Florence or Venice
 

Hello Experienced Travelers,

I'll be traveling to Italy in October and will be spending a few days in Rome. I have to head north to Switzerland but have the opportunity to spend a day and half in another Italian city. I'm a 28 year old male and I've never been to Italy before and will be traveling alone while I'm there. If I had a day and half to spend in another Italian city would you say Florence or Venice is a better choice? Or would you recommend another Italian city?

Thanks for your help!

We could advise better if we knew your interests. Each place has different things to offer and some may be of more interest to you than others. . . love or hate: art? seaside? architecture? shopping? hiking? museums? history? wine? food? cars?

If you are a lover of Renaissance art and history, go to Florence. But Florence has to grow on you. Its buildings are somber stone. The streets are packed with cars except in the pedestrian zones in the center. The Duomo (cathedral) is a sight to see. someone described it as looking like a huge medieval spaceship plunked down in the middle of town. But it's mainly an art lovers' town, with wonderful museums.

Venice is flamboyant, colorful, with those amazing canals. The views along the water are lovely. You can wander around back streets, getting lost, without cars in the way. The architecture is very different fromFlorence.

Does that help you decide?

Charnees must have been to a different part of Florence and Venice than I was in.

But I think ellenem is right about stating your interests in Italian culture, and also your travel likes and dislikes. It might be that you would adore a completely different Italian city.

I'll also just toss out that you might enjoy staying y in Rome, because after a few days there, you will have just begun to learn to navigate the city, and you will have spotted a few places you might want to spend more time exploring.

Whatever you learn here, can you wait to book the next place until you've actually seen Rome?

The historic centers of Florence and Venice are quite different and I think most people would agree that Florence is not renowned for its beautiful buildings, but for its art. Venice is spectacular visually. I don't know what zeppole means by her remark, although she tends to be a bit condescending. BTW, I have been to both places several times. I am speaking of what a one-day visitor would experience.

Frankly, I prefer Florence, but it takes getting used to and exploring, which you will not have time to do.
And of course you could stay in Rome longer, as there is an overwhelming amount to see and do there. But if you want a brief introduction to another city, that's what I am trying to help you with.

Flip a coin; you can't go wrong with either.

I love Florence and totally disagree that it takes getting used to. I loved it at first sight and I think the architecture there is wonderful and beautiful.

For a one day stopover definitely see Venice; there's no other city like it. I don't know if you're flying or taking the train but I've done both and one of life's wonderful moments is exiting the train station and seeing Venice before you. Approaching by water did not have the same impact.

I went to Italy last September for the first time, and went to Venice and Florence in addition to Rome.

Personally, I would do Venice. It's just SO different.

I think if you were keen on seeing the David, for example, you would have already made the choice to go to Florence.

So if art isn't particularly your thing, I would go for the whole experience of Venice. And that's how I felt in Venice - it was an experience for me that was totally different from any other city I've been in.

I agree with all the comments that it depends on your likes and dislikes. I just got back from my 5th trip to Italy and would suggest if not Venice and you only have a day or so you may want to consider Orvieto or one of the larger hill towns. I do not know if you’re driving, but if not Orvieto is accessible by rail. In my view if I had the choice of Venice and Florence or Venice I would choose the latter for its uniqueness

On this last trip I used Montepulciano as a base to visit the Tuscan Hill Towns and then took a train from Chiusi to Orvieto where I spent two lovely days.

Good Luck
Willem

I will say right up front that Florence is not one of my favorite cities and Venice is. Yes, Florence is packed with the best art in the world but, do I hear screams? art is not everything (I know, I know, it is for some of you). I like great walking and hanging out places. Venice is a fantasyland for grownups. Everywhere you walk and get lost, or ride by vaporetto, or cross to islands is like a dream. For just a day or 2 there's no contest.

Haven't been to Florence yet, but I loved Venice. For my family it is one of our fav places - and we were there in the cold of winter!

If your goal is to see an Italian city, I don't think Venice and Florence are the best choices merely because they are mostly composed of foreigners. However, Venice is a visual delight for wandering and churches, and Florence is an art and church lover's paradise. They are both fascinating places. Venice is more expensive.

Oh "The Serene One" of course.

Venice

IF between Venice and Florence...IMHO Venice. But totally agree that yo might get a betrer "feel" by staying in Rome, and perhaps taking a train up to Oriveto for the day, for example.

Adrienne, i know just you mean about the jaw dropping first view of Venice as you exit the train station.

I'm with joannay.....VENICE. Just so beautiful and apart from art (& we are not into art) and the Cathedral we found Florence to be 'another' city but VENICE WOH.

I am not sure I understand your full itinerary but it sounds as though you'll be in Rome for a few days then would go to Florence or Venice then on to Switzerland. If you really don't have a strong sense of what you'd like to see I would say stay in Rome which is hard to enjoy in fewer than three or four full days and maybe take a day trip to Orvieto or Ostia Antica from there. It is also possible to go to Florence from Rome on a long day trip which would avoid having to change hotels.

