Don't spend too long in __________!

Weirdly enough, Florence.

I went there on a daytrip from Rome in 2007 and loved it so much that I signed up the RS 7-day tour. I still love Florence and all its art, but I found 6 days in that city to be a bit much.

If I had to do it again, I would have spent only 3 days in Florence, stayed overnight in Lucca (instead of just a daytrip), and added another day to Orvieto where we stayed 2 nights and just managed to hit all the sights, but it would have been nice to not have to rush quite as much. The rest of the time I would either have added to Rome where we spent 3 nights (to make 5 total) or probably tried to squeeze in Siena.

ETA: And I did love the RS tour--I just found Florence a bit one-note after awhile.

Bruges- Great place to visit, well deserving of its reputation, but I think you'd have trouble filling more than 3 days here.

The first 2 that pop to mind for me are Milan (great for a full day, but that was about it) and Dublin (we stayed 3 nights and 2 full days. That was plenty-most of Ireland's charm is out in its countryside) I'm sure I'll think of more.

I also say Milan. I loved it there,and it is a big city, but the most interesting things to see is The Last Supper,The Duomo and the castle. There are some old churches I enjoyed exploring. Two or three days would work fine for Milan. The Duomo is breathtaking!But one full day is not enough if you want to see The Last Supper. It's fairly far from downtown. Other sights are close to the Duomo. Oh yes, also the Opera House! Very beautiful!

I might take some flak for this, but I found that a couple days in Prague is all you need. Any more time would best be spent elsewhere in Europe, or even elsewhere in the Czech Republic.

I'll second you on Prague. It's a beautiful city, but MUCH too touristy and crowded for my tastes.

Venice. Yes, go , see it, take a gondola ride, see the basilica,, walk through St Marcos square,, have at best mediorce meal out.. then leave.. 2 or 3 days maxed it out for me.

Now, if one is on a honeymoon, and all they want to do is wander around and window shop and have 5 euro cafes,, then of course, you could stretch it out to 3 or 4 days.. LOL

Its not a " don't waste you time" place, it is beautiful,, but, you certainly can do it in a few days.. its not chock o block loaded with cultural sites....

Ditto on Prague. Also - Dresden. One day was fine.

I also say Venice. I loved it, but a night or two was plenty for me to soak in what I felt like I came for. Travel is such a subjective thing, though. I'm sure many people could spend plenty of time in Venice and never get enough.

I would say "transit." As in, Don't spend too long in transit. And the more destinations you have, the greater will be the fraction of your trip you will spend there.

Milan - two days at most. Venice, Madrid, and Athens ditto. The human brain can only take in so many painting, artifacts,etc. before shutting down! Don't get me wrong - these are some of the very reasons I travel extensively in Europe! But one must get out into the small towns and the countryside to get the real feel of a country and it's people. On the other hand I could live in London for a year and never manage to see and experience everyting I want to!

I agree about Prague. I was there 1 1/2 days, and was ready to leave. The locals there were very nasty!!
I bet the locals in Paris are even nicer than that! Lol!

Lichtenstein. YAWN!
But I disagree about Prague. We spent about 3 full days there and wish we would have stayed longer...

Venice. My brother thought he was being romantic and planned 5 days their for his honeymoon, and his wife didn't have the heart to tell him it was too much. They almost lost their minds. Luckily, I had the benefit of his mistake and spent a day.

Rothenburg and St. Goar are the two others off the top of my head.

I agree with Pat, don't spend too much time in Venice. We spent 3 nights there which was about 1 too many in my opinion. Once you do all the touristy stuff (pretty much a day or so) then there really is not much else to do.

However, the folks who don't stay too long in Prague I cannot agree with. We were there for 5 days and I could have spent another 3 or so.

This is really an interesting thread. I am willing to bet there are people who would say that 3 days are plenty for Edinburgh, but I've found it a city I can go back to and visit again and again. I will admit I don't stay longer than three days at a time. ; ) I agree on Dresden. We were there for a half day, but a full day would have been enough. It was a stopover really on the way from Berlin to Prague. Unless I was attending a music festival and had tickets, I'm not sure I'd stay longer than three days in Salzburg. Pam

James...I understand what you are saying, but I think you are misreading what people are saying. For example, my wife and I had a fairly low key trip through England this summer, spending at least 4 days in each place that we went. However, we found that 7 days were too long in Llandudno since we were only spending a month there. It wasn't so much a to do list, just that we got to the place in Wales where we were sitting around, fully recouped, and ready to explore. Yet we explored everything we were interested in in the area. Also keep in mind we didn't have unlimited funds to go do whatever we wanted. We still had to pay for 2 weeks including London.

I don't think most travelers are simply ticking off a check-list. We just want to have the best use of the limited time and finances we have when we travel.

I dunno, James. The husband and I wanted to see Venice once in our lives. I did research and talked to people I knew well and found we didn't want to stay too long. We spent 2 nights on the outskirts but spent more time in the Dolomites, where we had a blast.

