"I spent three days in Paris."

No you didn't.

You flew in on day one, exhausted and useless. You flew out on day three, packing and rushing to the airport. That's really one full day in the city. No wonder it felt like a blur.

This is the mistake almost everyone makes. So let me give you a simple rule for how long to actually stay in a place.

For international cities, three full days is enough.

And I mean three full days on the ground. The day you fly in and the day you fly out don't count. Treat those as buffer. So three real days usually means about five days total, door to door.

I didn't just pick that number out of the air. I landed on it after years of trips and a lot of thinking. Here's the thought process I go through.

First, find the big things the city is actually known for. Not every little thing. The real headliners. In Paris, that's the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre. Give about one day for each big thing. I'm not saying one sight will eat the whole day. It might, but if it doesn't, you can fill the rest of that day with smaller stuff nearby.

Then add one more day to just wander. No agenda. This is usually where the trip actually comes alive.

That's three days. Enough to see almost everything and really feel a place, without feeling rushed.

Side trips are extra. If you want to day-trip somewhere outside the city, tack those days on top. They don't come out of your three.

Now, at home in the United States, I say two days is enough.

These are basically weekend trips. I've honestly never felt the need to stay longer than two days in an American city.

Why less? The US is a young country, only about 250 years old, so there's less old-world history packed into each city. You can get the feel of most American cities in a weekend and move on.

Of course, this is a general guideline. Every city is different, and so is every traveler. Some of you move fast. Some like to go slow. Some just want to sit at a cafe and do nothing, which, honestly, is a great way to travel too.

There are a couple of times I'd throw the rule out.

One is if you're working while you travel. If your days are eaten up by a job, you have way less free time, so you'll need more calendar days to get the same experience.

The other is if you're going somewhere specifically to eat. Food travel needs more time. Trust me, I've tried to cram nine restaurants into a day, and all I got was a stomachache and a list of places I still didn't make it to. You can't eat a whole city in two days.

Here's the part that matters most. Getting this wrong isn't equal in both directions.

If you stay too long, it's not a big deal. Sure, you could have saved some money. But you can always find something else to do, or just relax and enjoy the place. Worst case, you rest.

If you don't stay long enough, that one stings. You leave with FOMO, knowing you missed things. And if that city is far away or expensive to reach, going back is going to cost you big. That's why I'd rather give a place like Tokyo too much time than too little. Getting there is a whole journey. I'm not about to rush it and then pay a fortune to return for what I missed.

So when in doubt, lean toward more days, not fewer.

And yes, I break my own rule all the time. I once spent two weeks in Mexico City. In my defense, I was eating my way through the whole place. I'm a big fan of slow travel when a city earns it.

But if you just want a solid rule of thumb to plan around, this is it. Three full days abroad. Two at home. Adjust from there.

It takes the guesswork out of planning, and it keeps you from ever feeling like your trip was one big rush to the airport.

Which city did you give way too little time?

Keep Traveling,

Andrew