I have been to Europe once, three years ago. I did a whirlwind trip to Barcelona, Florence, Cinque Terre, Cannes, Munich, Bamberg, Brussels, Amsterdam and Paris. Definitely learned my lesson on trying to fit too much in. I am now planning a solo trip for June. My last one was with a friend. My problem (awful problem to have) is deciding where to go this time. I would say my favorite countries last time were Italy and Spain. The part I am pretty sure of is about 4 nights in Venice and three nights Cinque Terre. At this point though, I feel torn from going where I have gone before and someplace new. I feel like I shouldn't go back to Barcelona, but Madrid just doesn't seem to excite me. I am also feeling drawn to going back to Amsterdam. Strongly considering Budapest too. So, I guess my question is do you always try to go new places when you don't get this type of vacation often? Or are you ok with going back to places?
Posted by
Ann Arbor, Mi
3696 posts
It depends on the trip, but I usually try to add some place new. When I want to return to someplace I love I either try a new place near the location I am going or I will add a whole new city/country that I can make work with my flight schefdule. Everyone is different, but I always love the excitement of the unknown. I kn ow Rick says 'assume you'll be back' and although that is one theory, I don't assume anything and although I have been to Europe many times I want to take each trip and enjoy it to the fullest and return home with 'no regrets.'
Posted by
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
2773 posts
I almost always go to new places. There are just so many places I want to see that I might not hit them all in my life time. That said, I have gone back to places I really loved. I went back to Dingle because I just was dying to, but I combined it with other places in Ireland I had never been before. I also went back to Edinburgh and spent a whole week there, because my first trip I only had one night and I just adored it. I went back a third time when we took our kids to Britain. In fact I hit a lot of repeat places on that trip because I wanted them to see what I thought were the highlights of the England and Scotland. I did manage to throw in a few new places, though. Since on your first trip you felt that you didn't spend enough time in places, I think it's fine to pick one of your favorites like Cinque Terre and spend more time there. You could even pick another, depending on how long you have. But I would definitely try to spend half or more of my time on new places. That's what I would do anyway. I would also advise picking places that are fairly close together so you don't spend so much time and money traveling from place to place. But it's your trip, so you should do whatever you want to do.
Posted by
Tel Aviv
15777 posts
I agree with the others. Mix it up. Familiar and unfamiliar. I love Italy and have found that every town is different. Verona is one of my favorites. Then there's Rome, Tuscany, Amalfi coast and Pompeii. . . . It's easy to spend 3 weeks just in Italy. Or go back to Amsterdam, but add on to that, either a few days in Bruges and Ghent, or the rest of Holland.
It's easy to see much of Holland, taking day trips from Amstserdam.
Posted by
Tresana, Highlands Ranch, CO, USA
23621 posts
You might want to review this discussion since it very similar to your questions - http://www.ricksteves.com/graffiti/helpline/index.cfm/rurl/topic/71958/do-you-find-yourself-retruning-to-europe-instead-of-exploring-new-places.html
Posted by
OP
Orlando, FL, US
20 posts
Thanks for the responses. I will look into that flight to Budapest. Am also considering Verona, but will look into Parma and Ravena. I guess I shouldn't really feel bad about wanting to go back to Amsterdam since we only spent 2-3 days there last time. There is a lot more to explore. What about Madrid? I LOVED Barcelona, but did get a decent amount of time there last time. I don't understand why I can't seem to get excited about Madrid. I know these locations are far from Italy, but I have no problem flying between locations or taking an overnight train. Did both on the last trip
Posted by
Calgary
2297 posts
Amanda, I might have missed it but I don't see anywhere how much time you have for your trip in total. That would give a better idea what places you might be able to see.
Posted by
OP
Orlando, FL, US
20 posts
This is all just planning stage for now. Won't be buying plane ticket til probably Dec for June trip. Will have at least 14 days not counting travel days, but up to 3 weeks.
Posted by
Atlanta
988 posts
Amanda, after 25+ yrs of trips to Europe, and living there too, I had never been strongly attracted to Madrid either. Finally went there last spring and LOVED it! Liked it even better than Barcelona. (But anything Italy will probably always be my favorite.)
Posted by
Mesa, AZ, USA
92 posts
I agree with Kathryn...I try to go one place that I have been before, but try new things. I think Budapest is boring...really. Not much to do there...but they have really good Foie. Venice in June stinks..literally. The water smells. I wouldn't go there at all again, but 2 days max. if you had to. Ive heard Prague is awesome too. Personally, I dont think you can get better than spending a few. You should spend at least 2 or 3 days in a farmhouse(agritourismo) in Tuscany...the countryside with all of the hill towns are amazing. Ive done it 6 times and its great. The luberon Valley is great too, in southern France. Its amazing...
Posted by
Mesa, AZ, USA
92 posts
Madrid is GREAT...its a newer city, but awesome.Toledo is near there and thats a great time. Andalucia is fantastic! my 3 week trip would be fly into Madrid, do Toledo and Andalucia. Fly out of Sevilla and into Rome. 2-3 days in Rome, 2-3 days in Almafi, then 3 or 4 days in Tuscany. Then maybe go to Milan, with a side to Trip to Lago Di Como....then you can end your trip smelling the pungent waters of Venice. Watch out for the floating poop!
Posted by
Los Angeles
1825 posts
Rome, I'd spend a week there. Stay in Trastevere.