How Long Does One REALLY Need To Experience Your City?

[Razor]

As a tourist?

For Ottawa, a good weekend..Maybe a long weekend.

Ottawa is beautiful city, but it's a lot like Niagara Falls really..Once you tour around Parliament Hill, there isn't a whole lot left to see..You can probably set your itinerary to see the hill and go for a river tour one day, do the national museums the next day, and on the last day just follow your nose and trip around. Maybe drive around or rent a bike and hit the paths..If you stay DT, you can do the patios in the market for the evening(s) which are pretty lively in the summer.

I spent 4 days in NYC, and we barely scratched the surface.

[ilcapo]

For Stockholm i'd say a weekend is enough.

Old Town 1 day.
Rest of the inner-city 1 day.
Vicinities/green areas 1 day.

Perhaps another full day if you wish to take a boat-trip and visit some museums, but that you can also combine with the third day.

I think the same goes for most cities except the ones with the size of New York where you have several areas that need a full day attention.

I usually get tired after a few days of exploring big cities and for week-long trips i feel like the last few days are often slow-paced.

[Innsertnamehere]

Depends how “deep” you want to go into the visit. You probably need a solid 5-6 days to check the major things off Toronto, but you can keep busy for much longer.

[suburbanite]

Canadian cities tend to punch below their weight in touristy cultural attractions compared to European or the big prewar American cities. If you're in Toronto, you can probably do all of the museums and classic tourist attractions in a weekend if you wanted to. If you're interested in getting the full urban experience, you could spend an entire day just doing Queen West. Last time I had someone visiting from the UK before Covid, a week was the perfect length to give them the full local experience, and that was technically 5 days in the city and the weekend in Muskoka.

[Yuri]

For São Paulo, just to see the main landmarks, one day is enough. To experience the city, which has became the main driver for São Paulo tourism in the past decade, a full week at least.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by suburbanite

Canadian cities tend to punch below their weight in touristy cultural attractions compared to European or the big prewar American cities. If you're in Toronto, you can probably do all of the museums and classic tourist attractions in a weekend if you wanted to. If you're interested in getting the full urban experience, you could spend an entire day just doing Queen West. Last time I had someone visiting from the UK before Covid, a week was the perfect length to give them the full local experience, and that was technically 5 days in the city and the weekend in Muskoka.

Reality is that many will mix Niagara Falls into a Toronto trip due to the proximity, especially if they are spending a week in the city.

I think a week would be a good period to really cover everything. A couple of days to cover the CN Tower, ROM, AGO, Yonge-Dundas, Waterfront, etc., then a few more to cover Queen West, Yorkville, the Annex, perhaps Little Italy. Toss a day trip to Niagara in there and you've got a week.

[Steely Dan]

I think most tourists to Chicago do the weekend/long weekend thing, unless they also have family in the area that they're seeing/staying with. You can of course also find shit to do here for a longer visit, but I don't think there's a set length to "REALLY" see Chicago. It all depends how in depth you wanna go.


Speaking of side trips, Anyone visiting Chicago would be remiss to not to take at least a day trip up to Milwaukee while in the area. It's a short little 90 minute train ride, downtown to downtown.

You can take the 8:30am Hiawatha out of union station and be up in Milwaukee by 10:00am, spend the day there, grab an early dinner at one of Milwaukee's many fine restaurants, and then take the 7:30pm train home and be back in Chicago by 9:00pm.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I think most tourists to Chicago do the weekend/long weekend thing, unless they also have family in the area that they're seeing/staying with. You can of course also find shit to do here for a longer visit, but I don't think there's a set length to "REALLY" see Chicago. It all depends how in depth you wanna go.


Speaking of side trips, Anyone visiting Chicago would be remiss to not to take at least a day trip up to Milwaukee while in the area. It's a short little 90 minute train ride, downtown to downtown.

You can take the 8:30am Hiawatha out of union station and be up in Milwaukee by 10:00am, spend the day there, grab an early dinner at one of Milwaukee's many fine restaurants, and then take the 7:30pm train home and be back in Chicago by 9:00pm.

One would think that a solid 5-6 days at a non-frantic pace would get you an enjoyable and experience in Chicago. That would maybe include the Milwaukee day trip, which is a great suggestion..I get the impression that a long weekend wouldn't be enough for a city like Chicagao, At least for me.

[suburbanite]

I only had 3 full days in Chicago and it wasn't nearly enough. Lost one of those days drinking in Wrigleyville before the Cubs game and didn't cover as much ground as I normally would have though.

[iheartthed]

For NYC, it depends on how far your want to go with it. At least 3 - 5 days to feel like you've accomplished something. Honestly, you can't even claim to have visited NYC if you spent less than 72 hours in the city -- that's just enough time to qualify for a participation trophy.

