Brugge vs Amsterdam
 

We (2 of us) did some pre-planning back in December for our upcoming trip to Europe ... and now are having a second look at those plans.

Our current plans are as follows:
Day1 - travel -- fly from western Canada to London; Eurostar to Brussels; arrive early evening (good likelihood we'll be exhausted from the day of travel);
Day 2 - Brussels - day to look at the city sights;
Day 3 - Brussels - day trip to Brugge;
Day 4 - Brussels to Amsterdam by train mid morning; afternoon/evening in Amsterdam;
Day 5 - morning/afternoon in Amsterdam; early evening train to Brussels;
Day 6 - morning train to London.

We are locked in with our Eurostar tickets; all hotels can be cancelled.

Questions .... have we allotted enough time to the different spots? should we spend Day 3 in Brussels and then Day 4/5 in Brugge instead of Amsterdam? is this itinerary to busy ... to much time travel time?

We like to get a a good overview of the city sights and prefer to take some time to 'smell the roses' and not make it a track meet!

Personally, I loved Brussels and wasn't that interested in Brugges. It was okay, cute quaint little historic town. You didn't leave much time for Amsterdam.

Why not? What are your interests? Both Amsterdam and Brussels have great art museums.

We are more interested in looking at the sights and taking in the local ambiance.

How long did you spend in Brussels, Brugges and Amsterdam?

We went to both Brugge and Amsterdam last year and loved both, but they are very different places. We ended up spending 1.5 days in Brugge and 5.5 days in Amsterdam, and wished we had more times in both places. With such a short trip, I would probably choose one of them instead of both.

Forgot to mention - we also spent 1.5 days in Brussels on that trip. We thought a couple of days in Brussels was enough, but it depends on your interests.

We spent 5 days in Amsterdam and surrounds, 2 nights in Rotterdam. 2 days in Brugges, we made a day trip out of Brugges, 1 day in Brussels.

I'd give Brussels the least amount of time. Brugge is worth 2 days (no major sights, but very cute/quaint - could be done in a full day); Amsterdam is worth 3. I'd stay in Amsterdam and Brugge and get off the train in Brussels for a few hours. Just my opinion.

It really depends upon what you want to see in Brussels. The museums like the Magritte Museum, Royal Fine Art and the Horta (which we missed :(. I love the Art Nouveau buildings and accents. I would have like to stayed an extra day, plus I just liked Brussels.

I don't mind a sleepy little town for a little rest but not for too long.

You don't have much time..
If you are not interested in museums in Brussels, you could see the city sights in a day.
Although Brugges is lovely (also small and often very crowded), I would spend more time in Amsterdam .

Agree with Danon about Amsterdam relative to Brugge and a quick look at Brussels.

BTW, spent two nights in Brugge (the natives prefer the Dutch/ Flemish Brugge - roughly 'Brrew-her') the weekend before last with the day in between partly taken up by a train trip (cheap weekend return fare 4,20 euros) to Knokke on the coast and tram (all day anywhere along the coast ticket 6 euros) to De Haan about half way to France (interesting to see how the locals have their holidays by the sea, but not particularly 'scenic'). That still left enough time to see quite a bit of Brugge old town (but not museums), especially late afternoon/ evening after the day tripping tourists had left. Fairly crowded, but not uncomfortably so during the day I thought, but if it is like that in late March I wouldn't even contemplate going in the high season. The problem is exacerbated by the extremely narrow footpaths and IMO surprisingly irresponsible speed of some vehicles (for all I know there may be more pedestrians-only zones in the high season and the local vehicles may have been having a final hit out).

FWIW was very pleased with my accommodation in Brussels and Brugge, Scandic Grand Place Hotel and Hotel Loreto respectively.