But there are some, I know, who'd love to visit a place that's not unlike it was 25 or more years ago, if only they knew where.>

OK scratch Paris and visit Etampes; ditch London and vist St Albans; ditch Venice, Florence and Rome and visit unknown Italian towns. Amsterdam is not unique in changing under the weight of tourism. But it is totally unique in its gorgeous canals and old facades lining them and world-class art museums, etc.

Why did OP pick places like London, Paris, Amsterdam in her wish list - probably because she has been dreaming about visiting those places forever and should or be wondering forever what they were like.

<<Why did OP pick places like London, Paris, Amsterdam in her wish list - probably because she has been dreaming about visiting those places forever and should or be wondering forever what they were like.>>

Could be. Could also very, very well be that she had no idea of what other options there were, y'know? Isn't that in and of itself a reason to come and ask questions on a travel board?

I always have, still do, consider myself lucky when chance leads me to a conversation with someone who can enhance my life by pointing me toward something I had no knowledge of. We all travel in different ways and I'm of the pay-it-forward school of travel and know some appreciate it, as I do. That's what I know. Tired advice is what it is. I prefer quality to quantity.

In The Netherlands, almost all 16th century cities will have canals and harbours, Except for The Hague (not a trading city) and Rotterdam (bombed in 1940). Other than that, go to Leiden, Hoorn, Enkhuizen, Utrecht, Amersfoort, Haarlem, Alkmaar, Dordrecht, many Frisian cities, Groningen, up to a point and you'll see a similar cityscape, with the architecture that Amsterdam also has.

I know a number of people on the Netherlands subforum try to point out other locations than Amsterdam (or Brugge): I know that I do that not because I hate Amsterdam so much or because it has become super hideous all of a sudden, but because there's much, much more to The Netherlands, and visiting there will nowadays be more fun, and cheaper and will get you a more authentic Dutch experience than staying in Amsterdam will get you.

because I hate Amsterdam so much or because it has become super hideous all of a sudden, but because there's much, much more to The Netherlands, and visiting there will nowadays be more fun, and cheaper and will get you a more authentic Dutch experience than staying in Amsterdam will get you.>

enough of that complete BS - those other small Dutch towns are nice but what is there to do in them but look at their compared to Amsterdam few canals? Shopping streets are produced like cookie-cutters make cookies - all the same.

What Amsterdam has for the foreign tourist other towns do not:

Rijskmuseum - van Gogh Museum - Modern Art Museum - all 3 world-class

Plus dozens of neat smaller museums like the Maritime Museum; Reubens House; Dutch Resistance Museum; Jewish Museum; a branch of St Petersburg's Hermitage Museum; the eclectic Troppen Museum and dozens more
+
Anne Frank House
Dutch Royal Palace
Canal Boat Trips

The Jordaan - never seen anything to compare to this canal-laced area of ancient canalside facades in other Dutch towns (and I've been to them all mentioned above).

Plus many many more canals in central city than any other Dutch town

And things our veteran travelers will diss but which many average travelers will like:

Heineken Experience
Hashish Museum
Sex Museum
The Red-Light District - number one tourist draw in Amsterdam I understand
and
Coffeeshops for those inclined to partake of cannabis sold from a posted menu quite legally - yes I really do like the atmosphere of many and a good place to relax after day of trekking around

And an ecelctic nightlife for all ages- world-class jazz places; famous youth centers like legendary Melkweg (Milky Way) and Paradiso - anyone under 30 will love a night there.

Lots of folks out walking around at all hours of day and night

vs smaller regional towns where they roll up the sidewalks at shops closing times though most other towns will have coffeeshops and pubs and music too - bigger towns like The Hague and Rotterdam of course will have many more and more nightlife, etc.

But there is absolutely no valid reason to say NOT to see Amsterdam and instead go to a smaller town only. First see Amsterdam and if time yes one of those smaller towns.

But enough of this complete nonsense about not visiting Amsterdam and heading to say Den Bosch instead - like skipping New York City and staying in some New Jersey town instead. IowaLacey do NOT miss Amsterdam if going to Netherlands!

