Is Europe more interesting outside its big cities?

More than most threads, this one would seem to invite personal opinion and preference... so here comes mine. I live within easy driving distance of several major cities, such as Mannheim, Frankfurt, Köln and Stuttgart. Yet for me, the heart and soul of Germany isn't in some municipal art gallery (as impressive as some might be). It's in the fachwerk villages, the pastures, the mountains and the forests... particularly the forests. That's why I find myself spending far more of my leisure time hiking through the Odenwald, the Pfälzerwald and the Alps than visiting cities. And because the German national pastime seems to be hiking through the woods, you meet a lot of people this way... actually, my dog makes the introductions for me....

To me it is like asking if you like chicken or beef. I like both and would not want a steady diet of either. I do love most of the big cities we've visited- especially London and Oslo (but not Paris or Zurich). I also love the smaller cities- Salzburg and Inverness are good examples. And I enjoy the smaller places- Aviemore will always be one of my favorites. Another comparison would be asking which is more "American"- big cities like New York and Chicago and Miami , smaller cities like Charlotte and Savannah, or small towns/rural areas like Free Home Ga, or Hickory or Boone NC? They all are good examples of particlar PARTS of America. Bigger cities often have easy to access public transport, great museums, famous landmarks, etc. Smaller places have great local resturants, wonderful views, and a peaceful pace that most cities don't have. But they all have great "locals" that I love to chat with when I have the chance- and chances occur in all locations. When I travel, I usually want a buffett where I can pick and choose some small taste of several different dishes, not just a one dish meal (but there are times I want that, too).

It depends on what you are looking for and your interests. And what counts as a "big city?" I'd consider Venice and even Salzburg large cities and major tourist desitinations. They certianly are not off the beaten path.

Other than Munich, I don't really like "big" cities. I did like Wuerzburg (pop about 133,000), but primarily for it's castle, Fortress Marienberg. My three favorite areas in Germany are the Harz, the Schwarzwald, and the Allgaeu, all rural areas. Oh, and Berchtesgaden. The place in the Schwarzwald I didn't care for was Baden-Baden. I've always lived near, but ouside, big cities (LA, Seattle, Pittsburgh, Nashville, and Denver) in this country, but vacations have always been out of the cities (Yosemite, Olympic N.P., Mesa Verde), so maybe I grew up thinking of cities as not places to go to for vacations. BTW, I have been in London, Paris, Brussels, Zürich, Frankfurt, Marseilles. Still prefer small towns.

The board is primarily a place to ask specific travel question and not to just have discussions as some other boards are designed. The board is not set up for long answers. This discussion goes nowhere since "more appealing" has no definition. If depends on what appeals to you. And I feel no need to defend or promote what appeals to me over what appeals to you. I have been to Venice once and may return sometime. Have spent three weeks over four visits to Rome and would/will return tomorrow. Proves nothing except I prefer Rome over Venice. It is what you like, not what I should like.

Interesting question Richard, and I think it's enjoyable to have a discussion occasionally. ......When we go to Europe we like to combine several days in Paris or London with an extensive road trip, focused on scenery and historic and pre-historic sites. Because of the traffic hassles, we tend to skip the smaller cities (25,000 plus population) unless they are very historic like Edinburgh or York. We do enjoy small towns and villages, especially if they have good pubs! (We haven't been to the Mediterranean countries recently, so I can't comment on those.)

