that the divorce from her predecessor Catherine of Aragon caused with the Act of Supremacy (1534) the English Reformation. This for the others giving an idea we talk about.

The following are the historical links, mainly with England that has my attention:

Catherine of Aragon was the sister of Joanna of Castile, the latter married with the son of Mary of Burgundy and Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I of Austria. If going to Bruges you can find the tomb of Mary of Burgundy together there with that of her father in the Church of Our Lady. And that’s for me the starting point tying important events in European history and that of the world too. Like:

Catherine and Joanna were the daughters of Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon, the Catholic Monarchs of Spain who sponsored the voyage of Colombus discovering the New World.

Mary of Burgundy was the grand mother of Holy Roman Emperor and King of Spain Charles V (born in Ghent, Belgium) who did everything at the time to stop Henry VIII divorcing from Catherine of Aragon. Think even imprisoned the pope in Rome, to put him under pressure not approving this. At the meantime Charles V had to deal with Martin Luther, the seminal figure of the Protestant Reformation. Last and not least he was the father of Philip II, the King of Spain sending the Armada to England with the aim to bring it back to Catholicism during the reign of Elizabeth I.

So knowing these family ties you can see the connection between the English Reformation and the Protestant Reformation during a game changing period in European and world history. Traveling around with this I can stitch history together and add new things to the story. What is actually the fun. Last June on the way from Dover to York I visited the Cathedral of Peterborough to see the tomb of Catherine of Aragon. Still flowers laid down by those passionate about her brings history alive.

Later once becoming a republic during the 17th century, the Netherlands had many naval wars with England. With the invasion of England by William of Orange / King William III of England, better known as the Glorious Revolution (1688) it added a new very influential chapter to the history of England / UK / Great-Brittan. Have to say not having a clear picture of this, but willing to learn more.

I think you do the same. Linking the history of Virginia with that of England / UK / Great-Britan. Ofcourse you do this from an American perspective and feel connected with the past and keeps you interested in learning and experiencing more. For this one has to visit the places where it all happened, the places with all it’s stories where history comes alive and get an idea how life was in the past. Have to say outside my travels I pay much lesser interest to it, more occaisonally like now.

Wil, yes I have been to Delft, the Prinsenhof and Nieuwe Kerk. My work has me thumbing through Wapenhandelinghe van Roers Musquetten ende Spiessen and the art of Jacob de Gheyn, or other Dutch masters all to often. So many of the English leaders that came to Virginia in the early 17th century were veterans of Dutch service under Prince Maurice. https://historicjamestowne.org/collections/artifacts/prince-of-orange-medallion

But then I am weird, which brings us back to the OP's topic, we all have our different reasons for the places we travel to and the attractions we want to see. They are our own interests and do not require alignment with another soul's interest whatsoever. It seems to me that part of the OP's issue is that they are doing group tours, which no matter what will be someone else's curated list of what a group will see. The only control anyone has, is whether they will or will not go on that organized group tour.

I'm a militant introvert and quite content curating my own list of the places I want to see or travel to. As I said, I don't get burned out on my interests.

VAP - Thanks for responding and the link, I agree with what you are saying.

Wil, VAP; the finest colloquy of the forum to date. Thank you guys. I enjoyed it.

This thread is a fascinating discussion that I steered away from for a while. I think most of the important points have been made eloquently in response to bitex93.

But there are two additional points I'd like to add:

1. Pick your destinations based on what you want to see. I think a lot of travelers pick a destination because it's an important destination, and then they figure out what they want to see. (I think that because I've seen a lot of people post questions like "I'm going to ____; what are the must-sees?") And they feel obligated to see the main sights because they're there. If instead you decide what kind of experiences you want to have, then you can pick destinations that will offer those experiences.

2. There's a big wide world out there that isn't Europe. I know this is a mostly-Europe forum, and Rick's business is all about European travel, but almost all of Europe, despite the cultural diversity, has a history (at least post-ancient history) based on Christianity and has art and architecture to match. If you are burned out on cathedrals, try going somewhere that doesn't have them. There are countries that are filled with beautiful mosques and temples, and with museums that have painting and sculpture unrelated to Christianity. (I travel a lot with OAT, and the joke is that OAT stands for "Oh, another temple." Yes, you can get burned out on something else besides cathedrals and western architecture, but not until you learn to appreciate them. Plus there are countries where art and architecture are kind of besides the point, where the primary draws are flora, fauna, scenery, and adventure. (Some of those are in Europe, but plenty of them are not.)