One of the very nicest and gorgeous cities in Europe.

You forgot Leiseplein square and Vondelpark and Tropenmuseum.

"But there is absolutely no valid reason to say NOT to see Amsterdam and instead go to a smaller town only."

Saying others' contributions to the discussion aren't "valid" is yet one more reason (among several) to pay no attention to this particular poster. There are perfectly sound reasons to forego Amsterdam in favor of other cities.

Saying others' contributions to the discussion aren't "valid">

no not for what the common first-time tourist is looking for -if you think that you are WAY out of touch with what novice average tourists are looking for - so out of touch to be ridiculous.

Would you stay in Chartres or a smaller French town near Paris and not go to Paris - about the same- whatever can be said of Amsterdam being too touristy applies to Paris to and many other tourist magnets like Venice, Florence, Rome and even central London- yup skip them all and stay in smaller cities with very little to do for the average tourist.

Lacey skip all those famous cities in your starting post and stay in unheard of small towns instead? Sure but that is what some here are proposing as Amsterdam is not unique in what those folks find so problematic.

Amsterdam is my least favorite of the major European cities I've visited, for what that's worth.

"Would you stay in Chartres or a smaller French town near Paris and not go to Paris..."

Another example of failure of imagination. I would, in fact, stay outside a city, always have since the beginning, for the ambiance. However I would travel into the city for particular reasons - though you failed to think of that, apparently, as an option.

There are all kinds of travelers, new ones and old ones, though hopefully not so many old ones they have, like PalenQ, forgotten there are even people new to the game who have an imagination. And small towns with plenty to do if you like what they have.

OK you would suggest staying outside of Rome, Venice, Florence, Amsterdam, London, etc and day tripping in?

You would miss the vitality of such cities at night - and be bored as heck in your hotel room? Your choice but most would rather stay in the famous cities where there is a pulse at night and also not spending an hour and $$ commuting each way into the city and back.

I stayed in Haarlem near Amsterdam my last several visits because it was much cheaper and I had stayed in Amsterdam so so many times - but I would never recommend that to a first-time traveler - would you suggest staying in say Padua instead of Venice? Or St Albans instead of London> Not me because there is so much to do at night in those places. But you would and that is your opinion and is as good as mine of course though again I think out of touch with what most first-time travelers want. They want to go up the Eiffel Tower at night or take a Seine boat trip after dark or take in a London theatre at night - or just stroll with many other strollers - things lacking in most smaller nearby towns.

How many guidebooks recommend that? Why not?

Here's a current thread talking just about this all - should I stay in Barcelona or outside it? And nearly all say to stay in Barcelona - and that I think is typical for Amsterdam, Paris, London, Venice, etc:

http://www.fodors.com/community/euro...-barcelona.cfm

Maybe the bottom line here is that PalenQ is simply not able to see beyond his own narrow preferences, or understand the fact that we're all different, whether on a first trip or a 50th. What he describes as an apparently silly approach is all he can imagine of the possibilities available to us when we travel. And that guidebooks are mostly written for people just like him. The rest of us do better, always have done better, knowing there's a world beyond them. And beyond him, thank god.

Or maybe Amsterdam's really cool?

So to be clear Mme Lost - you do recommend for first-time travelers to NOT stay in London, Paris, Amsterdam, Venice, Rome, Florence, Barcelona, Munich, etc and instead to stay in a smaller town outside and commute in? Right?

And you think most first-time travelers would be better off doing that? Based on what? Your opinion - well let's agree to disagree on that and move on.

"...you...recommend for first-time travelers to NOT stay in London, Paris...most first-time travelers would be better off doing that?"

Not necessarily. I don't recommend anything for everyone all the time. We're all different and THAT'S my point, the part you seem unable to see.

>>no not for what the common first-time tourist is looking for -if you think that you are WAY out of touch with what novice average tourists are looking for - so out of touch to be ridiculous.<<

Now -- THAT is ridiculous. Sorry PQ, but you simply do not play fair w/ people asking for real/usable advice. You recommend places you have never visited, have visited maybe 20 years ago, and once in a while - someplace you've visited in the last decade.

