Badenoch

Another aspect of "slow travel" perhaps comes with age. As I get older I am less interested in thumbing through a phrase book, learning a new transit system, experimenting with new restaurants, etc.

My favorite destination is the UK and go there frequently on business and pleasure. I will often squeeze in a quick visit to London or Edinburgh returning home from the continent on a business trip. I speak the language, know the culture, travel and drive around easily and there's always something interesting to do.

The_Bouncer

That is exactly how I feel about Germany and Austria. I came here for a few days or a week at a time any time I could for years and now I live here.

The slowing down definitely does come with age. I have started going back to familiar places more than once, since I've started to get older. South Africa is a classic example. I have done all of the touring I want to do there, so I'm flying out to Cape Town for 8 days in December, just to have some good weather, eat some good food and drink some (probably lots of) good wine at places that I know are good.

I'll still keep exploring and going to new places, but my focus is gradually shifting from discovery to relaxation.

ilcannone

I believe culture can also play a role in this. Living in Moscow for 3 years has certainly taught me a lot about how Russians holiday, and overwhelmingly, regardless of age, the majority tend to be going slower. Many will tell me they could spend days upon days in smaller cities like Florence and months at a time in bigger places like London. Everything should be done at a slow pace and take everything in, quite often restricting themselves to one country for 2-3 weeks.

When explaining to my clients about the classic European holiday of travelling by rail from country to country, city to city, fitting in as much as possible in X amount of time, they tend to balk at the idea of it.

Eastbay1K

Do you want to see a place? Or do you want to know a place?

That sums it up.

The_Bouncer

Very well said.

Giggleswick

In many travel discussions, I've found "slow" to be a relative term, and dependent in part upon how many bragging rights the user wants. When somebody says they're going spend two days in City X, somebody else will witheringly reply that you need a week to get to know the place. When somebody says they're going to spend a week in that same city, somebody else says you need three weeks to even scratch the surface. When somebody says they're going to spend three weeks there, somebody else will say that they've been going there for a month per year for 20 years and still thinks there's more to do. There's always somebody who's doing it "better."

ilcannone

Spot on!

KDS777

I don't have a preference to be honest.

What I do absolutely detest however is the "you gotta see these 10 places in 2 days" kind of thing that some people are prone to attempting. If I have 2 days in a place I just want to hang out with the locals taking it in, not running around like mad trying to check off boxes on a list of "must see" items. That is not fun, it is simply annoying and frustrating.

GadgetFreak

I don't think it is that simple. For instance, I have had short visits to London. A couple longer ones, but a LOT of short ones. Like 8 or 10 a year for a number of years. I think I know London pretty well, so did the cab driver and a Brit friend of mine when I told him he was going the wrong way. He was pissed-off I might add to be given directions by an American, especially since I was right. I've walked countless hours in London, day and night. But virtually all part of visits of less than a day and a half. I think the, well, attitude or possibly the term "mental state" is more important than the time, I'm happy to see better terms to define it. But it isn't just the time of one visit.

CPRich

I guess it's a matter of personal preference.

When I has 2 days in Agra, I visited the Taj Mahal and have lifetime memories of the sunlight glinting off the inlaid gems in the walls, of the intricate inlaid flowers made up of 10 different tiny stones, of the multiple buildings and entire complex that are much more than the one building you see in photos. I visited the Agra Fort, the Fatehpur Sikri, the Tomb of Mariam-uz-Zamani - all with a guide who educated me on the Mughal period of India and the history behind the buildings.

I supposed I could have hung out in town and got to know the locals in my only lifetime trip to Agra. But I'm glad I didn't. I did not find it annoying and frustrating. Sorry that you detest my personal choices.

invisible

It really depends on destination, personal style plus as well how much time (and resources) one has in disposal. I can spent a month in Tokyo/Kyoto and have not seen or experience probably half what it is there. On other term, you can go to some places which have just one-two well known sites and after seeing them there is not much to see/do there.

Also what matter for me is the time at the destination, not time spent to get there.

StartinSanDiego

I like to spend enough time in a destination so that the rigors of getting there are offset. We like to spend 1 day (or more) per 1 hour of plane flight time. So Europe from the West Coast means a minimum trip of 10-12 days. As with @invisible, for me, it's about the destination. That said, it's still better to go than to not go. My one and only trip to China was 8 days on the ground, 3 cities, and I don't regret it a bit. Yes, it was rushed, but I was there, seeing, smelling and experiencing the place firsthand. The choice was a short trip or no trip at all. I once met a flight attendant who told me about her 8 hour layover in Rome. She had a very full day and got to see many of the highlights. Her story has stuck with me when I start to feel like the hassle of running around seeing things in a big rush isn't worth it. Cruise ship shore excursions are similar... short but action packed. Yes, I'd rather go slowly, but real life gets in the way. It's still better to go than to not go! it's still about seeing the destination, not so much sitting around a pool with a book, which I can do here at home.

ysolde

This is pretty much how my husband and I travel. I suppose it is a function of age, interest, and opportunity. He has the kind of schedule where he can work his tail off, and then take a few weeks off. So that makes it somewhat easier for us to travel at a more leisurely pace: just walk around, explore, get a little lost, ask the locals for suggestions, find the museums that are not in the guidebooks, spend a day in just one museum, spend hours people-watching in an out-of the way cafe, take a stroll hand in hand through a park (then sit and sketch or journal for a bit), find a flower market . . . This is how we spend our days. People seem to rush a lot on their trips, as if ticking off places and things on a sightseeing list. We just go with whatever we feel like doing that day, and find a lot of pleasure in the smaller moments. So we take it slow, and we enjoy.

Eastbay1K

Actually, I have historical similar travel patterns. And returning to a place time and time again, even on "short trips" is knowing a place. On one trip to London, many years ago, I left my hotel room and as I was leaving, realized I had left my map in the room, and then had the realization "I don't need it today." A sense of calm and how my relationship with London had developed enveloped my mind. People have asked me over the years why I keep returning to the same places (with periodic new ones thrown in), thinking it is silly to go to London or Paris or wherever, time and time again. Knowing I've been, and likely going back permits for "slow travel" even during a quick trip. I don't need to go up the Eiffel Tower and visit 10 museums in 2 days. I don't need to eat at the "10 best" places in 2 days.

So no, it isn't the time of one visit.

dreamgal3643

Slow travel! You get to really learn about a place that way, the culture, vibe, and truly what the place is about. I've done many travel tours and they always feel rushed and you can't really enjoy the places you visit!