Stay in Venice or Not
 

Hello Fellow Travelers, I will be spending 4 days in Rome before spending 7 days in the Venice area(10 September 2016). My question is whether to spend 7 days in Venice or maybe some place like Verona. I am thinking that Verona would allow the ease several different day trips, Milan, Venice, etc. On the other hand, I have heard that staying in Venice can be magical especially in the early morning or evening once the tourist crowds have departed. Maybe the additional question should be "Is 7 days in Venice too much time?" Thank you

While I realize that people's opinions on the subject of Venice are all over the place, I can't imagine visiting there and not staying in the city. There's no other like it on the planet, utterly unique. Yes, parts of it can be crowded but no one who stays there need limit themselves to those parts. In fact, that's another good reason to stay there, to learn where those quiet places are and to enjoy them. I hope you don't allow yourself to be talked out of it. I stayed 2 weeks on one visit and was never tired of it for a moment.

Definitely stay in Venice for at least part of the time - it's completely different at night. You can do Verona as a day trip if you want - or stay there for a couple of nights to see other things in the area.

I'd stay there for a minimum 2-3 nights to be able to enjoy the city in the early morning and evenings. It is just magical. Be sure to 'get lost'. Just start walking with no particular destination in mind. You will find lovely little alleyways and squares that the locals frequent. We loved sitting in the square near our apt and watching the children play soccer after dinner. Truly one of our favorite places in all of Europe.

Personally, I wouldn't even bother visiting Venice if you aren't going to stay there. If you do a day trip, you'll get the Disneyland crowds and mobs and miss the best times to be there. I'd do the opposite: stay in Venice, day trips to Verona, etc. (though Milan would be a stretch from Venice as a day trip.) Could you split it: a few nights in Verona, a few in Venice?

I agree that day tripping to Venice isn't the way you want to see the city. Do stay for at least part of your trip, or all for that matter, and perhaps day trip from Venice.

Or split your time with Venice and Verona.

Stay in Venice - for at least some of the time. How about 4 days in Venice and 3 in Verona? Day trip to Milan from Verona.

Another vote for a at least a few nights in Venice!

"Is 7 days in Venice too much time?"

For me, yes, but there's really no right or wrong answer here -- it really depends on what YOU want to see and experience. As others have noted, you could spend some time in Venice and in areas near it. And/or you could add some time to Rome -- 4 days is, IMO, not much time there.

Enjoy!

I spend nine days in Venice on two separate visits. Not nearly enough, I would rather spend 1 month :)

A few years ago I've visited Venice from Padova, which is a short 30 mins train ride away. Padova is a good city, and it was nice to have the opportunity to see a few things in Venice which I missed on an earlier occasion, but it's not the same as staying in Venice itself. Nothing beats a after dinner walk around the St Mark's Square or an evening stroll back to your hotel along the canals.
Like others, seven days would be a little bit too long for me. I would say that three full days is enough for most people.
On the mainland, I found Verona the least interesting, but it is well possible I didn't have my day. Vicenza is much more interesting if only for its Palladio heritage, and closer to Venice if you decide not to stay there.

why not stay in Venice the whole time and do your day trips from there?

Padua, Vicenza, Verona are easy to get to and you have the option of going out to the islands of the lagoon too, plus evenings and early mornings in Venice.

Just left Venice about 10 days ago. Part of the enjoyment of the city was sitting in St Marks square in the evening, listening to the music and sipping grappa after a nice dinner. Absolutely delightful!

A few days in Venice would be fine. Spend time in Verona as well.

Except for rare occasions, I'm not a big day-tripper when it involves cities. Sure, if you're visiting an attraction, such as Versailles, a day trip is fine. But I always feel as if you're shortchanging yourself with a day trip. A lot of places have a great feel at night, and rushing out means missing out on that.

That said, I, going east to west, would probably spend about 4 days in Venice, a day or two in Vicenza (which I prefer to Verona) and a day or two in Milan. Transportation between and among those cities is easy and affordable.

Just my take.

Stay in Venice and get lost in the back streets after dinner. The city is somewhat less crowded at night.

Buon viaggio,

Another vote for staying there. Here is a revised response of what I wrote to a somewhat similar question not too long ago.

To us the essence of Venice isn't so much the major sights but just the general ambience of the place. Staying in a more regular neighborhood rather than the usual touristy locations helps to reinforce this. And, get a flat rather than staying in a hotel. Going to the grocery store for some supplies to have on hand is nice because Venice restaurants are expensive and not particularly great. We also found some delis and take out type places for eating in our flat. So, that's my first suggestion.

Just taking the long rides on the vaporetto (Grand Canal and out to the islands) provides great sightseeing opportunities. Ride the entire Grand Canal both in the daytime and at night when the lights are on.

Take the vaporetto across to Guidecca, and just sit in a waterfront cafe and watch the passing boat traffic.

Avoid St. Mark's Square, the super-touristy bridges, and the milling tourists. Just getting away from the crowds will make it better.