You are always talking up places your 'young French son' enjoys -- omitting the small detail that he is now an adult and has kids of his own.

Or the £15 B&B in SE London -- that charged £15 twenty+ years ago.

Or the London Dungeon - where you have never set foot.

Or that 3 days is more than enough for the typical first timer to London or Paris or Rome and longer than that will bore visitors.

Not helpful . . .

If there's anyone around here who's seriously "out of touch," it's our pothead.

Janis has rather emphatically told many a person who was thinking of staying in remote parts of London what a mistake that would be -citing times and costs of commuting, etc. Same with Amsterdam IMO.

Menachem- thank you for the background. My point was that there had to have been local support for the deregulation, though. Real estate companies and governments are made up of locals more often than not. Locals fall on both sides of the debate. I would have been on your side. I don't like chain stores, and there's nothing as depressing as a historic center that resembles a high end mall more than anything else. But there are plenty of locals here on the opposite side, because of the same reason you mentioned. It costs money to restore and renovate historic properties- money that mom and pop tenants can't fork over. I don't know...I don't like it, but I can see the opposing point of view. Do you want old building torn down or left to deteriorate? because without deep pockets, that's what happens. If you renovate a building like that, it's understandable that you would want a return on your investment.

I love small towns but I travel for museums, and I don't enjoy long commutes. So while I'm not arguing that other parts of NL are less lovely than Amsterdam, I wouldn't stay in a different city to visit Amsterdam museums. I want to walk out of my hotel door and be there. I agree with mmeperdu that one size doesn't fit all but I don't think first time visitors in Paris would want to stay in a less central neighborhood, let alone in Chartres. No one's opinion is invalid- everyone has different preferences- but I can't see recommending a less central location unless it specifically ties in with the OP's interests.

On the other hand, I have actually met a lot of fellow travelers who visit places just because. People who pick a city just because it's a famous city. They don't open a guidebook, they just think Paris sounds romantic. I don't get that, but it happens, so I can see recommending other places if they want to see the "real" NL and don't have a specific interest in Amsterdam.

And another aspect that occurred to me- I certainly think first time tourists can have a skewed view of Europe. You've just got to look at the countless threads on whether or not white sneakers and shorts will make you stand out as an American. I got some really strange questions from friends about Paris especially after I got home. Paris is a major city, not an idyllic fairy tale frozen in time. So sometimes threads here are less about giving advice and more about figuring out what image (or illusion) the OP has in mind for their trip.

Lol, palenq, I thought the same thing. I don't really agree with everything you've said, but some of the same people who are championing staying in an entirely different town also say it's best to stay central. Direct contradiction there. I'm trying to picture Janisj suggesting staying in Bath for people who ask where to stay in London, and cracking up. That would be the equivalent of staying Chartre for Paris! It's a three hour round trip, and if an OP posted that as part of an itinerary, the thread would just leap off its tracks.

Just wanted to add to the previous posters that traveling in Europe demands time - there's just SO MUCH to see and do wherever to you go and so many insanely beautiful things (not just the "attractions", but also enjoying the way of life which is SO different from what you'll find in America) that cities (especially big ones, like the ones you're talking about) really need some time (and don't forget about the killer jetlag, that will take a day of your trip).

As an example, I'm traveling to Europe in three weeks. Its my third time there (I'm Peruvian) and I'll be there for exactly 19 days. All I'm doing is Madrid (visiting friends) for 4 days with MAYBE a day trip to Segovia - but I'm even doubting whether I actually want to do that since there's some much to do in Madrid (and I've been there before for 4 days) and then afterwards just Portugal - and even that feels rushed! I'll only be in Lisbon for 4 days and I'm already kicking myself for adding an extra town in Portugal and not allowing for more days in Lisbon. That's just how it is with Europe. So take it easy and enjoy. Trust me, once you are there, the whole fear of missing out will disappear and you'll fall in love with everything around you.