Yes,, I agree with Cynthia, discussions are just as helpful,, on a helpline, as just straight old questions. some the best tips I have gleaned on this and other travel forums come from discussions. I personally would never choose between large cities or smaller towns,, simply put, some of the worlds most amazing art, history, and buildings are in large cities( how can anyone not find Rome interesting , if those are interests of the traveller)
I also enjoy smaller towns for the"quaintness" factor. I would never limit my travels to just one aspect though,, so a good mix in places visited interests me. Even if only going to large cities like Paris and London I arrange a few daytrips out to smaller places. I do not have the "living like a local" fantasy that some harbour,, I have relatives that ARE locals,, and I think I am lucky to enjoy a short visit with them and then continue on with my holiday.. sightseeing all day while they work and clean their homes,, thats what "living like a local" is to me,, not just buying picnic supplies and making my own lunches, lol

I, too, like questions like this and hope that the question police sit back and relax. Naturally, people are all different with different tastes and travel goals. So who but you can say if Europe is more interesting YOU outside the big cities? I'm not even sure I could say that Europe is more interesting to ME outside the big cities. But it definitely is DIFFERENT, and that is the key. I live in a city and I like cities, but I would never attempt to suggest that any city is a good microcosm of the country/culture in which it is located. More likely, it isn't at all. So if, as a traveler, you are interested in the country/culture as a whole, you owe it to yourself to venture outside the cities for a significant amount of time. That's why I tend to get frustrated with proposed itineraries that are nothing but city after city after city. That's like sitting down for a nice meal and starting out with pie, then having a piece of cake, followed by some ice cream and then topped off with some chocolates. Yummy, yes - so much so that it could make you queezy - but nowhere near a balanced meal.

I guess there are different possibilities and attractions/activities that reasons with different people. I myself prefer smaller places, open spaces, twisting roads on mountains and so. Except for Scandinavia, where things are too far sometimes, the rest of Europe makes it perfect for taking a car and venturing in the countryside, experiencing a variety of different sights, colors, landscapes, architecture etc. You can see an immense variety of different things around your way in relatively short trips of 1000-1500 miles, for instance. I can also appreciate interesting activities and attractions in bigger cities, but sometimes I'm put off because of crowds. I don't like the idea of visiting places just because they are "famous sights you need to take a picture at", so when I am in a famous museum, I often spend a lot of time there absorbing the place instead of rushing to see another palace within 3 hours.

I personally always like to have a mix of big cities, smaller cities and country when I travel. I do like the medium size cities in Italy and Germany in particular many of which have a history of being city states or capitals of small kingdoms. I would count Venice with a population of about 300,000 as one of the medium sized cities. Big cities such as London and Paris offer a mix of the old and the new. They are also less likely to be totally taken over by tourism which is a risk especially with small villages like those in the Cotswolds. In the big cities it is more possible to see how people actually live.

It is definitely a question that is asking for an opinion...and for me the small villages and countryside are what I prefer. I can spend a few days in the large cities (I have been to most in Europe) but then I am ready to leave. I find hanging out at a cafe or wandering the streets of a small village to be the time when I feel the greatest connection to Europe. When I long for Europe the things that come to mind are the experiences that I found on my own and are truly unique to me. A few weeks ago I was driving the countryside from Salzburg back to Frankfurt when the trees had the most amazing frost on them,(they were pure white) yet the grass was still green, and there was this incredibly mystical fog. Both my grandson and I found this to be one of the most beautiful landscapes we had ever seen. We would pull off the road and take pictures and just enjoy the beauty.... I don't think this was on any 'must see check list', but it was one of our most memorable. Edit: Actually it was on the part of our drive where we detoured over to the Romantic Road for a stop in Dinkelsbuhl and Rothenberg for the Christmas Markets, so if you have driven this you can only imagine how beautiful it was.

I live in a quite rural area, and of course that means I have to drive everywhere to do anything, and there's not much to do after 6pm on a weeknight. So when I go on vacation I want the complete opposite experience: the hustle and bustle of big cities, the top notch museums, beautiful cathedrals, palaces, zoos, public transport, nightlife, concerts, film festivals, theater, shopping, and first division soccer.....it makes me feel alive! So for me it's the cities. Of course for some who already lives in a metropolitan area, they would likewise probably want the opposite experience on their holiday, and might choose a slower pace of travel in a rural area etc etc.