We've been to Venice three times (last time for a week) and spent much of our time just walking. We had thought we might do day trips but never found the time because we were so busy in Venice. And, that trip we didn't even do museums--just everyday stuff.

This is a fabulous book, much better than the usual guidebooks. Buy it for some new and different ideas.

http://www.amazon.com/Venice-Italy-H...+guide+hammond

I think 7 days in Venice is way, way too long a visit. Venice is very interesting but you can see enough of it in 3 days and maybe even 2 full days. Go to the palace in St Mark's square. I would add another stop such as Lake Como or Cinque Terra for 3-4 days.

"...you can see enough of it in 3 days and maybe even 2 full days."

This statement describes a style of travel that, for me, is completely unsatisfying. But mrt obviously finds it suits their way of doing things. For me, yes, you can "see" a lot in 2 days, but seeing, again for me, is not the point. I like a slower experience so I can get something of the feel of the place. But neither of us know what suits you and why I try not to put forth absolutes or say "you" can this, or "you" should that. Travel is a highly personal pursuit and all we can tell you is what we like ourselves.

Abby--I'll vote for Venice, but concur with mrt that seven days on a first trip is around four too many--maybe five.
Venice is expensive compared with mainland cities, and if budget factors into your trip planning(or even if it doesn't, I'd recommend splitting as you first described. Verona has a lot to offer on its own and is conveniently located for day trips.

Stay in Verona for four or five days and do day trips you describe. Milano, Mantua, Vicenza, the Dolomites are all easily reachable. Then stop in Padua on your way to Venice.

As to the crowds, Venice is wonderful early in the day and late at nite. We've learned to take the Vaporetto out to Torcello to escape the mid-day crowds, or else escape to the San Polo region which was not overwhelmed with tourists last time we were there, but has quite a bit to see: I Frari, Scuola de San Rocco.

Buon viaggio!

To all who replied...Wow, so many responses and not exactly what I expected. I am a 'slow traveler' who likes to take my time and not rush anywhere. So, based on advice given, I will do my 4 days in Rome(2nd trip), train to Venice for 4 days and then 3 or 4 days in Verona. The trip will conclude with 7 days in Villefranche-sur-Mer followed by 14 days in the Luberon (my favorite special weakness).

I couldn't imagine 4 days in Verona. I would shoot myself with Klonopin bullets.


My swarthy and muscular husband (don't be jealous because he is a horrid dresser) and I spend up to two weeks in Venice at a clip.

Most people who say 4 days in Venice is enough don't know the city and congregate around Piazza San Marco as if that is all there is to Venice.

My sister lived in the palazzo behind Santa Maria Salute for many years (in fact, she died there).

Please, book a room in Cannaregio and get away from the horrific nightmare cruise tourists who only want cheap souvenirs and a photo of the Rialto so they can brag whilst standing in line at Whole Foods.

You will thank me later.


Thin

I have nothing against Verona, visited on a day trip while I stayed in Venice. I might not shoot myself if exiled to Verona but I would wish I was in Venice. Pepper is right. I believe you when you say the decision has been made but, if you waver in your commitment, we're here to support you.

Yikes! Thank goodness this trip is not until 2016. The only hard wired part of the trip is entry to Rome and exit from the Luberon(TGV to Paris and home) The days between will be filled with Venice, undetermined town(or maybe not) and Villefranche. I think part of my problem here is that my wife has heard so many negative stories about Venice that it has colored my opinion. The good news is that I don't believe it all. Part of the reason is that I have read all the good news on this site. I will enjoy Venice!! Thank for the end notes Pepper and Perdu.

You will most definitely enjoy Venice if you take our advice to get off the tourist route. During our week long stay in Venice we occasionally crossed the Rialto Bridge or St Mark's square. It was quite irritating and I couldn't wait until we could wander down some alley away from the hordes. If you only visit the tourist spots with thousands of other tourists your opinion of Venice would most definitely be negatively colored.

In Verona, you could happily spend a full day in the Castel Vecchio museum. In Venice, visit the Querini Stampalia Foundation, near Campo Maria Formosa.

Both Castel Vecchio and the ground floor of the Foundation were designed by Carlo Scarpa, and so there is a nice conjunction in the architectural handwriting.

Click on my user name and you will find trip reports for visits to Venice. We are in Venice right now, apartment on Fondamenta Briati, Dorsoduro.

Awful stories about Venice are usually, IMHO, from people who have been there on a day trip and were herded around fora few areas to a couple of major sights and spent their limited there fighting the mobs.

If you stay there you

have a completely different feel in the am before the crowds arrive and after 5 pm when many depart

there is WAY more to see in Venice than San Marco, Duomo and Doge's palace

you need at least a couple of days to see the outlying islands (Torcello is fascinating, Burano charming and Murano - well great if you want to see glass being blown)

part of the fun of Venice is exploring other areas of the city, esp in the evenings, and being able to dine, walk and appreciate it like locals

It still stuns me that people visit Venice as strictly a day trip.

Everyone says that Venice is romantic, the most beautiful city on earth, and many other superlatives. It is also a pretty tough town to get around until you get a handle on it. I say this after spending about eight months in Venice, over four long visits, and we are in Venice right now.

