marvelousmouse

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.

jimenal

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.

PalenQ

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.

jimenal

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.

marvelousmouse

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

PalenQ

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.

janisj

>>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.

janisj

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

StCirq

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

marvelousmouse

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.

menachem

>> 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)

fuzzbucket

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.

fuzzbucket

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.

Whathello

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... )

menachem

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?

inquest

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....

Whathello

;-) 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 !).

quiltingmamma

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....

Whathello

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

Scootoir

"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!