To combine a Norway in a Nutshell trip in September with one other destination, specifically a city that's good for walking, which would be best: Rekjavik, Stockholm or Copenhagen?
Posted by
Ajijic, Jalisco, Mexico
1759 posts
All three are great for walking.
Stockholm is the largest of the three, so you might not want to rely entirely on walking to get around. You can easily use the metro and buses to get to places farther afield.
Reykjavik is the smallest, and you can walk to all the places of interest to travelers without relying on public transportation.
How many days will you be spending in the city you choose? You will run out of things to see in Reykjavik after a day or two, and some of the best things to see in Iceland are on day trips from the capital. Copenhagen can easily fill your interest for 3-4 days, Stockholm has enough to keep you entertained for 4-5 days.
Posted by
OP
17 posts
Thanks! Not sure how many days--I was just wondering which city would be most fun and interesting.
Posted by
Florida, USA
12172 posts
I'm not a huge fan of Rekjavik because it's not that old or interesting for me. There are interesting things in Iceland but you really need a car or tour to get there. I love central Copenhagen and Stockholm works well too (there are small boat ferries to get around). The Copenhagen card gets you admissions plus transportation all over northern Zealand. Either Copenhagen or Stockholm are about the same distance by air, Copenhagen is much closer if you travel by ferry.
Posted by
Massachusetts
117 posts
Copenhagen can be combined with Oslo by an overnight ferry. You can take a late afternoon ferry from Oslo and arrive in Copenhagen the next morning. The ferry has restaurants and a store and you book a "small" room with a bed and a shower. The ferry company is DFDS. I will be taking this ferry this summer. I've looked it up and it looks good (based on reviews and videos I've watched).