Revisit someplace you've already been or go somewhere new?
 

Something I've been thinking about a lot lately, and wondering how others deal with it - how do you decide whether to revisit someplace you've already been vs. visiting someplace new? There are so many places in this world to see, and time and money are always a factor, so it makes sense in a way to visit somewhere new every time. Yet, I know many people love to return to places they've visited in the past. In light of that, do you tend to visit new destinations on your trips or revisit places you've already been and enjoyed?

I've been struggling with this lately because I've been wanting to revisit London and Paris, but (in my mind) it feels crazy for me to do so when I still haven't visited many other places on my travel wish list. Sure, I'm relatively young (32) so it's not as if I won't have other opportunities in the future to travel to new places. But, the same could be said about revisiting places - why revisit places now when I will hopefully have plenty of other opportunities in the future to see them again?

Anyways, just curious to hear people's thoughts as to what makes you decide to revisit a place versus going somewhere new.

Ahhh...the age old question?

It always sounds great in my mind to say I want to revisit our favorites...say Paris or Austria, but then I end up planning trips to new places: Spain and Portugal this year. I haven't yet decided to sit back and enjoy areas we loved on a first visit...there is just so many new places to see.

I have always felt that both should be combined in a trip whenever possible. It is often good to get a brief start with a place you already know (it comforts you) and then to strike out for adventure.

There are places we've been to before and go back to in order to visit/do things we have not yet done. We go to other places because we like them. Sorry, I realize there are a lot of place son earth but next summer, for example, we are returning to Lake Como for a few days. Water's the same; food's the same; scenery's the same: that why we go!

I was once told by a friend that someone had expressed to her how silly she thought I was to keep going back to the "same places". I, on the other hand, felt sorry for a person who hadn't found places she liked well enough to return.

I'm also in the category of those who like to combine new places with those I love. I can't think of a better way to travel.

We do both. We return to special places in Europe such as Lake Como but also visit SE Asia, China, Japan. Each trip teaches us so much.

The only problem I've had revisiting a place is that it usually lacks the wow factor it had the first time I was there. Of course, there is so much to see and do in Paris and London that you can always find something new to do. I've been to France six times - going on seven - and mix the old with the new. The old makes it comfortable and the new makes it an adventure.

I try to go someplace new every year - but also travel back to favorites frequently.

For examples I try to get to London at least for a few days a couple of times a year, re-visit someplace(s) in England and/or Scotland every year, and visit Yosemite every year or two.

At your age I would expand my horizons.
Wait until your 70s to revisit old favorites---as we did for our 50th to Venice and Lago Como.

My first trip to Europe was when I got a job in Paris at 20 and also visited London. Paris has always seemed my home in Europe as a result, and I visit both cities, often on my way to someplace new when I return to Europe. If you have the time, how can you go wrong?

I almost always aim for something new -- but then, I've planned every trip I've ever taken with the assumption that I would not be able to return, and that's certainly not how every one else travels. (No criticism intended -- just a comment.) There are MANY places I would love to see again, and some I know I will make an effort to see again, but there are SO many places I haven't seen at all that they, for now, take priority for me. No right or wrong answers here....

>>>"what makes you decide to revisit a place versus going somewhere new">>> ?

I want to see or do something important to me that I didn't see or do when I was there previously.

(PS: Whatever travel choices you end up making, please try to avoid falling into the trap of imagining yours is "superior" or presuming you know why other people behave differently than you (and that you feel sorry for them).

I'm like kja, I like to go someplace new every year, but also make time for old some of my old favourites, Paris, London and Rome for starters:)

I also try to combine re-visits with new place. Like kerouac said, re-visitng places can be comforting. Travel is so wonderful, but sometimes it can be stressful. I just returned from my 10th trip to Italy and the towns I choose for my bases were all towns I had been to before, but I planned day trips from each of them to new places. Since I was off the beaten track in the off season, solo and by public transportation I had a few stressful times combined with great new experiences. It was quite comforting to get 'home' to the town I was familiar with. At the end of the trip I spent four days in Rome where I've been many times and it was so nice to not have to look at a map, to know where I was going. (But even there I visited places I had not been to, as well as all the ones I had).

Since you mention London and Paris - they make great places to combine with new since there are often good/cheap flights from other countries (like the US) to them. I've frequently flown to London (non stop and inexpensively), then spent two or three days, then taken easyjet or similar low cost airline to a new country - one which would be expensive/difficult to get to straight from the US.

Combining is a great idea.
I'm fortunate enough to go back to palces I like because of my job (Paris, Prague, etc) and like to have holidays at same place with the kids (so that we know where to find things they like) and we usually try to go to unknow places every 1-2 years.
Age has not yet hit, it only taught me there is no 'good' option. Both are good - just depends on you and what you want.

It is pretty much just based on our mood when the trip planning begins, but I always leave my options open in case a great flight deal turns up. Last year, we were feeling a little burnt out, so we went to Croatia for the fourth time, knowing we would spend our days hiking along the coast--and that was just what we needed. We did choose a different region, and I have for the most part chosen a different region each time I have returned to a country I have visited before. There is just so much variety even within one country! We are definitely more the types to keep returning to a place, as we have three trips each to Spain and Italy under our belts as well. I am an optimist, and I believe I will one day have the time to take longer trips to Asia for example, but if it does not turn our that way, no way will I regret the multiple easy breezy trips to the Mediterranean!

I agree with sandralist on both accounts: I go back or want to go back to places I haven't "finished" , Florence being a notable example. I need another five or six days before I feel I have "done" the city. But I wouldn't impose that on anyone else. Ditto LA for me. I have enjoyed every time I have been there but have only scratched the surface.

I also go back to cities like Paris and San Francisco because I love the way of life and the pace of life there. I loved Croatia, but I don't want to "live the Croatia life" the way I would like to live the Paris life. The trip we are currently planning has two weeks of new-to-us, mostly focused on art museums, and a week in Paris to be in Paris.

I really regret not going to Woodstock and not taking the overland route from London to India back in the late 60's. But as you get older, you may find that places that you once wanted to go no longer appeal or have become places you can't go. There isn't really any place in Asia for me right now that is worth the hassle of getting there, though I would very much like to visit Iran. But I am more likely to go to Berlin.

At this stage of our existence we are trying to visit places we have never been. That is not to say that we would not enjoy revisiting many of the places we have seen.

When we were in our forties we realized we should visit places that take stamina and strength. Now that we are in our 60's we want to see places we have never seen. Although we are getting tired of schlepping our own luggage and getting from one place to another, it still seems like a better alternative than being thrown in the back of a tour bus and told when to get off. That said we might consider tours for future trips to India and Vietnam.

One way to make sure you revisit a place you really enjoy on the first visit is to deliberately skip some of the things you really want to see there.

I have some places I really love and to which I hope I'll have multiple chances to return. Rome, London, and Ireland are such places. In Ireland, I would almost always return to the familiar places where I have relatives, but I also try to see new places there. In London and Rome, I still have a long list of places I want to see, and that should keep me going back again and again. I don't go to either city for long visits any more. Rome is close enough for a spur-of-the-moment short trip, and London is convenient as a stopover on the way to other places.