I agree with Michael. I live in a city with a metro area of about 2.5 million but even so, when I travel, I'm 90% interested in cities. I like museums and lots of transit options and I guess I feel like I can see nature in my own country. I'm not comparing American natural elements like the Rockies to the Alps, for instance, but I'm a city person at heart. The Caribbean isn't high on my list to visit because 2 weeks of water sports and lying on the beach would drive me crazy.

I'm definitely a small town/village kind of guy. That said, the "big cities" are famous and well-travelled for a reason and should not be missed. Even the big cities that I didn't particularly like (Rome, Milan, Dublin, Frankfurt, Coln, Madrid, Geneva, Lyon, etc etc I'm glad I visited.

@Andre - no worries; I understand your point. If you come to St. Louis, you'll understand why I mentioned public transportation. St. Louis's public transportation is terrible and we are totally a car city. The buses aren't reliable and MetroLink (light rail) is limited at best. So it's still a bit of a novelty for me to go to other places, in the U.S. and elsewhere, where you can expect a bus to show up when the schedule says it will, and there's a whole cross-section of people riding it instead of poor people who live in the city and not the suburbs. And where you have a subway system that actually goes places in a timely manner, unlike MetroLink. Although I've been lucky with commutes in St. Louis so far (10-15 minutes to work) I don't want to drive everywhere for the rest of my life and would love to move to a place where I can take buses and subways. Part of the fun for me on trips is figuring out the transit system.

An incidental comment (not a critic) in regard of some of the responses: I have a hard time understanding how someone, anyone could find using public transportation part of the memorable, noteworthy or pleasant memories of a trip to Europe, particularly urban public transportation (trains, subways, light rail). Mind you, I love driving, in the earnest sense. Give me a nice car, lots of diesel, a top-notch collection of maps and the latest GPS and I'm a happy person. Even better if parking costs less than driving (currently, I live in Netherlands, and I routinely spend US$ 5-8 for a mere hour parking in Amsterdam, for instance, which annoys me). However, I find curious that some people think using a subway is not only a solution imposed by geography or expensive parking or narrow streets in old quarters, but something enjoyable on itself. Whenever I use public transportation, it is because car is inconvenient or too expensive (fortunately I'm now earning more so I can fork expensive parking) or too slow (like vs. high-speed trains). I even find the rail technology cool, if only there were no users. It annoys me to bones to have to share a long trip with some stranger next to me, standing in a moving vehicle.

Sounds like you're being a critic to me Andre. Whether one prefers cites/small towns, public transit/automobiles is a completely subjective matter. If you would prefer that most everyone in Europe abandons public transit and relies on solely cars, then enjoy the 12 lane superhighways that will have to be built, the sprawl, the subvisions, the endless strip malls, and the air pollution. Perhaps the manufacturers of asthma inhalers will send you a royalty check;)

"I have a hard time understanding how someone, anyone could find using public transportation part of the memorable, noteworthy or pleasant memories of a trip to Europe, particularly urban public transportation (trains, subways, light rail)." I think I understand the sentiment. Most posters here probably live in parts of the US or Canada where the only viable option to commute to work is to drive on heavily congested roads. Spending several hours a week stuck in traffic can become tedious very quickly. It must be a welcome relief in Europe to not have to worry about traffic, or to be able to read while traveling.

"I have a hard time understanding how someone, anyone could find using public transportation part of the memorable, noteworthy or pleasant memories of a trip to Europe..." Travelers remember what is different and what they enjoyed. If you have to drive all the time, or use transit all the time, you are going to enjoy doing the opposite. Where I live, too many of life's questions revolve around driving. Where are my car keys? Why is that red dash light on? How much will DMV fees be this year? Who scraped my fender and didn't leave a note? Does that meth-addled tailgater behind me have insurance, or even a residence permit, if I have to track him down and sue him? Getting around car-free in itself is a vacation of sorts.

