Alternatives to the Obvious Destinations?

Instead of Paris travel to Marseilles...I have been to Paris twice already and I can't wait to go back, I have been to Marseilles once, and that was enough for me, we enjoyed Marseilles, but in my opinion, it just does not compare to Paris at all.

Marseille is a great city but I wouldn't consider it as an alternative to Paris because the two cities are very different. Marseille is a bustling Mediterranean port city, has a warmer climate, the culture is very different, as well as the food, architecture, natural setting (surrounded by hills on one side and the sea on the other), etc. It also offers many more outdoors activities than Paris. Marseille however doesn't have all the major national museums that Paris has, and fewer famous monuments. For people who want to visit Paris, Marseille will not offer a similar experience. Personally I prefer Marseille though!

I would ask why an alternative is necessary. Why shouldn't those suggested cities be "in addition to" rather than "instead of"? All those major cities are wonderful places to visit and I'd say no alternative is necessary. But the "alternative" cities would be interesting to see in their own right.

Yes, especially as in the case of Paris and Marseille, the two cities are a mere three hours away from each other by TGV, so can almost be done as a day trip (I'd recommend at least two days though as 6 hours travel in one day may be pushing it a little).

"try Antwerp". I am not an expert on any of that, but a good travel agent said to me : she travelled in Europe, and her favorite place in Europe is Antwerp. She liked seeing the exteriors of the big old government buildings there. I guess a person would not want to spend much time in Antwerp.

Marseilles may have its own charm, as does any other place in France, but really, there is no way that you can do anywhere instead of Paris! Really! :)

As has been eminently noted: the reason most tourist sights are so popular is exactly because they are special for some reason. To me, part of the point of travel is to see special places, not just different places. In fact, my original travel plan was based upon seeing things that either would change dramatically or be unavailable in the future. Things like Africa, Antarctica, the Galapagos, the Amazon, etc. ** We try to build in enough time to take them at a pace that still makes them fun. Do them at off-peak hours, on days or months that are less busy, and so forth. ** Don't miss things like going to Paris or Venice!

I agree with everyone else. Why would someone do that? That's like saying, instead of San Francisco, try Sacramento. Yeah, there may be cool stuff in Sacramento, too, and you should try going there, someday, but San Francisco is pretty darn worth seeing at least once in your life!! I can't imagine not seeing Venice before I die (or Paris).

There is no reason why you cannot visit both Venice and Treviso on the same trip, as well as the various other combinations. They are not mutually exclusive.

Hey Cate, What's wrong with Sacramento? We are just as good as San Francisco! Well, almost as good? Okay, we are really well located between S.F. & Lake Tahoe, and not far from the Napa Valley too. So there!!

I like Brussels a lot, but frankly feel that Antwerp is a really great destination in itself. Full of old architecture, the harbor, museums and art. The comment about the government buildings is probably in reference to the beautiful architecture. Why is this odd or off-putting?

Very interesting thread,, but would agree that I personally could not substitute one place for another, but could ADD places that are less known, visited etc..

Why not suggest a back door when so many people are visiting through the front door? Off the beaten path? Isn't that what most are looking for on this site?

Antwerp is worth a visit, but it isn't the most immediately pretty city in Europe (but then again, either is Brussels). The soaring late Gothic cathedral, complete with paintings by Rubens, would be the main reason to check out the city. As one of Europe's chief ports, though, Antwerp has a vibrant, but rough feel about it.

Well, being myself a fan of alternative destinations, I shall say that the first step to enjoy such trips is STOP thinking as some cities as substitutes for more famous ones. Some of the cities cited here are also quite well-known destinations on themselves, and worth a visit in a less crowded fashion than in Paris, London or Madrid, for instance. Just enjoy them without making comparisons - it would be like to say "go to Great Basin instead of Death Valley Ntl. Park". This being said, some non-small underrated cities on my list after living in Europe for the last 2 years: Faro (PT), Granada, Zaragoza, Donostia/San Sebátian (ES), Toulouse, Clémont-Ferrand (FR), Milano, Bari, Bologna (IT), Stuttgart, Bonn (DE), Rotterdam (NL).

The only way to know is to visit them. Rick's suggestions are always "greatest hits". They are pretty reliable places for people traveling with limited time........Next trip, why not take some of your valuable time and check something out that sounded good in Lonely Planet but isn't mentioned by Rick?

