Please sign in to post.

Most overrated?

Here's a topic I have been thinking about. But before I cause a Ricknik-land firestorm, allow me to define "overrated". For the purposes of this posting, let's use the term to mean "not quite worthy of the absolute singular attention it receieves". Meaning, the site, city or monument is probably very enjoyable and deserving a look. But perhaps not as unique as advertised, or a place that may have any number of more accessible alternatives, depending on the individual itinerary. So, with that being said, here are my nominees.

Rothenburg ob der Tauber Quite simply, Germany is filled with towns that preserve their historical architecture very well. You usually don't have to travel very far from any one point in country to find several examples. A not insignificant number even maintain all or part of their old defensive walls. Rothenburg might be one of the larger examples, but it's far from the only one. And unfortunately, it's been absolutely consumed by the tourist trade. Rothenburg is worth seeing if you're headed in that direction anyway, and it sits conveniently between the Mittelrhein and southern Bavaria. But if you need to travel far out of your way to see it, you're missing quite a lot along the route. And I wouldn't miss nearby Dinkelsbühl or Nördlingen for Rothenburg.

The Romantic Road You will probably enjoy the scenery along this road... as you would if you drove along just about any rural road in Germany. The road itself is nothing special, but it does link together some attractive towns. Also, it's only one of about 100 officially designated Feierenstraßen, or themed holiday routes in the country, but just about the only one known in English-language countries.

Salzburg Yes, it is an attractive city, and it offers some stunning views of the Alps. But compared to several other cities in southern Bavaria and western Austria, the Altstadt, the focus for most visitors, is really small. Smaller than a large shopping mall. Even the ski resort of Kitzbühel, with an almost insignificant year-round population in comparison, has a larger Altstadt. Also, when you've seen towns like Landshut, Passau, Burghausen, and Rosenheim, you notice a certain style of architecture with particularly brightly painted facades. I first visited Salzburg a day after seeing the Technicolor brilliance of Landshut. Salzburg, although built in a similar style, seemed oddly monochromatic, with most of the buildings painted dull shades of white. I do think that Salzburg makes a good stop between Munich and Vienna, and perhaps even a base for exploring some of the Alpine sites in the environs. But as a destination in and of itself, I don't think Salzburg holds up completely on it's own.

And now the biggest heresy... The Berner Oberland. Yes, it might be one of the most beautiful locations in all of the Alps (I put it just below the Mattertal in terms of natural beauty). But the Alps almost everywhere are stunningly beautiful, and often much cheaper. True, when I have visited under good weather conditions, it has never disappointed. But I can also say that again about most of the Alps. I wouldn't miss the Berner Oberland if it's convenient on your itinerary, and at the right time of year, but there are plenty of other Alpine locales where you can also get a great mountain experience, and many of these are much more convenient to the typical Grand Tour itinerary. And many that are much cheaper, even in Switzerland.

Posted by
6636 posts

No firestorm from me. I don't find anything worth disagreeing with. I'd only add that Switzerland altogether is overrated - yes, stunningly beautiful scenery in many places, but often with a whole lot of man-made architectural clutter, and stunningly expensive.

Posted by
20081 posts

My first nominee would be Neuschwanstein. A bit of a let down after being featured on just about every German travel poster. Wartburg is way better and a real castle with some real history. Haut-Koenigsbourg is also worth a visit, even though romantically restored in the 19th century.

I do like Rothenburg though. Chance to meet and compare notes with fellow tourists. Japanese connection is also interesting.

Posted by
2487 posts

A while ago there was a similar thread on the Thorn Tree Forum with the title »The Paris Hiltons of Travel«.
First an easy one in the same area: Neuschwanstein. It would be all right if people saw it as joke or in its nineteenth-century context, but I have severe doubts whether that's the case. The innocent think it's a castle. And it's more a pity because the most wonderful things are around the corner, such as the monastery in Ettal and, rightly on many routes, the Wieskirche.
It may be a very personal thing, but I found Munich not meet up to expectations. A few buildings and spots I liked (such as the Königsplatz) but too much downright boring and uninspiring stretches. Missable.
A agree about Salzburg, but let's have a look a little bit further on. In Vienna it's miracle why Schönbrunn is so popular, while the city has so much else on offer, like the Kirche am Steinhof and the Karl-Marx-Hof, just to mention two unique buildings, or the interesting Hofmobiliendepot or the Flaktürme.
To spread the field a little bit, I don't understand the popularity of Cinque Terre. I get the impression it's almost compulsory for our dear Americans friends.
But wouldn't it be much nicer to start a discussion on Most underrated? Those little gems everybody is looking for, but never goes to?

Posted by
1443 posts

The Jungfraujoch is overrated due to the inordinate amount of time required to get there and back. It's an amazing place, but it's about 3-4 hours round-trip. Instead of being cooped up in a train for that amount of time, I'd rather go on a great hike.

Posted by
23266 posts

As they say, "Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder." I think you can say the same of anything that is "over rated." I don't think anyone could say with certainty that "A" is absolutely overrated. A good example for me is Venice - I like Venice but I would not return every year. Rome I could go every year. For me Venice is a bit overrated. However, for us Rothenburg ob der Tauber was terrific. We were there for Christmas, Christmas markets, snow lightly falling most days. For us a near perfect holiday location. We would eagerly return. Maybe it is not so special in the summer but it was great in winter. So we could not classify Rothenburg as overrated. I could go on but my point is, What is overrated by one may be classic for some else.

Posted by
16240 posts

As a skier I find the Jungfraujoch entirely unremarkable. It is also very expensive and overcrowded. So I put this high on the " overrated" list.

Posted by
12040 posts

As a skier I find the Jungfraujoch entirely unremarkable.