There have been some great itineraries here and they all make great points. If it was up to me, for my first European experience (and knowing I might not go back for a while) I would definitely go to Paris (it has to been seen at least once in a lifetime) for 4 nights (remember your first day will be hell), then Rome for 3 nights, 2 nights in Venice and 2 nights in Florence - and then MAYBE add 2 nights in Barcelona before leaving. IMO its easier to get a feel of Barcelona in a couple of days than with London, which for me really demands some time.

Anyway, whatever you choose to do, just relax and slow down a bit. Three (or at top 4) cities in 13 days is plenty.

some of the same people who are championing staying in an entirely different town also say it's best to stay central. Direct contradiction there. I'm trying to picture Janisj suggesting staying in Bath for people who ask where to stay in London, and cracking up>

Everytime I mentioned that 25 pound (not 15!) B&B I had in New Eltham (last time 7 years ago not 20!) janis would poohpooh that - emphatically citing reasons better for staying in central London - but now she would say it's OK to stay in some Dutch town well outside of Amsterdam! (And my son has no kids and I have been to London Dungeon!).

Anyway there are valid points to staying in smaller towns but IMO more valid points, like janis always gives for staying right in central London, for staying right in towns like Amsterdam!

OP - Lacey in Iowa - if still around - think over your overall trip plans (which anyone would say are too ambitious) as stated in your first post and then start a new thread with your new itinerary and then folks can help you make a workable and more realistic plan - you can't see all of Europe in 13 days but settle on 3 or at most 4 places and figure in travel times in between.

Ps. Regarding the discussions about whether to visit small towns or not, I get the same in Peru. For me, Cusco and Machu Picchu are just SOOOO touristy and crowded when compared to other smaller places that I love. I don't go to Cusco: I travel to Chachapoyas, Huánuco and Túcume. Places no tourist ever mentions - and I've tried to sway tourists and travelers but way, but most of the time I understand people are paying an expensive ticket to travel to Peru because they saw Machu Picchu in a book when they were kids and have been dreaming about seeing it in person for their entire life. And you know what? Although for me its crowded and insane, they go and they LOVE IT. It's a dream come true - so let them enjoy it. Most people won't be able to afford a second trip to Peru (or to Europe for that matter) and it doesn't make sense for them to be here and remain wondering for the rest of their lives what Machu Picchu must have been like. I'm guessing its the same with Paris or Rome.

I do get some travelers that are very clear that they want to travel to off the beaten track destinations and enjoy a more "genuine" experience, but they usually have already traveled to some world famous destinations and discovered that's just not their thing.

Palenq- your opinion on the London Dungeon? Is the same sort of thing as the SF dungeon- you know, Jack the Ripper is loose and actors dressed up in costume, rats may eat your limbs? I got a free ticket to that once- it was good fun but I can't see spending money on it.

Is that b&b still in business? If so, link? I'm curious to know what 7 years has meant in terms of inflation;)

Yup very much that ilk - London Dungeon which is why cultural elitists stick their noses up at it - it's for pure fun and yes shock - but I indeed have not been to the the new Dungeon which is in a different location and by its web site all the more 'lively' than before; see web site:

https://www.thedungeons.com/london/e...oaAiejEALw_wcB

It along with Madame Tussauds one of London's very top few paid entry sights.

Actually indeed I was there when it was at its original just down the Thames - with my son about 20 years ago, I admit- but even then, it was what it was cracked up to be - like Jack the Ripper night walks - as scary as possible in the grim setting of an old dungeon. At that time the special effects were crude to what I imagine today's London Dungeon to have.

So the web site shows you what to expect and is it Kitsch - most certainly so - but nothing wrong with that once in a while.

It is not the cup of tea for the "average" visitor to London I think and with its really really scary cost to get in -I would and have only recommended it perhaps for families with adolescent kids above a certain age to consider as I always think for say teens dragged along on a 'cultural' trip it is nice to have something just pure fun for them!

Janis - curious as you have no doubt been to the current London Dungeon and what's your take on it?

Talking about London things may be relevant to OP.

