Go Back  Fodor's Travel Talk Forums > Destinations > Europe
Reload this Page >

Would two days in Venice, two days in Florence and two days in Rome be sufficient?

Would two days in Venice, two days in Florence and two days in Rome be sufficient?

Oct 7th, 2002, 06:54 AM
  #1  
lisa
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Would two days in Venice, two days in Florence and two days in Rome be sufficient?

Would two days in Venice, two days in Florence and two days in Rome be sufficient?
it will be our first time in italy, but I also have a limited amount of time.
 
Oct 7th, 2002, 07:01 AM
  #2  
Gretchen
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I personally would go to Florence and spend the whole time there. The distance to Rome is pretty far for travel time also.
 
Oct 7th, 2002, 07:02 AM
  #3  
Dori
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Most people on this board are going to say no. But if you have a limited amount of time, you have a limited amount of time. I've lived in the same city for five years and still haven't seen all there is to see. I'm not one to say don't go unless you have a month off. Go and enjoy yourself.
 
Oct 7th, 2002, 07:04 AM
  #4  
Ira
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
My first response is "No".
However, many people do a day trip to Venice (see the latest issue of Conde' Nast Traveler for a suggested one day walking tour), so you could add a day to Florence and do that.
Is there more to this trip, or do you have just the one week in Italy?
 
Oct 7th, 2002, 07:57 AM
  #5  
Debbie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lisa, I would consider changing it to three days in Venice and three in Florence and let Rome go. Rome was my least favorite place (although I know others love it) and this is your first trip to Italy. I can promise you that you will return very soon and you can see Rome then. You could also do 2 days Venice and 4 days Florence and use one of your florence days for a day trip to San Gmignano or Siena so you can see a bit of Tuscany. I think you are not considering your travel time to each location. If you get up and get on a 9am train to Florence from Venice you won't arrive at your hotel until sometime after 1pm and much of your day is gone.
By the way, the day trip to Venice in Conde Nast didn't include any of the major sites such as Doges palace, St. Marks, a long vaparetto ride etc. It was more of a walking tour and missed much of Venice.
 
Oct 7th, 2002, 08:01 AM
  #6  
Rex
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
It just seems impossible to give a meaningful answer with out other context information. Crossing an ocean (and multiple time zones) to get there? Going anywhere else in Europe? Reasons why "this will have to do" for this trip? and expectations for more travel to Italy in the future?

Looking forward to this thread blossoming into some kind of meaningful exchange. As it is now, it is just too much a guessing game.

Best wishes,

Rex
 
Oct 7th, 2002, 08:08 AM
  #7  
rob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Florence is for serious art lovers or shoppers. I should have skipped it....
 
Oct 7th, 2002, 08:22 AM
  #8  
Giovanna
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lisa: If this trip will absolutely be the one time you will visit Italy do what you have planned. If you can some day return, spend the entire time in Rome with perhaps a day trip to Florence. You won't do Florence justice, but it is a short trip on a ES train and you will be able to visit the Duomo, walk across the Ponte Vecchio, have lunch, eat gelato and get back to Rome by early evening.

We have been to Italy many times, most recently in May. We visited Rome, Florence, Venice and Milan in about the same time you have planned and I hated it! Too much packing and unpacking, too much travel time from city to city, and we will never do this again.

Settle in one place and savor it. Sightsee, enjoy the food, walk leisurely about and relax. If you have a greater desire to see one of the other cities on your itinerary, stay there. We love Rome and no amount of time there would be sufficient for us, but everyone has their own ideas.

My only strong advice is not to bounce around from one place to another, with not enough time to enjoy any of the cities and too much of your precious time getting from one place to another.
 
Oct 7th, 2002, 08:53 AM
  #9  
Ira
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Debbie wrote
>By the way, the day trip to Venice in Conde Nast didn't include any of the major sites such as Doges palace, St. Marks, a long vaparetto ride etc. It was more of a walking tour and missed much of Venice.<

Of course, if you are going for just one day you will miss an awful lot of Venice. I am, however, looking at the suggested tour, and it does include a vaporetto ride and a visit to St Mark's Square.

I think they left out visiting the Palace and the Cathedral because of the long lines.
 
Oct 7th, 2002, 08:55 AM
  #10  
Maria
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lisa,
Going for 2 nights in each is better than not going at all. This way you could see what you really like for next time. I only spent 4 hours in Rome and saw what I set out to see. It was rushed, but I saw it. It was very important to me to go to the Vatican, and I did. Everything else was extra. So see it all and then go back to where you really liked and see it at a slower pace.
 