As also a skier, though, I must add that I had one of my best skiing days ever on Grindelwald First. I also had one of my most disappointing days around Mürren. Männlichen/Kleine Scheidegg- pretty good, but not the absolute best.

Is skiing possible up at the Jungfraujoch?

Speaking of Schönbrunn, I agree that the interior is no more special than many other similar palaces. But I think the grounds are particularly interesting and a great place to wander around for a few hours.

Posted by
513 posts

Hi Tom,

Great topic Tom! Okay, so here are my two:
1) I agree with including the faux castle at Neuschwanstein. it is an interesting site, but there are so many better castles to visit/tour throughout Germany and the rest of Europe.
2) Here I am sure I will really get some flack, but I must include the city of Toledo Spain. The cathedral is one of the best I have seen anywhere in Europe, but the rest of the city, in my opinion, is only so so. What I really think is overhyped is the insistence by so many posters on this forum that one can only truly enjoy Toledo by staying overnight there and seeing it after the hordes of "day trippers" have gone back to Madrid. I think Toledo is an interesting city to visit, but far from an absolute "MUST SEE" to prove you have been to Spain.

Posted by
14507 posts

Of those 4 on the Iist, my favourite is Salzburg, the movie SOM has nothing to do with it. I like Salzburg, a Kunststadt, a nice refreshing place though inundated with tourists since I've only been there in the summer. I may be transferring there on this coming trip at the station. Admittedly, I went to Rothenburg .o.d. Tauber on my second trip in Germany as day trip from Nürnberg, skipped it the first time twos years earlier. Why did I go there? Because it seemed like the thing to do. Had I know better then, I would have gone to Fulda or Bamberg. Seeing Rothenburg once is sufficient.

The other two Berner Oberland...haven't been there, basically not interested, same with going on the Romantic Road, not interested. The "nominees" Wartburg is worthy of visiting, symbolic during the Romantic Age in Germany, am interested in seeing that, on the bucket list.

Neuschwanstein...depends on other factors, time, energy, etc, am open to seeing it once, but certainly not top priority. Cinque Terre...haven't been there, basically not interested.

Posted by
9420 posts

Rue Cler in Paris. Rick's highly over rated street. It's full of Americans carrying the blue book and not unique at all. There are other pedestrian only streets in Paris with much more charm.

Posted by
1743 posts

Yes, I have to agree about Neuschwanstein, except I saw it on my very first trip to Europe, when my perspective was less discerning than it is now.

Lucerne didn't especially impress me, perhaps because I visited on a drizzly day.

San Gimignano, while very attractive, felt to me as if it had sold out to the tourist dollar. Seemed like I had to get past dozens of tacky souvenir shops in order to find anything really authentic.

And while there are certainly many great things to see there, London is probably my least favorite of the European capitals I've visited. It's one of the few places in Europe I've been to twice, and It just doesn't have -- or I just didn't find -- the quintessential old-world charm I found in other large cities in Europe.

One last thing: I haven't been to Barcelona, but did you see Rick's video and blog post from there? The post is titled Barcelona's Ramblas RIP? Could that be added to the list of overrated places?

Posted by
2393 posts

To be fair, the biggest problem with Rick's picks is then the hoards descend and spoil what was once a charming place.

Over-rated - Brugge - overrun with tourists - I'll take Gent - a working small city

EDIT: I have to agree with Salzburg as well - it was a one nighter and that was plenty! My favorite part was staying in the Von Trapp family home!

Posted by
2712 posts

I haven't driven the Romantic Road, but I just loved Rothenburg (we were there at Christmas right before the market opened so not crowded). We hit Salzburg the same trip and liked it very much. The Berner Oberland is heaven on earth to me. I debated a long time about going to Neuschwanstein, but was so glad I did -- really enjoyed it. So I guess everyone is different.

I'm not sure I've been anywhere in Europe that I would consider overrated. Maybe Mont Saint-Michel. I was disappointed, but I think it's because the weather was kind of overcast and we had recently been to Chartres where we had a magical experience (gorgeous day, Malcolm Miller tour, and the organist rehearsing the whole time we were there). Mont Saint-Michel just could not live up to that.

If I am disappointed in a place, it's usually because my expectations are sky high. Or the weather doesn't cooperate or the crowds are unbearable.

Posted by
125 posts

We found that the Cinque Terre is overrated. In many ways it is similar to our home region but many more tourists. I enjoyed Nice and Villefranche-sur-Mer much more.

Posted by
3941 posts

I enjoyed the Amalfi Coast (especially Ravello). We stayed in a little tiny place called Atrani which was about a 10 min walk to Amalfi. Wellll...Amalfi didn't do anything particular for me. We wandered over for supper, and the next day in the evening to kill a few hours before bed because - well, it was close. The church was nice, but otherwise, we wandered up the main street, peeled off down a few of the side alleys, but didn't take us long to go...meh. But I long to return and really have more time to explore Sorrento, Positano and some of the other little villages along the way.

Avignon didn't float my boat either. We saw the Pont d'Avignon. I wish I had known and heeded the advice about not bothering to go into the Pope's Palace - empty and boring and (for us) a waste of $$. We walked around the town a little, but it just didn't grab us. We enjoyed Arles a lot more.

Monaco is OK, but I'd much rather wander thru the old town part of Nice.

Posted by
6501 posts

I agree about Salzburg, but I'm not a Sound of Music fan so maybe that disqualifies me.

I also agree with Susan (as I do on most things) about Rue Cler. Good place to meet fellow-Rickniks. Maybe some marriages have resulted. Many other pedestrian market streets in Paris with fewer blue books.

I must say that including London on any "overrated" list strikes me as bizarre. There may be overrated sights in London, I'm sure there are for many people, but really the whole city?