Michael, I just made an honest comment, not a critique or else. I somehow appreciate when people take the subway as they leave more space for me, in the roads. I'd only remind you Europe has a fairly developed highway network. Though expensive (fuel + tolls), they cover much ground and reach many places. Contrary to prevailing perceptions of those who only spent vacations here, the majority of commute in Europe is also car-based. Figures are like 73% of mile-passengers on cars in EU-15 (Western Europe) vs. 93% in US (US Census Bureau). Figures are the highest (car share of commutes) for Italy and Ireland, lowest for Belgium and Netherlands. I somehow understand the "vacation from driving" counterpoint, makes some sense.

Cities have most of the major sites, other than that a city is pretty much a city - regardless of where it's located. City populations are less rooted and represent a blend of a variety of cultures, many of whom came for work and consider somewhere else their "home". Small towns will give you a look at more traditional Europe. Families are intact (and important). They represent a more classic view of a country's culture. Expecting a trip to rural Austria, for example, to look like the movie "Heidi" isn't realistic, but you will get more of a sense of local culture than in a city. Regarding Andre's comment, I agree. I ride a commuter train daily into the city (my wife insisted we live in a suburb with a big yard and decent public schools) so, for me, a ride on public transportation is just a way to get from point A to point B. Most Americans, however, are limited to public transit busses (which most people never ride), a few commuter trains, and a very thin national rail system (which most people never ride). For many American tourists, public transport is not only convenient for traveling without a car but a quaint part of Europe that makes it "different."

I truly thought that the General Europe forum was the appropriate forum for my admittedly broad question that did invite discussion. If I violated any guidelines, I sincerely apologize. I will try to make my question a tad more specific. I have read the Rick Steves comment somewhere that many find a brief visit to Rome adequate because they find Italy elsewhere more charming. What big European cities would you place in that category? What big European cities are bigger than the sum of their museums and churches? I would return to Paris and London in a second because I find both cities enchanting. But I found Rome another big, busy city with the Vatican and ancient Roman sites, which I nearly felt obligated to visit and check off (and I realize many disagree with my opinion of Rome and respect your disagreement). Thanks to all who have responded.

Richard, I don't think you have to apologize. Its good to talk about somethign besides what bag to buy, what shoes to wear, or how to get from here to there without missing the train on the cheapest ticket in the world. I enjoyed reading this thread. Thanks for starting it.

Richard,, I know what you mean in a way,, I loved the Greek islands,, but thought Athens was a huge dirty crowded city,,so would not bother with more then a day or two there to see the Acropolis and a few other sites, I could never spent a week there,. its just to generic big city to me.

Richard, considering such evaluation will always be highly person, this is my list of big European cities that are no more than the sum of its individual attractions: Lisboa, München, Edinburgh, Barcelona, Firenze, Praha, København, Lille, Liverpool, Oslo.

It's interesting to get outside your comfort zone by visiting a smaller, non-tourist destination. I've stayed overnight in a few: La Spezia, It, Ventimiglia, It, Arezzo, It., Warwick, UK, etc. These places were all close to or along the way to other more touristed places. The culture in the smaller places seems more "real." This is how the local people live. I saw a bicycle race, a dredging of a river mouth, a naval harbor, a large hilltop public park, and a large local market in these cities.

And I have an even harder time understanding how someone, anyone could find driving a rental car part of the memorable, noteworthy or pleasant memories of a trip to Europe, particularly in urban areas (traffic backups, signals, machines to ticket you for any infraction). But maybe I'm jaded. I spent five years in my youth road racing (SCCA). That was fun; conventional driving is a bore. When was the last time I said, "Oh, boy. I get to drive for a couple of hour in bumper to bumper road rage to get somewhere." A couple of years ago, I took some college courses at the University in downtown Denver. The bus goes within a mile of my house (yes, I did drive that far) to the light rail station, and the other end of the light rail is next to the campus. I used the time on the bus and light rail to study. Of course, I could have chosen the "freedom" to drive into town, but gas and parking would have been much more than public transit and the time would have been wasted. The choice to use public transit was an easy one.

