Andrea

Hi, I'm a frequent visitor to this site and enjoy this board immensely for its wide variety of viewpoints on travel. I've got a general comment to make though, and let me just say before I make it, that I respect everyone's individual style of travel and realize that some people like a slower pace and some like to see as much as possible. I generally fall into the latter group. I have seen a lot of posts which say, "You need at least such-and-such amount of days to fully appreciate this area." With all due respect, I was in Colorado Springs for 3 1/2 days in March and managed to go snowmobiling, hiked up a mountain, gambled in Cripple Creek, ate a terrific brunch at a 5-star resort, toured Garden of the Gods in depth, went up Pike's Peak Highway, checked out the Anasazi ruins, visited Royal Gorge Bridge, and drove through Phantom Canyon in a snowstorm (amongst other things). It was a wildly fun adventure. I think if people take the standpoint that they are "adventurers", you can take a faster pace and still have a great trip. Some people might actually get bored spending more than a day someplace, and I think driving is a great way to truly see an area, and thus don't mind spending hours in a car getting someplace. It's not the destination, it's the journey that counts...right?

Just another humble opinion to add to the mix of fascinating ones I read every day. I'm curious to hear other opinions on the subject.

Bob Brown

I guess it depends on what you call fast and slow!! Last year we spent two nights at the Sperry Chalet in Glacier NP. The chalet is 6.5 miles and 3,000 feet of elevation gain on a trail.
The next day we walked up another 2,500 feet and 6 miles total to the Sperry Glacier site and back.
In two days we perhaps covered a distance of 13 miles. Is that fast or slow?? If slow, it was enough exertion to be fast!!
In Yellowstone, we stayed put for 3 days at a cabin near Old Faithful, but we were going all the time, even out at midnight to watch Grand Geyser erupt by the light of a full moon. In terms of miles traversed, it was minimal. In terms of the fun we had, it was tremendous. So I go harder, longer when I am not in the car! Guess I cannot classify it.

Clark

As I read through this forum and assess people's advice I have often thought the same, Andrea. Some people enjoy more rapidly paced vacations, some more leisurely or deliberate. I vacillate depending on what my vacation goal is. I've been to Hawaii several times and have done virtually nothing there except sit by the pool, or read, go out to eat and vegetate. But that's what I use those trips for, to recharge. When in Europe, I tend to be there to 'drink everything in' and probably try to do too much in too little time. I've never gone there to relax. Mainland US trips are usually fast paced for us.
Part of your point, I suspect, is that when people advise "You must have 2 weeks to see Maui and Kauai", or similar, they're speaking via their own typical vacation pace perspective. Time frames do not apply equally to all travellers.
Personally, I like to get a broad overview in a short time when I visit someplace new, and hope to come back for the in depth experience if it appeals to me the first time.

arjay

Good to see a worthwhile, non-assinine, non-bashing conversation getting strated here! But Andrea, if you did Phantom Creek Canyon in a snowstorm -- then I can't type and answer this thread...because I'm busy bowing down to you! After I took my sister on that ride, it was hard to sell our car...the nail ridges, she'd dragged into the passenger side door was a definite detriment!

Seriously, the spouse and I have found it interesting that as we have gotten older, we are actually doing more on our trips -- stopping to see things we used to pass of as "too touristy." (Not the "trap" stuff, but worthwhile historical bldg tours, etc.)
For the sake of discussion, what about...kicking back? Absorbing what you're feeling/seeing? Do you also find the time to do that? Or want to? And do you find yourself returning to the everyday world relaxed? (You must - if this is your preferred modus operandi). We've been coming to the conclusion that even at (what some would consider) half-speed, we may be shoving ourselves too hard on trips. Last year, when we had to tuck into a motel about 2 p.m. in the Hudson River Valley, to take shelter from H. Floyd...that laid-back, magazine-indulged afternoon - with the wind roaring outside and power outages all around us - became a trip highlight. Let's hear from more......

Andrea

Well Arjay, funny you mention that, since sometimes I wonder if we try to do TOO much on vacation. Actually, one day after that CO trip, I got in my car and drove 10 1/2 hours to spend five days on the East Coast, two in NYC. I did come back from all that vacationing a little exhausted, but exhiilarated from seeing all those wonderful things. I'm 23 and only get a couple weeks a year to travel, so I like to make the most of it. However, I do see the advantages of a "take-it-easy" vacation. If I were to do that (as I hope to do on my honeymoon...someday!) I would want to be in a tropical location in a very nice hotel. Since that's out of my budget right now, we stay in lower-end hotels and just DO a lot of stuff. However, I will admit to one lazy night in the hotel in CO, watching "American Beauty" on pay-per-view. After all, everyone needs to relax once in a while.

PS Phantom Canyon in the snowstorm was one of the scariest things I've ever done...but it was great! We were completely alone on that road, which was just a little creepy, but incredible all at the same time.

Joy in VA

My family includes me & hubby, & 2 kids 6 & 12. Where we go & what we do is planned around kids lots of times and the kids have slowed us down inrecent years. I am a roller coaster / theme park lover and, before kids, fell into the "theme park commando" mode ANYWHERE we went, with the objective being to see & do as much nonstop as possible. If I went to historic town, by golly I was going to do the maximum number of house tours possible! With the kids we build in rest days in trips, esp the little one travels better & enjoys things more when we can spend a day lazing around the pool after a day of intense activity.

topper

going up!

dan woodlief

I am of the type to try to cram a lot into a vacation because I just don't get enough of them. My wife likes to see a lot too, but she is more inclined to take it easy. We probably don't compromise enough for her. She still talks about how we saw most of four islands in Hawaii on our honeymoon, and she didn't spend enough time on the beach. When in Europe, she generally lets me plan. Our best compromise was in Mexico, where we spent about five days just on the beach, but also visited Uxmal, Coba, Chichen Itza, Merida, Xel-Ha, Tulum, Cozumel, and Isla Mujeres.

I think what you really miss by rushing too much is time to get to know a place and its people. With that in mind, we try not to rush around from city to city and hotel to hotel too much.

veronica

Just an example of the differences within a family: Each year, one brother takes his wife and 2 teen-aged sons to a time-share resort at either a Carribean Island or snow resort. My other brother has no time-share, and usually takes his wife and 3 teenaged sons on one long driving trip of one to two weeks each year. Our parents, who are in their 70's, don't like to fly and will take long driving trips all over the U.S. and Canada. They try to go and see and do as much as possible, and their stamina is amazing.I prefer going to one destination and relaxing.

Frank

I have come to prefer vacations with fewer hotel changes, but still chuck-full of sightseeing and just plain exploring. This is especially true for my trips to Europe where I prefer seeing one or two cities in depth, rather than runnng around like a madman. I also try to leave one morning, or a full day "wide open" (nothing scheduled to see or do) and use that time to wonder around and just soak in the atmosphere. However, there's alot to be said for both approaches to tourism.