Chacun a son gout. (That's French.) ;-)

Posted by
13934 posts

I'll add to the nods for Neuschwanstein altho it is also one of those places that I had to see to form my own opinion.

Rhine Gorge - wow, somehow I thought it was going to be more, uh, "gorge-y". Like Columbia River Gorge. Or the Snake or Clearwater River Canyons. Those are local and familiar to me and I guess that was my expectation for Germany as well. After reading up on it when I returned I do now understand some of the significance regarding it's use as a trade route and some of the geologic significance, etc. Still, I was disappointed. I also had to laugh recently when I was doing some genealogy research and found a branch who hailed from the Palatine, likely sailed down their little river to the Rhine, on to their ship departure at Rotterdam and then on to Philly.

Ireland - This will probably get me booted off the board, but I was disappointed in Ireland and felt it vastly overrated. I did a wonderful RS tour. Enjoyed the guide, the group and the itinerary. Did not enjoy the political undertone of the Troubles, the pub culture or the traditional music.

Most surprising? Loved Italy. Had visited Paris in the 70's and hated it but visited again with a RS tour and an RS guide who told me he would make me love it. He did. I love Paris. Have always loved London and Bath. Loved Berner Oberland but it is the only place I've been in Switzerland. Even living within sight of mountains here in N. Idaho, the Lauterbrunnen Valley took my breath away.

Interesting to see what others' opinions are.

Posted by
11507 posts

Pisa .. waste of travel time for one good photo op.

Rue Cler.. its fine.. but overrated,, as said by Susan.. there are many other market type streets in Paris but many tourists seem to think Rue Cler is unique.

Brussels , just my opinion.

As said.. its all in the eye of the beholder and often their preconceived expectations.

Food in Italy.. I have only had one really good meal there.. but then .. I am not a fan of pasta so that likely colors my opinion..

Posted by
703 posts

what a good post. I agree with about 95 percent of the previous comments.( having visited most of them. its great to be able to mention something that you found overrated without someone not liking your comment.
to add to the list it has to be the cotswalds. we stayed in and around the cotswalds for a number of days and visited a good number of the towns. ( in a 3 week tour of south/west england)
while the towns are quaint and some pretty houses here and there, we definitely visited equally or better towns elsewhere. i wonder if its just good tourism advertising?
or is it people in general not using forums enough to find other interesting places to visit? i am so glad forums exist.

while I am at it I could add Bath to the list. interesting and nice to visit/walk around, but did not live up to the hype.

Posted by
4684 posts

Carcassonne. It's overrun by tourists and most of what you see is nineteenth-century Gothic Revival rather than actually medieval. Similarly the horrible tourist trap that is Eze.

I will defend Brussels at any time. It's just not good for a day trip, as the interesting locations are so widely distributed.

Posted by
565 posts

Good call on Brugge and Rue Cler. Boo-ring. Brugge did have a great brewery tour at De Haalve Maan but not much else. Glad I decided to stay in Gent for more time instead.

I'll also add most of Prague, especially out of the Old Town or Jewish Quarter.

Posted by
5678 posts

I am going to second the bizarreness of London being on this list. I'm sorry, but that is absurd. If you didn't find something to like in London you need to look harder! Or maybe you're not an urban person. London is a city that you can visit over and over again and still find new things to see and places to explore.

Moving on to over-rated places I would Oban on the west coast of Scotland and yes, Skye. Oban is a very useful ferry port to take you to Mull and other islands, but as a place to spend the night? Only if you arrive to late to catch the ferry! It's lovely little waterfront, have lunch and head for the isles. And Skye, it's beautiful, I don't disagree with that at all. But, unless you are a technical climber and are headed for the Cuillins, there are many other place in Scotland that are equally beautiful. And you can get to them by train....Skye is a big island and you have to have a rental car and more than two days to appreciate the island. So many people with only 7 days to visit Scotland insist on visiting Skye. I say visit Perthshire and the Trosachs which are closer. If you really want an island go to Mull.

Pam

Posted by
12040 posts

I will defend Brussels at any time. It's just not good for a day trip, as the interesting locations are so widely distributed.

Here-here, I agree. Brussels takes a little more effort to appreciate.

Posted by
2527 posts

For folks new to this forum, complaints about Rick's picks pop up seemingly on schedule and defenders respond. Akin to a tennis match and at times fun to watch when something new appears.

Posted by
8369 posts

The moment I saw your title I thought, Neuschwanstein Castle . The amount of time and energy it takes to get there just doesn't balance out with the experience of touring it. I am glad I went once, just to see what it was like. I would not go again.

I'm getting better and better at deciding what I want to see, not what everyone else thinks I should see.

Posted by
1743 posts

Since my character and judgment have come under attack for suggesting that London is overrated, I feel I must take arms and defend my honor!

First, I did not say I don't like London. I said it is my least favorite among the European capitals I've visited (which are not all that many: Paris, Vienna, Budapest, Ljubljana, Sarajevo, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Helsinki, and Tallinn). I loved each and every one of these places, London included.

I think London may be overrated only because it is probably one of the absolute top European destinations, so highly rated to begin with that it has a lot of reputation to live up to. Paris is probably right there with London as the two highest rated European capital cities. If I say I prefer Paris to London, that doesn't mean I don't think London is a great destination.

London feels like a very big city. I grew up in a very big city (New York), and I like New York better than London, too. But I like London more than just about every other North American city I've been to, with the possible exception of Montreal.

So please don't razz on me for listing London as overrated. I just like some other cities more. It's not a crime.

[NOTE: my tongue is firmly planted in cheek.]

Posted by
1059 posts

I think Zurich is overrated. I have to disagree regarding the comments about Salzburg and Venice. I think they are two great cities to visit. I have found that the weather can have a major impact on how you view a city. I have been to cities during bad weather and had a very unfavorable view of them only to return on another trip with great weather and loved the cities.

