What European city/area would you travel to, and why?

Ignoring the time involved in travel, if you only had a very limited time to be somewhere - what location would you pick?

Paris, or maybe Paris.

As a second choice, I would go to Paris.

The Rhine.

Engleberg, Switzerland or Cerbere, France

Paris

Good morning, My choice would be Venice, as I can leave home and be sitting the the Pza S. Marco by noon the next day, ready to find a most excellant place for lunch, and to look forward to a most excellant repeat visit to a place I love..
Richard of LaGrange Park, Il..

I don't think that you can really ignore time to travel if you're really going to do this sort of thing.

But this year, I've spent two long wekeends in Paris, one long weekend in London, and one long weekend split between London and Paris. I flew out of NYC after work on Friday and flew back on a Monday evening flight.

The next year I may be a little more adventurous and investigate Italy for potential long weekend trips. I think that the flights are probably at least an hour or two longer than transatlantic flights to London/Paris form NYC.

Since I enjoy being in cities, I would only consider flying to cities for trips like these. Furthermore, availability of direct flights would also be an issue for me.

If it's only a quick stay, I won't have time to "get my bearings"...I'll have to hit the ground running. That means staying somewhere I've been before. But someplace I really need to see more of.

For cities, that would have to mean Paris. As much as I love Venice, I feel as though I've covered it pretty well. There is so much to see in Paris, I could spend two months there and still feel cheated.

For non-city areas...I'd have to say the Bernese Oberland. I know my way around there pretty well, but there is a ton of hiking and sightseeing I didn't get to do the first time.

Paris. If you've been to Paris, get to know it better. If you've been to Paris many times and want something different, London. I don't think you can ignore the time to travel if you have a very limited time to work with. Ignoring travel time, I would still go to Paris.

A few weeks ago I would have said Paris... but maybe it really IS time to return to Italy...its been <gulp> 30 years! So? Florence or Venice.
I'd go just to see if the buildings have changed much.

>Florence or Venice.
I'd go just to see if the buildings have changed much.<

They are much cleaner since the 2000 cleanup.

Paris, London, Prague, Venice, Florence, Rome, or Paris
why? Because I've been there before, because I always want to go, and a few days is just enough time to renew the relationship.

For a new place: Amsterdam
why? because I haven't been there and would like to 'get it off the list' (or, fall in love and keep it ON the list), because from what I've read one can hit the highlights in 3-4 days, and because it's not really on the way to the other places I love

1) Madrid, just because of the short distance from airpot to downtown Old Madrid
2) Kikutstua (The tourist cabin with the view), located some 20 kms north of Oslo center, right in the wilderness, with a moderate big lake, some small waterfalls, fresh air, skiing, bicyclig, treking. Paradise on Earth.
3) Paris
4) Madrid
5) Madrid
6) Paris

And after that, twicewise Kikutstua, and then one more vote for Madrid, and at last a lot of votes for Copenhagen

Happy travelling,
Bjorn, Oslo

It's true. Madrid's airport is only about 15-20 minutes away by cab. It's amazingly close. In fact, I made a flight at 11am when I left my hotel at 9:05 (not by choice -- I just misremembered as to when my flight was leaving) with plenty of time to spare.

I also love the center/airport connection via the train at Amsterdam. Amsterdam's airport strikes me as amazingly well designed and thought out.

I've heard that the Copenhagen airport is also very close to the city center, but I've never been.

Thumbs down for London and Paris in this regard.

Given the short time involved, I am not sure. The overhead costs in money and time of just getting there are considerable. And in some places weather and time of year play a major role.

If I had two payoff days, I would opt for London. Several reasons.
First, if you get off track, you can easily ask for directions, and understand the answer!

Second, there is so much to see indoors in London that weather and time of year matter less than, for example, the Berner Oberland in Switzerland.

Now don't get me wrong. In the past 7 years I have spent far more time in the Berner Oberland than any place in Europe, including Paris.

But given limited time, and the need for something to see regardless of the clouds, I say go with London. You can book a play or plays in the evening, and schedule blockbuster attractions for the rest of the days during normal business hours.

I will not even start comprehensive list, but just for openers: the British Museum, St. Pauls, Westminster Abbey, the various government buildings (Parliament), and tons of smaller museums like Sherlock Holmes, Florence Nightengale, the Wallace collection, and on and on.

Ignoring the time involved in travel - I would choose Rome. But I would sure hate to leave after just a weekend or a few days.

My fake Italian is better than my fake French, so I guess I'd pick Rome because I could flirt so much more easily right off the bat.

Then again, my fake Spanish is almost not fake. Madrid?

Even though it would be a short visit, I'd choose a place on my wish list where I have yet to go.

Prague would do it for me, amongst many other cities.

Paris because it is so immensely walkable. Maybe I could return to Madrid or Sevilla so I could say they are "so easy to explore" too.

That's an easy answer for me. Either Vienna or Rome. They're my all-time favorites, I know those cities very well, so there would be zero time lost in getting oriented, figuring out how to get from here to there.
In fact I am now keeping my eyes peeled for a cheap flight to either city in the first quarter of 2005.
I'd like to leave on a Friday and return Tuesday.