Brussels or Amsterdam
 

We are trying to decide whether to fly to Amsterdam or Brussels to spend the first 4 days of our vacation. We would then go to Brugge and end up in Paris. All would be done by train travel. Thanks again for all the replys to my question about Bruge in June.... Very helpful.

Judy

Four days? Amsterdam, no contest. You'd have a hard time finding four days worth of stuff to do in Brussels. No problem in A'dam.

I agree with Marty. I'm not sure I would want to spend all 4 days in Amsterdam, though. There are neat towns nearby (for 1/2 day trips); Amsterdam can be a little overwhelming (one street/canal can be peaceful, but the next may be a loud, colorful attack of trams, bicycles, and coffee shops). That said, my experience with Brussels is limited, but I suspect that there one could have an enjoyable 4 days in and around there, too. It seems to get a cold shoulder, though, perhaps for good reason. I know I didn't give it a real chance (though I enjoyed my 24 hours there).

Will you fly into/out of A'dam? If so, you might want to head right to Paris after you land and then work your way to A'dam. If flight is into A'dam and out of Paris, then stay in A'dam four days a day or two in Brugge (skip Brussels) and the rest in Paris. Bon Appetite!

It isn't quite a no-brainer. But it's close.

Brussels can be a mite challenged as a tourist destination. But the area round the Grand Place really IS just about the most spectacular example there is of a Flemish town square.

There are a couple of unique museums.

And Bruxellois claim to have the highest concentration of Michelin stars per head of the population of any large town in the world. Relatively speaking,more than Paris. More even than Lyons. Scanning my copies of the relevant Michelins implies that, if this is an exaggeration, it's not a huge exaggeration. Brussels really is an outstanding place to eat (though it's also easy to eat really badly): Amsterdam really is one of Europe's dullest capitals for food.

The answer of course is to stay in Amsterdam. Change trains at Brussels on your way to Bruges. The Grand Place is close enough to the stations to see it - and squeeze in any museums that might interest you. Time it properly, and you can eat both lunch and supper in Brussels (Bruges is a short train ride away)

Brussels' reputation for beer really applies to Bruges as well. And unless you've pressing business with the European Commission, it's hard to see what would keep anyone in Brussels overnight.

PS. This is a question, not a criticism. The English for the town of which Zeebrugge is traditionally the port is 'Bruges'. On this board, it seems to have become fashionable to call it a number of different things - mostly approximating to 'Brugge'. What started this fashion?

You gotta go to A'dam if you're not a square :D. In one instance I drove down to Brussels from A'dam just for some Belgian waffles and chocolate @ Grand Place. Almost got deported for not having the right tram ticket after I was lost :D. Anywho, I believe it took us about 2-3 hrs to drive there (i think). So that might be something to consider. Take a day out of your 4 day trip in A'dam for a mini-day trip to Bruxelles. You could take a train or bus in case you don't want to rent a car to drive there. All you'll need is a day there.

I'd have to agree with the others - I visited both Brussels and Amsterdam for 4 days each and was far more impressed by Amsterdam. Brussels has some beautiful buildings and a fabulous square but Amsterdam seemed to have so much character, history and atmosphere. Amsterdam really surpassed my expectations while Brussels, though a lovely city, really didn't live up to what I expected.

Another vote for Amsterdam. Beautiful canals! Very colorful . . . in many ways. My sister-in-law and her family live in Brussels. We had a nice time visiting when we were there, but we live in Washington DC and in many ways it felt like DC to us. Beautiful architecture and things to see, but I really said "wow" in Amsterdam. (Big fan of visiting the Anne Frank house!)

(Brugge was also very lovely. . . however, we were there in November of 1998 and it was the worst cold spell in Europe in a while. . . detracted from enjoying the scenery and walking around.)

No brainer, Amsterdam!! :-D

The different spellings for Brugge/ Bruges are because they speak both French and Dutch in Belgium, and the two languages have different spellings for the same place.

As to the original question, Amsterdam is a no-brainer.

I can only speak to Amsterdam but it is an amazing, one-of-a-kind city. My last trip began there, 5 days before going on to Switzerland. Worked out great. The airport, train, trams, are all so efficient and make it an easy place to 'land' & get your bearings.

allovereurope:

Yes but this forum is conducted in English - not French, not Dutch. And the English for the city concerned is Bruges.

No literate English speaker uses Firenze, Athinai or Misr. Or Brussel, or Luik, or den Haag. Why has illiteracy hit Bruges?