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.

I have had the luxury of spending a week in a city but also crammed 4 cities into a week. Each is good in its own way. My slow trips were when i was living in germany so close by and cheap travel.
As i live in australia i would tell first time travellers to do 2-3 days per place in different countries if short on time to get a feel for the variety that europe offers.
For myself, as i have been to many places in europe, i might be satisfied with a day or two in paris because i have been there many times and spend more time in new places.
There is no right way. Art galleries dont interest me but those interested in art there are places you need days for the galleries and then days for the city.

My travel plans include both ways. I have a set plan based on priority places, sites, etc to track down and see, some of which I devote a lot more attention to relative to others, depending on the depth of interest. There are places fitting that description on my itinerary for this summer , be it on France in a suburb of Paris, the little towns within the greater area of Paris, the Aube River area, Charleville-Mezieres, and so on. Just realise you can't see everything.

The other way that of "just being there" works too. Why? because I am that desperate to be there at all depending on the variable. Both approaches are affected by the weather, time constraint, inertia, the train factors, If you want to ad lib on a trip, no problem with that since you do come across places that strike your interest or obviously did not know about thanks to talking with locals a valuable source. That has happened to me numerous times both in Germany and France, their kindly pointing out to me monuments and esoteric historical sites I was totally unaware about.

I think I am echoing what Chani and others have already written.

The question is how much seeing--the visiting of museums and other "must-see" sites-- and how experiencing do you do. And in part the answer hinges on how often you have visited a city. First time, there is some sense of obligation to see the really major attractions. But after seeing them, you know whether you want to see them again, you gain some sense of what you like, and you come to appreciate more fully random walks and unscheduled afternoons.

We pay good money to travel to places that we want to see. If we do it on our own, I research in advance and we pick WHAT is important to us. If we take a group tour, I still research and check the tours to see what best matches WHAT we want to see.

Even though we are in our late 70s, we still want to see as much as possible.

First time, there is some sense of obligation to see the really major attractions.

At the risk of arousing ire, I do have to ask about this obligation. Why should there be any obligation, and why should a traveler feel a sense of obligation?

No ire aroused. Perhaps a bad choice of words on my part. But especially for those who do not travel often, there can be a checklist mindset when visiting a new city or region. What are the three-star sights in Rick's book and the places featured on so many travel TV shows? With experience, you have checked off a number of boxes, realize there are different ways to travel, and gain a better understanding of what you like and may not like.

Joe and others,
I find it easy to eschew the major sights in, say, Paris, not because they are crowded or well-known, but because on my first 4-month long trip to Europe back in 1974, I did see the big things in many countries, and sometimes more than once. Those moments were thrilling to me then, as I imagine they are thrilling to others. This is because I have been fortunate enough to have travelled much more than many people in my acquaintance. If this is a first trip to a foreign land I think it is natural and good to want to see the best-known and major things. The thrill of seeing the Eiffel Tower for the first time can make one gasp (Oh my gosh! There it is! I am really here!) I have done so in other countries I have visited for the first time since that big trip over 50 years ago. Now I can sit back and enjoy places in a more relaxed and leisurely fashion. I am extremely fortunate in this respect.
But sometimes I detect a small note of (probably unintended) superiority in a few comments. Most people who want to see all the big things are not just checking off a box or doing what they think is expected of them. They want to enrich their own lives and experiences. They are not sheep being guided by travel book tyranny. Curiosity and wonder are the more likely guiding spirits. At least I choose to believe so and, hopefully, I will not look down my nose on those who want to see as much as they can in what they believe may be their only opportunity to visit a place. That is not to say that advice about not rushing through places is bad advice. I guess I am hoping that the spirit in which advice is given comes from the right place. I include myself in that last caveat also.
Okay, homily over. Forgive me for sounding preachy. I am in a contemplative mood today, I guess.

Judy, you are so correct in pushing back on the labeling. If you ask those that say that experienced travelers dont go to .... most of them i bet have themselves.

On this thread, though there is the hint of ships passing in the night, there actually seems to be much agreement--that to some extent our approach to travel evolves over time with experience and age. Yes, stage of life matters.

