What makes you give a city a second chance?

Hmm. I am relatively new to the game, so I haven't run out of places to visit yet. However, I am not a big fan of large cities, and while I have visited many in Western Europe, I wouldn't go back again unless I have a specific reason. London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Amsterdam, and Vienna come to mind. I saw what I wanted to and feel no attraction to these places in themselves. On the other hand, my visits to Orvieto, Urbino, and Toledo were day trips, and I would like to go again and stay for a few days. Since I don't care to 'people watch' or look for 'city vibe', I am happy never to return once I have checked off the museums and architecture from my list. The only exception so far is Venice. I would love to just laze about for a month or more as an entitled person would have in more romantic times.

I don't get second chances. My wife won't go anywhere we've been before.

For me it usually comes down to that first impression. If I'm only in a city for a day or two and spend the whole time bouncing between the main tourist spots, I don't really get a proper feel for the place it's more like I've seen it than actually experienced it.
Going back a second time, with more time to actually spend, can feel like a completely different city. Staying somewhere other than the obvious neighbourhood, finding the quieter corners, not trying to tick off every single thing on the list that's usually when I end up appreciating it far more. Some places just need a slower visit to really land.

@alomaker - I get what you mean. Venice is a bit different, though. It has that wonderful decadent atmosphere, almost like something out of Death in Venice. You can imagine doing absolutely nothing there for weeks and somehow feeling that this was the whole point. :)

But your comment made me wonder about something. When you visited those big cities, did you actually give yourself time to get caught up in the place a little, in that On the Road kind of way? Or were you mostly working through the museums and architecture you wanted to see?

I’m asking because maybe that’s part of the difference. If we arrive with a list, finish the list and leave, perhaps some cities simply never get the chance to surprise us.

@freyalaurent695 - I totally get this. I think some cities simply need a slower visit to really land. And I like your distinction between having seen a place and actually experienced it. Once you stop trying to tick things off the list, stay somewhere less obvious and just give the city a bit more time, you can end up discovering a completely different place. Maybe that’s why second visits can sometimes be better than first ones. You’ve already seen what you were “supposed” to see, so you’re finally free to wander a little.

I think it depends on your state of mind in traveling there. I have went places, with a list of things to see, and frankly, become a bit underwhelmed, not impressed, as if it did not meet my expectations. I usually leave with the sense of "Well, I saw that town, no need to go back"

But, my travels, for one reason or another have taken me back, and I seek out small bars and restaurants, a quirky museum, do the more understated things not billed as the "must sees", and the charm of the place really comes out.

I have also seen the really stark difference of visiting a town mid-week (or on a Sunday in Germany) in not so great weather, then later being there on a sunny Saturday market day, where the whole town just comes alive.

With limited travel time in Europe, I rarely re-visit a city I didn't like the first time. I cross it off my list and move on, I don't have time to circle back with so many other places to see.

An example of a city I crossed off my list after one visit was Lyon, France. Didn't like anything about it, was glad to leave, and see no reason to ever go back. Maybe I "should" give it a second chance, but its unlikely I ever will because there is so much else I want to see in the limited time I have.

An exception might be if I'm traveling with a different companion and they insist on visiting a city I disliked because they haven't been there and want to see it. An example of that is Capri (not a city, exactly, but there is a town on the island.). I disliked it the first time when I visited with my sister. I disliked it even more when I visited a couple of years later with my husband. I'll never visit Capri again if Brad Pitt himself asked me to go!

Rome. In our twenties my husband and I went on a three week trip to Europe by train. We spent five nights in Rome after 4 nights in Paris. This was over 30 years ago now so the sites were not nearly as crowded as now. Still, we did not like Rome itself despite its amazing sites. We found it too urban for us with unkempt parks. It probably did not help that on a very densely packed bus from the Vatican someone tried to put their hands where they did not belong.

A couple years ago we revisited. We were going to Sicily and it made sense with flights to spend a night in Rome. My husband suggested we stay two and give Rome another try pointing out in recent years we had enjoyed other densely packed urban cities, including Athens and Naples.

So we did. We took a tour of the old Jewish section and visited Galleria Borghese. The park that the museum is in was not any more kept than 35 years earlier but we enjoyed it in its own terms not in comparison to those in Paris.

I think we would have appreciated the Rome of 35 years ago more then if we had been the travelers we are today.

"I think we would have appreciated the Rome of 35 years ago more then if we had been the travelers we are today."

I think Beth makes a salient point. I first visited Paris in 1973, lol. I was a few years out of college and went with my roommate on an American Express tour of Madrid, Paris and London. Paris I just did not like. Went back in '74 and '76 and still did not like it. A LOT of time passed. I did the Rick Steves 21 Day tour of Europe which ends in Paris. A really good friend loves Paris and I thought....I am missing something, but what? So I added Rick's Best of Paris onto the 21 day tour and I found the key! The guide helped me better understand the formality of the French, even when dealing with tourists. I was staying in different neighborhoods to where I first stayed (Gare du Nord area) so that made a big difference. Now I can't stay away from Paris!

@Paul - I like that approach. Maybe the real enemy isn’t a disappointing city but our checklists.

@StellaB - Lyon has officially been warned - there will probably be no second date. 😂

@BethFL - That’s a great example. Same Rome, different travellers. Maybe sometimes it’s us who need the second chance not the city?

@Pam - So Paris just needed 21 days, a good guide and a little patience. Not demanding at all.

@all - have any of you tried Warsaw? Or any other Polish city?

And are there any cities you disliked enough that you're definitely
not giving them a second chance?