Hi Ing,

I suggest that you either stay in Rome or skip Rome and split the time 1/2 and 1/2 between Florence and Venice.

You are not going to get more out of a flying visit than to be able to say that you have been there.

((I))

Get EXPERIENCED yourself, Inggolfer, and here's one way to do it:

IGNORE posts that whine about some place or other being full of "foreigners" (which undoubtedly INCLUDED the person who made that comment, no?)..what does being full of ANYBODY have to do with this other than to tell you there's obviously some reason a lot of people GO to these places (or are they all just stupid?)

Secondly, if you really want HELP, get off your duff and RESPOND on this thread. people are actually trying to help you and when they ASK you what your interests are it is at least POLITE to answer the question.

Dukey1, you don't have to be rude. I was making a simple point about the fact that you're going to hear other languages half of the time in Florence. If you can still have an "Italian" experience surrounded by that, good. Some people are annoyed by it so I mentioned it. If you want to see Florence's art and history, great, but I don't think of it as a quintessentially "Italian city". Sorry it bothered you so much.

I also think it is unreasonable to assume everyone who posts a question at 6:23 p.m. expects to have to come back and respond to questions before noon the following day.

A while back one of the travel magazines had an article on "Florence people and Venice people, and I think this thread confirms that.

Actually I agree with Charnee's characterization, and for me, it's Venice all the way. I think October is a perfect time to go. When I organized a trip to Italy for my four sisters and me we spend 3 days in Venice and bypassed Florence--for their first experience, I wanted them to go places where people would generally be nice to them, and staying at a good locanda in Venice we got exactly that. Also they could navigate by walking/by water. Both places get tons of tourists for obvious reasons but Venice was a little more laid back, relatively, than Florence, IMO. I also find it much easier to navigate than Florence.

But I have friends who very strongly prefer Florence and would disagree with everything above!

I can't agree with the "just stay in Rome" perspective. If I had just a few hours, which I recently did between trains, I'd want to spend it wandering in Venice. The fact that it's on the way to the final destination lends even more legitimacy to the desire to see another place that's completely different from Rome. It's Venice and it's right there. How could one not stop?

Unforgettable Venice.

Wow! I finally found out I am not the only one who wasn't as impressed by Florence! I acknowledge that we didn't spend much time there and so agree that it might indeed be a place that "grows on you". Since OP doesn't have time to do that I think a short stop in Venice would be perfect. It is indeed great fun to just walk around and doesn't require the heavier planning experience of somewhere like Rome (which is our favorite italian city). Also, not sure what your traveling stlye is but my daughter and friends stayed in a hostel in Venice and enjoyed meeting other travelers. Since Venice is so compact it didn't matter as much that they were not right in the center like bigger cities, it was cheaper than a hotel, and they met other travelers. I think Venice would be a nice spot for a solo traveler.

I spent three days in Florence and two weeks in Venice. And I could happily return and spend a month in Venice!

I think that with just a day and a half, I’d go to Venice. In that time, you can start to get a feel for Venice, even if you don’t visit the main tourist attractions. You can walk from one end of Venice to the other in a couple of hours, and it is quite a small town.

Just being in a place with no cars or scooters is pretty special, and so different to Rome. The silence is quite something.

No one has asked the logistical question of how you will get from either Venice or Florence to your destination in Switzerland. If going by train, you'll spend less time getting to Florence and onward to Switzerland, rather than Venice.

If this trip is October 2011, you might want to investigate lodging availability in both Florence and Venice, and you might end up making your choice depending on what you find.

FWIW, I vote for Florence.

ahhh. to be in that dreamlike state that no other than Venice can give....

3 times is NEVER enough for me. Cant wait to go back someday.

Thanks for everyone's responses. I think from everyone's posts I can't go wrong but have chosen Venice as the best choice.

Aother vote for Venice, without a doubt this is where I would go.

You made the right Choice, been to both twice and there is only one answer and you got it right

Venice is a permanent tragio-comedy. There is the historic sense of importance, an elegant conquering of the water (and the always possible threat of a re-conquest), and a true sense of romance, but then you have the schmaltz of San Marco, the unabashed tourism, singing gondoliers in their striped shirts and hats, and the gaudy glass work. And at times it all seems rather silly.

Florence is the tourist epicenter of Italy, even worse than Venice. There is the brillance of Brunelleschi, one the finest art museum in the world, and the residue of past grandeur, plus a city where you can visit other Tuscan towns. But the crowds can be maddening.

No stranger can make the decision for you, it is your job to learn about the two and decide.

I agree with Aduchamp1, and I'll add that you can't decide which you prefer until you've visited both.