And especially given some of the people who are active on these forums, I would never assume, intend to project, or suggest superiority. I simply remember what I saw and did when I first visited London and Paris decades ago. Yes, I went to the big-name attractions; were I visiting those cities again for the first time, my visits would be similar. And I know that even today when I visit a city for the first time, I look at a listing of its best-known attractions and decide what on the list I want to see. But I do so with a bit less reverence for the stars and rankings, with knowledge of what I like, and with less urgency to fill up hours during the day.

But there is no universal right way or wrong way to travel. There is only the right way for you to travel.

RJ, my style evolved like yours. But for me, it wasnt because I became an experienced traveler, no, I just got old and found pleasures in different ways. But I know some old farts that still move the way I did at 20. G-d bless them, they are wonderful.

"Those moments were stunning to me then..." How very true !

For me the thrilling "then" equals over 50 years ago, ie, the very first time Paris ( July 1973), Berlin (July 1971) and more to present Gdansk (July 2003) . Those "stunning " striking moments include the absolute the thrill and disbelief that you are actually there, such as, thinking / saying to yourself I am actually and literally here in Paris, Gdansk or Berlin.

Note as the OP I was not eschewing any approach to travel, only pointing out a narrative that I came across which I’ll reiterate was, “besides this, that and the other thing, and oh yeah that other mediocre thing” then why bother going to XYZ place in Europe? I definitely can not relate to that view for reasons previously stated.

On this subject, earlier on, someone made a misguided quip suggesting that as a tourist I am expecting to be “entertained” by the goings on in a particular place. To that, I would reply — no extra effort required, because whatever is already happening is very much sufficient, and as a matter of fact some of the time it’s actually me doing the entertainment. So all things considered, I am happy to be “easily amused”.

No ire aroused. Perhaps a bad choice of words on my part. But especially for those who do not travel often, there can be a checklist mindset when visiting a new city or region. What are the three-star sights in Rick's book and the places featured on so many travel TV shows? With experience, you have checked off a number of boxes, realize there are different ways to travel, and gain a better understanding of what you like and may not like.

Not a bad choice of words, I just ask questions to understand what people mean.

I've never been a follower, never read guide books, and have had my very own list of the sites I felt obliged to see for myself.

And in part the answer hinges on how often you have visited a city. First time, there is some sense of obligation to see the really major attractions.

For myself, I headed into my first international trip with the expectation that it would be a one and done. I had my list of sites that I wanted to see. It was an incredible eye opener to realize that the planning and funding were so easy, and questioning why I had an expectation that it would be a one off. That changed how I approached travel.

My travel "method" or whatever you want to call it, would probably be a mixture. If we go someplace for a few weeks, I do a lot of research in advance and develop a list of things to see and do while we are there. Let's face it, most heavily touristed things are heavily touristed because they are pretty fantastic. But looking back, most of my best memories are things that I saw or did when going to or from those places on my checklist.

If I had to pick out a favorite memory from all my travels so far, it would be one night when we were in Taiwan, very late at night on an open-air railway platform waiting for a commuter train so we could get back to where we were staying. It was just me and my wife, and one other person, a young man who looked like a student, and it was really quiet. The air was cool and very still. And I remember thinking, this is it. Remember this moment.

Or, when we were in Barcelona, and we took the bus to Park Guell, and it was okay, but on the way back, the bus was packed, and a little old lady got on, and I gave her my seat. And she smiled at me.

Or when we were in Seville, and we sat along the river walk, and watched the rowers rowing past. They apparently had some kind of rowing club and they came by in all sorts of boats- 8 person, 2-person. Just rowing like their lives depended on it.

Or when we were in Rome, and I had practiced and learned some Italian before going, and I was disappointed because everywhere we went, I was greeted in English, until one day I needed directions, and I asked an Italian lady, and we had a nice little conversation in Italian.

Or a very long time ago we went to Paris, and I had to ask a French policeman for directions, and he complimented me on my French accent.

I could go on and on. That's the kind of stuff I remember from our trips. Of course I remember seeing the Sagrada Familia, and the Eiffel Tower, and St. Peter's Basilica, but all the things that happen in between are my favorite memories.