Posted by
3428 posts

@ Lane- I guess this will sort of balance your posts- I feel about Paris as you do about London. Didn't 'do it' for me. London, on the other hand, has at least part of my heart (the other parts are in Scotland and .... yes Salzburg (and Innsbruck)). In London itself, I'd say that Piccadilly Circus is very much overrated. As is seeing the Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace (go to Windsor to get a better view, or watch the parade from Horseguards, etc.) I also found Switzerland to be overrated.

As suggested in a previous post.... places I think are underrated-
Oslo, Norway- also one of the most pristine places I've seen.

Cairngorm Mountains of Scotland
Cardiff Wales

Posted by
565 posts

Agree with just about everything here. Cinque Terre is the most overrated place I've ever been. Rue Cler is a close call too. I'll second the whole 'Ireland' suggestion and double down on Spain (minus Barcelona) and a more specific destination of Florence. I've enjoyed all of it but I have no interest of repeat visits even though I have had to depending on my travel partners wishes.

Posted by
2456 posts

I'm giving myself a reminder to look into Tom's posts and advice when I finally get over my hatred of (almost) all things Germanic and make a trip there -- I'll need your input on the right spots to go to, since if I have to add overrated and overrun by tourists to my list of objections, then I'll really not have a worthwhile visit.

FRA airport better not be representative of what Germany has to offer, because everything about it makes me sick. Who could possibly find that corrugated metal decor with the floodlights aesthetically appealing?

Posted by
14507 posts

On the continent FRA is the most Americanized airport. Before I needed to use Munich airport in 2013, I had read in a travel magazine that Munich airport was one of top ten in the world. After using MUC I can totally see the validity of that distinction. If you want to avoid FRA as the place to arrive in Europe, then choose Paris CDG. But then I wonder which of the two has more detractors...FRA or CDG?

Posted by
6501 posts

Thanks for clarifying about London, Lane. And I agree with Toni about Piccadilly Circus and the changing of the guard. And I like NYC too, used to live there.

Posted by
3941 posts

If we had only seen Cinque Terre in 2012 - I would totally agree. It was crowded and overrun for sure. We did go in 2008 and enjoyed it (which is why we returned and were so disappointed by the hordes - of which I realize we were a part).

I will say - I just had a facebook friend who visited CT a few weeks ago - she posted pics and the weather looked beautiful - sunny and warm enough for them to be in t-shirts...and she said there were very few tourists. So if we ever do decide to return, we'll try to go earlier or later in the year (both times we went was 3rd week of Sept). I know weather is a crap shoot, but...

We enjoyed our stroll up rue Cler last year - because we bought ice cream and cookies - so that made it better. :) But without the treats, it was def overrated. For really overrated, how about Champs Elysee! Too many people, too many touristy shops selling crap from China.

Posted by
2639 posts

The single most disappointing Tourist attraction I have ever been to has to be Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin, loved Berlin and hope to go back soon but Checkpoint Charlie was a joke,looks like someone got an old garden shed and painted it white , then a couple of guys take turns to pretend they are guards so tourists can take pictures of them (for a fee of course), my 89 year old mum could take these guys without breaking sweat.
Just total disappointment.

Posted by
27104 posts

Yes, the current Checkpoint Charlie (a re-creation) is not worth a glance. But I found the nearby House at Checkpoint Charlie (Cold War museum) very interesting. Unfortunately it was also utterly mobbed last summer. I have a feeling the Cinque Terre was no more crowded that Berlin was during my visit.

Posted by
2639 posts

I went to that museum and thought it superb,could have spent more time there and will go back next time I am in Berlin.

Posted by
19092 posts

"The amount of time and energy it takes to get there [Neuschwanstein] just doesn't balance out with the experience of touring it."

I never thought it took a lot of time and energy to get to Neuschwanstein, not compared to getting to Herrenchiemsee or Burg Eltz. I definitely enjoyed touring Neuschwanstein more than I did Herrenchiemsee. I knew the story of Neuschwanstein before I ever went there, so I was not deluded into thinking it was a real castle, but it is a spectacular building. The tour through Ludwig's living quarters is an interesting view into the man's psyche.

The place that, in my opinion, is most overrated is Wieskirche. I arrived there with one hour before the next bus. It took me all of about 5 minutes to see Wieskirche. It's just one of too many overly gaudy Rococo churches in Bavaria. Fortunately, there was a little restaurant across the road. I had an early lunch, so the stop was not totally wasted.

I actually like Rothenburg odT, but I ignore the crowded areas, the Christmas shop, and the C & P Museum. I love walking the wall. What impresses me is the amount of labor that went into building the wall. And they didn't build it to be a tourist attraction hundreds of years later; they built it because they wanted to stay alive.

I also liked Nördlingen for the same reason. Typical of the Romantic Road, it's the towns on the Road that make it interesting, not the road itself. But it takes a day to drive the Road even it you don't stop anywhere, but then what's the point. If you spend time in the towns, you'll spend many days doing the Romantic Road.

And Beilstein. It's extremely tiny. You might spend an hour there, if you had lunch.

Posted by
12172 posts

I love Salzburg. I don't think it's overrated at all. I don't do Sound of Music but there are few places with such a nice compact, walkable, center and sights in one place.

Romantic Road, agree, not particularly enjoyable driving when you can take the autobahn and make the same stops faster.

I'd add Lucca as overrated. Rick must like it because it's convenient for people without cars and maybe good for people with walking issues. The wall is kind of neat but it's an uninspiring flat town in an area with lots of great hill towns.