Oct 7th, 2002, 09:09 AM
  #11  
Dottie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lisa: whichever way you split it, six days will just give you a taste. I love all three, and have happily spent 2-3 weeks in each.
If you are a serious art lover, Florence is the place to be.. and be sure to go to the Bargello.
If you have kids, Rome or Venice are better bets.
Little of everything? Rome.
 
Oct 7th, 2002, 09:21 AM
  #12  
lisa
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
well i was thinking about doing two nights on each city, so that i can allow time for traveling in between cities and returning home, the US. I only have eight days available for this trip.
 
Oct 7th, 2002, 09:36 AM
  #13  
Rex
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Although this only partially answers your question about your constraints, this little bit of "extra time" (knowing that you have eight days, seven nights total - - not just six days) changes the picture a bit.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with your plan - - but you really might do better with some re-allocation.

I must confess. I really have not figured out the best way to do a one-week, first-time-ever trip to Italy.

Here are just some of the problems:

1. Wherever you go, your first 24-48 hours are "plagued" (that's a little harsh, but can't think of a better word) by fatigue and the need for time zone adjustment (i.e., jet lag). That means that the first place you go will get shortchanged. It's a reason I do not recommend starting with Venice, for example. There is the risk of feeling like you were too tired to enjoy it.

2. Rome is VERY, very "intense" and it takes a few days to get used to its noise, the crowds, the general "busy-ness" of its rhythms and sounds. I recommend no less than 2 nights/3 days, and preferably more than that. And prhaps warm up to Italy somewhere else first.

3. There are only so many entry points into Italy. Not easy to fly into Florence, Milan is not such an important destination to a lot of first time visitors. Nevertheless, to fly into one of the five airports that serve these two cities (Malpensa, Linate, Bergamo, Pisa or Florence) and then head straight to Florence is a reasonably good idea. That means connecting through another Europe gateway city for four out of the five.

4. Last of all, it seems a shame to go to Italy without seeing ANY of "smaller town" Italy. but maybe that waits for a second trip.

So the closest I know to a "perfect" seven-night itinerary is Florence for nights one and two, then Rome for 3, 4 and 5, followed by Venice for 6 and 7.

Or leave out Venice for another trip and substitute other destinations in Tuscany.
 
Oct 7th, 2002, 09:36 AM
  #14  
Cindy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lisa:

We did three nights in Rome (stayed near the Piazza Navona, which really helped because we were in the middle of a lot of great stuff), one night in Volterra (after a day driving around in Tuscany, stopping in Orvieto, Cortona, Siena, Montepulciano), two nights in Vernazza (stopped to see the Leaning Tower of Pisa on the way), and two nights in Venice (stopping in Florence on the way -- drove in for a couple of hours, and was glad to have seen a bit of it, but also glad that we chose Rome and Venice instead). It was a perfect trip! Sure, we barely scratched the surface of all those places, and all that beauty was almost too much to take in, but I wouldn't change a thing. If we can do that with a family of four, you can have a great time doing three cities in six days. We LOVED Rome. We also loved everywhere else, but were surprised by how much we loved Rome because everyone said how big and overwhelming it was. We found it to be very easy to get around in by bus and taxi and foot, and had a blast! Enjoy yourself!
 
Oct 7th, 2002, 09:38 AM
  #15  
Marj
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I agree that if this is your 1 and only trip to Italy and you really want to see these 3 cities, by all means do it. On the other hand, a week can be spent in Rome alone with never a dull moment. A day trip to Florence can also be arranged easily from Rome. If you are a big art lover, more time in Florence would be necessary. Venice is also great but a bit of a distance from the other 2. However you plan this trip, I can guarantee it will be great.
 
Oct 7th, 2002, 09:39 AM
  #16  
lisa
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I appreciate all of your advice, thanks a lot!!
 
Oct 7th, 2002, 09:43 AM
  #17  
natasha
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hello Lisa,
I went to those three cities last May. I have to say Rome was my least favourite as far as atmosphere goes. However there are a lot of things that I felt were important to see there: the Vatican, the Colesseum and the Pantheon. However, if you spend the entire time in Rome, I don't know if you will get a feeling for Italy. I hope that you are not counting the first day you arrive in Italy from an overseas flight as one of your days in Rome.
You might be able to do everything in Rome that you want in two very hectic days, and then have two easier days in each of Florence and Venice. If it were me I think I would skip Florence.
Hope this helps. Have fun.
 
