How Long Does One REALLY Need To Experience Your City?

[edale]

Originally Posted by Northern Light

I think most of you here are underestimating just about every city.

If you imagine a City is 3 tourist attractions, a show, 2 neighbourhood strolls and a scenic drive, I suppose you can get that done in 2-3 hectic days.......
But I can't fathom wanting to experience a place that way.

***

I'll grant, most of us have limitations in time and budget than means you can' just blow off work for 2 months to go exploring.
And, if you could, most of us would want to get more than one place in for said exploring over that two months.

Still

****

To me, seeing Chicago is riding the L; its walking the Magnificent Mile, its Millenium Park, its the Waterfront (not just a 2-block stretch either).
So far I've blown a day without visiting a local university campus, taking in a single show, or visiting even one of many great museums.

When I go somewhere, I want to soak up the essence of the place, meet locals, experience life the way they do. No, I don't need rush-hour traffic, or to spend much time in the very worst neighbourhood (though if I could safely see the latter, I'd be interested).

But I think any City over 500,000 shouldn't merit less than a week. Any major urban centre, at least of any quality, will always offer more than you can take in, in one trip.

****

For Toronto, any list would be edited according to time and budget, and what the person was interested in experiencing.

But to me, I would think about taking them to (in no particular order); 1 pro sports event, 1 fine arts event (opera/ballet etc.), I would take them on a series of walking tours, bike Toronto's ravines, visit the Islands, CN Tower, Canada's Wonderland, St. Lawrence Market, attend (audit) a class at a local University, a range of restaurants, the Scarborough Bluffs, the Royal Botanical Gardens (Burlington,ON), The Ontario Science Centre, the shopping districts (particularly the Eaton Centre, and Yorkville) for a start.

While there are certain boxes to check and many tourist experiences are somewhat similar from one city to the next; what you want to capture is that vibe, that sense of place; but also those experiences that are offered in relatively few other places.

In Toronto, that's Edge Walk (hanging off the edge of the CN Tower); that's Rouge National Park (not many cities have a 15,000acre park within their urban boundary); that's underground path under the downtown skyscrapers (endless miles of shopping/food courts connecting offices, hotels, condos etc.). That's getting an Ethiopian meal for lunch, and then a Korean meal for dinner. (authentic, not food court quality).

But the same could be said for Chicago, or for that matter Buffalo, NY is easily worth a full week.

We have very different traveling styles. Sitting in at a university class? Seriously? I've never heard of people doing that while traveling.

I also don't need to see the opera, symphony, or theater while traveling, unless I'm in a destination known for such things. If I'm in NYC or London, I'll definitely see a Broadway/West End show. I don't need to see Wicked or whatever's in town when I'm in Chicago or Toronto or wherever. Same with pro sports, unless it's a unique event. Several years ago I happened to be in Montreal during the Rogers Cup tennis tournament. Got tickets for a day session and had a really great time. But your average MLB/NBA game...eh, I can do those things at home.

My urban traveling experience is usually based around a handful of things I want to do or see, and the rest of the time is filled in exploring the city either on foot, transit, or very occasionally a guided tour or something. For Toronto, I'd want to go to the CN Tower observation deck, take a boat out to the islands, go to the Royal Ontario Museum, explore a bunch of the neighborhoods, and eat a diverse array of various ethnic food. I'd feel like I experienced Toronto if I did a trip like that. Doesn't mean I would have experienced every aspect of the city, but that's what return trips are for! You get the overall feel for the place, see some cool individual sites, hopefully find some good restaurants and bars...successful trip.

[JManc]

Boston and Amsterdam in only 1 trip but Miami in 2? Philly in 3? SF 4? What is this voodoo? I would say all can be had with 2 trips.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by edale

We have very different traveling styles. Sitting in at a university class? Seriously? I've never heard of people doing that while traveling.

I also don't need to see the opera, symphony, or theater while traveling, unless I'm in a destination known for such things. If I'm in NYC or London, I'll definitely see a Broadway/West End show. I don't need to see Wicked or whatever's in town when I'm in Chicago or Toronto or wherever. Same with pro sports, unless it's a unique event. I happened to be in Montreal during the Rogers Cup tennis tournament. Got tickets for a day session and had a really great time. But your average MLB/NBA game...eh, I can do those things at home.