We tend to be very flexible travellers--if we are feeling ambitious, we take in more things, if we are feeling mellow we sit and have a beverage. We went to Barcelona in October 2019. but our work had depleted us both. We mostly just went from tapas to wine to tapas to wine on the various small squares and interesting streets. Then we accidentally ended up in a Catalonian protest and helped some dude who had been hit by a rubber bullet. So my memories of Barcelona are limited in terms of sites I saw, but they are some of the most profound memories.

There is no "one" way to see a city. And if cathedrals and architecture aren't your thing, maybe different destinations are better. For example, my own Hamburg isn't really a city of "old Europe", but it has an amazing Maritime museum and maritime history.

You do you--there is no right or wrong.

So long as you know what you are doing, I will cite our friend HowlinMad and say there's no right and wrong.

I have no urge to ever return to Disney World, I can't take Las Vegas for more than 48 hours, I am not taking another ski vacation or camping in parks, and I surely am not going on a cruise ship with 5,000 passengers and slides. But millions do. And there is absolutely nothing wrong or questionable about the travel choices they make.

Last year I spent time walking in Paris looking for SOE safehouses in World War II. How crazy am I? But in my walking, I came across two amazing sites. One was a pub in or near the Marais called the "New Orleans Saints" (who incidentally in October will be playing in the first NFL game ever in Paris).

The other (Mardee, you should appreciate this) was a pub called the "Honest Lawyer." I have photographs of both. It was a wonderful day.

Oh I just remember what kind of architecture still gives me a desire to travel - French residential architecture. City or countryside, France has amazing examples of residential architecture. I love the houses in Normandy and many other regions. I really enjoyed just strolling around Paris with the amazing Haussmann style buildings around me.

The Dordogne aka Périgourdine style is my very favorite European house style. The good thing about traveling to France is one doesn't need to go to stately buildings to enjoy a good design.
It's a funny coincidence that RJ wrote abote France yesterday. There's something je ne sais quoi about French architecture, even regular farm houses in the countryside.
I still would incorporate a coastal town or city on a trip, but the good thing is it's easy to do in France, they have great railway and intercity bus network.

I guess I'm just burned out by religious buildings as well as Central European (Austrian-Hungarian) and Italian buildings styles. I will focus on France and British stone cottage locations.

I agree with so many points here. Maybe you should look at new destinations where focus is not so much on architectural/city.

My travels tend to be short and fast paced, most often to new cities and I do have a huge list of things I want to see (not that a travel guide told me to). But when I have the luxury of slowing down a bit, I love to experience the place like a local.
Maybe pick a hotel or B&B or apartment that is not in the tourist area. Explore local markets, church, concerts, etc. Go for a hike.
Maybe a bit touristy - but there are some cooking classes or art classes you can take for a day.
Sometime revisiting a place through the eyes of a local gives you new perspective beyond the building façades and domes.

I tend to stay away from organized tours because I like the freedom to explore what I want, and make changes as I go. So many times I had a list to tick to then realize I wanted to move faster or slower to the next thing. One time in Kyoto, I had planned a half day in the outskirts of town doing a hike, but after my hike I came across this quaint village. I ended up staying there all afternoon and returning to my hotel later in the day. Once in Beijing, I skipped the metro back to hotel and just walked ( a lot! ) through inner streets. I came across a school during pick-up. It was fascinating to observe the everyday life in such a big city.

I also tend to travel solo, so I have the freedom and flexibility to do what I enjoy. Which also includes checking off places and taking photos of architectural/building/monuments :-)

JoyNyc, I got invited to a Mangalica pig festival today. Wasn't in the center so a small local thing many km from the center. On the bus coming back we went through an amazing neighborhood. I googled it and found this. You might like it. https://welovebudapest.com/en/article/2020/05/11/the-architectural-wonders-of-istvanmezo-1/?token=a36addf094ad07e74aa7db071ac88cb3

I spent a good bit of time on my most recent trip to Budapest (2024) walking around that neighborhood. The architecture is beautiful. Maybe one day I'll gut out a winter trip to central Europe so I can see houses like that when they aren't screened by trees in full leaf.