Seeing “this and that” vs. just being there and seeing “whatever”

I get you.

I have the luxury and fortune of having been to a number of places in Europe, some multiple times. Now when my wife and I travel, we rarely have even a single day packed with "must see" sights. If any, we have maybe something in the morning, maybe something in the afternoon.

We enjoy just diving into a place. Wander the streets, stop for a coffee, find an interesting neighborhood, go in shops, maybe find a market. If I have a destination, it is usually for a craft beer or some type of food. Even new places we go to, we limit the itinerary. We will be in Malta in a month or so for 4 nights, about all I have planned is a day trip to Mdina and one of the ancient sites. I have a few other things as "maybe".

There is something to be said about freeing yourself from a minute to minute itinerary, not trying to see everything, and just enjoying "being" there.

We get you both. Years ago, we planned our trips much more. Now, we just go to one favorite town for a week, and just "do stuff" each day. Then take a train to another town or city and do it again.

We will have a few special items we want to do (day trip to Oktoberfest, visit Weihenstephan Brauerei, visit a certain annual market, eat at a favorite restaurant/brauhaus), but mostly figure each day out in the morning or night before.

Who gives a flip what someone else's standards are on how one should visit a place? Why should I care what those standards are?

Why I choose to visit a place and what I do there are personal and important to me, and it doesn't need to be for anyone else.

I really enjoyed your trip report and descriptions. It sounds perfect to me, and reminds me of why I love to travel. I can get carried away seeing and planning for all the "must see" sites. But it's those little everyday sort of "being there" experiences that i remember most fondly.

I can't be like that. I often find a theme and then put together a plan and do a deep dive. I can't speak for Barcelona but in the Dordogne not only were there the caves fascinating but the history around the hundred years war, and the steady stream of castles to visit.

More recently we were in Mexico City and spent several days learning everything I could about the Aztecs/Mexica by visiting sites and museums. Even in the evenings when we were just wandering I kept finding interesting things to look into further, like how the city is sinking. We visited several churches where the sinking is dramatic. From there, more research needed to be done to find out more. I can't shut it off, I guess I see everything.

Which is why I love return visits. There's no pressure to visit lots of sights, though I usually choose at least one or two that I really want to see again or that sound interesting. On a first visit, I do feel the need to see sights. Also as I get older I find I'm slowing down and adopting a "less is more" attitude.

Your descriptions have reminded me that I should start thinking of Barcelona in December. I tried a few years ago but an unfortunate accident within hours of my arrival brought my visit to a standstill. My consolation was that I'd already been to Christmas markets in Budapest, Vienna and the Cote d'Azur.

Confession: I've been to Barcelona multiple times and seen all the sights that sounded interesting - and a few others that were surprisingly enjoyable.

Who gives a flip what someone else's standards are on how one should visit a place? Why should I care what those standards are?

I am not commenting on adherence to some standard of traveling, just pointing out the differences between having a list of things “to see” and “experience” vs. just seeing and experiencing what is already there, which in my view may be overlooked, due to someone being laser focused on a travel “to do list”.

Of course it’s possible to do both, but in my examples above, the person on social media didn’t “get it”, in my opinion because the complaint was that outside of this and that and the “meh” beach in Barcelona what’s the value of going there ?

Agree to VAP.

The versus in headline is fully artificial and does not play a role at all. There is no right or wrong, no pro or con, only personal preferences or with which foot you step out of the bed in the morning. Free your head, open your mind.

”I have the luxury and fortune of having been to a number of places in Europe, some multiple times.”

I think Paul’s point is on target. I just hosted an Italian dinner last night for several neighbor ladies, and one of the women wants to go to Europe with her family. No surprise that she’s interested in seeing the major Italian sites. I certainly wouldn’t tell her to just walk around Rome and see what happens. That’s because it’s their first time in Italy & time is precious with short available vacation time.

On the other hand, I routinely go to Italy, and I can be completely happy with a new town to explore and maybe a few ideas but no “must do’s”. But if I was still working vs. being retired, I know I wouldn’t allow all of these serendipitous moments which “might feel wasted” on some mental scale of weighing “value”.

”Why I choose to visit a place and what I do there are personal and important to me, and it doesn't need to be for anyone else.”. Absolutely, VAP!

The versus in headline is fully artificial and does not play a role at all. There is no right or wrong, no pro or con, only personal preferences or with which foot you step out of the bed in the morning. Free your head, open your mind

“Versus” doesn’t necessarily have to equate to “right and wrong” or “pro or con”. It can also be used to compare and contrast approaches, which as you pointed out, the value of each of them is up to the individual.

As I pointed out, and in my opinion, which I also clearly stated, stating that Barcelona is not worth visiting outside of some architectural sites and the “meh” beach is certainly missing out on something. BUT as they say, you do you. I don’t understand why some people are taking this as a judgement on their vacation activities.

