Coming off an international flight I would head for Ballsbridge. It is quite and leafy and about 25 mins walk to centre. Good value in ex Celtic Tiger hotels (D4 and Berkeley court) Centre of town is very compact, Trinity, Castle, National Gallery, shops and cafes.Day trip to Enniskerry or Newgrange/Dowth worth it. Skip Portlaoise, Athlone and Longford. The month of May must mean Mayfly fishing on Lough Corrib. From Oughterard head out to Inisboffin to Day's Hotel. Perfect comfort on the best island in Ireland. Great walking. Also walking in the Burren to see the gentians and violets. Tea rooms in Ballyvaughan may be open. Best pub in Ireland there. Then to Inis Meain island from doolin pier.

Dublin is a beautiful, but small city. (I am currently living abroad there). I would recommend two or three nights in Dublin and then a few nights stay on the West Coast (Galway, Aran Islands) as they are very picturesque!

I did not enjoy Dublin - went to Trinity, Dublin Castle, etc.

I much preferred Cork in Ireland proper, and Belfast in N. Ireland.

The book of Kells is slightly overrated. If doing a British Isles trip - I'd advise Cork (if not already going there), or Wales.

If you are interested in Irish history, culture, and arts there are fine places to visit in Dublin, e.g. the National Museum and the National Gallery. Both I found extremely interesting.
At Trinity College, I was more impressed by the Long Room than by the Book of Kells.

Castles and pubs are found in unlimited quantities all over the island, so I would not make them my first reason to visit Dublin. Though, against the mainstream opinion, I think it's fun to spend a weekend night in Temple Bar.

I'm kind of amazed at all the "take it or leave it" comments about Dublin. My daughter studied there for a semester, and my wife and I visited her for a week in November 2007,though we took a quick hop to London for 2 days, so really 5 in Dublin. Saw most of the sights mentioned above, but aside from those, we found it to be a very interesting, fun city to visit. Very friendly people.

Comparing it to Paris is unfair, but as part of a two-week trip to Ireland, it certainly merits a couple of day.

I'm not a big fan of Dublin, but have had my share of time to explore it (it's been awhile though) because of having family there to stay with. That's allowed a little extra time. But Dublin's not close to the best of urban Europe. It's not the most enjoyable part of Ireland, which I think more than most countries points rural. Maybe that's due in part to Dublin's lack of what other capitals have.

But I do think it's worth a couple of days. There's a huge percentage of the ROI's population living in or around Dublin. Far greater than is true of most capitals. To me, skipping Dublin means leaving without a complete picture of modern Ireland.

Alot of different views I see.

Just to up date----we are not coming to Ireland just to visit Dublin. It's that we can get a direct flight to Dublin from Chicago. Sept.2010 we had a horribly long day flying from Chicago to NY to Shannon and we'd like to avoid a transfer on the east coast of the US.

Again, we loved Westport, Dingle Peninsula, and Kenmare. Did not enjoy Killarney. This time we are looking for a few "new" places to visit even though we are tempted to revisit the places we loved.

That said I certainly appreciate the comments and I am looking into all of your suggestions.

Italian_Chauffer----Thanks for the old thread. It gives me additional food for thought.

I don't think anyone meant to "compare" Dublin to Paris. They were just stating that they "preferred" other European large cities to Dublin.

I think that Allisonm hit the nail on the head with Dun Laoghaire, it's close enough to the airport to not cause much hassle to get to - just around the M50 motorway, but is also on the right side of town to head south quickly the next day.

IMO Dublin is relatively generic, similar to London, Edinburgh, etc. the rest of the country is what you're travelling for!

cbcha said: "IMO Dublin is relatively generic, similar to London, Edinburgh, etc. the rest of the country is what you're travelling for!"

Not sure which part of this observation puzzles me most, the notion that Dublin is "similar to London," the suggestion that London is "relatively generic," or the idea that non-Dublin Ireland is "what you're travelling for." Would like to see a good, solid evidence argument put forth that demonstrates these.

I must admit that I'm a city person - and for outdoors want spectacular scenery - which is mostly not what you get in Ireland (which is pretty, calm, very green - but IMHO after about 4 days I'm finished). So - it really depends on what you want.

Don't see that Dublin is anything like London or Edinburgh except for the language spoken - or that any of them are "generic". That's like calling Rome, Florence and Venice "generic". Anyone knowing fact 1 about the history of these places, or the architecture or the culture - well - I djust don;t get that comment at all.

As for the architecture of Paris - in the 1870's Baron Haussmann destroyed most of ancient Paris to create the Grands Boulevards - the design is very impressive - but all those masses of 6 story apartment houses give me a headache. (I think Georgian is much more attrctive.)

And no one said Dubline has as much to do as Paris - but the OP is going to Ireland - not France.