Whenever I go to Europe I prefer visiting the larger cities like Paris,London,Amsterdam,Rome,and Prague. The smaller cities tend to become ghost towns by 9:00pm. I love to walk the larger cities at night seeing all the people at cafes and how much fun europeans seem to enjoy meals and drinks. In the USA people tend to rush their meals and eat as early as possible. The larger cities have more variety of places to visit and more diverse restaurants.

A good question for discussion here. I see it as a matter of personal preference while traveling in Europe. My preference is going to and visiting big cities and capitals (Berlin, Paris, London, Hamburg, Leipzig, Vienna, Munich, Warsaw, Dresden, etc.) The smaller cities, towns and villages get second priority, unless the particular place has a sight that I most definitely want to see. Going by public transportation is usually 90% the way to get to these places, but I won't deny that there have been times on trips when I was motorised, which provided the flexibility to see certain sights at the edge of certain towns, especially in France and Austria. I am used to big cities and taking the subway and trains. Even though I have flown within Europe, I would rather take the train, 1-2 hrs. or 8-10 hrs on the ICE...no problem.

I feel, it depends a lot on whether you are city born or small-town born. People who are born in metro cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Kolkata or Chennai( I am limiting myself to India, being from there), would love to see the smaller towns or the country-side of Europe. Yes, traditionally we have read and heard too much about the big cities of Europe, like London, Paris or Rome....and they cannot be avoided, with good reason too........................but still, when it comes to choosing between a Halstatt and a Vienna, or a Mittenwald and a Munich, my mind tend to get attracted towards the smaller towns.

I find it kind of strange to prefer one or the other, at least in a European context. I have mostly so far only been to big cities because that's what visitors wanted to do, but I am looking forward to exploring more rural areas and villages. It's different in other places - in Mexico I preferred to stay in rural, non-resort-y beach areas and small towns and cities, but to me, Europe is famous because of the beauty and pulse of its' cities and so I really do see city trips as one of the big draws here. Particularly since most of the cities are relatively safe, have a great public transit network, have great food and more variety of food, and nightlife. I can (and have) happily eschew seeing major tourist sights in cities because I'd rather just be enjoying urban life. But I am a city girl at heart. As far as public transit goes, I don't think it's necessarily about where you're from. I'm from the SF Bay Area which has one of the best public transit systems in the U.S. and I still enjoy using public transit in Europe but particularly in Germany because it's so much better. I like driving in certain places but Europe isn't one of them, it's just an expensive, stressful hassle particularly when going to cities. I love that I can get all over the country quickly and in comfort via train and much prefer that to driving. I honestly can't imagine feeling otherwise! I have a car in Stuttgart but I only use it for shopping, really. It can sit for days, unused. The U-bahn and regional train system is so nice here, why would I bother to deal with the gridlock and traffic cameras?

Sarah, liking cars at the place we live (I assume you live in Frankfurt?) is really a matter of preference. For living (not travelling), my ideal environment would be a ranch house-style suburban division with a big house in a giant plot, and a nice (don't need to be oversize or luxurious) car I can use. Generally, I don't like being bothered or surrounded by strangers when I'm not in a socializing mode, and commuting or transporting myself from A to B is certainly not an occasion to meet strangers unless necessary. ========================= To some extent, it is natural that people seek vacations that put them in a setting different from the usual. People who work on a big company office and has lot of business meetings year round will probably like a getaway to more rural areas, not fixing in exploring city attractions and so. People who live in calm areas, or that routinely (weekends/holidays) go fishing, hiking, hunting, camping will more likely prefer a big-city focused vacation.