Oh, The Other Marty, I love these:

…all the things that happen in between are my favorite memories.

The air was cool and very still. And I remember thinking, this is it. Remember this moment.

I would like to use these sometime, I don't know where...perhaps a talk or writing or just in a personal travel journal that I may never put together..., may I?

CanAmCherie, yes.

Speaking of the Mona Lisa, my wife and I were in Paris quite a few years ago, and of course we "had to" see the Louvre Museum. I should say we really wanted to see it, not just "had to" see it. But we were in there, and we were aware that the museum housed the Mona Lisa. So we wandered through the museum observing the various art works and finally came to the room with the Mona Lisa in it. And we couldn't get within 20 feet of it because of the huge crowd of people squeezing in towards this very small painting. My wife is from Taiwan so growing up she acquired a talent for navigating very crowded places, and she said she wanted me to take a picture of her standing in front of the Mona Lisa. It took her about 5 minutes, but gradually she worked her way in front of the painting. So I have a picture of the Mona Lisa from about 25 feet away with about 100 or more people, all facing away from me, and my wife's smiling face turned away from the painting towards me. I've always thought that picture was very funny.

But to me, the memorable thing about all that isn't the face of Mona Lisa, but rather, the smiling face of my little Chinese wife. To me, the "must do" things on these trips are less about the things themselves and more about the process of doing those things. How we got there, what happened on the way, the people we interacted with, the whole process. At least half of the purpose of having a "to do list" is to have an excuse to go from one point to another.

I broke out in a big smile just imagining your wife's triumphant smile amongst the non-descript head behinds.

The OP was just starting a conversation which is just for fun. What I enjoy is reading some of the comments because this is where the personality of the “regular” forum folks comes out.

Two comments made me laugh; “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.” (VAP) Lol!!!

And MR E.-“ joefarnacle, 😅🤣😂. Sooner or later it happens to everyone on the forum. Do you have any thoughts on carry-on only travel?” Ha ha, funny! Yes, carry on vs.checked bag is a hot discussion!!!

And THIS!!!!🤩from TheOtherMarty-But to me, the memorable thing about all that isn't the face of Mona Lisa, but rather, the smiling face of my little Chinese wife. To me, the "must do" things on these trips are less about the things themselves and more about the process of doing those things. How we got there, what happened on the way, the people we interacted with, the whole process. At least half of the purpose of having a "to do list" is to have an excuse to go from one point to another. 💯!! Nailed it!

I love both.

As a writer, I look for the little things that describe a place: the smell of oak in a winery; the way blue light projects on a column through a Chagall stained glass window; graffiti carved into a wall marking the year 1643; a Momento Mori on the floor of a 13th century cathedral. You can only find those when you allow yourself to slow walk through a place and absorb the character. To see less is to see more.

At the same time, being in possession of an overly-curious mind, I want to see things I've heard about: a painting that caused a riot; the pocks in the wall where the Communards met their end; sites where the Great War was fought.

I can enjoy a lazy afternoon in a Parisian cafe and the hustle of the Musee D'Orsay in equal measures. One of my favorite travel memories is when I was enjoying a local beer in a Strasbourg cafe on a rainy day, watching bicyclists speed by. I remember how the wet pavement smelled and glinted and how wheaty the beer was. I also cherish the solemnity of standing at the grave of the unknown soldier in Westminster Abbey, having finally seen it after reading about it for years.

Experiencing somewhere else is the heart of travel, be it viewing the Mona Lisa, or strolling through Hampstead Heath. We're so lucky we're able to do either.

-- Mike Beebe

"...where the Communards met their end." I've seen this poignant spot. It is at Pere Lachaise, takes a bit of tracking down but you will find it.

On the start of the Great War and later in the West: I suggest Mons, the memorial/monument in the town square in Belgium and Morhange/Lorraine, one the poignant sites in the Battle of the Frontier, or Vimy for the large Canadian memorial , and the largest German WW1 cemetery in France in the adjacent town, accessible by bus from Arras bus depot, next to the train station.