London, Paris, Barcelona in 11-12 days? Possible?
 

Hi all,

I am planning a solo trip to Europe from Canada in the first 2 weeks of June 2016 for about 11-12 days on ground (excluding flying to/from Canada), but can't quite decide if I can fit all 3 cities, London, Paris, Barcelona, in this much time.
My interests are learning about history, culture, architecture, etc., although I am not an expert in any of those. So I tend to get attracted to museums and more-or-less the touristy things in cities.
In my previous trip to Europe I visited Budapest, Vienna, Prague and Berlin. It was my first trip on my own, and I found that I overdid the museums and sightseeing, and came back more exhausted because I tried to fit in as many things as I could in that time.
This time around, I want to take it a bit easier and not exhaust myself with trying to cram in everything I can possibly do in each city. I want to stroll around in streets, sit and enjoy a nice meal without having to worry about missing the next tourist attraction, and maybe do only 1-2 museums per city.
I am also okay with spending a bit more on accommodation if it will allow me the convenience of being close to things I want to do/see.
With all that information, how many days do people think would give me a good flavour of each city? I would imagine I would need more days in Paris and London than Barcelona, but I am not sure. I am thinking 4 full days in London, 5 in Paris, and 3 in Barcelona, or 4,4,3 respectively to account for travelling between cities.
Or based on my interests, would you think that I should stick to 2 cities instead of 3? If so, which 2?
Any tips and/or suggestions would be highly appreciated.

Thanks!

If you fly open-jaw, into, e.g., London and out of Barcelona, it's fairly reasonable, though more than I would ever bite off. Remember that your landing day will probably be lost to jetlag to some degree, and that both Paris and London could easily absorb a few weeks each.

If it comes down to deciding on 2 cities, I would choose London and Paris, but that's a very personal choice, as I am not a huge fan of Spain. Others obviously are, and there is an impressive amount of architecture in Barcelona.

Of course it is possible, it's just up to you to decide how much time you want in each city. Obviously, you'd save a lot of time by knocking off Barcelona from the list.

Sure - you <i>could</i> squeeze in all three. But the description how you want to travel this time, I wouldn't. London especially is enormous -- and while you don't want to run yourself crazy, you do need time to acclimate and visit even just a small % of the major sites. London is easy by public transport - but time consuming. Paris is much smaller - but is also time consuming.

I'd split it into London/Paris 50/50 . . . except add a day to whichever one is first to give an extra day to recover from the jet lag.

"This time around, I want to take it a bit easier...stroll around in streets, sit and enjoy a nice meal without having to worry about missing the next tourist attraction...close to things I want to do/see."

The most logical way of planning this trip, especially given the fact that you learned your limits on the previous one, is to actually dig into the research yourself so you know exactly what you'd like to do & see this time and can plot your course accordingly. Asking a forum will get you generic ideas but committing yourself to personal searches will give you a personal sense of it. I urge you to do it and apply detailed information to your itinerary. In the end you'll have a very good idea of what you can do in the style you'd like to do, and what you may want to leave until next time.

I would not be able to go to London or Paris and limit myself to only two museums. :) But even with that...I think you will give yourself more time to enjoy your surroundings if you pick two of the three cities.

You would probably lose the least time by limiting yourself to London and Paris, but I will be contrary and suggest Paris and Barcelona because of the visual contrast between the two. The open-jaw suggestion is a very good one, if you haven't purchased your ticket yet. I flew open jaw last summer (into France, home from Barcelona) and the cost was not much different from a round trip, when you factored in the expense of getting around once I arrived. I was in Barcelona for five days and didn't feel as though I was anywhere near running out of things to do, but also didn't feel rushed. You could easily spend the rest of the time in Paris, perhaps with a day trip built in.

I spent five nights in Barcelona last fall, four full days, and didn't fit in everything I wanted to see, although admittedly that would have included a day trip to see the Dali Theatre-Museum in Figueres. I can't imagine spending only four full days in London and that would be pushing it for Paris. But the best advice is from MmePerdu - you need to list everything you want see and then figure out how much time to allow. Bear in mind that some museums - the British Museum, the V&A, the Louvre, are huge.

I, too, would drop Barcelona for this trip. The pairing of London and Paris is an ideal trip because you can take the Eurostar train between the two and go city center to city center rather than losing time trekking out to the airports.

Most museums in London are free, so you can spend some time in different places and then go back again as you like. London theater is great, so I always plan to see at least one play.

In Paris, the sights are more closely grouped together than in London. I personally would give more time to London than to Paris.

It will be very easy to get the flavor of Paris and London in that amount of time. There is so much to see, do, and taste in these grand cities that you could spend your twelve days there and no see everything.

You could also do Barcelona, but because it is so far from the other two, you would lose some time in travel unless you flew there. And cutting that time off from Paris and London would not do them justice.

Perhaps you should save Barcelona for another wonderful trip and give it a good number of days to explore the city and environs.

I would limit yourself to London and Paris. London is uch larger than any other city in europe and has correspondingly many more major sights - as well as several must see day trips (IMHO). 6 days (7 nights) is really the least you need to even scratch the surface. Which would only give you 4.5 days in Paris after you subtract the time for the Eurostar from London to Paris.

(For comparison, London is 4 times the size/population of Vienna.)

IMHO in this case less is definitely more.

Agree with London and Paris

If you where traveling to three destinations within the same geographical location, I would say go for it. But this is not the case.

I believe, yes, 2 is better than 3. But I think any combination of 2 would be fine. If Barcelona is one of them, fly to or from Paris or London. It would take somewhat longer than the train between Paris & London but, with only 1 shift of location, I see no problem whatever.