Growing older has made me into more of a "go with the flow" type traveler. Rather than "going after" a location, it seems much more rewarding to let the location "come to me". But, to each his own.

While we do try to see the major attractions wherever we go, we set things up so we can move as slowly as possible. Our favorite thing is to wander around with no particular purpose. We like to sit on a bench and watch the world go by. We like to shop in the local markets or grocery stores. Or wander into a beautiful cathedral and just sit there for a while, enjoying the cool and the quiet. I take pictures, but I never seem to look at them later. The older I get, the more I just want to enjoy the moment.

Young people have lots of energy but little time and money, so they pack as much into their trips as they can. Older folks like me have lots of time and money but much less energy.

just pointing out the differences between having a list of things “to see” and “experience” vs. just seeing and experiencing what is already there, which in my view may be overlooked,...

I honestly don't see a real difference between the two. But if there's an insistence that there is, why must I choose one or the other? Can I not have a reason to visit a locale, a "list", and yet also just wander to see and experience what is already there? Everything IS already there.

Serious question: do you really need to go through “hell and high water” to see the Mona Lisa ? I’ve seen it before, albeit not in person.

Come on really? "Hell and high water"? Why not just say that is not priority for you and to see a secondary rendering of the original is sufficient for you? I get it, I have little interest in Stonehenge or Paris. We all have those things that we'll have an interest in or a passion for that we'd move heaven and earth for. The history and technology of the Ironbridge has always featured in some part of my working world. A picture was never enough and it was a whole other experience to visit it and see it both before and after its restoration. Samething with the painting Coalbrookdale by Night, I love just hanging out in London, but I also found the painting and went and gawked at it for a good hour and took selfies with it. Then went back to wandering

Seems this is more a discussion of how deeply does one plan or does one go with the flow. But again why does it matter?

stating that Barcelona is not worth visiting outside of some architectural sites and the “meh” beach is certainly missing out on something.

What I miss here are the two words which indicates that it is not worth for you only, and not for everybody. An important detail for me.

And maybe the only reason is that you were not informed properly? Or maybe it was that by your interests Barcelona is per se the fully wrong destination?

Just traveling to a destination without any preparation takes the risk that when stepping out on the street and shouting "Entertain me, I am a tourist." that nobody will answer. But in this case the problem is not the destination.

Not finding something more of interest in Catalan Barcelona sounds somehow strange to me - and I was there.

Btw: is there anything of touristic interest that you would go through your over-dramatic "Hell and high water"?

I’d like a little of this and a little of that, please.

Today I am biking in my home city, Seattle. Right now I am taking a break on the beautiful Univ. of Washington campus. In the past week, we ate out twice at two different restaurants in the Pike Place Market … The Pink Door and Cafe Campagne. Yet we’re home-bodies, really.

It’s been more than 25 years since we were in Barcelona. Yes we also enjoyed the beach at Barceloneta, as well as the market along Las Ramblas. Paella. Watching how the locals on the Metro wore and clutched their purses and “backpacks” (never on their backs - to prevent thefts). AND the Picasso and Miro museums. But we like art. We also stayed in a small town in the Extremedura region of Spain on that trip - far from any tourist route.

We love what big cities offer. And small ones. The towns we e-bike through on our 3 to 7-day self-guided cycling trips that we are now incorporating into 30 day trips. Chatting with folks in cafes, shops and on park benches.

The Gelato festival that we stumbled onto in Orvieto in 2015. The Piano City festival that a couple in Milan told us about 10 days later, as we walked a few blocks with them one night while they showed us the direction to our hotel.

I’m now planning a 2027 trip to England. There will be major museums, churches and stately homes on that trip. And cycling. And small towns and countryside. Lots of planning - more than we will do and yet with time and space to do something different, if called in that direction.

It’s all good (unless we get caught in a downpour or get into an accident on the bikes, anyway).

And maybe the only reason is that you were not informed properly? Or maybe it was that by your interests Barcelona is per se the fully wrong destination?
Just traveling to a destination without any preparation takes the risk that when stepping out on the street and shouting "Entertain me, I am a tourist." that nobody will answer. But in this case the problem is not the destination.
Not finding something more of interest in Catalan Barcelona sounds somehow strange to me - and I was there.
Btw: is there anything of touristic interest that you would go through your over-dramatic "Hell and high water"?

For the record you are confusing something that I wrote with something someone else wrote, albeit it was not verbatim, but that’s ok.

I honestly don't see a real difference between the two. But if there's an insistence that there is, why must I choose one or the other? Can I not have a reason to visit a locale, a "list", and yet also just wander to see and experience what is already there? Everything IS already there.

Umm, you can do whatever you want. Not sure what makes you think anyone said to the contrary. Again, it’s crazy some people take the concept of this post and think that’s it’s some type of criticism aimed at them personally.

I've always said people should go where they want, see what they want, do what they want and experience what they want. It's their time and their money.

