Second City in Italy...please help me decide
 

Hello. I have a week in Rome but would like to pick a second city for a day, overnight and part of a second day. I know, I know...I'll not be able to see Rome in a week let alone another city in just a few days. My thought is that I may never get back to Italy so I'd like to spend time in a second city. I'll be staying at either a Marriott or a Starwood property and here are the cities:<BR><BR>Venice<BR>Florence<BR>Milan<BR>Napl es<BR><BR>Please rank the four cities above for me if you would. Thank you.

My rating would be:<BR>1st Florence<BR>2nd Venice<BR>3rd Milan &amp; Naples - a tie

Florence is the obvious choice for so little time--less than 2 hours away.

I agree with BobtheNavigator. Forget Milan and Naples. Venice is tempting, but Florence is the bird in the hand.

i would think of florence as the obvious choice, but there is so much there to see that i would think that maybe naples would be an alternative with a visit to either capri or vesuvius--spelled incorrectly--the volcano..<BR><BR>ranking<BR><BR>naples<BR>florence <BR>venice--too far and too much to see<BR>milan--way to far unless you could fly out of there

Your choice really depends on what you're into:<BR> <BR>My favorite cities of those you listed are in order:<BR>Naples<BR>Milan<BR>Venice <BR>Florence<BR> <BR>Florence definitely has the greatest art collection (Michaelangelo's Slaves are unbelieveable) but as a city it left me cold.<BR> <BR>Milan is a sophisticated, modern city with great architecture, shopping, food, and it's really nice to stroll in, plus the Last Supper and the Catello Sforza are fantastic.<BR> <BR>Venice is unlike anything you've ever seen, with magnificent buildings that is nicely chronicled in the art found in the Accademia.<BR> <BR>But, Naples, ah, Naples! It was everything i imagined italy to be - chaotic, frenetic, warm, hospitable, delicious (and for cheap!), vibrant and so open.

I'm not trying to be difficult but for me after a week in Rome my first choice would be Venice followed by Florence, Milan and then Naples.

Florence would be my recommendation (with a caveat). It is a relatively compact city and is easy to negotiate in the time frame you have. The distance to Rome is also a positive.<BR><BR>That said, while I found Florence more appealing, Venice is one of the more unique places in the world. As you state you may never get back to Italy, Venice will provide a more diverse experience, when coupled with Rome, than you may find with Florence.<BR><BR>

Florence is closer and is wonderful. But I'm going to agree with the previous posts stating that Venice is so unique it's not to be missed! Plus the Danielli is a Starwood property and it's magnificent.

Venice &amp; Milan are the least convneient. If you are a lover of art, Florence, if you are interested in Pompeii, I would consider Naples/Sorrento.

I would say Florence. I love it almost as much as I love Rome and it's an easy ride from Rome. I actually did a day trip there from Rome last November but it was my second time there. Florence is small and you can see a good amount of it in a day. Of course, you could also spend a week there....

Given your time constraints, Florence is the better choice. BUT as you've said that you may never get back to Italy, then your best option is to go to Venice. And this from a person who's not as enamored of Venice as others on this forum. Venice is unique and I do rate it as one of hose must-see places before you die.

You're only talking one overnight. I'd pass on the hotel points and stay at a local B&amp;B along the Amalfi coast (Positano preferably) to have a different experience than touring in a large city.

We just returned (last month) from about 8 days in Italy. We spend 2.5 days in Rome, 2 days and 2.5 days in Venice. Our favorites were Rome and Venice. This is the vote from all 4 of us, 2 adults and 2 teens. Florence, while full of fabulous art, was overcrowded, full of tourists (mainly American teen and college kids) and shoppers. Rome was amazing and Venice, well, I can't do it justice. So, I would probably say see Rome and Venice! Or fit in all 3 as we did. It was rushed, but we were out on the streets by 9 am and not back to the hotels until after 11! A whirlwind vacation but a lot of fun!

Your key phrase, for me, is &quot;My thought is that I may never get back to Italy.&quot;<BR><BR>If that's the case, if you really don't think you'll have the opportunity to return to Italy, then I'd say you absolutely should not miss Venice, even if you're only going to have a short time there.

I would rush to suggest my beloved Venice, but with such a short time, Florence is more logical. I wouldn't want to go through life without having seen Venice, but I also wouldn't want to go through life not having seen <BR>&quot;David.&quot;<BR>Maybe there's a chance you'll get to Venice on a more northerly trip (Switzerland, or south of France, or even Eastern Europe)?

Venice is not to be missed and if you think that you will never be back, IMO Rome, The Eternal City, is also a not miss. I would spend 2 days in Venice, 2 in Florance and the rest in Rome. You might be surprised and get the travel bug though and start planning your next trip as soon as you get back.<BR>

Staying at either a Starwood or Marriott property??? If you go to Venice you'll have excellent hotel choices of Europa &amp; Regina, Hotel Gritti or Hotel Danieli (all are Starwood properties). Hmmmm, maybe I'd change my tune on Venice if I could stay at one of these wonderful hotels.

We just got back from Italy on Monday, and I would have to go with Art's suggestion - give Rome a little less time and see Venice AND Florence. The highlights of our trip were St. Peter's &amp; the Sistine Chapel in Rome, the David and the Duomo in Florence, and Venice which is truly unlike anything else. Hope you can work in all three!