Far from the madding crowd....

It is nice to have alternatives - if this isn't your first visit to Europe. Let's face it, the 'biggies' are what draw us the first time. Even the biggies can be visited differently by repeat travelers.
Valencia is no replacement for the awe of Barcelona's offerings.

Some viable options in the article. So far we have found ways of avoiding the "madding crowds." Recent example was avoiding crowds in Venice- Early start to the day, mapping out alternative routes, off the beaten path neighborhoods, trips to other islands. It was a glorious week. When we visit crowded destinations we will do day trips or stops along the way to avoid the masses. For us it's all about strategy. Our next challenge is Central Europe!

Oh well, there goes Lucca!

I guess like anyone - we want to see the big cities - we will be visiting Prague for the first time this year - I'm not really going to consider visiting a smaller place because - well - I want to see PRAGUE! But it is nice to have these other places as alternatives once you've seen the 'big' stuff (if that's what you want to do).

But our last few trips we pepper the big places with lesser travelled places and return visits to cities we've been to before so we can explore more off the grid sites. This year we are hitting Prague and Vienna (both new visits), Innsbruck, Bolzano and Verona (new visits, but hopefully - other than Verona - less busy) and Venice and London (which we've been to multiple times and will def avoid the touristy stuff). When we went to the NL a few yrs back, we stayed in Amsterdam for 5 nights, but then went to Dordrecht for 3 nights on the recommendation of a forum member (so quiet and a nice change of pace) and spent a few nights in Ghent as well before hitting Paris for the 4th time. It is nice to be able to do some 1-3 night stays in smaller towns just to vacation from your vacation!

Or off-season... Rome in late winter is a delight.

It should be better that all those complacent newspapers start to realise they are are part of the problem with all their fancy articles promoting one “dream” destination after the other and just stop with it.

The main point here is if crowds pose a determining or a detrimental factor in one's decision to visit a big city, Rome, Paris, London, Prague, Vienna, and so on. That's an individual decision.

So far, for me the answer is no when I am there in the summer.

I refuse to let the factor of summer crowds, hordes, etc dictate where I should avoid or not visit. If my choice is city A knowing that in July tons of tourists will be there too, that is not going to be a deterrent. Finding a place to stay may be more taxing because of this factor.

Lots of travelers, maybe most, have been saving up for years to see London or Paris and the odds of them going back are slim to none, and slim done walked out the door. It's a bit of a canard to tell people to visit a city as if they will return some day, because the truth is they probably will not. Many of these trips are, indeed, a trip of a lifetime.

I thought the article was quite good. I wasn't a big fan of Florence. It is big, overcrowded and other than the Academia and the Uffizi there wasn't anything that can't be found in Lucca. Yes, Lucca's cathedral is smaller, but it still has the same beautiful striped marble and an amazing small museum. I wish we'd spent more time in Lucca and less time in Florence.

I'll also take Valencia over Barcelona. Barcelona does have some lovely architecture and, of course, Gaudi, but every place we went was literally mobbed (late September). Some of the smaller places like Casa Batllo were so full we just wanted leave. While Valencia doesn't have Gaudi the Art and Sciences complex is lovely and so much fun. The Silk Market and the cathedral are beautiful and the town is very walkable.

Barcelona and Florence are worth visiting, but I'd spend less time there rather than more. The more we travel the more we seem to prefer the more low key back door locations.

@BigMikeWestByGodVirginia - I'm not sure I agree with you. Yes, people do save up to travel, but travel overall has become far more reasonable for the average person. I don't think its a canard to tell people they will return or that they may want to add in some low key places.

@keporter, fair enough.

I know so many people who want to travel but can't - usually because of money.

It's not quite as big a deal for Canadians or Europeans, but it seems to me a lot of Americans don't even take the vacation that is owed them, if they are given any paid holiday at all (I'll say I don't know all the ins and outs of the different laws in each state, but have seen stories about people who won't take their holidays for fear of losing their job). My sister lives in the UK and I think the first year at her job, she got 3 weeks holiday and I believe she's up to 4 now. I had to work 7 YEARS before I went from 2 to 3 weeks paid vacay. (Retail job). My husband started at 2 and eventually moved up to 4 weeks after 15 years. (And he's white collar).