Posted by
12172 posts

Madrid is also overrated in my book. It's no older than Baltimore so it doesn't have the history most European cities have. El Prado is great, but you could do it as a day stop, walking distance, from Atocha station - then keep going to nicer places in Spain.

Posted by
11315 posts

Italy is getting off easy on this list.

Spanish Steps are barely worth a walk-by, much less planning in an itinerary

Cività di Bagnoreggio is cute, but far too many people go out of their way and it takes a lot of time

Pisa

As to Switzerland
Gimmelwald cute, but really not a great place to stay but we LOVE the Berner-Oberland due to the combination it offers: scenery, hiking in summer and winter, ease of access, great transportation. Every time we try another location for hiking we compare it to our faves: the B-O and the Val Gardena.

Posted by
205 posts

Most any place can be (or become) overrated if the traveler is merely going there to check it off a list of places a traveler "has to visit." Your friends and neighbors loved it so you HAVE to go and YOU'LL love it too!
Maybe I like architecture and my fellow traveler favors museums. If the buildings are uninteresting and I lose interest, does that make the place overrated?

If the food, drink, people and buildings are wonderful and I would move there in a minute, but the museums are lacking, is it overrated? To the museum lover, perhaps.

If you are going someplace to immerse yourself in the culture (as much as a person can in a limited time), it will be more satisfying. As most people on these boards well know, that takes time and homework before the travel plans are finalized.

Some people don't want to put in the effort to find places they want to go or learn why "everybody goes there." It might be "everybody goes there" because everybody goes there. And that's never a good enough reason for me.

I believe most travelers/tourists equate "bored with" to "overrated." If a person becomes easily bored with a place, and still has a lot of time left there, that person might label that town overrated.

It's really a matter of unmet expectations.
Learn about destinations before you go. Learn about the places where tourists aren't. Find out beforehand WHY this is a place YOU are interested in visiting. And then go visit. Keep on traveling. I find there's nothing in the world like the feeling of being someplace new. That's the joy I find in world travel. And it's never overrated to me.

Posted by
8369 posts

Lee, I did not say that it took a lot of time and energy to get to N. Castle. I said it wasn't worth the time and energy it did take to get there......

Posted by
1878 posts

It's interesting that a lot of folks that didn't like a place state the reason that it was overly crowded with tourists. My wife and I always travel shoulder season and have only found the tourist crowds to be overwhelming in major cities like Rome, London, Prague, and Paris (and then only at the major sights).

We liked Prague very much, but it's not as off the charts great as people say. I prefer Budapest. Likewise, Barcelona is nice but I prefer Madrid which is a much better art city.

Rothenburg ob der Tauber lives up to its Rick Steves billing as far as I am concerned. Likewise Cinque Terre, although I was there in 2007 so it might be horrible now.

I have not found any places that we have visited in our fifteen or so trips to be especially disappointing. Mostly we do our research beforehand and don't go to place that won't appeal. When the crowds overwhelm our ability to enjoy a place, we just figure that it goes with the territory at major tourist sights.

Posted by
8942 posts

Ya'll can slap me if you want, but I wasn't that enchanted by Paris. Nice city and all, but it was just ok. Smelled like urine everywhere we went, including the steps going up to the top of Sacre Coure. (who pees inside a church?) and the aroma in the Metro in July was overpowering. The markets were rather disappointing after being used to the fresh variety at the Frankfurt markets. I guess my expectations were that we would be wowed and we weren't. People there were friendly, food was ok, but nothing to rave about. We have the very same falafel and crepes in Frankfurt and one does tire of Croque Monsiur after a few times.

Munich is another city where it is nice and all, but I don't think I would want to spend a whole lot of time there. None of the churches wowed me, and the food is expensive. Oktoberfest is an event I truly never want to go to. The Hofbrauhaus was just a tourist attraction with not very special food. The city also puts me off by the fact that they don't allow Stolperstein to be installed for any of the victims of nazi violence.

Rüdesheim is the kitchiest city in Germany and I believe the most visited due to the cruise ships and day cruise docks. Barely anything being sold there that isn't made in China. The chairlift is fun, but that is about it. There is nothing being sold here that you can't find in gift shops in any other city in Germany. The cruise ships fill the streets of course. The food is usually ok, but nothing outstanding. The Mechanical Musical Box museum is worth a visit though if you are there.

Posted by
6636 posts

How did Baden-Baden escape inclusion on this list?

Posted by
3941 posts

Ms Jo - after going to Sacre Coeur on either a Fri or Sat night on our 2nd visit to Paris, I think I can explain the urine smell - the immigrants selling beer and wine by the bottle probably has something to do with it (and I'm guessing the fact that drunk men seem to think anywhere is a urinal). I'm glad we went to SC on our first visit in the day...it was very disheartening to see people sitting there drinking, beer and wine bottles all over the steps, and the inevitable broken glass that goes along with it.

Posted by
8438 posts

Lots of agreement on several places. For me it was the Coliseum in Rome. Interesting from the outside, but a quick walk around the inside was enough.

Posted by
2527 posts

I was thinking the same as Russ and never ponder why it's a joy on each and every visit.

Posted by
11507 posts

Glad someone else mentioned Brugges.. I was going to.. but it does have its fans. As a canal city it does not hold a candle to Venice.. or even Amsterdam.. and other than that I saw it as super touristy.. streets lined with lace, chocolate and beer shops.. and .. of course.. many many tourists.. perhaps the less central parts are more interesting.

I will repeat though.. one persons overrated it another persons underrated.. and neither is wrong because they are basing it on their interests and likes and dislikes.

