Comparing Rome neighborhoods to NYC
May 17th, 2010, 08:53 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comparing Rome neighborhoods to NYC
I know this is not an apples-to-apples comparison, but I was hoping that someone could suggest Rome neighborhoods suitable for me after reading what I like/dislike about NYC neighborhoods. (I live in NYC) I'm not really ready to start narrowing down ideas for specific hotels yet, rather I am trying to locate some suitable areas of the city where I'd like to stay for three nights during our honeymoon. Thanks!
So anyway, if I was visiting NYC, I'd want to stay in Manhattan. But I'd very much want to avoid the uber tourist spots like Times Square in favor of a more intimate, downtown neighborhood like SoHo, the West Village, or Tribeca. We're not Upper East Side types, but definitely not Williamsburg types either.
By no means am I saying that I want to avoid tourists, rather I'm saying that we're hoping to stay in a real, working neighborhood (unlike Times Square) where we can soak in some Roman history at amazing cafes and enjoy fabulous people watching.
Any New Yorkers care to help me out? What's the SoHo, Tribeca, or West Village of Rome?
So anyway, if I was visiting NYC, I'd want to stay in Manhattan. But I'd very much want to avoid the uber tourist spots like Times Square in favor of a more intimate, downtown neighborhood like SoHo, the West Village, or Tribeca. We're not Upper East Side types, but definitely not Williamsburg types either.
By no means am I saying that I want to avoid tourists, rather I'm saying that we're hoping to stay in a real, working neighborhood (unlike Times Square) where we can soak in some Roman history at amazing cafes and enjoy fabulous people watching.
Any New Yorkers care to help me out? What's the SoHo, Tribeca, or West Village of Rome?
May 17th, 2010, 10:37 AM
#4
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a native New Yorker but grew up 15 minutes from the city and go back often. I spent a lot of my childhood with my aunts who lived on West 11th Street and were dressmakers - loved the ecletic company they kept!
These days I stay in Murray Hill when visiting Manhattan as I like feeling like I am living in a neighborhood versus tourist central yet I am convenient to everything I personally need and want. I have stayed there often enough to have a preferred nail salon, dry cleaner and a regular spot to enjoy a glass of wine while deciding where to walk to for dinner.
In Rome, I like to stay off the Via Veneto at Sofitel Roma or near the Colosseum on Via Capo d'Africa at the hotel of the same name.
For the West Village as it used to be in the 80s, Trastevere is the closest I can compare. Campo di Fiori might evoke SoHo.
This is a great thread and I look forward to reading everyone's thoughts!
These days I stay in Murray Hill when visiting Manhattan as I like feeling like I am living in a neighborhood versus tourist central yet I am convenient to everything I personally need and want. I have stayed there often enough to have a preferred nail salon, dry cleaner and a regular spot to enjoy a glass of wine while deciding where to walk to for dinner.
In Rome, I like to stay off the Via Veneto at Sofitel Roma or near the Colosseum on Via Capo d'Africa at the hotel of the same name.
For the West Village as it used to be in the 80s, Trastevere is the closest I can compare. Campo di Fiori might evoke SoHo.
This is a great thread and I look forward to reading everyone's thoughts!
May 17th, 2010, 11:18 AM
#5
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other than the fact that Williamsburg is in Brooklyn . . .
Perhaps you should look on vrbo.com for apartments near Piazza Navona, which is not in the center of a string of tourist sites (although the plaza itself is one). But the parallel you're drawing is really weak -- Rome is a sizable city and its tourist areas are spread out, not concentrated in a couple of square miles in a small section of one portion of the city as you seem to imagine. And unlike New York, the Roman subway system doesn't cover the city well (there are two lines), although the bus system is faster and sucks far less than in NYC.
What you seem to want to avoid is staying on a shopping street (Via del Corso) or in the immediate vicinity of the Spanish Steps. This is easy to achieve -- but don't conflate staying in a "working neighborhood" with a fine tourist experience for three days.
I'm entirely uncertain how you're going to soak in Roman history at a cafe on a side street in a neighborhood far from what you would call the "tourist sites" considering that those sites are what make up "Roman history." And there is an aspect of and 'I'm visiting the zoo' attitude to your notion that you will have "fabulous people watching" in these non-tourist areas -- are you trying to see the native fauna in their natural habitat?
Perhaps you should look on vrbo.com for apartments near Piazza Navona, which is not in the center of a string of tourist sites (although the plaza itself is one). But the parallel you're drawing is really weak -- Rome is a sizable city and its tourist areas are spread out, not concentrated in a couple of square miles in a small section of one portion of the city as you seem to imagine. And unlike New York, the Roman subway system doesn't cover the city well (there are two lines), although the bus system is faster and sucks far less than in NYC.
What you seem to want to avoid is staying on a shopping street (Via del Corso) or in the immediate vicinity of the Spanish Steps. This is easy to achieve -- but don't conflate staying in a "working neighborhood" with a fine tourist experience for three days.
I'm entirely uncertain how you're going to soak in Roman history at a cafe on a side street in a neighborhood far from what you would call the "tourist sites" considering that those sites are what make up "Roman history." And there is an aspect of and 'I'm visiting the zoo' attitude to your notion that you will have "fabulous people watching" in these non-tourist areas -- are you trying to see the native fauna in their natural habitat?
May 17th, 2010, 03:35 PM
#7
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You said you're not a "Williamsburg type" in discussing the type of Manhattan neighborhood you were referring to.
And why wouldn't you go see "tourist sites"? The monuments of Rome draw tourists for a reason -- they are fascinating repositories of Roman and Italian history.
And why wouldn't you go see "tourist sites"? The monuments of Rome draw tourists for a reason -- they are fascinating repositories of Roman and Italian history.
Jun 13th, 2012, 05:33 AM
#8
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh boy. some people are just nasty and rude! I’ll never understand why someone would give sarcastic advice…
When is your trip? I am a New Yorker living in the East Village and headed to Rome for the first time the last week in June returning on the 4th of July. I will take note of some NYC/Rome neighborhood parallels and answer your question upon my return if it’s not too late for your honeymoon?
When is your trip? I am a New Yorker living in the East Village and headed to Rome for the first time the last week in June returning on the 4th of July. I will take note of some NYC/Rome neighborhood parallels and answer your question upon my return if it’s not too late for your honeymoon?
Jun 13th, 2012, 05:54 AM
#9
If you want to avoid a so-called "Times Square" area then both the P. Navonna AND the Spanish Steps might qualify in some people's opinion. And then there's the St. Peter's piazza and of course, the Trevi Fountain. These places are usually loaded with tourists as are parts of Trastevere, especially at night.
Whatever you do, don't give a second thought to that notion of some parts of the city not being "the real Rome."
How can they not all be "real" since they are there and whether you like what goes on or not.
It's like saying Greenwich Village isn't part of the "real" New York.
Whatever you do, don't give a second thought to that notion of some parts of the city not being "the real Rome."
How can they not all be "real" since they are there and whether you like what goes on or not.
It's like saying Greenwich Village isn't part of the "real" New York.
