florence or rome?

Old Jul 29th, 2005, 07:27 AM
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
florence or rome?

my husband and i are planning a trip to italy in april of 2006 and were wondering if one does not have the time to see both places , as we are planning to see other places as well, which one would be the best choice? i have never been to either and my husband and i have read about both and they both seem wonderful. any help /advice would be great.
alanna40 is offline  
Old Jul 29th, 2005, 07:44 AM
  #2  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Rome. But the two cities are only 1.5 hours apart by train.
PalQ is offline  
Old Jul 29th, 2005, 07:55 AM
  #3  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Gotta agree. There's so much to see in Rome. And just to experience dwelling in a city among all those Roman ruins is amazing.
Mimar is offline  
Old Jul 29th, 2005, 07:56 AM
  #4  
ira
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi al,

How long will you have in Italy?

My preference is Florence.

ira is offline  
Old Jul 29th, 2005, 07:56 AM
  #5  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Really decide what you enjoy the most: major city with incredible art and plethora of churches or smaller, more "walkable" city with incredible art and less than a plethora but enough churches. Both noisy (Rome more-Flo had pedestrian historical section) and busy. IMHO, Rome would be the choice because of St. Peters, Roman ruins, Piazza Navona and Bernini. More to see outside in Rome?
donco is offline  
Old Jul 29th, 2005, 08:03 AM
  #6  
sockboy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
You say that you are planning on seeing other places as well. I would make my decision based on this. If, for example, you also want to go to Venice and Siena, then choose Florence, as it will make for a tighter itinerary.
 
Old Jul 29th, 2005, 09:01 AM
  #7  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm with Ira, Florence. I've been twice and am returning in November. Florence haunts my dreams!
Margaretlb is offline  
Old Jul 29th, 2005, 09:05 AM
  #8  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Another vote for Rome, as much for the atmosphere of the city as for its historic and artistic attractions.

Rome is vibrant and bustling (and takes a wee bit of getting used to; I would suggest spending at least four days), while Florence is a rather placid provincial city, which tends to seem even more crowded than Rome (the streets are narrower) and hotter (the stone palazzi absorb the heat all day and they never really cool down even during the evening).

Of course, if you're absolutely mad about Renaissance art and architecture, Florence is the place to go.
Eloise is offline  
Old Jul 29th, 2005, 09:09 AM
  #9  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It depends (of course). How long do you have?

If 1-3 days, then Florence (a much smaller city) makes the most sense.

If you have 4-8+ days for one city, then Rome is the obvious choice.


BTW, Central Rome has some busy areas and some areas that are completely pedestrianized and quite tranquil.
bardo1 is offline  
Old Jul 29th, 2005, 09:20 AM
  #10  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,755
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Roma - most definitely! The most ancient of cities with a wonderful history....as they say, all roads lead to Rome.
Huitres is offline  
Old Jul 29th, 2005, 09:22 AM
  #11  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
hi guys, we have two weeks and are planning to see the chianti region, sienna , and probably lucca. we were thinking of spending 3 days in each area. so we only have 3 days for one of the cities. sounds like florence would be more time friendly.
alanna40 is offline  
Old Jul 29th, 2005, 09:30 AM
  #12  
sockboy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Based on your time restraints and the other areas you are going to, I would say Florence for sure. It feels like a better fit for this trip. Save Rome for another time.
 
Old Jul 29th, 2005, 09:35 AM
  #13  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Both cities are great and each has its own character, and it would be nice if you can visit both cities. However, I suggest Rome if you can visit only one city.

francophile03 is offline  
Old Jul 29th, 2005, 09:42 AM
  #14  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Since you are going to Chianti, Siena and Lucca, I would definately suggest Florence. Save Rome for another trip when you can add the Amalfi Coast on!

But, I don't see why you need 3 days in Siena and Lucca, they're great day trips when staying in Florence...you might just have time for Rome too...
cjacob is offline  
Old Jul 29th, 2005, 10:07 AM
  #15  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,041
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I agree with cjacob. While Lucca and Siena are both great, I personally think that three nights in each is a little excessive.

My vote would be for Rome. I absolutely love Rome and can't get enough of it. However, given your itinerary Florence may be a better fit. I think it really depends on what your tastes are.

Tracy
tcreath is offline  
Old Jul 29th, 2005, 10:37 AM
  #16  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This may start to sound like one of the introductions to a Fodors book on Rome but......If you had 10 days in Rome would you try to do a day trip to Florence? I just booked my tickets, hurray, first time to Italy and thought we should just do Rome in November for ten days. Deborah
DeborahAnn is offline  
Old Jul 29th, 2005, 10:42 AM
  #17  
cmt
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can't possibly choose for you without knowing anything about you, your preferences and quirks and your other plans. I prefer Florence myself.
cmt is offline  
Old Jul 29th, 2005, 11:05 AM
  #18  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I love Rome and agree that it needs a fair amount of time.
Since you said you are staying in each areas, it's hard to tell if you are staying in Lucca and Siena for 3 days (nights?-makes a difference).
I'd choose Florence over Siena and think a day and a half works well in Lucca (e.g. 2 nights), unless you plan a day trip from there (Barga,Pisa, cinqua terra,etc.).
DeborahAnn
You may want to start a new thread for your question. On the surface, if I were to do a day trip (assuming by train)from Rome my preferences (in order) are:
Pompeii (but a long day)
Orvieto
Florence
Again,this depends on your likes and if you have ever been to any of them.
jabez is offline  
Old Jul 29th, 2005, 11:12 AM
  #19  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 95,401
Received 12 Likes on 11 Posts
Having been to neither, for myself I would choose Florence. Because I often travel solo, and it is my impression Florence is smaller therefore less intimidating than Rome. Since I am more of a "soak up the atmosphere" instead of "see the historical sites" kind of person, Florence would be a better fit for me.

This may or may not be similar to you and your husband, for sure geographically Florence fits better with your other destinations.
suze is offline  
Old Jul 29th, 2005, 11:13 AM
  #20  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
thanks,jabez, you are right about starting a new post, first I will do a search (Just in case Ira is around ) I was mulling over the possibilities when I saw this post and Florence and Rome both appeal to me. Deborah
DeborahAnn is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Do Not Sell My Personal Information


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:08 PM.