I'm posting mostly to think out loud and hear considerations Ive maybe overlooked. I am weighing a spring break trip to one of these (I need to use a credit, and both match the credit pretty closely. And Il be meeting my daughter). I am familiar with AMS, and have never been to London/England. I will have approximately 10 days. If I go to the NL it would be easier because more familiar, and I would delve into more off the beaten path places around (not necessarily stay in AMS although maybe two days to hit my favorite spots). I also have personal reasons that the NL is attractive. London could be fun because novel, and with Spring inclement weather, lots of museums, but its also large, more overwhelming, and maybe too big for what I want to deal with in 10 days off work. The credit expires soon, so I cant wait to see if summer fares go down somewhat from where they are now, although I could use it to take a chunk out of the cost. I think the issue is that I dont love any of these options but I want to use the credit (yes, I realize Im giving in to sunk cost thinking).
Posted by
Seattle, WA, USA ☔️
6788 posts
Your thinking seems appropriate to me, give your stated preferences and constraints.
AlI things considered, I would pick London for the simple reason that you haven't been there before. Plenty to see/do in and around London and the southern UK. With 10 days, you could get to a lot.
It's as "easy" a destination as any in Europe (though not a cheap one, I suppose AMS and surrounding options might be marginally less expensive, but not tremendously so).
Good news: You have a dilemma with no bad choices. How nice.
Posted by
Duluth 🛶
7836 posts
I'll vote with David in London's favor. I've been to both places and love both of them, but London is one of my favorite destinations and since you've never been, it would be fun (I think) to have a new travel experience. As David said, London is easy to get around in and most of the sites are fairly centrally located. There are some really fun side trips you could take as well, such as Windsor Castle, Hampton Court Palace, the Cotswolds and so on.
ETA: Here is a recent post that might be fun for you to look through if you decide on London: https://community.ricksteves.com/travel-forum/england/day-trips-near-london
ETA: One other thought. In terms of size, I did not find London overwhelming - certainly no more so than Amsterdam. London is split into many defined neighborhoods, and it was very easy for me (on my first trip) to use that to organize my sightseeing.
Posted by
Calgary
1732 posts
Something to consider. Does your spring break trip coincide with the Easter holiday? If so, I'd avoid London. My first trip there was over the Easter "bank holiday" weekend, and the crowds were horrendous. Also, some of the "tube" lines were shut down for maintenance. I had to leave Westminster Abbey without seeing much of it because it was so crowded--packed shoulder to shoulder--I couldn't see anything but other people's heads. I was in London on a 20 hour layover last May, and it was much, much nicer. I went back to Westminster Abbey and enjoyed it immensely.
So, if there's a bank holiday weekend involved, my suggestion would be the Netherlands. Otherwise, enjoy London.
Posted by
Chicago
8158 posts
Split it between the Netherlands and Belgium.
There is easy transportation between the two.
You can go to Keukenof ( it is only open from the last week in March to 2nd week of May) see the tulips and
Go stay in Ghent and take some day trips to Bruges in or Antwerp
Posted by
OP
1229 posts
Dates are late teens of March to mid-late twenties (for example, 16-27)
Posted by
The Heartland USA
8913 posts
You are too young to stick to "familiar" and "beaten path".
Posted by
New York, NY
4057 posts
If you haven’t been to Keukenhof, you will be in for a treat, if you choose to fly to AMS. Plus the idea of traveling within Belgium to Bruges or Ghent is something to consider. I find AMS a much easier airport than Heathrow as well.
Posted by
Chicago
8158 posts
Posted by
Salem, Oregon, USA
2680 posts
Will your credit let you do an open jaw ticket, such as flying in to Amsterdam and home from London? Then you could visit both. Since you've been to Amsterdam before you could favor more time in London. You can take Eurostar between the cities, a pleasant four hour journey.
Posted by
Lynnwood, Washington
8854 posts
You don't sound very excited about either option. I think you should rethink and go to a place that does make you excited. Yes, you have the credit, but how much more would you need to pay to go to somewhere where you are actually wanting to explore? Is it good value to go somewhere just because it matches your credit or is it good value to put the credit towards someplace you really want to visit?
Posted by
Olympia, WA, USA
6713 posts
Carol makes a very good point, if your credit is indeed usable in a different way to go somewhere that really interests or excites you. But if your choices are really just Amsterdam vs. London, then I'd vote for London because it's new for you and outstanding in its own right. You could easily fill ten days there with some day trips. It's about as "easy" a European destination as an American or Canadian could find because you know the language. The biggest adjustment would be remembering to look to the right first, instead of left, at street crossings.
Heathrow is one of the world's biggest and busiest airports, but it's well-signed and there are easy ways to get into the city. And, as someone observed, London is a spread-out place full of distinctive neighborhoods and a great transit system, doesn't have the same big-city feel as, say, NYC or Chicago. Give it a try! ;-)
Posted by
Northamptonshire, England
33719 posts
where would you be meeting your daughter? Which of the two would she like to spend time with mom?