Who cares what anyone else thinks.

I've always said people should go where they want, see what they want, do what they want and experience what they want. It's their time and their money.
Who cares what anyone else thinks

Amen. 💯

C’mon folks, the OP is just suggesting a conversation, not criticizing different travel styles.

We definitely lean towards the “whatever” camp. We are lucky enough to have seen a lot and to have realized that the part of travel we enjoy the most is just hanging out and seeing what happens around us. Favorite memories include watching kids play soccer on the town green in the evening in a small town in Ireland, pedal-boating in Hyde Park, eating grapes on New Years Eve in Granada, and strolling in the park the day after, seeing everyone enjoying their picnics and holiday rambles (including us).

And while we loved seeing St Marks cathedral, we remember more watching our teen daughter trying to navigate us back to our apartment in Venice, hopelessly lost without her phone (thank goodness her parents are not so directionally-challenged; we’d still be lost).

But I completely understand others who are more geared to seeing sites or going at a faster pace — there’s a lot out there to see and learn from, and I still get “gobsmacked” (love that word) at least once a trip by something I see — the tomb of Elizabeth I, the Alhambra, the horses in St Marks (the stories they could tell!).

It’s all good. We are all lucky to travel, to experience, to learn.

joefarnacle, 😅🤣😂. Sooner or later it happens to everyone on the forum. Do you have any thoughts on carry-on only travel?

joefarnacle, you may enjoy this post I created in 2022. https://community.ricksteves.com/travel-forum/general-europe/which-team-are-you-on

So that is an interesting thread that didn’t debase into an argument between the insufferable high strung and too high energy zig zagers vs. the lazy and boring stop and watch the world people. Thank you.

One post there caught my eye, which is that I can relate to the guy that wants to play backgammon in an English pub. Someone might question it with reasoning such as, “you can go hiking around here, why go all the way to Europe to hike”? (Note to the reading comprehension challenged: I am not stating that, just illustrating a point) The activity (backgammon) may be the same but the environment that the activity is happening in is different enough to make it interesting and enjoyable. I can see the appeal.

On an other note, earlier I made a post about “hell and high water” and seeing the Mona Lisa painting. I decided that it was irrelevant to the thread and possibly offending to the hell and high water people so I removed it. To clarify and without going on a tangent, this here is my idea of “hell and high water”:

https://blog.ricksteves.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/p21-mona-lisa-musee-de-louvre.jpg

I would take one look at that room and walk the other way but I don’t enjoy crowds or crowded places. Obviously the people in the crowd don’t mind it, or just put up with it to be able to see the painting.

"...the lazy and boring stop and watch the world people. "

Hahaha I plead guilty! It's funny, my wife and I constantly refer to ourselves as lazy and boring.

And to slightly bunny trail, Mona isn't that hard to get close to at least in my experience last year April and October. Just go an hour before closing time Wednesday or Friday.
And yes, do what you want on vacation. I like a combination of both depending on location, weather, energy, mood, etc etc .

My husband and I do a hybrid kind of travel. We have some definite must visit sites, but lots of freedom and flexibility.

After we've selected a general location, we research specific places to visit and to stay. We also read a lot of local history and biographies. For us, planning and learning are essential parts of travel. By the time we start a trip, we have a list of specific things we want to see, and also a much longer list of possible destinations and activities (interesting neighborhoods, easily reached towns for possible day trips, local markets, a scenic train ride, etc.).

We make reservations for overnight accommodations and overseas flights but rarely reserve anything else. We enjoy the flexibility of deciding each day what we feel like doing and then spending as much (or as little) time as we want. It also seems that when just two people quietly and rather slowly explore an area, it facilitates interaction with locals. They often suggest their favorite places to eat, things to see, a garden at peak bloom, and so forth. A slower, flexible trip also makes it easy to just "be in the moment" and appreciate the "flavor" of a locale.

Heavily scheduled vacations or group travel are not what we enjoy. I understand that some people want a trip that efficiently gets them to all the "must see" sights. The planning and researching that I enjoy feels like drudgery or is intimidating for some people. I also understand that in some situations, group travel is a safe option. Different people want different experiences.

This discussion is precisely why I have issues with questions about "must sees" and "must dos."

The forum does not know (for the most part) how you prefer to travel, what your likes are, how you spend your time.
Maybe you have a checklist and it must be kept to... and if there are not enough items on the list for the time you allot, you don't go. Or maybe you just want to vibe and don't have any agenda.

I prefer a little of both - things I WANT to do (not must) and things I WANT to see (not must) with a lot of wandering each day seeing what I CAN see and what I CAN do, sometimes at the expense of not seeing or doing some of the items I came for.

There will be a next time, which is why I keep subfolders in my email such as "England NEXT," "Italy NEXT," "Ireland NEXT" (even though I've never been to the Emerald Ilse) These are bins for stuff I want to see and do, as well as stuff I wanted to see and do and didn't.