James,, dying to know something, how do you know a place isn't worth it till you try it?? I mean, I find I have to visit a place FIRST before I make a judgement,, and since I have places I love,, I generally plan a trip around them, and then add a few visits to other places... I can then decide if I want to allot more time to them on subsquent trips..

I guess since I have to fly 15 or 16 hours, and pay over a thousand dollars in airfare, I have to be careful not to make a snap decision to spend a week in one place that I may not like. And, I do not pretend to like everywhere equally.

I also do not go for 5 or 6 days like I see many east coasters seem to be albe to,, so I usaully am able to plan visits to more then one place per visit.

I never assume I won't be back.

There is no particular place I have felt that I stayed too long, but generally I will not book too long a stay in any country/rural area. Travel has made me realise that I am very much a city girl. I like to go into rural areas and ooh and aah over the scenery, but the thought of spending days staying in such an area leaves me cold. I used to book week-long stays in country cottages because I felt that was what you were supposed to do on holiday. Now, I accept that is is not for me and I would rather spend a week dodging the pickpockets and crazy drivers in a city.

I do agree with you that a week in Llandudno is a little too long, although I did enjoy clambering up the Great Orme.

I too thought that rural France would be too much - I HATED Paris!

BUT we agreed to meet my sister in the Dordogne(region in France) for HER 50th we spent the BEST 6 days there!--- GREAT cheap meals and great history back to STONE Age caves)
We have also spent 7 days in an appartments in Venice and Rome which were SO much better than 3 day visits in both cities in hotels -- you can explore OFF the "beaten" tourist track. We also spent 4 days in York UK and didn't see ALL we wanted:)

So I guess it is really an individual decision as to what is wort seeing or not.

I agree that there are many places you can't really tour for more than a couple of days and then you run out of things to do. But when I plan to stay somewhere for 2 or 3 week it's a different kind of vacation. I would love to spend 3 weeks in a small town in rural Southern France. I'd spend most of my time at the pool of our rental villa, reading a book, playing with the kids. And do occasional daytrips within a radius of about an hour drive. Or do the same thing in an agriturismo in Tuscany. I wouldn't see more of Florence (possibly less) than anybody touring Florence for 3 days before moving on to Venice but I'd get a very different feel of Tuscany.

.......Lake Como. It'll make you wish you were seeing all othe other great sites of Italy instead of just sitting around and looking at the views.

Thank you Beatrix. You captured what I was trying to say much better than I did.

Florence - was there for 9 hours and left. Lines to the museums were 2 hours long and the Duomo was closed. There's just so much more to see IMHO.

Well said, Josh; I'm in total agreement. I could (and have) spend weeks in London, Paris, Rome, Berlin, Florence, Madrid, Athens, etc., etc. without running out of monuments and museums to visit and local people to get to know, but a few hours at Lake Como was plenty.

Amsterdam! . It used to be so much fun but has just become too seedy. 3 days tops unless as a base to take day trips to other Dutch cities: Delft, Aalsmeer, Rotterdam, The Hague, etc.

BTW I would have stayed in Venice forEVER. I was there in October, the weather was great and most of the tourists were daytrippers (9-5 ers).

This is a hard one because it's based on our personal preferences and experiences. It also depends on what one considers too long.

Amsterdam is my first choice to get in and out of quickly. It has some good sites but doesn't compare favorably with most European cities. If illicit drugs and sex aren't on your must see list, it gets old quickly.

Florence is another one. Lodging is marginal and expensive and the food is nothing special. Get in, see the must sees and get out. Two full days is what you need, anything else may be too much.

I would gladly spend three nights in Venice and two nights in CT. Anything longer would be too long for my limited travel days.

Frankfurt is another city that is "just okay" in my mind, rather than a place to spend time in.

Innsbruck, if you aren't skiing, doesn't need much time on your schedule.

Don't spend too long in........

a guide book. Get out and experience it for yourself.

Generally if you are sightseeing Europe (especially on your own) 3 days is enough for almost any city (exception being London and Paris). But I can easily stay much longer in a countryside like Cinque Terra or Alps, High Tatras etc. Maybe because I like hiking in beautiful surroundings.

Ilja - I am the exact opposite to you! I can only manage a few days in any countryside area, but could happily stay much longer in any city.

Brussels -- was there just a few hours and that was too much

See, that is just the problem, you guys run away from these cities like Brussels, Frankfurt and Milan cause they do not have "BIG" tourist attractions and you never take the time to see what else is there.

Take Milan. Yes, it has a few "must sees", so folks go and see that and say, well, that is it, this place is boring, nothing left to see here. I spent 3 days in Milan and loved it. We strolled around all the side streets admiring the architecture, wandered through the street markets, walked into the various old, neighborhood churches which were so lovely. My favorite thing though, was while walking through the park that is by the castle there, we came to a little bridge across a small stream. On this bridge were hundreds and hundreds of locks! A school group was coming over and so I asked what it was all about. They struggled with the English and all the kids were giggling, but it turns out this is where lovers come, they put this lock on the bridge to declare their eternal love. How sweet is that! I cannot wait to go back to Milan now and I am taking a lock for me and my husband to put on that bridge. We would have never found that if we had been rushing around.