A day trip to Venice just does not work, and even a two day visit, spending a night here, does not do much. If you arrive at Venezia SL rail station, you are faced probably with a 40 minute ride on a crowded water bus to the Piazza. Walking that with luggage is just about impossible. At times you will be walking down streets less than two metres wide, following a tour group of fifty somewhat bored souls. I’ve seen some ten-on-the-Richter-scale meltdowns, visitors hopelessly lost, walking in circles.

My suggestion – give Venice a miss unless you spend five nights here. Preferably in the middle of winter.

My suggestion – give Venice a miss unless you spend five nights here. Preferably in the middle of winter.>>

hear hear, Peter. when my "guide" [a local drama student] set off at a rate of knots to escort me to my digs this last February, I struggled to keep up with her, and I'm sure I'd never have been able to work out the route she took, which involved numerous backstreets. Much easier to get the vaproetto which I would have done had i been by myself.

Actually I wasn't sure why she didn't, as we had to get the vaporetto to cross the Grand Canal and the cost of the ticket to hop over from one side to the other was exactly the same as from P. Roma to the stop we were heading for. I don't think that there was much saving in time either.

I came to the conclusion that it was habit - locals tend to walk and not use the boats unless they have to.

BTW, have you noticed the vaporettos being less busy this year? I noticed in February that they were introducing automatic barriers at the entrance to the platforms which would make travelling without a ticket [up to now very possible] much more difficult. I wondered just how many people were travelling illegally and if the introduction of the barriers would make any difference.

Peter--I think that's unduly pessimistic. Our first stay was three nites (2/1/2 days coming by train from Bologna) and we felt we got a good initial feel for the place.

"A day trip to Venice just does not work...."

I did not like making day trips FROM Venice - jammed packed vaporettos
to and from the train station ( or to the islands.)
It was in May this year.

good point, danon, which might be a good reason for staying somewhere in walking distance of the station if you had it in mind to make a lot of day trips while you were there.

the other point is that locals tend to walk a lot so they are not worried by the crowded vaporettos.

This past December I was there for 17 nights - I know a bunch of people there now, which makes a big difference of course!

I'd say no less than three nights for your first time there. Weigh the hassle factor of moving to a new town/hotel with just staying put seven nights and doing somewhat longer train rides.

Where else are you planning to visit?

Why all the way to Milan? If you are set on Milan, why not stay in Venice 5 nights, do your local day trips, and then two nights in Milan?

I lived in the Veneto for 12 years. Venice can be very crowded and hotels overpriced. I assume you're taking the train from Rome and suggest staying in one of the better hotels around the Mestre train station. Busses and trains take 10 -15 minutes to get from there to Venice. If you want to see the dawn get up early, conversely evenings are lovely. Two days in Venice is plenty as the churches and museums have art work similar to what you'll see in Rome. I'd take an early AM train to Verona, about 1 1/2 hours and stop in the beautiful city of Padova. Think Kiss Me Kate.After 2 days in Verona I'd rent a car, do Lake Garda where there's lots to see. You should also stop in Palladio's city of Vicenza. Look at a nickel and you'll see the Villa Rotunda that Jefferson used as a model for Monticello.This itinerary requires only 1 hotel change.

Only penny-pinching Christians wearing sackcloth and sandals with black socks stay in Mestre.

And where in Rome would one find the paintings of Pietro Longhi?

There is a Peggy Guggenheim in Rome? Cornell boxes? Jackson Pollock's? The Angel of the City?

I think the advise above is coming from a drunken Christopher Sly.


Thin

Abby--

Hope you love Villefrranche-sur-Mer as much as we did.

The artwork in Venice is to be found by merely walking around. I've had trips where I didn't go inside a single church or museum for days...

>>The artwork in Venice is to be found by merely walking around. I've had trips where I didn't go inside a single church or museum for days...<<

I couldn't disagree more, and if you are interested in the art of paintingand architecture, it is worthwhile to invest in a quality guidebook that focuses on art and architecture and decide what you want to see and where you want to go in Venice.

Also, regarding Verona, or Venice, any advice that begins with "I cannot imagine taking a trip where I...." -- one can stop reading there. I have spent 4 days in Verona and enjoyed it immensely, whereas my first visit to Venice, where I spent 5 days led me to conclude it will never be my favorite Italian destination, and while I have since revisited it to see more of the artworks in its churches and museums, I have never stayed overnght in the city again (although I am glad I did so the first time).

But I have NO trouble imagining why people who visit Venice for a day, either from a cruise ship or Padova, are telling the truth when they say they had a wonderful day there. And obviously I have no trouble imagining 4 wonderful days in Verona -- or else I wouldn't have planned to do it myself.

Sometimes I wonder if some people travel simply because they don't have any imagination. so travel is stimulating. But you don't have to be Shakespeare to imagine why Verona would be of interest for 4 days or more.

I'd rather stay in Verona than Mestre, which strikes me as the worst option.

The Stones of Venice by John Ruskin. Read it.

Thin