Oct 7th, 2002, 09:45 AM
  #18  
elaine
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lisa
I've been to all three places. My first trip to Italy was only to Florence and Venice. In fact, I didn't get to Rome until last fall when I spent a little less than one week.
I would go to any of those places anytime, especially Venice. No, especially Rome. No, ....

There is no one right answer to this question. I can tell you that with inter-city travel, even if it all goes off without a hitch, you will lose time on checking out, getting to the station, traveling, getting to the hotel, checking in, etc. So you really won't have two full days in each place unless you travel only at night.

You know yourself best. Do you think you'd prefer to have the briefest of tastes and then move on, or do you want to get to know one or two of those places a little more than in a "flying" visit.

If I were you, and I'm not, I would pick
either Florence + Venice, which are less than 3 hours from each other, or just Rome. From Rome if you get antsy you could do a daytrip into Florence--about two hours or so by train.
Rome to Venice is the long leg, about 4.5 hours by train.

Will your air ticket allow you to fly into one city and leave from the other?

Also, if you can afford it, look into flying between Rome and Venice if you include both, the flight is less than one hour.

Rome is just overwhelming, it is large and spread out and has an incredible amount to offer, art from the ancient Romans to present day, ancient ruins and maddening traffic, and a metro (subway) system that has relatively few stops, so a lot of walking (and time) is required.

Florence is Renaissance art and architecture heaven, and if you have any interest in Michelangelo and his contemporaries, that is the place to go.
Reserve advance tickets for the Uffizi and Accademia galleries.

Venice is itself a treasure, a work of art, though not everyone thinks so.
(Of course, they are just plain wrong.)
It can be crowded and a tourist trap if you don't do a little research because tourism is its only businesss. But in the back alleys and back canals, and in the out-of-the way restaurants, and in its gorgeous churces, it can be heavenly.

I have files on those cities; if you'd like to see them, email me.










 
Oct 7th, 2002, 09:46 AM
  #19  
elaine
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Lisa
I've been to all three places. My first trip to Italy was only to Florence and Venice. In fact, I didn't get to Rome until last fall when I spent a little less than one week.
I would go to any of those places anytime, especially Venice. No, especially Rome. No, ....

There is no one right answer to this question. I can tell you that with inter-city travel, even if it all goes off without a hitch, you will lose time on checking out, getting to the station, traveling, getting to the hotel, checking in, etc. So you really won't have two full days in each place unless you travel only at night.

You know yourself best. Do you think you'd prefer to have the briefest of tastes and then move on, or do you want to get to know one or two of those places a little more than in a "flying" visit.

If I were you, and I'm not, I would pick
either Florence + Venice, which are less than 3 hours from each other, or just Rome. From Rome if you get antsy you could do a daytrip into Florence--about two hours or so by train.
Rome to Venice is the long leg, about 4.5 hours by train.

Will your air ticket allow you to fly into one city and leave from the other?

Also, if you can afford it, look into flying between Rome and Venice if you include both, the flight is less than one hour.

Rome is just overwhelming, it is large and spread out and has an incredible amount to offer, art from the ancient Romans to present day, ancient ruins and maddening traffic, and a metro (subway) system that has relatively few stops, so a lot of walking (and time) is required.

Florence is Renaissance art and architecture heaven, and if you have any interest in Michelangelo and his contemporaries, that is the place to go.
Reserve advance tickets for the Uffizi and Accademia galleries.

Venice is itself a treasure, a work of art, though not everyone thinks so.
(Of course, they are just plain wrong.)
It can be crowded and a tourist trap if you don't do a little research because tourism is its only businesss. But in the back alleys and back canals, and in the out-of-the way restaurants, and in its gorgeous churches, it can be heavenly.

I have files on those cities; if you'd like to see them, email me.










 
Oct 7th, 2002, 10:36 AM
  #20  
Patrick
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I'm never quite sure what people mean when they say "two days in Florence". Does that mean you are spending three nights in each of those cities leaving two full days in each one? With the addition of the better part of an extra day in each after traveling between them, it certainly is much better. But if you really mean two nights in each so you only have one full day and a part of day in each city, you are really cutting it short.
On the other hand, (and I know I'll get slammed for this) I can easily get by with two nights (a day and a half in Florence). But I'd be hard pressed in Venice or Rome with such a short amount of time.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy -

FODOR'S VIDEO

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:43 AM.