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.

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.