[dave8721]

I was just in DC for 6 days and didn't get to do all that I would have liked.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

For NYC, it depends on how far your want to go with it. At least 3 - 5 days to feel like you've accomplished something. Honestly, you can't even claim to have visited NYC if you spent less than 72 hours in the city -- that's just enough time to qualify for a participation trophy.

Honestly I could probably spend a month in NYC and still not feel satisfied. That's me though. NYC just has such an insane amount to offer. Every time I go I feel like I'm just scratching the surface.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Razor

I get the impression that a long weekend wouldn't be enough for a city like Chicagao, At least for me.

oh yeah, for an SSP urbanism nerd, you'd likely want more time to really explore chicago and dig into some deeper nooks and crannies out in the neighborhoods, but i was talking about regular people.

as one of the most centralized cities in the nation, chicago makes it really easy for a family from iowa (or wherever) to come visit for a long weekend and check-off the "big ticket" chicago attractions/experiences like navy pier, mag mile, millennium park, museum campus, the art institute, a river tour, a show at one of the big downtown theaters, etc. all in the greater downtown area. the only big tourist attractions that i can think of that aren't in greater downtown would be wrigely field (lakeview), the museum of science and industry (hyde park), architecture buffs love all the FLW stuff out in oak park, maybe lincoln park zoo???

like many other cities, chicago's neighborhoods are roughly 95% oriented to residents/locals, not really out of town tourists.

as the anti-chicago (from a tourist's perspective), when i've visited LA (one of the most decentralized places on the planet), i've traipsed all over the metro area seeing various sites and spent relatively little time downtown. i think this contributes to the popular notion of outsiders that LA is extremely "sprawly". most people who visit LA recreationally spend a lot of time driving around the whole area to see this or that attraction, whereas in chicago, the typical city tourists usually doesn't stray more than couple miles from city hall.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I think most tourists to Chicago do the weekend/long weekend thing, unless they also have family in the area that they're seeing/staying with. You can of course also find shit to do here for a longer visit, but I don't think there's a set length to "REALLY" see Chicago. It all depends how in depth you wanna go.


Speaking of side trips, Anyone visiting Chicago would be remiss to not to take at least a day trip up to Milwaukee while in the area. It's a short little 90 minute train ride, downtown to downtown.

You can take the 8:30am Hiawatha out of union station and be up in Milwaukee by 10:00am, spend the day there, grab an early dinner at one of Milwaukee's many fine restaurants, and then take the 7:30pm train home and be back in Chicago by 9:00pm.

I would also add a trip up to Schaumburg to visit Streets of Woodfield

[C.]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I would also add a trip up to Schaumburg to visit Streets of Woodfield

Sarcasm?

Looks just the run-of-the-mill upscale generic mall found in the suburbs of major North American cities. No way if I'm visiting Chicago would that ever be on my list.

[the urban politician]

^ It happens to be Steely Dan's home away from home

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by C.

Sarcasm?

Looks just the run-of-the-mill upscale generic mall found in the suburbs of major North American cities. No way if I'm visiting Chicago would that ever be on my list.

Steely Dan famously hates Schaumburg. That said, there are a few things that are worthwhile to visit in the suburbs, like the Chicago Botanical Gardens if you're into that sort of thing.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Steely Dan famously hates Schaumburg. That said, there are a few things that are worthwhile to visit in the suburbs, like the Chicago Botanical Gardens if you're into that sort of thing.

Yep, also I've heard the Morton Arboretum is nice. Also Brookfield Zoo, etc etc.

Lots of stuff, but for a brief trip to Chicago for an out of towner, such places would hardly be worth the trip as lots of cities have zoos, gardens, nature preserves, etc

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Honestly I could probably spend a month in NYC and still not feel satisfied. That's me though. NYC just has such an insane amount to offer. Every time I go I feel like I'm just scratching the surface.

Yeah, it really depends on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go. It took five years of living in NYC for me to really feel like I've seen it all. And even then, I can count the number of times I've set foot on Staten Island with one hand.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Reality is that many will mix Niagara Falls into a Toronto trip due to the proximity, especially if they are spending a week in the city.

I think a week would be a good period to really cover everything. A couple of days to cover the CN Tower, ROM, AGO, Yonge-Dundas, Waterfront, etc., then a few more to cover Queen West, Yorkville, the Annex, perhaps Little Italy. Toss a day trip to Niagara in there and you've got a week.

That's what we did when we were little; Toronto, Ottawa, Niagara Falls and I'm sure a few other places. Ottawa's big thing was the changing of the guard if I recall.