Brussels is wonderful, with beautiful architecture in the neighborhoods. You just have to get away from the downtown train station. We went to the best neighborhood street fest there. All these handmade ethnic foods & great music.

You all know what I think about Frankfurt, so won't go into that here. But maybe, just once, stay for a few days in a city that isn't all up in your face with its tourist attractions and see how charming the city can become. Explore some neighborhoods, go to some street festivals, ride a bike around town and do what the people do who live there, just hang out for a couple of days. You will come back with a greater appreciation for whatever country you have visited.

I had planned (bus schedule) for 3½ hours in Dinkelsbühl. I was bored after 2½ hours and spent the last hour on a bench at the edge of the moat, enjoying the afternoon sun.

I had an hour at Wieskirche. Walked in and saw an overly gawdy church; left in five minutes. I spent rest of time having lunch.

Oh my, I loved Bern! It is my favorite place in all of Switzerland, beautiful scenery!!!!I guess that's what makes the world go round! I loved Wales too! We do agree on York, a place I could have skipped all together. Oh well, different strokes for different folks.

Happy Travels to all!

Debi,

Perhaps our difference of opinion about Bern was that I was there the last week of June the summer of 2005 - when Central/Southern Europe was going through a ridiculous heat wave. My wife (fiancee) had just spent 6 weeks in Spain where it was routines 50 degrees Celsius (approx. 115). Bern was definitely over 90 (being from Florida, I know 90 when I feel it!) with no air conditioning and not much breeze. Plus, at that time in my life I didn't speak any German beyond Halo, Auf Wiedersehn, and Danke (which they don't even say in Switzerland) and not many people we came across spoke much English, and it was my first real trip abroad - so I was in culture shock! By the time we got to Interlaken, the weather was 20 degrees cooler (due to altitude), I was over my culture shock, and due to tourism, more people spoke English. I definitely learned a lot about myself and how to travel from that experience. I'd probably like it better the second time around.

As for Wales, we liked it - but 7 days in Llandudno was definitely MORE than enough! :)

One of the posters said not to spend too much time in transit. But time wandering about aimlessly in transit is where we seem to find some real gems: Hossegor, Lake Bourget, Pont Julien, Grand Canyon Du Verdon, Beaucaire (all in France). And an unforgetable festival that we wandered onto in Aomori, Japan. Don't underestimate the value of wandering about. Charlie Robinson, Lodi, California

I agree with Jo. Which is why I always try to leave flexibility in my schedule. If there is a local event (something that wouldn't be on the tourist calendar) that I can take in and enjoy a slice of life from a European perspective, I will gladly let my schedule slip a day or skip something else.

Flexibility also leaves me the freedom to leave a town after two days where I may have planned three if I'm ready to go.

I don't make advance reservations for lodging or transportation (but I also don't travel high season) so my schedule isn't driven by "making" my train or hotel.

I agree with Cary, a brief stopover in Bern was enough in this lifetime! And I agree with Chari, I never get enough of Venice and somehow I've managed to get there six times. Besides what you see, I love how it makes you FEEL!

I try not to spend too long anywhere, with the exception of those trips involving a rental car and a base, as we do in Umbria. I love living in "my" village, getting to know the local merchants and especially market day.

I really think 3 days in any major city is more than enough to see whatever brought me there, and then I'm ready to move on for different experiences in a different location. I will want to return to many places to see more, as in Rome and Paris, but I wouldn't really want to devote even a week in any such city, just because I know that unchartered adventures are lying out there waiting for me!

MOROCCO......the palm held out for a tip every where you turn thing gets a bit tiresome after 3 days..... Also, the risk of being stranded due to rough seas at the ferry port for 10 hours with 700 other people (oh, the nightmare! the nightmare!)trying to get back into Spain.....and the cities going there or coming back (Algeciras or Tangiers) leave alot to be desired.

Yikes! I am stunned that anyone could mention Venice and Florence in this vein! But it just goes to show how personal a question this really is. If I had to choose between heaven OR Florence OR Venice--never been to heaven, of course, so it's tough to judge--I'm honestly torn, and would need some time to think about it, first. As for my answer, I guess I would say Madrid. Not a bad place to be by any means, but Barcelona and Toledo and Sevilla...and the rest of Espana...are so amazing, I think Madrid should be a few days on a journey to Spain. Wish we had done that.

This is interesting. I have to agree with the poster who thought the locals in Prague to be unfriendly toward tourists. We certainly enjoyed the beautiful architecture, nice meals, the usual sites, and a lovely concert in the castle area but IMO it is not a friendly city. The locals love the tourist's $$, but they do not care for the tourists. I doubt that we will return to Prague. Also I think one day in Milan was sufficient--unless we decide to attend an opera at La Scala someday. Paris, London, and Rome are places we return to often but we begin to crave the countryside and small towns quickly--Tuscany, Cotswolds, Dordogne, Provence are places we could live for months.