bsandov_10

I really appreciate all the tips and even the sarcastic comments

We realize we may be rushed and cramming too much into a few days but I wanted to gather a general consensus and see if it was possible.

Our flights were indeed veeery cheap so we are landing in Brussels. We aren’t against spending time there, we just thought Paris and Amsterdam would be more appealing.

More than likely we will only choose to visit one of the cities and spend some more time in Belgium. So if y’all have any advice on Paris vs Amsterdam or things to see/do in Belgium please feel free to share.
Thanks!!

menachem

Go to Paris: the art, the city itself are far better than Amsterdam. Also you'll be able to find comparable hotels that are cheaper. Amsterdam is generally more expensive than Paris.

janisj

Ether would be great and I enjoy both cities very much. But IMO for a first visit it should probably be Paris. More 'iconic' sites, probably a little cheaper accommodations, and in general Paris sort of soaks up the crowds better. The main sites in Amsterdam are in a pretty concentrated area so it can feel a lot more crowded - especially with the thousands of bikes whizzing past constantly. Amsterdam just feels more hectic. (Don't get me wrong, Paris has very crowded bits too)

Either is an easy trip from Brussels - but It honestly boils down to which one has more sites/things YOU want to see/do.

JessicaBr

I agree with Janisj. Both cities are very nice in their own way. But you need to decide what is important to you.
And maybe you can do a day trip to Ghent, Antwerp or Brugge. That is not so far away from Brussels and very pretty!

kerouac

You will be wrong not to spend any time in Brussels. It is a mostly ugly but utterly charming city. To that you can add Amsterdam or Brussels but not both.

Carolmom

Hi, ironically enough I was on this forum a couple of years ago with the question of how to divide my time in Prague and Austria after having found really cheap air fare to Amsterdam!. I learned as well, to just fly to where you want to go because you'll spend more money getting there somehow anyway.
Having said that, I really liked the 24 hours we had in Amsterdam (especially the Rijksmuseum) and could have done with more. Haven't been to Paris yet, but am in the midst of planning a trip there and it looks to have a ton more to offer for a few days's time.
You'll have fun no matter what you do but I would definitely train, not fly, as you'll have more time seeing the countryside and less in security lines. I'd suggest you pick a couple days somewhere in Belgium and add 1 other city - you'll save money, time and stress and you won't regret it.

ssander

Agree with janis...go to Paris...forget Amsterdam (though it's a great city).

• First overnight in Brussels, if only to allow for early (non-refundable) train booking the next day. You could spend a half-jet-lagged-day and another 2/3 day and take a late afternoon/early evening train to Paris.
• Then spend all the remaining time in Paris except -- as recommended - back to Brussels the evening before your flight home.

If you want more variety than just Paris, take an extra night in Brussels and use the full day (day after your arrival) for a day-trip to Bruges or some-such.

You won't be sorry spending more time in Paris than you had planned.

ssander

kerouac

Obviously I meant to write "Amsterdam or Paris" -- but you all corrected that yourselves, I hope.