To not visit Rome on a trip to Italy?

Here's the scenario....2 adults, 9 days to sightsee in Italy and 1 problem: we can't fit it all in!
Trying to decide between Florence-Venice, Florence-Rome or Venice-Rome. Would also like a a bit of down time to relax in a beautiful slower paced area.

I should add that we both love architecture, arts and culture, and that my co-pilot spent 2 weeks in Rome years ago.

Absolutely not scandalous! Rome will be there for your next trip!

If someone's trying to tell you it is, then you could respectfully suggest they take their own trip there rather than trying to direct yours. It's your holiday, do what you like.

You should visit the places that most appeal to you and don't listen to others who try to foist their opinions on you. With only 9 days two locations is good. Rome is a major city and deserves a good 5 days for a first visit. You can do Rome next time.

I would choose Florence and Venice. Venice is very relaxing, once you get away from the St. Mark's tourist crowd. You'll have enough time to take a day or half day to visit Padua from Venice or do a day trip from Florence.

So does Florence-Venice and maybe CT or a bit of the Tuscan country make sense? Should we play CT by ear depending on weather? What is important to us is 2 big culture filled cities and then some down time.

I have been to Italy 4 times and have yet to set foot in Rome. Hit the airport once but picked up a rental and fled. I think it will be several more trips before I even consider Rome.

As Patrick said - this is your trip so do exactly what you want. You don't need to fluff someone elses self esteem by allowing them to convince you that you are doing something wrong if you don't heed their advice.

From your description of interests a combination of Florence and Venice with some time in rural Tuscany would fit the bill. You could accomplish that with an open jaw flight between Venice and Rome, and just using Rome as an airport base. On our last trip we landed in Rome, rented a car at the airport and drove through Umbria and Tuscany (5 days) before dropping the car on arrival in Florence (4 days) and then taking the train to Verona (3 days). It would work in reverse too, allowing you to spend your quieter time at the end of the trip but you would want to stay near the Rome airport on the last night.

That makes sense Aramis, thanks!

There are also plenty of ways to have "down time" in Florence and Venice. By splitting the time between Florence and Venice, you will have more time in each place, giving you the luxury of time for a "down time" afternoon. Ride the bus to Fiesole, sit at a cafe overlooking Florence, and linger over a drink. Ride a vaporetto to Lido or San Erasmo and take a walk on a beach.

(I did not visit Rome until my second trip to Italy. In more than two dozen trips to Italy, I visited Rome perhaps 1 in 4 trips.)

<i>Is it scandalous...

To not visit Rome on a trip to Italy?</i>

It's perfectly acceptable. It's your trip and your money. Do what makes you happy.

Absolutely not! We did not set foot in Rome our first trip to Italy. Our next trip though, we'll spend 8 days there. Future trips will include other Italian areas...cannot do them all in one trip.
With 9 days, Venice-Florence with some day trips (maybe) sounds like a good option. But because you both love architecture, arts and culture, you might not even consider any day trips.
You will love it!

The pace depends on YOU, not the area

(I did not visit Rome until my second trip to Italy. In more than two dozen trips to Italy, I visited Rome perhaps 1 in 4 trips.)>>

humblebrag coming up - i didn't go to Rome until my 12th visit to Italy - and I've been kicking myself ever since, as it was love at first sight. [well, it was for me, I don't know how Rome feels about me]

please don't feel you need to go to Rome this time, but do make sure you go soon.

Rome is one of the world's great cities. Venice is sui generis. Florence is the heart of the Renaissance.

It's your bloody trip do what you want.

But going to "2 big culture cities" does not exclude Rome.

You're missing about 10,000 other places of interest in Italy, too. It is impossible to cover everything in one trip anyway. Do what you are most interested in.

Of course not. On our first trip we had enough time for Venice and Florence; got to Rome on our second trip. It's far better not to cram too much into 9 days. Relax, enjoy the wine, smell the espresso.

If you end up doing Florence and Venice I would fly into Venice and out of Florence, or vice versa. No point to fly into Rome and then have to travel from there to your actual destination.

There may not be a direct flight to your home from Florence but I have done it easily with a change in Frankfurt, not a problem.

I think you will find plenty to do, including relaxing in those two cities. Venice is made for wandering and sitting in cafes, just magical. Just get yourself away from the St.Mark's area and all the crowds.

Yes, was going to say that unless you're an early bird, fly into Venice and out of Florence or Pisa.

Considering I had visited Italy 23 times prior to visiting Rome for the first time, the OP seems a little odd.

Rome would appear to be an American obcession.

The beauty of Italy is in its small, nameless medieval towns.

I just went to France without going to Paris--except if you want to call CDG Paris. I changed planes there and went to Toulouse & Bordeaux.