Pros and Cons about Copenhagen, Stockholm, Berlin and Prague
 

I am trying to pick a city for my vacation the first week of October and was wonding what the Pros and Cons are of the following three cities...

Prague
Stockholm
Copenhagen
Berlin

I have 5 days of vacation and like to shop, sightsee, eat and wander. Not a big museum fan...

I have enjoyed them all several times but Prague is my favorite. It has gorgeous architecture and wonderful tiny streets to wander endlessly through. Lots of history and cultural activities plus wonderful pubs, clubs, and terrific beer!
Copenhagen is better for shopping though and I found the people to be friendlier and pastries delicious.
Berlin has lots of history too but I found it to be more big modern city and I prefer smaller cities in Germany to visit such as Munich or Heidelberg or Dresden.

If you don't like museums, you may not want to go to Berlin, as that is a major activity there, IMO. I am not yet a fan of Berlin, I will be when Postdammer Platz is done, but to me the city looks like a giant construction site.

Prague is great for wandering and eating. Huge parts of the old town is preserved so there are a myriad of choices for sights. Stockholm and Copenhagen are too, but they are much more expensive than Prague would be. On the other hand, I suspect Prague will be very crowded in early October, it is still prime tourist season. You may find less tourists in Stockholm and Copenhagen. Stockholm and Copenhagen will be on the cool side (mid 40F), Prague and Berlin will be a little bit warmer but not much. Days will be getting shorter, esp in Sweden and Denmark which are further north.

In Copenhagen you could shop for days without ever leaving the airport. I am amazed at the amount of shops there.

As a previous poster said, Berlin is under lots of construction right now; I'd save it for later. Stockholm and Prague probably have more sightseeing and intersting places to walk about than Copenhagen.

Eating...well none of those cities are in France, so they're all even to me.

Prague is the only city where you'd get a bona fide old, medieval castle right in the city. Beer is very cheap in Prague as well--not so in Stockholm or Copenhagen.

They used to say that the carne was the "state bird" of Berlin...there weren't as many inevidence last November when I visited...but the city is as vibrant as ever and rushing to leave WWII behind as fast as possible. There is a LOT more to Berlin than the museums, plenty of first-rate shopping and the food hall at the Ka-De-We is legendary, major palaces in and nearby the city, a fabulous Metro system, great zoo, Checkpoint Charlie museum, and on and on.
Prague (when compared to Berlin)..at least the older parts of Prague...like going from one century to another..backwards...a truly medieval feel and look which is why so many film exteriors have been done there...if you are into baroque and gold leaf adornment, particularly inside churches, the city is heaven on earth. Beautiful castle complex, great transportation, friendly people. I think both of these cities are worth your time but for very different, and all good, reasons.

Ooopps..sorry.."they used to say that the [construction] CRANE was the state bird..."

Hi,

I would do either Prague or Copenhagen, in that order.

One of the main reasons is the people.

If you decide to go to Prague, I recommend the Pensione Dientzenhofer.

http://www.abaka.com/Czech/Dientzenhofer/

I've not been to northern Europe, but I was in Prague four years ago and I just came back from a very brief trip to Berlin. I'm probably one of the few Prague detactors -- it seems overrated. When I was in Prague, I was constantly thinking that I'd rather be in Paris.

I found Berlin quite interesting; it's true that there's a fair amount of construction, but there's also a lot to see. Very interesting architecture, ranging from the Brandenburg Tor and Pariser Platz to the modern Reichstag Dome designed the English architect Norman Foster. And the restaurant Vau near the beautiful Gendarmenmarkt has one Michelin star and is very good.

Have fun, whereever you go.

111op..... it seems no matter where i go i say i'd rather be in paris...

Well, you can always visit Paris again. :-) And yes, I thought so when I was in Berlin, but I felt that Berlin had much more to offer compared to Prague.

But obviously, people's tastes are different.