Sarah doesn't live in Frankfurt, she lives down by Stuttgart. I love riding the trains, I enjoy using them to commute to work, as I arrive non-stressed, and I get a lot of reading done. Never have to scrape the windows in the winter or worry if the car will start, and lord knows I save a ton of money by not having a car. I like taking trains to my vacation destination too. Back to the issue at hand, big city over small town. I like visiting both, but if I am to stay someplace for a few days, would probably pick a big city over a village. The liveliness, the multitude of activities, the choice of restaurants, and so on are what draw me. It isn't really the tourist sites. Have been to Paris and NOT gone up the Eiffel Tower, nor visited the Louve and feel ok with that. Visited Edinburgh and did NOT go in the castle. Been to Brussels quite a few times and still haven't seen the Grand Place, and I still like going there. Went to Milan and didn't see the Last Supper, but don't feel like it took something away from my time there. The big tourist sites are great and worth seeing, but sometimes it is fun to just see the city and not the tourist attractions it is famous for. Maybe that is why I promote Frankfurt so much, you can simply enjoy your time here without rushing around trying to tick the boxes off of the tourist attractions. It has plenty to see and do, but none of the sites are going to make the top ten of Germany or are "Must Sees". (I dislike that phrase intensely, by the way, almost as much as "worth my time" It is the neighborhoods in the big cities that I enjoy, as well as the downtown areas. Perhaps I like the "underdogs", cities like Milan, Brussels, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Dusseldorf, Koblenz, Wiesbaden, all the towns that are often put down on this forum as not being worthy to visit or spend much time in.

@Jo... okay, as long as it is confession time... I also went to Milan and did not see the Last Supper. I could write a book on the 'must see' sights that I have missed, but I could replace it with the most memorable personal experiences that have made me love Europe. I also personally dislike the 'know it alls' who have the nerve to tell people to 'skip a place' or 'its not worth your time'.... to me, any place in Europe is worth my time and if they find it boring, it is quite possible they are the ones who are boring.

I also personally dislike the 'know it alls' who have the nerve to tell people to 'skip a place' or 'its not worth your time'.... to me, any place in Europe is worth my time The choir sings, "Amen".

It's funny you mention "underdog cities" Jo, because when my brother came here we had a very ambitious interinary for 2 weeks covering Munich, Paris, Marsielles, Cassis, Aix-en-Provence, Baden-Baden, and Strasbourg. Stuttgart was just "home base" but it was the city he said he liked the most. I can't say I agree - it's a nice enough place to live but I am used to much bigger cities and would kill to live in Berlin or Vienna instead - but I think it's interesting that it got that reaction. Actually everyone who has visited has liked Stuttgart a lot, which is funny because if it wasn't that we lived here, nobody would have come here. I'm looking forward to exploring some of the other "underdog cities".

I included Stuttgart on my list of cities in (West)Germany to visit on my first trip there in 1971. Stuttgart is worth visiting, even a repeat visit, but if the choice is Vienna or Berlin, then Stuttgart loses out.

Great thread, Richard, no apologies needed here. You are among friends. Hard question to answer. My wife and I prefer a me'lange of big and small places to go to. Our third trip to Rome let us visit the smaller, less promoted places of interest. To see the "Torre Dei Venti" on Quirinal Hill was a highlight, that on two previous trips, we hadn't even known the place existed. The Flavian Amphitheater just outside of Naples, same thing. And small towns rock, like riding the Wuppertal Schwebebahn in Wuppertal, Germany, following the river, hanging in a tram car was very neat. We have friends that live in Schlitz, Germany, Brancaleone, Italy, Dimas, Cuba, and a relative with a closet sized loft in Paris, that we can use, if not rented. All places we love to go visit. It seems we are just happy to be on the road traveling.
On the transportation part, if we see someone walking here, we always say, "What's that guy up to?", because no one walks here. With no sidewalks and cars whizzing so close by, you take your life in your own hands to walk. We have had two neighbors hit while riding their bikes. We are just so car-oriented here, watching overweight people circling the parking lot for 15 minutes to get a space close to the door of the mall. Yikes! The public transportation here is terrible, also. But to have a meal on a train, in Europe, at 220 KPH, while gently rocking, is heaven. (HR-2434) Disclaimer: The above post, in no way, implies or admits that "The Crashman", any of his family or friends, has entered Cuba, through the Bahamas, or from anywhere else, has spent time there, or has exchanged any currency there, ever. (Just saying.....Crash)