UK or Scandinavia?
 

My wife and I are around 30. We love good food, art, quirkiness and a little night life.

Should we visit London, Glasgow and Edinburgh or Copenhagen and Stockholm? We have about 10 days. Thanks!

What time of year? It matters less, of course, if your plans don't include outdoor activities.

Late May.

Wondering when we'll have a thread started by someone who likes bad food.

Art, quirkiness and night life can characterize any major city. Have you looked up London's art galleries? You could blow your whole trip wandering around them alone.

Considering London is between 6-18x the size of any of the others (6x Copenhagen and Stockholm, 18x Edinburgh), you need to research the cities and be clearer on why you want to go. And know that Copenhagen and Stockholm are riotously expensive - TGIFriday's prices (they exist in Stockholm) are more than double the prices in the US airport outposts (which are already more expensive than the ones in a given strip mall).

BigRuss, I've been to London. These are cities I haven't been to yet.

From the advantage of a regular traveler who has been to them all, I return to London as often as I can, occasionally to Edinburgh and not at all to Copenhagen and Stockholm. I suppose that's the best test, but only where my own interests are concerned.

If it's your first visit to any of them, I suppose it really doesn't matter and BigRuss' suggestion that you align your own preferences in relation to each city specifically, I'll second. With the understanding that London most probably has more of everything.

Now reading your last post, john, I'll also mention that familiarity with a city is an advantage to a traveler. If you liked London, as you must if it's again on your list, return and discover some of the innumerable possibilities you no doubt missed on your first flyby. The more times you visit, the more rewarding it will be, in my experience. There's a great deal to be said for intimacy with a place.

If you've been to London before, I'd maybe choose just Edinburgh and Glasgow. We actually liked Glasgow much better than Edinburgh. We ate very well indeed in Scotland, and didn't spend a fortune. We're not big on nightlife; to be honest, we're pretty early-to-bed types. However, I believe both cities have plenty of it.

I love London, and never miss a chance to spend even just a day or two there, but ten days isn't a very long time.

I haven't been to Copenhagen in over 20 years, and I've never been to Stockholm (although I've been to Lund and Malmo, further south). Those countries are definitely not inexpensive, and the food wasn't my favorite, although there's probably a whole new gastronomic scene now.

Have been to all (except Glasgow) and love all of them. If you have already been to London my first choice would be to spend just a couple of days there and the rest in Scotland.

Stockholm is an absolutely gorgeous city with plenty to do for 4/5 days plus day trips and Copenhagen is a charming city good for several days also with some great day trips. The issue is that both are VERY expensive - think prices more than double the US for anything. And that nightlife - esp mixed drinks - are even more so.

If you have an unlimited budget I would go to Scandinavia - but if not - stick to the UK.

Johnk0411, knowing you as well as I do, it seems obvious to me that with your interests in life and personality, the best for you would be Edingurgh and Stockholm. You wouldn't like Glasgow at all and you'd quickly get bored in Copenhagen.

People who don't know you nearly as well as I do of course can only tell you what they like or dislike. They have no insight into what you would like.

Oh wait a minute here. I forgot budget, good catch nytraveler. No, johnk can't afford Scandinavia. In fact, I don't know if they can even afford the UK. As well as I know them, I don't know everything about their financial situation and john didn't mention budget did he.

The costs in Scandinavia are grossly exaggerated - yes it is more expensive than the US but nowhere near double the price. Having been recently to NY I'm really surprised that Stockholm & Copenhagen are considered so expensive. Have you had a cocktail recently in any of the better NY hotels or stayed in a hotel in Manhattan? A set menu at Brasserie Degas in Copenhagen is approx $50 for 3 courses. 3 courses at TGIF in Stockholm is $30, 2 courses are $24, whilst I don't find it cheap I hardly find it riotously expensive.

Base your choice on your interests rather than the cost of a meal at TGIF; nightlife will be better in London, Glasgow and Edinburgh, food will be better in London and Copenhagen which has a great culinary scene, arts in London and Copenhagen. Stockholm has great natural beauty and some very interesting museums eg the Vasa Museum.

Sojourntraveller - I am curious at to why you think the OP won't like Glasgow - he's cited art/good food/quirkiness and nightlight as interests all of which are abundant in that city. I would have said more so than Edinburgh, having visited both.

'Having been recently to NY I'm really surprised that Stockholm & Copenhagen are considered so expensive. Have you had a cocktail recently in any of the better NY hotels or stayed in a hotel in Manhattan? A set menu at Brasserie Degas in Copenhagen is approx $50 for 3 courses. 3 courses at TGIF in Stockholm is $30, 2 courses are $24, whilst I don't find it cheap I hardly find it riotously expensive.'

This - it's a real shame people are put off travel to Scandinavia by the exagerrated costs cited on Fodors from time to time. Alcohol costs a fair bit more, food can do (although its also possibly to eat affordeably) - acommodation and transport, I frankly see little difference in pricing if any between Scandinavian cities and London or New York.

"I am curious at to why you think the OP won't like Glasgow"

It's called irony.

Maybe late night shopping in the Edinburgh Ikea would tick a few boxes (if you can assemble them).

RM67, my comment was 'tongue in cheek'. I don't know Johnk and was trying to suggest that unless I did, all anyone is doing is guessing which he might like better OR just taking the opportunity to write about what THEY like as if that meant anything in terms of what HE might like.

I agree with you that people here often comment on places like Scandinavia (Switzerland is another)with exagerrated costs and as if even if that were true, it is all that matters.

As Odin writes, people should be basing their choices on where they are interested in visiting, not the cost of a meal at TGIF etc. But a lot of people who post here seem to think budget is the first criteria to base a choice on.

Here is my real answer to Johnk. You should visit the places that interest YOU most and not look to strangers to tell you which YOU might like best.

You name 4 places and if enough people answered you here telling you what THEIR favourite was, you would end up with 25% in favour of each. What good would that do you?

You are not going to get 75% all agreeing that X is best and even IF you did, so what? You may be one of the 25% who disagree! Unless someone knows you and knows you well, what they prefer tells you nothing.

Hi Soujourntraveller - I thought that the OP might have been asking which of the cities best matched his likes, not which of the four other people preferred, but I take your point.

Yeah, well, all this is academic. John decided to f--- off for Spain. Check his other threads.