We also chose to visit Dublin because we could get a direct flight from Atlanta at a cheaper fare than we could through NY to Shannon. We stayed for three nights, and enjoyed what we did there-the HoHo bus (the Guiness stop was interesting), Trinity college, St. Patrick's cathedral, an evening in Temple Bar, and just resting up a bit from the jet lag. When we hit the road, we headed to Kilkenny, which was one of our favorite stops. We had only booked one night there, but liked it so much, we extended for a second, as we had a few open days built into our schedule. Highly recommend the Cariglea House B and B-practically across the street from Kilkenny Castle.

@bachslunch
Quote:
"Not sure which part of this observation puzzles me most, the notion that Dublin is "similar to London," the suggestion that London is "relatively generic," or the idea that non-Dublin Ireland is "what you're travelling for." Would like to see a good, solid evidence argument put forth that demonstrates these."

He might be expressing a sentiment that Dublin has become closer to Westminster (and London proper) than the rest of Ireland. Surely you can not compare the Gaelic-speaking regions to the 99%+ English-speaking Dublin area. Also, the pollution in Dublin is terrible, compared to the lovely countryside one can find in just about all of Ireland outside of Dublin.

From my own experience, Dublin was essentially London, without the nice London accents.

That's not to say Dublin is a bad city - Ireland needs a good "fly-to" city, I just don't believe Dublin is an accurate reflection of 95% of Ireland, or 60% of N. Ireland

<i> just don't believe Dublin is an accurate reflection of 95% of Ireland</i>

Agree, at least geographically, but perhaps not demographically. Nonetheless, isn't that an essentially a true statement of any notable big city and the country that contains it? New York an accurate reflection of 95% of the US? Paris and France? London's not just a concentrated version of England as a whole.

IMO, as often as not, it's the contrast rather that the similarity that makes the urban experience worth including. That said, I think the urban experience in question has to pass some muster for the individual, in terms of comparing it to the cities they've already visited and presumably enjoyed. There's where I think Dublin requires some... well, more subdued expectations. Again, just my opinion. Perhaps Cincinnati isn't a pointless visit and I'm sure it's not.. but.... if you've gotten around the US a bit... anyway, I can see where one would think maybe it would be lackluster after NYC or DC or ?

But I think it would be safe to say Dublin isn't without some merit, but it also doesn't stand out for many the way many of the other capitals of Europe do. But the fact that it doesn't look like a wide green field full of sheep may be a less useful point of reference.

I've been to both London and Dublin. There are a few superficial similarities between them:

-they're cities
-most everybody speaks English there
-some of the food/drink options are similar (fish and chips places, pubs)
-there's a river that bisects the downtown
-both have some grand churches

but I'm hard pressed to think of a lot else that's the same here off the top of my head. I didn't find the Tower of London and Dublin Castle to be a lot alike. There's no grand and showy bridge in Dublin like the Tower Bridge in London, nor is there an attraction similar to the London Eye. London has an international Broadway-style theater scene similar to New York, while Dublin's struck me as more home-grown nationalist. The parks in London tend to be pretty wide open/treeless in feel (Green Park being the one exception), while those in Dublin seemed more wooded. Dublin doesn't have much of a skyline, while London does. I noticed a good bit more public sculpture on the streets in Dublin then in London. While Dublin does have ethnic food, they don't have anything like London's Chinatown or the staggering variety of Indian food. London has a subway system, while Dublin doesn't. I don't remember finding breweries or similar attractions in London one could visit or tour, but one can do so in Dublin (Guinness Storehouse, Jameson Distillery Tours). The museums in London are notably larger than those in Dublin, though I liked the museums in both cities.

I also didn't find the pollution in Dublin to be "terrible." I didn't, for example, experience smog and haze like one encounters in some US cities, for example. Of course, one might guess the Irish countryside has less air pollution, but that's not the same thing. I can say I got plenty enough of the persistently lingering manure smell experienced in some forays made into Ireland's rural interior. What I experienced of the coast was indeed nice, though.

I very much enjoyed visiting Dublin, and like a few other posters, don't understand what the hearty dislike about this city is all about. Again, there are other world cities I'd give higher priority to visiting, and I named some of these above. But Dublin's not some dull urban jungle with few attractions, either -- one might wonder if Limerick (nicknamed "stab city") better fits that description, for example.

If you are flying into Dublin to see some sites in the area, definitely spend a day or two. We really love the south and west coast of Ireland and have seen Dublin but would not return.

There are many places, Paris in particular, where we just can't visit often enough....Dublin, once was enough.

"Dublin was essentially London, without the nice London accents. "


"When a man is tired of London he is tired of life; for there is in London all that life can afford."

(Samuel Johnson)

Dublin not so much.

"Dublin was essentially London, without the nice London accents. "

Funny, I fell in love with a Dublin accent, the man behind it and the city he lived in. And I'd go back to Dublin in a minute. It's a very manageable large European city with tons of history and plenty to see for at least a few days' stay. The 1916 Rebellion Walking Tour and a visit to Kilmainham Gaol will leave you breathless; you'll learn you're just scratching the surface. I find the city captivating.