My urban traveling experience is usually based around a handful of things I want to do or see, and the rest of the time is filled in exploring the city either on foot, transit, or very occasionally a guided tour or something. For Toronto, I'd want to go to the CN Tower observation deck, take a boat out to the islands, go to the Royal Ontario Museum, explore a bunch of the neighborhoods, and eat a diverse array of various ethnic food. I'd feel like I experienced Toronto if I did a trip like that. Doesn't mean I would have experienced every aspect of the city, but that's what return trips are for! You get the overall feel for the place, see some cool individual sites, hopefully find some good restaurants and bars...successful trip.

Yeah you wouldn't see Wicked in Chicago, but you could go to a jazz or blues club and to Second City, if you like that sort of thing. Of course, if you don't like comedy or jazz or blues then it wouldn't make any sense to do that, and not every city has something analogous.

[10023]

London would take a while to really get a grasp of due to sheer size (600 square miles for the “city proper”). Even people who live in West London rarely go to East London and vice versa. If you’re going to see places like Richmond, Greenwich, etc then these are almost day trips within the city.

When my cousin and his wife came, they stayed for 3 nights in the west (can’t remember where, maybe South Ken/Chelsea), then went to a couple places in the country, then came back to London and spent 2-3 nights in the east (based in Shoreditch). That’s probably a good approach.

[edale]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Yeah you wouldn't see Wicked in Chicago, but you could go to a jazz or blues club and to Second City, if you like that sort of thing. Of course, if you don't like comedy or jazz or blues then it wouldn't make any sense to do that, and not every city has something analogous.

I said, "I also don't need to see the opera, symphony, or theater while traveling, unless I'm in a destination known for such things"

Chicago is known for its blues and comedy/improv clubs. Going to one of those spots would be on my agenda for a Chicago trip. Probably wouldn't be on the agenda in Portland.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by 10023

London would take a while to really get a grasp of due to sheer size (600 square miles for the “city proper”). Even people who live in West London rarely go to East London and vice versa. If you’re going to see places like Richmond, Greenwich, etc then these are almost day trips within the city.

I've been there at least a half dozen times in at least 10 day jaunts and I still don't think I've truly experienced it. For example, I've mostly explored places north of the Thames. It's a place you either have to live in or need to visit many times to really get the gist of...because it's so spread out.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

Boston and Amsterdam in only 1 trip but Miami in 2? Philly in 3? SF 4? What is this voodoo? I would say all can be had with 2 trips.

Miami was borderline 2. I said two because Miami Beach and Miami City (+ everything else) are two different experiences. I guess you can squeeze them into one trip, though.

There is more to unpack in the city of San Francisco than there is in Amsterdam, IMO. Plus, San Francisco has regional draws that are trips in their own right (Big Sur, Napa, etc).

Philly... maybe 3 is stretching it. I'll concede that lol. I stand by my assessment of Amsterdam. That's a one and done for me.

[ue]

If we're talking just the city itself (or its metropolitan area) instead of nearby daytrips (Banff for Calgary, Niagara for Toronto), I'd put the following for Canadian cities if you want a decent look at these cities:

Toronto: 6-7 days. Hit the ROM, AGO, Aga Khan, maybe some local galleries. Do the CN Tower, Casa Loma, take the Toronto Islands ferry and walk around. Go to the Beaches. Walk around the West End and check out bars, restaurants, shops, venues, etc. Check out the skyscrapers in the Financial District and hang out in Kensington Market. Oh, and Allan Gardens. Enjoy the diverse array of food available.

Montreal: 6-7 days. Hit the major museums (Musee Beaux-Arts, etc). Mile End and the Plateau. The Sud-Ouest neighbourhoods. Go to the Lachine Canal and walk around or go on the water. Stare at the architecture in Vieux-Montreal. Check out the Olympic Park and go to the Jardins botaniques. Hike Mount Royal, go to the Kondiaronk Lookout and Oratory. Orange Julep. Eat smoked meat sandwiches, poutine, Montreal-style bagels, and other great food. Check out a show or two, hit some bars and galleries, see the tam-tams.

Vancouver: 5-6 days. Go to the Museum of Anthropology and Vancouver Art Gallery. Take the Seabus to Lower Lonsdale. Stanley Park. Walk around Gastown, DTES, Chinatown, and Strathcona, maybe do the Sun Yat-Sen Gardens. Hit 1 or 2 beaches. Walk around Commercial Drive, Mt Pleasant, Downtown New West, Kitsilano. Visit the Richmond Night Market and Steveston. Do one of the suspension bridges, go up Grouse Mountain, maybe do a hike in West Vancouver (Lighthouse Park, Cypress Falls Park). The Van Dusen Gardens and/or Bloedel Conservatory as well. Spend time wandering the downtown peninsula.

