What do you look for .. when you travel?

A place worth staying in for a while needs a good outdoor market, or a great indoor one like Les Halles in Avignon, France. Attractive public landscaping, gardens, and lots of trees and parks make a place livable. Nearby trails for walking, hiking, and/or cycling are important, too. Having great sights is a bonus.

I like places with a wide variety of history, museums, architecture, and some liveliness. Can spend all day in a well set up historical museum, and hours in an ancient abbey or church. Roman ruins fascinate me, as do Celtic artifacts, and medieval altars & paintings. Because I have a lot of interest in, and a fairly good grasp of European history, when I visit a new city or town, I try to find the threads of history that weave themselves through-out this continent. Matching them up with what I knew before, it makes the puzzle pieces fall into place and adds to the colorful quilt of history that resides in my brain.

Some cities I go back to over and over again, always finding something new, big cities like Berlin, small towns like Büdingen and I find new and exciting spots in Frankfurt all the time. It is difficult for me to be bored. There is always a place to explore, or stories to hear.

I look for history, particularly pre-1700 history. I look for historic buildings, ruins, locations where events occurred, some museums. I look for more modern history if it is something I remember, such as Wenceslas Square when I was in Prague because I remember what happened there. In cities I look for outdoor markets, traffic free zones where I can wander, restaurants with outdoor seating in nice locations, some art or history museums. Outside of cities I look for beautiful scenery, more history...Everywhere I look to see the every day life and culture of the place I am visiting.

I agree that is is desirable to go to place for 6 months and really get the feel of the area, to live there. However, this isn't possible for me, at least not internationally, and I do feel a real value in being in a place for a week or two.

As far as what I look for in a place to visit, there are two very broad categories: the "sites" and the "feel".

Sites is really any place one can visit. Church, beach, park, museum, battlefield, whatever. There are certain sites I really, really want to see for a variety of reasons. Some are based on natural beauty (Iguazu Falls in Argentina/Brazil), some are based on a personal interest (I love art and really wanted to see a particular painting or museum), and some are historical (my brother is fascinated by WWII and did a tour based on seeing major historical sites…Normandy and such). If a site is of major interest to you, it's enough to plan a trip around. Then you can find other reasons to be there and enjoy, but the reason you're in Paris and not Munich is Monet's waterlillys. Really, I'd argue with your assessment that 80,90% of the sites are the same. If you really love a certain topic, then the variety is enough to sustain. Art lovers will see a huge difference between The Met, The Louvre, The Prado, The Rijksmusuem, etc. They might feel the same to someone not interested in art, but that interest is enough for the art lover. A hiker will relish challenges in different natural parks. Etc etc etc. So I'll spend more time in London partly because it has many more things I want to do than Los Angeles (I don't like LA all that much, other people would reverse the priority here).

The second aspect is "the feel". Certain places have an atmosphere that resonates with me. I just enjoy being there, regardless of sites. I feel this way about much of southern Spain. Outside of the Alhambra, there aren't many "sites" that I consider huge draws personally. I just love the atmosphere, the general look, and the people. The food. Just wandering, going to markets, eating, just the sense of being there is enough. I feel this way about Seville, but not Venice. I can't quite say why, but there is a pull to certain places. I think everyone who travels experiences this, the sense of loving a place without being able to explain it. So I would obviously build more time to just be in the place that I'm drawn to.

I agree with the history buffs that a lot of what pulls me to a place is the lure to understand the past and see the places and try to understand what it was like. But I also like places that offer new things and a better understanding of living in the place today.

There are literally millions of people who come to NYC every year as tourists. For some of them it's the art galleries. And those are not going to be the same everywhere. This is one of the global spots in the world where art is happening today. I would argue that the same goes for theatre and music. Paris, London, Berlin etc, can argue the same attractions in functionality, but we know that the music you hear in Berlin will not be the same as NYC and ditto for the art and theatre.

Another thing to do is to follow an interest. I went to two music festivals one year in Scotland. In Aberfeldy one of the most of the most well-known traditional fiddlers was playing. During the day I explored the Glen Lyon and walked the Birk's of Aberfeldy. Before dinner that night, I actually met Aly Bain and heard all about fiddling around Scotland! When I went to Tarbert the next weekend the festival was full of bands from Glasgow that were playing the same tune with a contemporary twist. And during the day I wandered Argyll finding the home castle for the MacAlesters and seeing for myself where the viking long ships used when they were Lord of the Isles.

Can I hear traditional Scottish music in the US? Well, yes, Alasdair Fraser plays here and Natalie MacMaster does as well. But Gillian Frame who I heard in Weems Castle hasn't made it to the US and she would have a hard time dragging the castle along with her. :) I've heard Kornog, a rather interesting celtic band from Brittany when I lived in Madison, but I've not had the chance to see the dynamic shifting musical contemporary celtic music scene that really is happening in Glasgow.

The other favorite thing for me to do is to walk in the Highlands. For me that started as a new way to see bits of Scotland that I'd not seen. Out of that trip, friendships were made and so now, I go back for more walking, yes, but also to see my friends. I try to lure them to the US, but it's pricey stuff to fly from there to NYC and then travel further up to New England or the Adirondacks for the walking we all love. In the meantime, I'm not crying too hard about going back to the Black Isle. So, sometimes, shorter trips can evolve into that longer time, only spread over time. I figure I've spent about six weeks with my walking friends.

Pam

I like cities with active bars an nightlife (not dance clubs but just fun social bars). We enjoy the vibe in Portugal, Germany/Austria much more than Italy where while beautiful - the vibe doesn't grab me) yes - stereotyping an entire country).

I normally read everything I can about a place, decide what is a must-see for me, then budget time accordingly. Normally, I'll plan two must-sees each day, one in the morning and another after lunch. I also keep a list of "good to see, if I have time" sights that I might visit if the opportunity arises - something is closed unexpectedly or a short visit was all I needed at one of my must-sees (think David at the Acadamia in Florence).

In a way I agree with your point, cities are cities. While cities have the great museums and many of the major sights, all cities are similar because they are populated with a blend of people from lots of different places. Resorts, to an even greater extent, are resorts - some people's ideal travel is to park themselves at a resort and relax, I'm not at all interested in that type of "travel".

Getting outside cities to small towns is the way to experience the real culture of a country. That's where you are going to feel like you're visiting a different and unique place. While I'll stop in cities to see the big sights, getting into smaller towns is where I really feel like I'm "traveling".