Posted by
332 posts

I had some hesitation about Rothenburg odT. I had heard it was touristy, but I have been to Gatlinburg/Pigeon Forge, and Las Vegas, Niagara Falls. I was like how touristy can it be??? Ok let me just say I went into major tourist overload. I don't know if it was because we had gotten used to hearing German being spoken around us and suddenly there were loud American English voices shouting on their cell phones? I don't think it was the city itself. But it was like listening to a lovely symphony being played and all of the sudden someone scratches the vinyl. It was just irritating. There were some great parts about the city. We loved walking the walls. We drove down to the double bridge. (Mainly we couldn't find it and were using the GPS it is really walkable). The view from down there was amazing. It was nice to see once and get out of dodge. I agree Dinkelsbühl and Nördlingen are awesome.

Rüdeshiem is also really touristy. Although I enjoyed it. I liked watching the boats and wandering through the town.

I also am not a big fan of Berlin. I visited it in college, and want to go back so my husband can experience it, but it is too cold for my liking. I do know people who love it, but I am not one of those people.

I think I like the charm of smaller cities and towns much better.

Posted by
703 posts

In Rome, The Spanish Steps. Didn't see what all the hype was about. We liked the other plazas better.

In Venice, The Bridge of Sighs. Glad we saw it but really we were just standing on a bridge looking at it (and taking pictures) with a bunch of other people.

In London, Tate Modern.

In Paris, hmmm, let me think. I loved everything in Paris. Except maybe a couple of restaurants we went to that were just so so.

Posted by
873 posts

Berlin is, hands down, my favorite city in the world, but I agree about Checkpoint Charlie. There are tons of places in Berlin and any city that are popular with tourists, but places like Checkpoint Charlie are the definition of tourist trap. Not much to look at, not a ton of historical significance compared to other popular sights, and they top it off with charging tourists for a photo with the "guards" (or so I am told). The DDR Museum was a lot more entertaining and interesting (to me, anyway), if Soviet kitsch is what you're after in Berlin.

My other nomination would have to be The Tower of London. We decided to check it out partly because of Rick's high praises, and I personally found it to be kind of a waste of time. It's cool that the Yeomen Wardens are still technically around and they're very good tour guides, but in general, I found the whole thing kind of boring. The sole focus of the tour seemed to be on on who was beheaded where and in what gruesome fashion. Can't really blame them, since I am sure that is what sells tickets, but there's got to me more to the Tower than that.

Edit: also nice to see other people here share my opinion of Munich! It's very possible that the cold and rainy weather didn't help, but overall, I found it a bit boring and expensive, especially after visiting Berlin.

Posted by
1097 posts

I am really glad there are so many wonderful places to visit and that not all of us want to go to the same ones!

Posted by
3941 posts

I actually really enjoyed the Tower of London and the tour by the yeoman - our yeoman was a bit of a comedian, so it was funny. Hubby and I spent almost 5 hours there in 2014. Diff strokes for diff folks!

Munich underwhelmed - most likely because we had less than a day to explore, so we really only went where our feet would take us - the main square, the Englishergarten, and I think an industrial museum - maybe the Deutsches museum? Hubby enjoyed it so much (heavy on the sarcasm), he actually forgot we were in Munich! Tho we really didn't give it much time, I really have no desire to go back...maybe we will give it another chance someday.

Posted by
11507 posts

Well the Tower of London did in fact function as a prison for hundreds of years.. ( although it was not built as one).. so since the usual sentence to many crimes was in fact death.. it makes sense a lot of the tours there do focus on all the famous historical prisoners and their fates.. lol
I think the key to enjoying some sites is learning the history of the place BEFORE you go.. even with a tour or an audio guide you only learn so much.. and its way more interesting to see something you have only read about.. and go" wow.. I read about that.. and here it is"
I know I have been less than thrilled with some sites because I didn't really "get" them.. and more interested in the ones that I have some background info( more than a paragraph in a guide book too)

Barcelona is one city I didn't really take to, but I would not call it overrated.. it was my own fault for not really doing any background research.. to me it was just sort of ho hum.. ( and I admit to being not impressed with tapas that overpriced and one needed to eat so much of them that you might as well have gone out for a proper dinner.. but.. we stayed in the touristy areas.. if we had been smarter we would have gone out in areas where they still offer tapas as a free appetizer at bars, so our fault..

Years ago ( like 15) I was offered a free place to stay in London.. so for the price of only an airline ticket and a few meals out ( this was a home where we would be eating breakfast and a few dinners in ) I would be able to visit a city I had never been to.. I was actually reluctant to go.. I had never been interested in London.. I thought it was "too much like home"... lol ( keep in mind I live in a city that bills itself as "little England") . However I decided the opportunity was too good to miss.. so I went. First however I read and read and read.. historical novels, historical biographies of the some of the royal families, some travel guides and basic thumbnail history books.. It made a HUGE difference.. and I ended up really loving London.. ( going back for 6th time in less then 11 days!!)

Posted by
14507 posts

Absolutely...Munich is more expensive than Berlin in regards to accommodations. In that sense seeing Munich after visiting Berlin would be a negative surprise. Comparing like vs like I stay in both at a Pension, same type of accommodation, a single with the WC/shower "down the hall" ( in Berlin it's the adjacent door), the result is Berlin is cheaper in a larger room.

Posted by
1914 posts

Our first trip to Paris we went to Sacre Coure at night only to find ourselves passing a lot of X-rated shops with our 13 year old daughter and landing in the midst of a huge brawl in front of a cancelled concert hall. We had to run to get away from the flying bottles that were being thrown! I wouldn't go back there again! But, otherwise we love Paris.

Posted by
15582 posts

I won't repeat some that I completely agree with and are higher on my list, but I will add:

Stonehenge
Stratford-upon-Avon
Hallstatt (pretty enough but not worth the schlep to get there)

and most recently, Semana Santa in Sevilla. I love Sevilla and I enjoyed being there, but it just wasn't worth the hotel price, especially when compared with Semana Santa in Malaga, where my hotel (not as nice as in Sevilla but comfortable and very well located) was €120/night less and the processions were better and the crowds fewer and more civil.