Ottawa: 3-4 days. There's a lot of museums, and then there's Parliament Hill and other various historic sites, and then neighbourhoods like Glebe, Westboro, the ByWard Market, Centretown, New Edinburgh, Rockcliffe Park, and Hintonburg.

Quebec City: 2-4 days. Honestly mostly just to walk around the gorgeous historic neighbourhoods and take it all in. Have some good food, check out Montmorency Falls, that sort of thing.

Calgary: 2-3 days. Calgary Tower, the Glenbow, Olympic Park maybe. Check out Prince's Island Park and the Peace Bridge. Walk around the downtown, East Village, Beltline, Inglewood, Ramsay, Kensington.

Winnipeg: 2-3 days. Visit the WAG, Assiniboine Park, maybe one other museum. Head down to the Forks, immerse into the Exchange. Again, check out some galleries, hit some bars and get some great food. Walk around Wolseley, River Heights, St Boniface, West Broadway, etc.

Edmonton: 2-3 days. West Edmonton Mall, unfortunately. The Muttart Conservatory, the RAM, the AGA. Hit Whyte Ave. Walk down 104 St and see the Neon Sign Museum. Walk across the High Level Bridge. Take in the river valley.

Halifax: 2-3 days.

Victoria: 2-3 days.

Hamilton: 2-3 days.

Saskatoon: 1-2 days.

Kingston: 1-2 days.

London: 1-2 days.

Waterloo: 1-2 days.

Sherbrooke: 1-2 days.

Regina: 1-2 days.

Kelowna: 1-2 days.

Saint John: 1-2 days.

St John's: 1-2 days.

Windsor: 1-2 days.

Everything else? 1 day or less.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Miami was borderline 2. I said two because Miami Beach and Miami City (+ everything else) are two different experiences. I guess you can squeeze them into one trip, though.

There is more to unpack in the city of San Francisco than there is in Amsterdam, IMO. Plus, San Francisco has regional draws that are trips in their own right (Big Sur, Napa, etc).

Philly... maybe 3 is stretching it. I'll concede that lol. I stand by my assessment of Amsterdam. That's a one and done for me.

Interesting. I've been to Amsterdam twice and was supposed to go last year (damn Covid) and felt like I still haven't seen all there is to see. Good point about Miami. We did just that; we stayed in MB for 4 days in 2019 and ventured into Miami proper. That even felt rushed. Ditto for SF. we did day trips into Napa. You might need three days in Philly if you want to to AC.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I think you undersell Ottawa a little bit. You can't do all the national museums in a day. Two at most in a day and that might be a hurried tour of each. It also depends on what interests people have, but for those who like to hike, Gatineau Park is great place to go, and I would recommend the Diefenbunker to anybody visiting Ottawa. Then, if its festival season, that can occupy an afternoon, an evening, a day or more depending on the event. Ottawa is no longer a place to just see 'the Changing of the Guard.

Actually, you are correct..One would need 2 days for the museums + the bunker if that's your thing. I was thinking of the big 3 museums..That being the War Museum, The Science and Tech, and the museum of Civilization..There is still the mint, Nature museum, Aviation museum+ the Art gallery.

Day 1 Hill tour, river tour + city bus tour
Day 2 and 3 museums.
Day 4 walking tour/wind down

Add in nights for for any summer festivals going on, or for just chilling in the market.

[mrnyc]

it takes at least a week to visit any major metro area. i am talking like minneapolis, los angeles, denver, texas cities, etc., etc.. sure you can do the major touristy stuff in a few days, but there will always be a daytrip and what i really enjoy most of all is trying to spend the last couple days just hanging out and trying to live like a local to experience that feel.

this is why i would probably hate going on a cruise. besides being trapped, i don’t see what the point is of barely spending a day, if that, in every port. there could be some exceptions, like alaska i suppose, or at one point we were looking a cruise thru french polynesia, but it would be maddening in europe.

[Northern Light]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

it takes at least a week to visit any major metro area. i am talking like minneapolis, los angeles, denver, texas cities, etc., etc.. sure you can do the major touristy stuff in a few days, but there will always be a daytrip and what i really enjoy most of all is trying to spend the last couple days just hanging out and trying to live like a local to experience that feel.

That's it.

