donovan01

My husband and I are spending a few days in Tokyo. We're trying to decide between visiting Nikko or Kamakura. Does anyone have any recommendations?? Thank you!

rkkwan

It's been many years since I visited both, but I'd definitely suggest Nikko. It's such a beautiful, tranquil and sacred place. Only thing I remember about Kamakura is the buddha statue, which I am much less impressed.

Spygirl

I've been to both, and would definitely recommend Kamakura, since I have an affinity for big, or great, Buddhas or Daibutsu, as they're called in Japan. And the Daibutsu in Kamakura, unlike the great Buddha on Lantau Island in Hong Kong, is ancient-I believe it was cast sometime in the 1200's. Kamakura also has loads of interesting litte Zen temples and Shinto shrines in and around the Daibutsu, so it makes for a very full and interesting day trip. Nikko, on the other hand, is a bit difficult to do on one's own, not a lot of English spoken in the area, or at the shrine complex, and the Toshogu Shrine itself, while quite visually striking, is just not as interesting imo, as the sights in Kamakura. Nikko is in the heart of a national park area, so it is quite scenic, however, it's a 2 hour train trip out and back, and then you need to get on a bus for a few minutes from Nikko station to take you to the bottom of the walk up to the Toshogu shrine. Kamakura, by contrast, is only about 25 miles away from Tokyo, so the travel time by train is generally less than an hour. If you want to do a day tour to either, Sunrise Tours in Tokyo conducts day trips in English to both places.

jchong

Having been to both places, my vote would go to Nikko. Yes, Nikko is further away than Kamakura but more scenic with the Chuzenji Lake and Kegon Falls. The Toshogu Shrine is also attractive.

The main attraction in Kamakura is the Daibutsu, although some of the lanes and alleyways in the town are also quaint. But the environment is more sub-urban. In that sense, to see more of nature go to Nikko.

donovan01

Thanks so much for your input!!

Mealea

My vote is for Kamakura. I think it's more charming and intimate than Nikko. Many beautiful temples off the beaten path to explore. I've never really liked Nikko and it's very touristy.

stargazer

Nikko in the winter when there is snow is an incredible sight. Especially if you stay in a ryokan up there.

If you are very interested in temples and buddhas then Kamakura may be the better choice for you.

Elainee

Haven't been to Kamakura, but Nikko is amazing. You really don't need a guide for it, just looking is great. Plus you pass Mt. Fuji getting there. We were at Nikko during a very heavy downpour and it was still worth it.

kappa

Have been to both. Kamakura is easier to get. However, if I have to choose one for the first timer, I would be inclined to recommend Nikko. Some sites are classified as national treasures. Also try a "yuba" based meal. Yuba = literally meaning "hotwater leaves" is made of soybean milk.

Kamakura is not bad either though. The Great Buddha is ok but I liked other things such as a bamboo garden.

Elainee, I'm gald to know you liked Nikko even under a heavy rain but you had to pass Mr.Fuji to get to Nikko? I don't understand.

Elainee

Maybe you don't "have to" pass Mt. Fuji to get to Nikko, but that is what our bus did. Got great pictures of Mt. Fuji but had downpour at Nikko. If you take train or private car you probably take different route. I'm glad we saw Mt. Fuji.
Nikko in the rain was magical.

rkkwan

Nikko is Northeast of Tokyo. Mt. Fuji is to the West. From Tokyo, there's no way a bus will go pass Mt. Fuji to get to Nikko. Simply no way.

KimJapan

I think she means that she could see Mt. Fuji from the bus and got some great pictures that way. Mt. Fuji is visible from both near and far. We had a great view of Mt. Fuji from Shizuoka city one clear day, and Shizuoka is way south.

Elainee

Right again, Kim. Yes, we had great clear views of Mt. Fuji. I thought we were closer than we seem to have been, but great photos. Did not get to Mt. Fuji basecamp.

KMLoke

Actually it's tough choosing between the 2. Could only answer cos I've visited Nikko only today.

My wife and I went to Kamakura after going around the temples/shrines in Tokyo. When we arrived at Kamakura it was one shrine too many. We did enjoy walking around the town though. It's a nice way to spend a day. Would be great for hanami viewing.

Visited the Toshogu Shrine, Futarasan Shrine and Rinnoji temple in Nikko today. Amazing places. Can imagine the place would be fantastic with fall colours.

Hope to visit both again.

jib71

No way you would get a GOOD view of Mt. Fuji when travelling from Tokyo to Nikko. You are travelling AWAY from Mt. Fuji with a the vast sprawl of Tokyo between you and Mt. Fuji.

I don't deny that you can see Fuji from Nikko - it's possible to see Fuji from hundreds of miles away. (I have heard that people have sighted Fuji from Mt. Koya in the Kansai region on a fine day). So it's absolutely possible that you would see Fuji in the distance - but it would appear thumbnail size. It would be a "cool" thing to see (WOW - We can see as far as Fuji) but there is no way that anyone would call that "passing by Fuji."

So - I am trying to make sense of Elainee's post. Maybe she took a monster tour of the Kanto region - which took her past Fuji and then around Tokyo and on to Nikko (That would be a very long road trip, which I would not recommend). Or maybe she saw Mt. Shirane in Nikko and mistook it for Fuji (another pointy volcano). Or maybe she is mixing up memories from two different outings (Say Hakone and Nikko). Actually Hakone and Kamakura would be do-able. That would give you a pointy volcano and a big buddha in one combo.

Anyway - By all means go to Nikko. But don't go there to see Mt. Fuji.

kuranosuke

i wonder if the op had already gone, and is now home, and will be watching detroit sink in sa.