Florence or Venice
 

Hi everyone,

My husband and I are planning a two city vacation in Italy, Rome would be the first city. We are split on the second. For those that have been to both, would you suggest Florence or Venice as our second destination?

Thanks, May

Hi H,

If you insist on going to Rome, definitely Venice over Florence.

((I))

Assuming the logistics work, Venice.

Hi Hopalong,

You really could have a very nice trip to all 3 if you wanted. If you have a full 14 nights in Italy that would give you enough time to see the best of the 3 cities.

If you only want to see 2 cities, it really depends on what your interests are. There is lots of great art and architecture in both Florence and Venice, but they are worlds apart in atmosphere!

Of everywhere I've visited in Italy, Florence was my least enjoyable. It just seemed extremely dark, crowded, dirty, noisy. I would go back, but I would not stay in the city, I would stay in Friesole (SP?).

Just my 2 cents worth! Good luck planning. You will find the Fodorites definitely have their own favorites!

The question may be what is important to you and your husband. Florence may have more to see, especially if you are interested in art or the renaissance; however, Venice is a delight to experience. Perhaps you could juggle your schedule to see both. Perhaps stay in Florence and take the train to Venice for a day. If this is a one and only trip to Italy I would strongly urge seeing both.

You don't mention in what season you are travelling. Winter in Venice can be awfully wet and grey -- though we had splendid bright clear (fairly cold) weather there in January, 2004.

But Venice in summer? Oh, the smell of those canals!

(I agree, though, with some others that overall Venice is the more magical place -- and this is from someone who lived 4 months in Florence, in my youth)

Actually, Venice has more to see than Florence, unless you want to just be immersed in the Renaissance. Not being a huge fan or Renaissance art and architecture myself, I've always found Florence to be boring--in addition to the aforementioned pollution, traffic, crowds, noise.

Of course, Venice also has some notable Renaissance art and architecture, but it has a lot more variety than does Florence. And it is a much more interesting (and safe) city to walk and explore.

Venice for its absolute uniqueness and beauty

Hww many nights do you have?

Venice would be my choice if you can only pick one city--nothing like it in the world. And we were there in late June -- no crowds or "smell".

However,
I don't see why you can't get a taste of Florence on your way. Stay one night in a centrally located hotel. In 24 hrs, you can see David and the Uffizi (with reservations), the Duomo, climb Giotto's tower, shop, and have time for a great dinner and gelato, of course.
What a shame to miss it when you're passing right by it!
I don't know how often you get to Italy, but if it's not often, I would do a quick visit to Florence. It's a beautiful city.

I love both cities equally, but comparing Venice to Florence is like comparing apples and oranges.

Many people hate Venice because of the smell of the canals. Many people hate Florence because it is too "arty." But this I know is true: before you die you MUST see Michaelangelo's DAVID at the Accademia in Florence. The statue is one of those things, like The Great Wall of China or Angkor Wat, that leaves an impression with you for the rest of your life.

May,
I'd say Venice. There is nothing like it.
Have a great trip!
Travelatte

I vote for Venice!!!

MY

If this is your first trip and you may not return soon, I'd try to fit in all threee. Of the three, I like Rome LEAST.

It is all about opinion. Both are superb.

Florence gave me my love of Italy and all things Italian. I found it a wonderful city just to walk around in - but I was there in a beautiful early March, and it wasn't that crowded. The view from Piazza Michaelangelo across Florence is one of my favourite sites.

Venice is equally wonderful (and equally crowded) but IMO is less "Italian". Staying in Venice itself, and strolling around the canals after the bulk of the tourists have left is magical, as is a trip down the Grand Canal early in the morning.

You could get a taste of both by doing 3 days in each, allowing a day for travel between them, but I feel you really need much more time to fully appreciate either destination.

For those of you who are recommending that May do all three cities, she doesn't say how long they will be in Italy, so you really don't know if there is enough time for all three. With only enough time for two, I would choose Venice. Florence is full of art, but Venice has plenty, too, and that wonderful atmosphere that is only Venice.

I'd skip Rome,,,,but you can do all three easily . Florence perhaps, as someone said, for just a day or two. Venice IS magical and worth a couple of full days, and I guess Rome (if it is your first time). Depends on what your interests are. It's always fun to go to small towns and cities in the countryside, like in Tuscany (Siena for example), but if you want major cities, then you have chosen 3 nice ones. (not much help am I,? since your question was for just TWO!!) sorry. You can fly open jaw...into Rome and out of one of the other cities. We usually have a car, but you would want to go by train probably, since the three are big cities.

venice! Even though it`s crowded,at least there are no cars. Venice is a very romantic city. In Florence, I couldn`t stand all the mopeds everywhere. It was just too noisy. If you do go to Florence, stay outside the town and take the train in.

If you can, at least visit Venice for a day, take the train from Florence. We have visited Venice for short periods, and really enjoyed it. It's always better to stay longer, but sometimes it's not possible. So go for the short trip, if that is all the time you have. You may be lucky like us and get to go back for a longer time.
PS We're ladies in our middle 60's to 75. And going to leave again in late February for another adventure. Don't know where, depends on airfare. And I plan our trips and we travel very often and usually very economically.

I agree with Willit that Venice seems less Italian (or at least my dream of Italy, which leans more to the Renaissance and Middle Ages and not the byzantine/eastern influences found in Venice). And I think Venice can sometimes border on a theme park atmosphere. (I have worked in Beverly Hills for 30 years and feel it also is now just a theme park compared to its past.)