Sharon, If the aim of the article is to suggest places other than Paris, Prague, and Barcelona for one reason or another, you could follow its suggestions as alternatives or arrive at your own choices. I would rather come up with my own choices as regards to Paris, such as Strasbourg or Toulouse, instead of Marseilles, if the focus is on large cities. For smaller places a wealth of cities/towns can be alternatives: Amiens, Colmar, Compiegne, Nancy, Soissons, Lille, Reims, Grenoble, Dijon, etc.

Hi Fred, The by-line for the article was "Avoid the obvious destinations this autumn with our experts' guide to less well-known - but equally rewarding alternatives." I've enjoyed reading all of the responses...we've been to the "obvious destinations" but none of the "alternates" listed in this article. If someone, hasn't traveled to the "obvious," then I'd say go there first. But as you suggested, it's a reminder that there are many alternatives and part of the adventure is finding our own!

Ah but Rudy,, the idea is there are so many backdoors even in popular places. I don't think the alternates are wrong, I just can't see them as substitutes.

Hi Sharon, I suppose it stands to reason (or does it) that given a choice between Paris, the obvious, or somewhere else, such as Strasbourg, Lyon, Avignon, the choice will be Paris...that would be my choice, obviously. Apart from Paris, numerous places can stand in as alternatives, depending on the various factors...interest, distance, time, cost. etc. I don't know Marseilles, only saw the train station, when my train to Toulon had to stop there in 1999, to and fro. So, my impressions of the little I saw are pretty subjective.

Ian's comment made me think that rather than planning for "Marsailles instead of Paris" it might be a more interesting trip to pair the obvious and alternates. For contrast, visit Paris AND Marsailles, Brussels AND Antwerp, etc.

Pat...maybe not as alternatives, but even Mr. Steves suggested alternatives to Innsbruck (Hall in Tirol) and Freiburg (Staufen).

I do not agree it makes only for a catchy newspaper article . There are no substitutes for Paris, Venice and Barcelona.

To me, the point is to visit new places that are off the beaten track. Hugely popular destinations derive alot of their revenues from tourism, while lesser known places don't have that opportunity. Europe is a big place, there are countless beautiful places to go, with good amenities for travelers, but everyone rushes like lemmings to Paris, Prague, Rome, etc., and so it happens that tourists are treated like cattle or a plague of locusts. And so they are biting the hand that feeds them in a way. Smaller, less visited places all over Europe welcome visitors. I love staying in small towns rather than cities, and being more adventurous, than just going to the standard tourist destinations, which I'm sure are very nice, but there's so many other things to do and places to go.

The article may just have been geared toward offering alternatives for people who have already visited the "famous" destinations and want to try something new and different, not necessarily better. One thing nice about going to less or even non-touristy places, even though they may be less fantastic, is that you may get to appreciate a real community with locals, not a bunch of other tourists.

Andrea, nothing wrong with Sacramento at all! I am a Tacoma girl, and we get passed over for Seattle all the time- and I would rather live or hang out in Tacoma than Seattle, any day. ; ) I am just saying that one should see Sacramento in-addition to San Francisco, not instead of...same as I'd advise someone to see Tacoma in addition to, not instead of Seattle. : )

Well, that's because Dupont is about the same as the town from Edward Scissorhands. Yech. I do like Steilacoom, though, even if it, too, is a bit strange (all the locals know.) I work in Seattle, and I come down here to relax. I used to escape to Seattle all the time when I was young, because Tacoma had no night life, but now we have a decent-enough restaurant scene that we didn't have before- same with the museums. We also now have a PGA-level golf-course. And Ansbach is kind-of BORING, but is also quite nice in its own way (I lived in Mainz, but my Opa still lives in Ansbach.) It is close to Rothenburg and Nuremberg- and there is the palace there and a very nice synagogue that was saved from fire during WWII by the townspeople- one of the best left in Bavaria- and of course, there is Kaspar Hauser to track down. ; ) Ansbach isn't worse than any other "back-door." Darn, James, dissing on my hometown and my mom's hometown in the same post!

If I should be in that area on my next trips and have the time, I'll go to Ansbach. It's special. I think I might have passed through on the train en route to Bad Windsheim over ten years ago.