Venice vs. Lake Como
 

My wife and I are traveling to Italy for the first time in September. We'll be there a little over two weeks and my draft itinerary includes 4-5 nights in Rome (our arrival and departure point) and 7 nights in Tuscany. With the remaining 3-4 nights I'm trying to decide between Venice and Lake Como. If you could choose only one of them, which would it be and why?

For those who might suggest I try to do both, I did concoct a scenario that would involve cutting two nights from Rome, and spending two nights in Lake Como and three in Venice. This, however, would not allow for any jet lag acclimation upon arrival in Rome, since we'd immediately be traveling to Lake Como (saving Rome for the end of the trip). It would also make the trip less relaxing than I'd prefer -- we don't like feeling like we're always on the move -- and could leave us with not enough time in Rome. Given this, and the fact that I don't want to cut back our time in Tuscany, how seriously do you think I should consider this scenario?

Seems as though this question is coming up almost weekly now.

Lake Como is nice--quite scenic and I've enjoyed my times there. But it is no nicer or more scenic than hundreds or perhaps thousands of other mountain lakes around the globe.

Venice is a unique world treasure. There is no other city in the world like it.

Go to Venice.

Someone will also likely suggest that you fly into Venice and out of Rome or Rome/Venice, so I'll get that one out of the way, too.

If you've never been to either of these places (I've been to both) there is no doubt in my mind that you should go to Venice.

I would cut two days from Tuscany. You'll have a car there, right? Spend the lasttwo at Lake Garda - - make sure and include the northern end of the lake if at all possible - - en route to Venice.

You re makig the right decision about 4-5 nights for Rome upon arrival. And two (or three) nights in Venice (instead of three orfour) would be okay, especially if you are arriving before noon (which you can easily do from Garda).

We should all have such win-win choices to agonize over in life.

Best wishes,

Rex

I will take a logistical approach. See if you can change your departure to either Venice or Milan. If either is feasible, let that decide for you. The Lakes are still my favorite venue in Italy.

As Rufus says, Lake Como is nice. But Venice is fabulous and a world treasure. I visited Lake Como once and enjoyed it. I have visited Venice 4 time and can't get it out of my mind. IMHO, there is no comparison. And I would definitely spend 4 nights in Venice. You will find a number of threads in this forum asking for advice on whether to visit Venice and most everyone responds with an emphatic "YES"!

Lake Como is pleasant, but you will need to be relaxed when you are there to enjoy the atmosphere that it brings. Venice has more and parking is a breeze with their many parking lots.

I would choose Venice because it is so totally unique, historic, amazing. Sounds like the tickets are already bought, because I would have recommended an open jaws into Rome and out of Venice to prevent backtracking. I wouldn't suggest to try to fit in both because I'm a fan of slower paced traveling.

Definitely don't miss Venice. Unless you expect to return to Italy very soon, with plans to focus on Venice, it would be a huge loss to skip a place as unique and historically and culturally important as Venice. BUT, if you really want to see Lake Como, I think it would be ideal to go there first, for maybe two nights (or even just one night and one full day) as soon as you arrive in Italy, since you can relax there and immediately enjoy the scenery without having to push yourself to think too hard and see sites of any earthshattering importance when you're still tired and jet lagged.