We know some Venetians who live and own businesses there, mostly non-tourist oriented, and they carp endlessly on the tourists flooding in and changing the feel of the place by their very out-numbering presence and overwhelming pressure on public services. But I think that complaint could also be said about Florence in high season.

The advantage to Florence is that one can be outside the busy city in a matter of minutes, and there is much to see in the area. I also find the food in Florence to be better and cheaper. Venice is generally more expensive for everything.

I, too, am curious how many days you have planned for the two city trip. I agree with a previous poster that if you had two weeks then you could easily encompass all three quite easily by train and have a "grand"(canal) time. The month would also be another factor in a recommendation.
Are you out there, hopalongmay? Because if this trip is a one shot deal for a long time, I'd suggest all three. Rome for the Vatican environs/ruins; Florence for the museums/cathedrals; Venice, indeed, for the magic; all three for the gelato. Fly open jaw if you can, into one city, train to the second, and fly out of the third.

I always grimace when the Florence/Venice debate gets going. It totally depends on what you want.

Advantages, IMO, to Florence:

The best Renaissance art and architecture
Great food and food markets
Wonderful shopping
A "city feel" if you are looking for that
Easy access
A heart of Italy feeling
More bang for your buck on a budget

Advantages of Venice:

Truly unique
Very romantic
A wider swath of art history
And if we are talking about art museums, I enjoy the Accademia more than I enjoy the Uffizi

Although I really like Venice and am going again for 4 days in March, I like Florence better. I like the food better, and I know that I get better food choices within my budget. I like the surroundings better, and a quick dash by bus or train to a nearby Tuscan town is pretty simple. Even though the city gets crowded, there always seems to be something really Italian going on: a protest, a festa, a holiday of some sort. In Venice, I see mostly tourist life; that isn't a bad thing, but it doesn't give me the same flavor.

All that said, for romance and the most unique surroundings and scenery in Europe, you can't beat Venice.

I thought it might be helpful to list my pros and cons rather than say go to one or the other. And ask yourself, which one are you dying to see? Which has the things that you really want to experience during your trip?

Have a blast and Happy New Year!

I'd like to add my vote for Florence, since I am such a fan of Bernini - and the Renaissance, that I can't imagine Italy without them! It's true that Florence is very arty, but what's not to love about the art! In addition, you're in Tuscany! Worth a trip to Sienna or Montepulciano, or Rhadda or Greve!

Venice IS charming, but crowded or not, it is empty of Italians, and the food at some of the restaurants along the canal and the Rialto can be, well, awful! Venice is worth a trip, but if this is your first visit to Italy, save Venice for your second trip (you WILL be back!)

I have to say that Rome is my absolute favorite!If you're not going in the summer,I would definitely recommend Venice as your second city.It's a very personal thing,though.We all fall in love with different places for different reasons.

In the last three years my wife and I have taken two 14-16 day trips to Italy. In both cases we spend roughly three days each in Florence and Venice with the balance in Rome. I think it worked out perfect actually. Florence and Venice are so different it is tough for anyone to pick for you, as you can see above. Both our trips were in the summer and the canals in Venice smelled like any other body of water btw.

Ciao.

It's very interesting and amusing that there is a debate about which city is the "best" one to visit in Italy. As others have said, they are each unique, with wonderful things to see and do. For myself, I love Rome- it was the first stop on our first trip to Italy, and it gave me what I felt to be a "pulse" of the country. (much like Paris or London give a pulse to their countries)

I am an artist and thought I'd love Florence, and everything people have said is true. The art is great, the food spectacular, etc., but, in the end, I did not like the personality of the city. That's a personal taste, I think, but I found Florence noisy and cold with perhaps a feeling of arrogance. ( It was not a language problem- my husband speaks Italian) Perhaps it was because we traveled in October, towards the end of the season, and the perhaps the people of Florence were just tired of tourists.

I love Venice. It is truly unique- if you enter the city through the train station as we did, you walk down the stairs of a pretty ordinally train station to a spectualar scene. As we entered the city, we both were transfixed- it was a little like " you're not on Kansas anymore." It a wonderful city to explore, and we're going back for 4 days in May at the end of our trip to the lakes and the Dolomites.

Incidentally, althouh we find the cities to be to be that pulse I talked about, we probably enjoy the small towns even more. For later trips, keep in mind visits to other parts of the country- Tuscany, Umbria, the Amalfi coast, the CT, etc.

Whatever you decide, it will be a glorious holiday- enjoy!

-Margret

Re: comment that Venice is "empty of Italians." It depends on when you go and where you go. My trips there have been in the fall, and then if you venture off the Rialto--San Marco jaunt into the back areas, you will find few tourists and lots of locals. I found that in Florence it's harder to escape the madd(en)ing crowds. I was in Florence last in May 2004 and felt positively claustrophobic with all the tour groups and such.

As a city, I prefer Venice. But Florence has all the Renaissance goodies that make it hard to beat artwise.

Thanks everyone,

We decided on Venice as our second city for our 8 night stay in Italy the last week of February. To complement the hustle and bustle of Rome, we decided to go with the more magical and romantic of the two. Although I do love art and enjoy historical novels set in Florence, we decided to go another time so that we can also explore the Tuscan countryside.

Thanks again everybody...happy traveling..may

Venice is not empty of Italians. 60-7000 live there, and it is one of the most popular spots for Italians to visit on long weekends and vacations.

Yes, along the infamous "Daytrippers' Alley" there is a high proportion of bad/mediocre restaurants and cheesy souvenir shops. But you don't have to spend all your time in Venice in these areas. A 5-minute walk gets you out of that high season madness.

Do a little research on a place before you go, and you might be surprised at how your experience is improved.