Museums or environment?

Ha ha, I'll have to remember that about Nukus, Lane. But I do agree. I go for the cities, and not for the museums. They're an added attraction, certainly, but not the main reason. That's why my favorite cities are the ones that have a certain vibe and/or history that you can't find elsewhere.

I think most places in the world that have great museums also have other reasons to visit, but I've planned trips around museums.

I first became interested in Turin to see the Egyptian Museum. Likewise my visit to Aarhus started with wanting to see Den Gamle By. I want to go to Berlin to see the institutions on Museum Island. I spent two days in Bonn, but entirely in museums so I can't tell you much about the city itself. I went to Amsterdam for the first time specifically to see the Vermeer exhibition a few years ago. I'm going to London soon to see a couple of exhibitions and then on to Brussels to revisit a favorite work of art and see a museum which was closed that last time I was there. I went to Vienna two years in a row largely motivated by the museums.

I wouldn't say I go to these cities for the museums over the environment, but the museum can and does motivate the trip.

Great museum cities are many, Rome, Florence, Paris, London, Madrid, Athens, Istanbul, Amsterdam, Berlin, St. Petersburg, Cairo, Taipei, Stockholm and several in the USA.

Of course, Rome and Florence have great sites to visit outside of museum as do the other cities listed.

If you are looking for scenic places (not sure what you meant by environment) then key places to visit are normally not large cities.
Places like Alaska (Glacier Bay, Denali park); Grand Canyon, Yellowstone or Glacier Parks in the American West; the fjords of Norway; the Cliffs of Moher and Ring of Kerry in Ireland; Cornwall in England; Switzerland; and Machu Picchu in Peru.

Vienna and Edinborough are also great museum cities.

Modifying the question a bit, there are cities that I will wait for a great museum exhibit to plan a return visit: London among those.

And there are cities where I will wait for a great ballet to plan a visit or return visit: London and Budapest among those. But that's really modifying the question!

I , for one , don't think you can separate the two . Take , for example ( only one among myriad places ) Vienna , The museums , the city's history , the cultural ,social , political , and developmental aspects of the place are all intricately bound together and the more widespread the grasp of it all , allows a broader understanding of the total experience . I apply this concept to every place I visit , including my home , Greater Metropolitan New York City

Is it an either/or question, and why must it be so? Personally, I am firmly in the "get both" camp.

My work life is museums, so they are front and center, but a destination's environment is a pull as well. For me, the two are completely intertwined rather than competing forces.

We all have different travel interests. I have absolutely no interest in Paris. The only reason I’ve ever been in Paris or Berlin was simply to switch trains. On the flip side, I love London precisely because it is both. I go for London itself, its museums, and the deep layers of history that I can trace directly back home to Virginia.

I've been to Ironbridge twice just because of the iron industry history. But, dang it's beautiful. And Den Haag just to see the painting The Girl with the Pearl Earring. I traveled to Iceland purely for the natural beauty, but it was essentially a museum of nature. Conversely, I went to Prague simply to experience Prague as a place, to visit the location of the Defenestration of Prague and see what was left of the White Mountain Battlefield.

For me, it's not a choice between the two, it's a whole package.

PS - there is such a thing as museum fatigue and there should be other things that hold my interest. Dance clubs certainly ain't my thing, but kart racing in the Docklands sure was a blast.

I STAY in cities for "environment" (often adding museums to the mix). I do DAY trips to places - cities, towns, whatnot - for museums, both home and abroad.

To me, I'm staying somewhere for several days or more because of a bunch of different "attractions" - from museums, to restaurants, to parks, to friends/family, to an event/show/concert, etc, - so it becomes a much bigger (and easier) decision to choose a city to stay in that has a bunch of different attractions.

Using Paris as an easy example, though, I will visit it for all the different things to see and do - including museums - but will do (have done) things like a day trip to Versailles or Fontainebleu or similar for a museum/palace/gardens visit. I wouldn't choose to stay in either place but would train it to/from my home base.

A few years ago I used a museum visit as the MAIN reason to book a trip to the Netherlands, but at just half a day of that trip spent at the Rijksmuseum for the Vermeer exhibition, it was mostly a convenient way to justify the trip which included many other activities.