Niagara Falls is actually quite beautiful. but - it's nowhere near NYC. If you're going to Toronto or Buffalo going to see the falls makes perfect sense.

But to spend an 18 hour day to do so at quite a high price- doesn't make any sense considering what you would be giving up in NYC.

We spent the most of the day and a night there on the way back from Toronto - and enjoyed it a lot - although I think I liked best the nighttime view of the floodlit falls from our hotel window (floor to ceiling).

But if I had limited time in NYC I wouldn't spend all that time just to see a waterfall.

Why do I still insist that going to Niagara Falls when staying in NYC is total insanity? Because there are half a dozen places that can be visited from NYC, that would

(1) consume less time, money, and trouble
and
(2) be a better place to visit for a day

than a trip to Niagara.

Washington, Philly, Boston, and Baltimore are just a start. Want scenery, nature, and waterfalls? Check out Delaware Water Gap or the New Jersey Highlands.

I repeat: Toronto, Buffalo, and Niagara would make a great week-long trip. Niagara from NYC would make a silly day-trip.

Well, if the OP wants to see Niagara Falls, then she wants to see Niagara Falls. She may have no interest in Washington, Philly, Boston and Baltimore. It may make sense to you PaulRabe, but the OP knows what she wants to see. And she has gotten some good advice here on what to do/not to do if choosing to visit Niagara Falls from NYC.

I'm really amazed when some question other people's interests. What is a "must see" for some is a big snooze for others. But to say if you want to see nature then see Delaware Water Gap instead of Niagara Falls is like . . . well, I don't even know HOW to begin to make a comparison to that idea.

Heck, I know people who flew all the way across the country and spent thousands of dollars just to watch a two hour football game -- called the SuperBowl -- which they could have watched for free on their own TV. But who am I to question if that's a must see for someone or to call it "insanity" if that's what they really wanted to do?

Neopatrick - a 2 hour football game? Try 4 hours! Agree with your post.

OK, a two hour football game PLUS two hours of extras. But what do I know? I wouldn't walk across the street for the Super Bowl if it were free. My point is we all have different priorities and interests.

Heck, I know people who flew all the way across the country and spent thousands of dollars just to watch a two hour football game -- called the SuperBowl --
_____________

I did not know Niagara had a football team let alone they were in the Superbowl. I think they are called the Slickers.

Other people actually waste their money on Broadway shows.
__________________

Toronto is more than an hour's drive from Buffalo not including time at the border.

Where's baysidegirl? Have we totally turned you off?

Niagara is impressive, even for the most cynical. I have no use for wax museums, etc., but you can't get around the amazing roar and rush and beauty of the Falls.

About perceived distances around the state of NY vs. the city of NYC: When we lived in Rochester, I worked with international students and guests, and there were some interesting if sometimes sad perceptions. Some wanted to come because they'd seen the name of the city on boxes of film all their lives.

One student actually asked a cab to take him from JFK to Rochester - and the cabby DID, charging him not much more than the trip into Manhattan. The student and the cabby's family stayed in touch for years.

Very well, I'll concede the point. If anyone wants to see Niagara Falls while visiting New York City, I will not presume to suggest alternatives.
I MIGHT mention there is not a bit of "nature" there, not even the Falls. Places that have colored lights on them at night are NOT nature, even if they are the central point of an amusement park. For me, "nature" is walking in a mountain forest for four hours without seeing a single human being, then standing forty meters from a wild bear, photographing it as you both walk down your trail. Having been to both Niagara and to DWG about five times apiece, I can appreciate which has more "nature."

And if you say you want to see the Statue of Liberty while visiting Buffalo? Fine -- I'll tell you how to get there, with no comment about the distance.

You see more of this on the Europe board where people want to visit 35 cities in 6 days. Mention your objection once and scurry off to the corner. The same is true for tourist trap restaurants in NYC. I used to argue, now I mention it once, if at all. If they want to go to bad restaurants, it just means more open tables at the better places.

