Stockholm or Copenhagen?
Dec 4th, 2002, 12:36 PM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Stockholm sterile??? How sad hearing this about the city I was born in. Surely it can't have changed all that much? Say it isn't so! The charming old city section known as "Gamla" stan, the museums, grand old buildings, the culture, the food, and it a city almost completely surrounded by water, too, often called the Venice of the North. I guess tastes vary, but I do hope to return there - it was a fascinating place back in the 80s. <BR><BR>However, Copenhagen has its delights, too. You gotta love a city with an amusement park in its center! Perhaps the time of year should be a consideration. If traveling in winter, maybe Copenhagen is the better bet. Stockholm is quite a way north from there!
Dec 4th, 2002, 01:44 PM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
I enjoyed both cities, but I liked Copenhagen more . . . Rosenborg Castle is a fun visit; the Stroget, Copenhagen's pedestrian street, is fun year-round and teaming with people from dawn til dusk. The changing of the royal guard at Amalienborg is picturesqe as is Nyhavn, the Roundtower, and the town hall square. Frederiksborg Castle and Kronborg Castle -- both within 30 minutes of Copenhagen -- are two of my favorites. In Sept. Tivoli will still be open and I think Bakken will also be open . . . <BR><BR>I thought Stockholm was a pretty city, but between the two, I'd choose Copenhagen in a heartbeat.
Dec 4th, 2002, 01:58 PM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Stockholm was nice but I loved Copenhagen. Maybe I was just lucky - perfect hotel, perfect weekend (the first sunny spring weekend in April), the perfect restaurant recommendation, etc. I stayed at the 71 Nyhavn Hotel, which was on the trendy waterfront. It was beautifully decorated, comfortable (although a bit small - low ceilings) and reasonably priced. The desk clerk sent me to the perfect restaurant for dinner (whose name I've forgotten, unfortunately): I asked for a place where I could celebrate my birthday alone without feeling uncomfortable - a bit of splurge, but not too expensive, and not too stuffy. I got exactly what I asked for - one of the best dining experiences I've ever had. <BR><BR>I spent the day wandering around looking at the beautiful architecture, visiting quirky museums (museum of the Danish resistance, museum of the worker), and walking from park to park. Everybody was outside, and the waterfront cafes were lively (they provide blankets because it's still a little cool). <BR><BR>Copenhagen seemed to me to combine the best of Scandinavia with a funkier edge (a bit of Amsterdam thrown in, without the seediness).<BR><BR>I'd go back in a minute. And if I was 25, I'd be figuring out a way to move there.<BR><BR>I liked Stockholm but I wasn't as lucky with my hotel and restaurant choices, and my "wander aimlessly" strategy didn't work as well - maybe because Stockholm is more spread out than Copenhagen.<BR><BR>But why not try both? Go to one, take the bridge from one country to another, and visit the other one?
Dec 4th, 2002, 02:30 PM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
We've visited both independently over the years... and recently on a cruise had the chance to vist both again.<BR>Even tho my ancestors are Swedish... I've alway felt I was probably a misplaced Dane! Nonetheless, to dimiss Stockholm so readily is a real mistake. (There, too, there is a changing of the guard... much more impressive to my eye than that in Copenhagen...) In the summer the place is almost unbelievably beautiful. ... if you can cruise the archipelago(sp?) or take trips to Gripsholm, Drottingholm, etc. On the otherhand... I'd get on a plane tomorrow if someone could guarantee a lunch of Copenhagen's splendiferous open faced sandwiches. <BR>-
-
-
Dec 5th, 2002, 10:04 AM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cali: Tough choice, but Snoopy's comments are right on. The only change I would make is Roskilde instead of Kronberg Castle for the magnificent Cathedral and the Viking Ship Museum. Definitely keep Frederiksborg, however. You can do Roskilde and Frederiksborg in the same day. They are less than 30 minutes from each other as well as from Copenhagen.<BR>PS: The changing of the gaurd at Stockholm is more picturesque than the one at Copenhagen.
Dec 5th, 2002, 11:34 AM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Joe,<BR><BR>I think you're correct. My wife was standing behind me when I wrote that comment about the changing of the guard and she said "you were bored to tears, you kept wanting to leave". She was right, the "changing" took a long time and the guard kept smiling and goofing like they were part of some Disneyland skit.<BR><BR>However, I'd have to take issue with you over the "Roskilde over Kronborg" comment. I'd do both, but there's so much to see at Kronborg -- Sweden on the near horizon, and in September, if it's a nice day there will be hundreds of sailboats on the sound -- I'd put Kronborg ahead of Roskilde on visuals, though history at Roskilde makes it a "probably should see".
Dec 5th, 2002, 01:58 PM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cali,<BR><BR>Rest easy that you'll have a great time no matter where you decide to go. Clearly from these posts the majority are saying that they enjoyed Copenhagen. For me, it's Copenhagen because I've spent several months there and only 5 days in Stockholm. Im clearly biased in my views.
Dec 6th, 2002, 03:26 AM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'd have to agree that both have their own charms....and while many of the posters here appear to prefer Copenhagen, I'd have to go the other way. (But only a 'little')<BR>We were in both cities 2 years ago, and at the time I actually thought I had preferred Copenhagen, until my SO pointed out that the ONE big difference between the two is the water in Stockholm.<BR>We were there in the middle of summer, and it was just beautiful walking around with water everywhere! <BR>I guess at the end of the day, you can't go wrong with either!<BR>Best wishes.