Posted by
2456 posts

Chani is adding to the need for a new variation on this thread -- the right strategy for our breed of traveler is to find a place that has been neither completely passed by nor overdiscovered. Like Sevilla, I felt that Girona's semana santa festivities have gone past the tipping point where it caters to outsiders too much. True also for the ramblas in Barcelona or the Champs Elysee in Paris or Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, etc. Success has spoiled them. Other end of the spectrum are spots where they haven't caught on yet that outsiders are interested so there isn't enough catering to make it friendly for us, by offering English labels or visitor transit passes (I'm thinking e.g. the 'oriental' museum in Rome).

One traveler's not-enough-catering is another's just right, though, just as some spots that I consider over-discovered might be (and are) major inspirations for others.

Late one night on the main drag in Juan-les-Pins the crowd made me despair for the coming generations; in the morning at a wedding next hill over in an old church in Antibes the crowd filled me with hope and joy. It takes all kinds, don't it?

Posted by
5678 posts

I can see why you might find the Tate Modern over-rated if you didn't like contemporary art, or if you didn't check to see what the exhibits were before you went, or weren't interested in walking around Southbank. There was a Calder exhibit there last December that was outstanding. I thought that half of visiting the Tate Modern was getting over to the south bank and walking around in that area. It made for an absolutely lovely day.

Almost all these places that we're disparaging here can be quite wonderful depending on your interests, your preparation and when you go. You have to make your own plans and make your own decisions and use "what everyone recommends" as starting points not your definitive itinerary. :)

Pam

Posted by
1825 posts

Anywhere you can dock a cruise ship (during the day). Maybe not Amsterdam because they have had ships forever but Venice and CT are two good examples.

Posted by
12040 posts

Do cruise liners dock at CT? I've never been there, but from what I've seen in pictures, it looks like the towns wouldn't have the infrastructure to support a massive ship docking. Correct me if I'm wrong.

There are some cities where the presence of cruise ships and the tourist who disembarge from them are scarcely noticable among the overall mass of economic activity. I'm thinking mostly the Scandinavian capitals, and major port cities like the previously mentioned Amsterdam, Hamburg and Antwerpen.

Posted by
27104 posts

I believe cruisers in Cinque Terre have debarked in La Spezia or Livorno and traveled by rail or bus to the C.T.

I was in Kotor, Montenegro, early last October, and there was a huge difference in the density of tourists on the day a huge cruise ship docked vs. the previous day. The ship completely changed the character of the part of the old town nearest the gates. It wasn't so bad once you got well away from the gates.

I agree about Neuschwanstein. It is pretty impressive castle, but basically, one of many. So it is better to spread your time equally, not to concentrate on just one thing. Obviously it doesn't apply to places like Rome where you should actually do just that, dedicate yourself.

Posted by
513 posts

I have to agree heartily with Russ on his question, how DID Baden Baden escape this list for so long? The spa(s) and casino (if you go to Europe for the gambling?) are nice, but there are many others located in Germany in cities and towns with so much else to offer the visitor...

Posted by
178 posts

Without a doubt, my over rated choice is Lake Hallstatt. I've seen much more scenic sites in my backyard,that being Canada.

Posted by
207 posts

Versailles. Maybe it was the crowds, but it felt more like an ordeal than an experience.

Posted by
12040 posts

I have to agree heartily with Russ on his question, how DID Baden Baden escape this list for so long?

Probably because the only people enthralled with it are the proprietor of this website, his most blindly obedient followers and Russian oligarchs Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with Baden-Baden and I'd gladly spend time there over just about any town in the US. But as I've written countless times on this website, it's only one of about 100 officially designated spa towns in Germany (and not even the only one in the Black Forest region), and it's out of the way from many of the other destinations on the Rick Steves trail.

Posted by
2527 posts

"Probably because the only people enthralled with it are the proprietor of this website, his most blindly obedient followers and Russian oligarchs." Since I'm not Rick, nor a Russian oligarch and even disagree with Ricky at times, there must be a third identity for me. :)

Posted by
89 posts

Another vote for Versailles. After the private tour (apartments & chapel), we couldn't wait to get out of there.

Posted by
15582 posts

The huge increase in European tourism has made a lot of places less enjoyable. There are places I remember seeing years ago when you could just walk in, no lines, no crowds, that I wouldn't go back to today, including some of the places and sights you've listed. The world changes.

I've been fortunate to see many of the famous places and sights back when, and others in off-season (though off-season is getting shorter!). So now I can look for the lesser known, less traveled destinations.

Posted by
7661 posts

I cannot imagine picking Salzburg, The Romantic Road and Rothenburg ob der Tauber as being overrated. Those are prime attractions for Germany. I do think Neuswanstein (spelling) is overrated. I love Switzerland, but Austria has similar scenery and is a lot cheaper.

Posted by
2745 posts

I've blocked the name from my brain but Rick recommended some Roman Ruins in Portugal. Biggest waste ever. They had put cement platforms in bizarre places, the "ruins" were rebuilt by 12 year olds without a clue.

Posted by
12172 posts

Agree with Lee about Wieskirche. When we went it was a choice between there and a monastery, between Neuschwanstein and Munich, which would have been more a beer/food visit. We chose Wieskirche because we had kids with us. The best part of the stop was a couple of goats in a pen. My kids were far more interested in the goats than anything else there.

I normally won't call sights like Neuschwanstein, Leaning Tower of Pisa, Rome Coliseum, Eiffel Tower, Big Ben, etc. overrated. Most people don't feel their visit is complete if they skip them.