>>Janis has rather emphatically told many a person who was thinking of staying in remote parts of London what a mistake that would be -citing times and costs of commuting, etc. Same with Amsterdam IMO.<<

PQ -- read through this entire thread. You must have me confused with someone else since I have not recommended once that the OP should stay in central OR remote neighborhoods OR some other town and not in Amsterdam. I have not participated in that part of the discussion in any way.

And for what it is worth London is definitely a special case - it is the largest city by far in western Europe and staying on the outskirts is foolish - wastes LOTS of time and transport £££. The same does not apply equally to everyplace.

iowalacey: I sincerely want to apologize for your thread going soooooo far off track.

Me too, lowalacye, and PalenQ, if you ever get back to Europe, let us know. Your POV are singular, to give them the very, very slight credit they deserve

I can't even see adolescents finding the dungeon worthwhile, if that's the case, lol. You suggested that or did someone want to see it and include it in their itinerary and you defended it? I could see the latter happening- it'd be like waving a red flag in front of a bull around here. If it ranks high in trip advisor, it's only because thousands of people got it as part of a city pass and thought "why not?" I'm not an elitist- my family really enjoys the corny stuff- but the dungeon was a new low that I did not think existed. There's plenty of cultural stuff to do in London that kids would enjoy, anyway.

Iowalacey- you may just want to start a new thread with the practical itinerary you plan to do. People tend to read only the first post so at this point this thread won't get you much useful stuff for the cities you choose.

>> Amsterdam, London, etc and day tripping in?

In Amsterdam's case? Absolutely, because distances by train are so short: Utrecht to Amsterdam: 20 minutes, Haarlem to Amsterdam: 15 minutes.

Utrecht would be my choice: gorgeous city, history more ancient than Amsterdam, great nightlife, because of a large student population. Etc.

(Or Groningen, the largest Danish city outside Denmark, but no commuting to Amsterdam then, but it has its own RLD)

As I recall, the London Dungeon is just wax casts of people strung up in cages, Jack the Ripper doing his thing, and lots of fake blood. There's nothing to be seen here, except the creepy neighborhood.

MmePerdu - the website comes up any way you put it in Google.
Just so you know.

Shoreditch is a nice area - not too far away by Underground.

Just to chime in.
You all know I'm Belgian, thus not enclined to find lots of good things to say about the Dutch ;-)

However Amsterdam is one very nice city and tourists will NOT notice the bad sides of the city when visiting it for 1-2-3 days.

So I fully understand that one wants to see it as first destination in the Netherlands.

After all when I first went to US, I wanted to see NYC, LA, etc. Not Philadelphia (a gme in my eyes) or ...

I liked Utrecht a lot actually, never been to Delft (wanted to see the oracle though) nor Rotterdam (keep hearing I really should go) but went to oh real small NL towns such as Emmen where all - ALL - restaurants close at 6 32 pm. Except our hotel which had just opened and was in the middle of fields. Lovely but a little bit boring :-(

Maastricht is great btw. Normally it should have been annexed to Belgium if I understood it well, but French army failed at their attempts to seize it when they came to help us and gave a good trashing to the Dutch (ehehe). It is in that siege that d'Artgnan died (one of the 4 musketeers).

(Thanks Uncle What for all these lovely stories ;-), now time to bed children... )

Emmen, please! I went to school there, and left the area as soon as I could.

What on earth were you doing there? Did someone blackmail you?

13 days and six countries!! That is some blistering pace.In other words you travel by night and sightsee by day ?? Would love to read your TR....

;-) Menachem.

Now you know why I am biased towards Nederland !
Made all the way there, had a meeting at 10 which finished at 12 and the guy I met (a colleague at that) didn't invite me to eat (and I would have paid !).

Janisj.....don't apologize for other's rudeness.
Some people just like to hear themselves talk even if with a keyboard.
Take it to the Lounge folks....

Not everyone is important enough to have access to the Lounge.
I am not allowed for one.

"Iowalacey- you may just want to start a new thread with the practical itinerary you plan to do. People tend to read only the first post so at this point this thread won't get you much useful stuff for the cities you choose."

Marvelmouse is right Iowalacey, it would be a good idea to post a new thread with your itinerary as it is now. This one got hijacked!