Obviously most people think they may only get there once, but if they're lucky they'll be able to afford to return. Before our first Europe trip in 2008, we thought we'd be lucky to afford to go every 5 years. By the time that holiday was over, we thought we could make it work every 2 years (and did, returning in '10, '12, '14, '15), and have been really lucky that we've gone in '17, '18 and going back this year, and probably go back next year as well - but I realize we are extremely privileged to be able to do this.

On the flip side - if new travelers did go to the off the beaten path spots, they'd save some money!

Nicole P., I think that Americans don’t take vacations (European or otherwise) for several reasons. Some are not entitled to paid vacations at all. Contract workers, part-time workers, even many in restaurants or retail get no paid time off. It is a shame. As you noted, the amount of time people who do have paid time off get is not as much as in many other countries. That is a huge factor and why you see so many people only have 7 or 8 nights for a European trip. True, some people feel they are too important at work to take even their earned time off and others (I worked with many over the years) who have ample vacation time from their employer but nevertheless could not come up with money for travel. Of course where one spends money is a choice. Many of us prioritize travel over other lifestyle choices.

Rick Steves’ advice to assume you will be back resonates with my husband and I and we have, indeed, returned to many specific locales and expanded our experience in several countries as a result.

I recall a conversation among work colleagues (I just sat among them) soon after my 1987 trip, which I could relate to then since the woman (late 30s) was lamenting the fact that London was so expensive, that she/boy friend could only afford it was by staying with friends.

In the summer 1987 at 37 I went back to London, the first time in 16 years, going by ferry to Harwich from Germany.

True, it was expensive beyond my budget, so no private room.

I stayed in Kings Cross in a hostel-hotel, the same place I did in 1971. The wife of the original owner was still there, got the last bed in a dorm room of 8 guys. You want privacy, you pay for it. Had I gone to the YHA hostel, the price probably would have been even less.

Laurel...thinking about vacation was the only thing that got me thru my work days some weeks...lol. I can’t imagine NOT taking it. A few of my coworkers didn’t...the ones who had been there awhile and had three weeks were basically made to take at least a week, and they’d take the other two weeks as just a bonus on their cheque at the end of the year. Obvs they weren’t people who were going to travel and were old enough they didn’t have kids to spend time with. But at least they got $ for it, instead of ‘use it or lose it’.

Instead of Prague, why not Austin? Well, because it's not Prague. In the article, if the city listed is what interests you, the alternative would be a waste. Kotor instead of Dubrovnik? Really? Might as well go to Castillo San Felipe del Morro; except it ain't Dubrovnik either.

There are plenty of strategies for dealing with crowds. Use them and have a good time seeing what interests you. But do keep an eye open for new and unique experiences too. Maybe see Paris and parts of Romania on one trip for a broader view. Still I think everyone's first trip should include London, Paris and Rome.

I haven't been to all the places mentioned. Lucca as an alternative for Florence seems like horrible advice. You can't replace the art in Florence anywhere, least of all Lucca. Lucca might be somewhat less crowded but IMO is the worst possible choice in the region.

Pluses for Lucca are it's flat (only a plus if you have mobility issues), it's accessible by train and it has a wall turned into a nice park/bike path.

Negatives for Lucca is it's flat. In a region with so many incredibly beautiful hill towns, why would you steer someone to a flat town? People are apt to love Siena, Montepulciano, Volterra and at least a dozen other towns more than Lucca. The wall in Lucca compared to medieval ramparts in other towns is brick, low, thick and star shaped, like Ft. McHenry. I like how they turned it into a bike path/park but it's not enough reason to visit. Otherwise Lucca is a nondescript Italian town, nothing postcard about it.

Of the pairs I'm familiar with none of these are "alternatives" . They are "also visit" or "instead of going back try" places. I know several people who prefer Valencia to Barcelona, for the reasons the article gives. But I know no-one who thinks you should skip Barcelona and assume Valencia is a reasonable stand-in. If the sole aim is to avoid crowds, then neither of those cities are good choices actually. As for ignoring Amsterdam and instead going to Delft, you'd be daft as a brush to think they're similar.