One city which I think compares quite favorably with Paris is Barcelona. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed being there -- perhaps because I didn't have very high expectations. There're always thoroughfares in cities that remind me of Champs Elysees (in Berlin, it's Under den Linden; in Barcelona, it's Passeig de Garcia (sp?)), but Barcelona is really unique too.

what about barcelona?

Of all these choices I would vote for Barcelona.

Weather wise, Barcelona will be warmer, and will have more daylight in October. I was in Stockholm last week and it was already getting chilly - jacket weather.

Stockholm and Copenhagen are expensive. Personally , I dont think there is enough to do in Copenhagen to keep me busy for 5 days.

Food & drink in Barcelona is CHEAP and very tasty. Public transport is easy. The city is very walkable - strolling down Las Ramblas, into the indoor market and along the waterfront alone will take 1 or 2 days. I dont know your age or interests, but people are up all night socializing in Barcelona.

We were in Copenhagen and Stockholm in June. We were in Copenhagen for 4 days and that was actually to long. The city is not that large and all of the sights can actually be seen in two days by taking the tour bus that allows you to get on and off at each stop. You can buy a two day pass. If you are using an airline that allows a stop you could go to Amsterdam for a few days and then to Copenhagen and home (wherever that is) from there. It would be a good use of time. We stayed at the SAS Royal in Copenhagen which is across from Tivoli Gardens which is must especially in the evening. The hotel was clean and in a great location.

We are going to Berlin and Prague in September.

I can't agree that 4 days in Copenhagen is too long. For one thing, there are numerous day trips one can take (Roskilde, Malmo, Koge, Helsingborg, Louisiana Art Museum, Odense, etc.). For another thing, just walking around all day and seeing various neighborhoods is interesting on its own, even without viewing attractions.

Just to give one example, the Glypotek is worth a lot more time than I gave it - I know not everyone wants to spend a day at an art museum, but I could see doing two half-days. The Resistance Museum could easily be a half-day, and so on.

It all depends on your interests, of course. But we were there six nights last year, and really just got started. We hope to go again this summer (among other places).

Anyway, that's the only one of the four mentioned I have visited, so I can't compare.

I wuld vote for Prague - there's a huge amount to see without entering a museum and its unique due to being virtually unscathed during WWII. Berlin has a huge amount to see and do - but I think museums are key to enjoying the city. I've always found the city itself sort of schizophrenic - so much was destroyed in WWII and the west was rebuilt as a faux 50's USA while the east was semi-reconstructed in the original style.

I think Copenhagen and Stockholm are a little far north for that time of year - although both have plenty to see and do I think you would want to be indoors more than it appears you want to be. You could freeze wandering.

I haven't been to Stockholm but that is on my list! Of the other three, I would visit in this order:

1. Prague
2. Berlin
3. Copenhagen

I adore Prague and found it utterly romantic. I visited in March so it was not too cold. Berlin is sooooo interesting but it just cannot be compared to Prague - it would be like comparing New York and London. Berlin has atmosphere and is much prettier than you expect.

I found Copenhagen to be quite dull. Very pretty in parts but very small, which I know can't be helped!. Along with Dublin, I would vote Copenhagen to be one of the more overrated cities to visit in Europe. A lot of press about not very much.

I spent about 4 days in Copenhagen, and I LOVED the city.

I had been in Germany for a couple months already, so going to a place where just about EVERYONE speaks English was a great experience. The city seemed to be one of the more well-kept that I have visited, especially for being such a large tourist destination. We stayed at a Hyatt(I think) that was right on the edge of a Canal and VERY nice (meaning very american-like). From our hotel we were able to walk to every destination we watned to: Tivoli, the various castles in the city, the Round Tower, shopping, etc etc. We also did a day trip along the coast (take the coast, its beautiful and scenic) to Helsingor (the "hamlet" castle) and Roskilde (a viking town with a great little museum).
In all I really loved Copenhagen, and it was my first time in Scandinavia so that was a new experience for me.

The ONE bad thing I could think of from the city was that it is quite pricey. Don't expect to find cheap food anywhere, especially the local Danish cuisine. But other than that it was great.