Who wants to anywhere just to spend long enough to take a couple of 'selfies' and post them to social media to say 'look at me'.

LOL

You want to soak up what it is to be in that place.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

You could spend a week in London Ontario (metro 535K). But you would find yourself very bored after a couple of days. Nice place to live in, but I wouldn't want to visit there.

If someone visited me in KW, I'd probably take them to Toronto. If they had already done that, I'd probably take them to a show in Stratford and/or to Elora. I love Kitchener, but as you said for London, it's a city to live in, not really to visit.

That said, residents are often the worst people to judge these things. Busloads of people go to the St. Jacobs market every week, which is more than a little perplexing to me, since S. Ontario has scads of farmers markets and I personally prefer the Kitchener Market. So I guess maybe I'd take them to the market??

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by jamincan

If someone visited me in KW, I'd probably take them to Toronto. If they had already done that, I'd probably take them to a show in Stratford and/or to Elora. I love Kitchener, but as you said for London, it's a city to live in, not really to visit.

That said, residents are often the worst people to judge these things. Busloads of people go to the St. Jacobs market every week, which is more than a little perplexing to me, since S. Ontario has scads of farmers markets and I personally prefer the Kitchener Market. So I guess maybe I'd take them to the market??

Yeah, for complicated reasons, I ended up visiting Elora/St. Jacobs/St. Jacobs Market a few weeks ago (After Canada opened the border, my sister, who lives in Montreal, and I met in Hamilton, and for some reason she didn't want to go to Toronto, but her friend from Guelph highly recommended those destinations...). They were... ok, but certainly not worth driving from Hamilton. I'm amazed by the large number of apparently newly-built hotels next to St. Jacobs Market...

[twister244]

For me, I am doing a month in a city to really experience it.

A month gives you time to:
1 - Visit all of the neighborhoods, and experience them
2 - Make friends (maybe even lovers that you later discover are living with their ex, but that's ok because you know you are moving onto a new city anyways....)
3 - Truly get a feel for the city, the people, and the culture from top to bottom.

Three months in Chicago was amazing, but I was already pretty familiar with my "home away from home".

I'm in London for a month, but have never been here. I love the fact I'm here all month because there's no pressure to rush in as much in a day. I can take my time, work remotely when I need to, and slowly stretch myself through all of the parts of the city.

[CaliNative]

You could live a lifetime in NYC, L.A, the Bay area, London, Paris, Tokyo etc. and probably not cover it all. Not even close. Probably when you move to a new big city, or just come for a multiday visit, take full day tour to get an overview, and then decide what you want to see more of in depth.

[mja]

Was just in Copenhagen for 2-3 days. I felt like that was a good amount of time to experience it, but I would love to spend a week there.

[benp]

I recall being told years ago that it takes an average person 3 days to adjust to staying in a new place, i.e. not your own bed in your own house. I found that to be true for me no matter where I stay and go.

I cannot really experience a new city on a first visit - as soon as I leave I end up having some regrets about the things I missed, the places I want to visit again, or I learn about places that I didn't know about while I was there. The journey itself absorbs much of the first and last day of any city visit, whether its just learning to get around, or preparing to leave.

So, I would say that to "know" any city is a minimum of 2 visits of 3 days each or greater. Otherwise you are likely just checking off the boxes - like National Lampoon's Vacation movies.

I was on a business trip with co-workers in Turin for several days, and during the weekend everyone preferred to spend many hours squeezed in a Fiat together driving up and back in order to see Mont Blanc, basically just to check the box. Any time I spend in a car I consider lost time when visiting a city, so I decided to stay in the city instead. I was able to walk through the city, visit the markets, join the very well-dressed locals walking through the parks, etc. One really needs time to just hang out and visit the locals rather than rush from attraction to attraction.

Also, weather and time of year can play a role in forming an opinion of a city, good or bad. My wife's impressions of Montreal during 2 rainy-foggy days was very different from our visit on a sunny day.

[mhays]

Several visits, staying in different places and doing different things. Lots of walking, riding transit, and so on. I can't really say I deeply "know" even the cities I've been to most, because even with frequent visits and long walks I tend to view them narrowly through the lens of the various places and activities I tend to do. Hell, I do that in my own city.

That said, I can be reasonably familiar with the core of a major (2-8m) US city in maybe three days, assuming that involves some good walking every day, and not spending much or any time in museums. But European and Asian cities tend to need more time to get a similar effect, as their dense/interesting areas tend to be far more expansive.