I hope they find Niagara Falls to be more than they wished.

As far as scaring people away, one would hope they are adult enough to contend with a variety opinons, just they way people do in the normal course of their lives.

Thanks for the lecture on what is and what is not nature.

On the American side, there's a pleasant - if man-designed - park. Maid o' the Mist or a view of the whirlpool affords something about aqua-nature even if mountain- or forest- nature aren't right there.

In addition, there's a lot of history surrounding the Falls, how they got there, what they meant in westward expansion and cultural records (American painting, literature, lore), what they mean re: energy supply for most of the northeast, how they are moving, and how they get turned off sometimes. In some ways, despite their status as a natural wonder (which they are, colored lights notwithstanding), they also provide some amazing engineering "wonders," for better or worse.

baysidegirl, where are you? ;-)

Yes, Niagara Falls does not represent nature. Clearly the entire project was a major engineering feat by man -- taking millions of tons of concrete and the development of fake water that actually looks real -- I think it's some sort of visual trick done with twisting plastic and special lighting. LOL

And of course lighting it with colored lights is not natural. It's funny. Two days ago I was in the huge and spectacular Silver Caves in China. Much of it is lit with colored lights, a big "no-no" in the US as it is "unnatural". Yet for the life of me, I'm not sure how anyone sees any caverns ala "natural" as they exist in nature only in pure darkness. Once you light them to see them, it has become unnatural, so who determined that white lights are OK, but red, green, or blue ones are unnatural? The whole idea is to "enhance" the natural beauty. But then I guess beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. Heck some people see huge waterfalls and simply shrug it off as "just a bunch of water". Others see it as a magnificent creation of nature.

Of course people posting here should get used to differences of opinions just as in real life. And at the same time I guess they should get used to rude people calling their ideas "insane" or being told what is a waste of time and what isn't. Just like in real life, they should expect to encounter some people who think their ideas are the only GOOD ideas. And they should be "adult enough" to determine when their own ideas are important enough to pursue.

I hope this post isn't used as example of the "expertise" of Fodor's posters... it should be used as example of whiners trying to convince innocent travelers to only listen to them... pissing contests only result in wet shoes...

NeoPatrick - y'think Disney's imagineers were behind it? They could have done better than the Maid'o'the'Mist, though - no fiberglass monsters to pop up.

What this post is, garyt22, is a ping-pong of people calling the OP an idiot, other people defending OP and offering plausible/implausible alternative ways of thinking out her trip, then the idiot-callers extending their idiot-calling to the defenders, and so on.

I admit, I'm not surprised baysidegirl hasn't come out of hiding.

Slowly she turned, step by step......

I don't care. I refuse to let bigbomoho say that there are hotels in Toronto that overlook Niagara Falls and not contradict him.

Technically, the hotels in Toronto DO overlook the Falls... its just that they are 36 miles away...

tuscanlifeedit, I suggest you read it again. He didn't say anything about hotels in Toronto overlooking the falls. He said, "if you do go,id fly into toronto and stay at one of the hotels that overlook the Falls."

It seemed clear to me he's saying to fly into Toronto's airport and stay at Niagara Falls on the Canadian side rather than fly into Buffalo. Of course, it would involve a drive to the falls from the airport (either airport, in fact). And he may have a point. We were treated like terrorists a couple years ago trying to cross the border at the falls -- ORDERED out of our car while they tore it apart, and then searched our luggage, glove box, and even under the seats. Arriving through immigration at the Toronto Airport in a breeze, and does not stack up like it can at the falls crossing points. Plus, the last time I checked you could rent a car for almost nothing for one day at Toronto -- not so at Buffalo.

There you go. Punctuation can clear up so many things.

But really, it's my fault. I don't think bigmoboho's first language is English. I should have read with a more open mind.

Technically, the hotels in Toronto DO overlook the Falls... its just that they are 36 miles away...
_____________________

In that case Santa Claus's hotel overlooks everything.