Atacama v. El Calafate and Buenos Aires
 

Considering two different itineraries right now:

1) 1 night Santiago, 4 nights in Torres del Paine then 3 nights in Atacama Desert, and 1 night Santiago; or
2) 1 night Santiago, 4 nights in Torres del Paine then 2 nights El Calafate then 2 nights Buenos Aires.

In your experience, which would you recommend and why? My travel agent recommends the Atacama option, but I am a little daunted by the FULL day of travel from Torres del Paine to Atacama (long drive, two flights, long drive over nearly a full day). I am also concerned about altitude sickness in Atacama.

Any thoughts are appreciated!

With 9 nights #2 makes a lot more sense than #1. There are also other options. It depends on the time of year and what you really want to see. But trying to squeeze both Patagonia and Atacama into 9 nights is not a good option.

We are going the first two weeks of December. My main interest is Patagonia. But someday I do want to see Atacama and also the Altiplano and Uyuni salt flats. I suppose that could be an entirely different trip. I really want to see the nightsky in Atacama.

With just 9 nights I would always choose the one country over two countries option, i.e. stick to Chile only. Also, 2 nights in BA isn't much to see what that city has to offer.

You would spend most of a day traveling from Torres del Paine to El Calafate too. I think the bus from Puerto Natalas takes 5 hours, and it's an hour or so to get there from the park. Only two days in El Calafate, all you'd have time to do is see the glacier on the second day, having taken most of the first day to get there.

San Pedro is at 8000 feet, +/-, so most people don't have trouble there. We had two nights there to acclimate before we went up to the high country, 15000+ feet, so that would mean only on the last day could you go to the highest elevations.

I've been to all three places, and each have something to recommend them. The Atacama provides a contrast to Patagonia. From these two trips, I'd probably go for #1.