"I am back to city" vs. "I am back in city"

Which is the correct usage when I tell someone that I am back?

I am back to [some city]

Or

I am back in [some city]

Solution 1:

FumbleFingers comment on EdGuiness answer is, I think, the real answer. When you are describing a destination, using a verb such as "go", you use the preposition "to". When you are describing a "state of being", using a verb such as "to be", you use the preposition "in".

I go to Detroit.

I am in Detroit.

I travelled to Detroit.

I live in Detroit.

Note that if you do use a non-proper noun like "city" or "town", you need to include an article.

I live in a city.

I went to the town.

Side note: "Town" without an article has a varity of special meanings. "I live in town" means that I live within the city limits, as in:

Bob: I live in the suburbs. Alice: Oh, I live in town.

"I am/was/will be in town" means that I am in the city under discussion as opposed to travelling somewhere else. Like:

"I was on a business trip last weekend, but this weekend I'm staying in town."

"We went to town" can mean that we went to the city under discussion, but it is also a slang term meaning we had a wild party or had sexual relations.

Solution 2:

I went to Melbourne to visit my old chess club.

Now I am back in London, where it is raining.

Some time soon I will go to Brisbane for the sunshine. (It's too hot there, for chess)

And then after Brisbane, I will come back to London, to the rain.

Solution 3:

The correct usage is "I am back in [some city]".

The word "to" does not work with the verb "to be" in this context, since it's used as a preposition that means "toward" or "in the direction of".

You cannot be to a location, but you can go to a location, as examples from other answers show.