I haven't been anywhere that I didn't like so much that I didn't want to go back. I have a habit of proclaiming that my last trip was the best ever and I'd go back in a heartbeat. The closest to not wanting to visit again though is Paris. To be fair, I've only been there for 2 half days and just wandered but I was overwhelmingly underwhelmed. The challenge is that I haven't been anywhere else in France that I haven't loved, and the most convenient way to get to the rest of it is to fly direct to Paris from home. So in the future I'll likely try Paris for a few days at a time and see if it improves. At the same time, if I never saw Paris again, I wouldn't miss it.

The closest to not wanting to visit again though is Paris. To be fair,
I've only been there for 2 half days and just wandered but I was
overwhelmingly underwhelmed. The challenge is that I haven't been
anywhere else in France that I haven't loved, and the most convenient
way to get to the rest of it is to fly direct to Paris from home.

The last time I visited Paris (about three years ago) was the LAST time I'll visit Paris. Unlike you, I've been many times and even spent several months there right out of high school, but the Paris of 1980 isn't the Paris of today (I was first there before mass tourism hysteria took over - and I was there as a student.)

I have a trip to northern France planned in December and we're flying into Brussels. For southern France we fly into Nice (I'm lucky Delta has a direct flight from Atlanta.) I guess it might be different for you if Paris is your only direct option, but it might be worth your while to fly into Amsterdam, Brussels, London, Milan, etc. and then take a local airline to your destination in France.

but it might be worth your while to fly into Amsterdam, Brussels,
London, Milan, etc. and then take a local airline to your destination
in France.

We've considered it. Next France adventure will either be 2-3 weeks in Normandy or a month in Nice. Both trips are just wishlist items right now so no formal plans. If it's Nice, we'll likely take KLM to Amsterdam and connect from there. If it's Normandy than we'll fly WestJet to Paris and give it another chance.

I've rarely met a city I didn't like, but when I do, I don't usually give second chances. (I don't tend to revisit places already visited, anyhow, at least not outside of Canada.) However, since so many flights to Europe from Western Canada involve London layovers, I did give it a bit of a second chance on our way to Croatia, when we had a ~20 hour layover, and I did I did like it a bit more that time. That may be because it wasn't a bank holiday weekend. It may be because I spent less than a day. I still have no desire to return for a more extended visit, though.

@jagodzilla: Since you asked, I am happy to elaborate. I have asked myself similar questions and concluded the following. I travel for very specific reasons. One is art. Even in that realm, I am only interested in paintings (not sculpture, the applied arts, archeological artifacts, etc.). The other is architecture, specifically Romanesque, Baroque, and 'modern'. The third is photography, but only of scenes featuring shapes, texture, color, tone, and shadows (almost all my photos are scrupulously devoid of people unless they form a pictorial element). To illustrate: The reason I went to Valencia was to visit the arts & science city designed by Calatrava. I stayed in Zamora this year because it has a large concentration of Romanesque churches. I did a day trip to Antwerp once, just to see Hadid's Havenhuis. This year I visited Copenhagen, Stockholm, and Oslo - for the art collections. By the way, since you mentioned 'Death in Venice', an additional impetus to visit Vienna, besides the three museums, was the locations for 'The Third Man', including the Ferris Wheel, where I imagined Orson Welles delivering the cuckoo clock monologue. I suppose I am the type of person who is completely ambivalent about 'getting caught up' in a place or letting it 'surprise me'. As the responses to your post suggest, we all have motivations that are unique to us.

I don't get second chances. My wife won't go anywhere we've been before.

I said this earlier in the thread, but there is one place I have been several times, disliked at first, but liked more each time I went, and that is Zurich. We have gone more than once because my wife has family who live there.

As a tourist, there are many places I can think of that would be better, but for the lifestyle, not sightseeing or going to museums, but just living there, it's great and I have come to really enjoy it more every time we go there.

I think so many factors mention can affect your enjoyment of a city trip, or any trip, such as…..
- time of year
- Travel companions
- Budget
- Age
- Length of visit
- Food
- Time between visits
- Crowds
- Weather
- health
- Where you grew up - we both grew up in a big city.
-

Taking all these items listed above, each one can have an affect on your enjoyment of a city. Back when our girls were younger, we had a limited budget for travel. Now that they are off our payroll completely, we have extra funds to upgrade a little bit - private tours, first class train tickets, better hotels, private transfers etc. This makes us less stressed and happier to enjoy wherever we are.
Now that we are retired, we can go whenever we please, no July or August for us, and stay a little longer, giving each city our Full attention. Also, we have much more free time to really research a place before we go.
We have also gotten bolder in telling family members or friends, sorry, but no you cannot come with us, we are going alone.

And yes Raf, i agree with you about Warsaw. We stopped there after visiting Krakow, Wroclaw, and Gdansk. We were only there for 3 days, and on the third day we took a loop on the HOHO bus. We passed other parts of the city that looked so beautiful and inviting and wished we had more time to explore.

@alomaker Thanks for elaborating. I think you may be the most disciplined traveller in this thread :) I tend to let cities distract me from whatever plan I had, but I really like the idea of travelling with such a clear sense of what you're looking for. And yes, The Third Man is a perfectly good reason to go to Vienna.

@The Other Marty I really like this distinction between visiting a city and simply living in it for a while. Maybe some cities are better at being lived in than sightseeing in. I suspect Warsaw might be one of them too.

@Barbara Thank you, Barbara. And especially thank you for that last paragraph. :) This is exactly the Warsaw I wish more visitors had time to see. Not because the Old Town or the big sights aren't worth seeing, but because so much of the city happens outside that usual route. I hope you come back one day and give those parts a chance. I'll happily give you a few ideas. Warm greetings from Warsaw!