Posted by
703 posts

Pam, the reason I didn't care for Tate Modern is that we walked through several of the galleries & didn't see any art. There was an exhibit we could have paid for but by that time we were tired from all the walking we did that day (11 miles total) so we walked through a couple of rooms & left. When we got to Paris & went to Georges Pompidou, I told my husband "Now this is a modern art gallery!"

Posted by
39 posts

The whole experience of seeing the Little Mermaid statue in Copenhagen. Not so much the statue's fault, as the unbelievable amount of people there, and the endless line of everyone pushing everyone else out of the way to pose next to the statue.

English Breakfast. Both places I stayed in London had the same experience. Toast, jelly, lukewarm tea with milk in it. How you can mess up bread and jelly, is beyond me. The Danes excel at it - I could live off of their bread, butter and raspberry jams.

Oh, and one other thing - I did not know that neither Sunflowers or Starry Night is at the Van Gogh museum. I felt like Pee Wee Hermann does at the end of his Alamo tour...

Posted by
8942 posts

The Loreley. One of the more underwhelming sites in Germany. If the ship recording doesn't tell you it is the highest point, you would never know. Nothing about it stands out. The small statue on the spit of land is unremarkable and if you are on a train, you will be lucky to even see it. All the people on board rush to that side of the ship to take a photo, but the landscape looks no different than the rest of the Rhine gorge.

The ships are interesting though. They play a recording of the song, "The Lorely" and if there are lots of senior Germans on the ship, they sing along. The song was written by Heinrich Heine, but when the nazis had control, they changed the name of the author to "Anonymous".

Posted by
1480 posts

What I am learning by reading this thread is supporting how I choose my travel destinations. I know that Paris is a well loved destination, but I will never go there until/unless I develop some sort of personal attachment. Why go anywhere "touristy" without that? Why travel so far and spend so much money without that? No site whether natural (Cliffs of Moher) or historical (Vatican City) can give dividends without investment. It is not "travels" responsibility to provide oohs and ahhs, it is our responsibility to interact and provide meaning.

Posted by
7026 posts

"but I will never go there until/unless I develop some sort of personal attachment."

I'm wondering how you're going to develop some sort of personal attachment without ever going there? Doesn't make sense to me. If people only went places they have a personal attachment to, they'd never leave home.

Posted by
1480 posts

Nancy,
What I am saying is that when I travel I choose destinations carefully and with much thought. So far I have never been disappointed. The "personal attachment" I was referring to is the reason I am going to a specific destination in the first place. For example, I went to Ireland to walk on land that my ancestors walked on. Within Ireland I chose destinations that appeal to me. For example I love landscapes and history. A lot of my trip included natural sites. And while in Dublin I visited the Book of Kells, Kilmainham Gaol, the bog people and I did not visit Guinness brewery or wander temple bar district. If I had gone there instead, due to ratings or recommendations without understanding why they were rated highly I would likely report that they were overrated.
I assume that the main point for this thread is to share a negative experience so that others can avoid it. In reading the responses of why some rate a place differently, it brought to mind how I go about choosing a destination. For example, I would never post: I am going to "Europe" for 2 weeks where should I go and what should I see? My travel is very personal as I will not have the time or the funds to travel casually.
I hope I continue to be lucky and to not be disappointed by my choices.
Thanks for reaching out to me and asking me to clarify my phrase usage.

Posted by
919 posts

Well, I'll just pack up my Germanic ancestors and go home! .
I really liked the 7th Arr. In Paris but agree that Rue Cler itself is not awe-inspiring. I found many of the other nearby streets more interesting.

The most overrated for me is Dublin. Other than the Book of Kells, I'm not getting what's so interesting/exciting about the city. After one day, I was ready to get the heck out of there.

Posted by
14507 posts

One can see Heine's house/museum in Düsseldorf, (haven't seen that), and see Heine's house in Lüneburg, which I saw in 2007.

Posted by
15582 posts

I thought the purpose of the thread was to entertain the OP and the rest of us who aren't deep into planning our next trip and wish we were☺.

I've been wowed by things I almost skipped, or came upon by accident. I've been disappointed by things that get a lot of hype (included some mentioned here). I've had good trips that were carefully planned and good trips that were almost completely unplanned. I've been delighted by places that left me cold the first time, and I've been sorry once or twice on taking the time to return to one of my "wows" only to look around and think "why did I like this before?"

Posted by
15806 posts

I think there is something to be said for enjoyment being linked to an amount of pre-reading? Not in all cases, certainly, but in many? I loved London (been twice) but had done quite a bit of research; enough to play tour guide a bit for my DH in Westminster. Same for the Tower: if already somewhat familiar with the loooong history, it may reach you on a different level?

Underrated in that city is the British Library, IMHO.

We liked Brugge very much but spent little time with the Markt/Burg and a lot more off the usual grid. It was positively lovely at 6:00 AM when almost no one was up and about! Canal cruise? Underwhelming. Jerusalem Chapel? Fascinating - and especially so when the gentleman who sold us our tickets was the 17th generation of the family who built it. We were also the only visitors there so...

Personal taste probably has a lot to do with it as well. I'm easily bored with opulent palaces and rooms and rooms of fancy furniture - the Residenz in Munich almost put me to sleep, and we may never do Versailles - so they're 'wrong' for me but I'm probably in the minority.

Posted by
50 posts

What i am most interested in when reading the replies to this post is the "accessible alternatives" as the OP puts it! if you didn't like a place, what was something/somewhere else you had found an amazing alternative to be.

I cannot comment on this post as i have never been to Europe but that doesn't mean i am not ever planning and i love to hear this stuff as i am trying to wade through what some of you have said are the "well everyone is going there so i must also check it off" places and try to discover ones that don't pop up immediately in the travel research .. Thanks!