Padua-Verona-Venice-Murano
 

I know, I know, much to see, so little time - asking for recommendations on how best to use 3 days amongst those cities, possibly leaving one or two for another visit - taking train later this month from Iseo going east - I welcome any thoughts on best use of limited time, traveling with our 12 year old daughter (we are staying in Padua for two nights)...much appreciated for suggestions of must-see sights in any/all of those cities

You're saying you are staying two nights total in Padua and you want to know how to see all of those places in that time?

Or you mean, you have three days AND two additional nights in Padua?

If you have the option at all, I would choose to stay in Venice and do day trips with more time - maybe. Venice is really best at night and in the morning; in the daytime, it's generally mobbed with tourists and very unpleasant. If you aren't there at night at all, you are missing a big part of Venice's appeal in my opinion. It's really stunning at night.

Murano is an island very close to Venice and personally not of great interest unless you like glass blowing, though I found it pleasant. Burano, much further out, was more interesting to me personally but is more time consuming to get to.

If you must stay in Padua not Venice, I guess I'd do one day in Venice and either one say in Padua itself or day trip up to Verona for half a day. Not sure if it's worth two separate day trips to Venice and back from Padua.

To clarify, are you staying any nights in Venice or are the 2 nights in Padua the entire visit to the area?

In Padua, a visit to the botanic gardens is worth doing, particularly the new green house in the gardens.

It's no ordinary green house - it is divided into five micro climatic zones, from tropical forest to arid desert. Well described, very educational, and a spectacular building.

to clarify: we train from Iseo to Padua, stay in Padua two nights, thus have almost 3 full days to explore - will take the advice to stay late in Venice for night time sights - we can see Murano another time - the Padua greenhouse sounds very intriguing - thank you to all for your quick interest and responses - please make any other suggestions based on clarification

If you have not been to Venice at all, I would skip Verona entirely and I have been to both many times.

I'm missing something. Two nights in Padua, you have one afternoon and a full day. Where are these 3 days?

I began a post to that effect, the old 2 nights = 1 full day routine, but deleted it. Wishful thinking wears me out.

The day is now 24 hours, but if somehow that changes...

It takes about 2 1/2 hours by train to get from Iseo to Padova, plus whatever time it takes to get to the station from your hotel. Unless you can get a very early train, you don't have almost three days in Padova. Then, what time of day do you leave Padova after your two nights? In fact, you may not even have two days, let along three. You have one full day plus bits of two others.

If you get to Padova very early, you can see a bit of Padova that day and spend nearly a full day in Venice the next day. I don't see how you can see anything else. Where are you going after Padova?

thanks bvienci - especially for following up on the less-than-helpful previous 3 responses - you're right about the time constraints, but I intend to 'squeeze' as much of an experience as I can from the limited time we have to explore - that said, I have already had thoughts along the lines of what you suggest and your advice is helpful - we leave Padova on the last of three days and train to Milan to overnight and fly out the next afternoon - looking forward to your further insights

In that case, if you leave Padova early enough on your last day, you can stop in Verona, leave your bags at the station, and spend a good few hours in Verona. It's on the direct route from Padova to Milan.

I would skip Padua, change hotels, and stay in Venice. No using up time going back and forth, so time to see more of Venice and be there at night when it is at its mysterious best.

Rather than another city, I would visit Burano.

If another city is important, a few hours in Verona on the way to Milan, would be nice. Right on the way, no time lost, beautiful central area with nice restaurants, Roman Arena still in use, nice contrast with Venice.

Sassafrass, at risk of again being "less-than-helpful", it's an excellent solution. I think also the obvious one and if cost is what led him to his current plan, there are times when spending a bit more is very good value. This is, I think, one of those times.

OK, so now I am going to try to be a little "more-than-helpful" about Verona (vs. Venice).

First of all, this poster has yet to comment on my own suggestion to skip Verona if they have never been to Venice. Assuming the answer is they have not, and given that I have been in Verona every summer for more than a few years I will say

Verona, as nice as some find it, including myself, does not and never will compare to Venice. A great many of those restaurants fronting on the Piazza bra are, IMO, strictly geared toward the opera attendee trade and some have microwaved food, too.

The Arena will be filled with seats and lighting equipment IF you can even get inside at non-performance times.

Now, I am very sorry that my own opinion differs from some of the others here but I stand by what I have stated.

MmePerdu,
Thank you.

Dukey,
I agree completely with your assessment of Verona. One visit was enough for me.

The OP says they want to "squeeze as much of experience as I can." IMHO, they are not squeezing in any experience at all. They are simply running around. IME, if your body is physically moving and everyone around you is moving, it is a blur.

For myself, I would choose Vicenza over Padua or Verona, and it is not out of the way. However, it is so filled with architectural treasures, I feel it requires more time and a commitment to standing still and looking, to get any kind of worthwhile sightseeing in.

Padua also takes more time to have any experience.

Verona, OTOH, is logistically easy and offers at least a glimpse of another place for the OP. It is also pretty and doesn't demand much from a visitor for them to relax and enjoy being there for a few hours.

Still, if it were me, I would spend it all in Venice and perhaps try for a quick afternoon or morning in Burano, which, IMHO, gives more of a unique experience in a short time than the cities do.

to all: much appreciated first hand accounts and experiences -
I now have a short list and will make plans accordingly - thanks for all the input

Here are photos of Venice, Padua, Verona and Vicenza - perhaps by looking at the photos you might be better able to decide which towns most appeal to you. I agree you don't have time to see them all but they all are wonderful for slightly different reasons.

www.pbase.com/annforcier/italy__the_veneto

www.pbase.com/annforcier/italy__venezia

thank you Isabel - a feast for the eyes - though it makes my decisions even more difficult because of the bountiful possibilities I shall do my best to make our initial experience in Italy worthwhile