Rick Steves thinks you’re missing out by skipping these European cities

Interesting that 6 of the 11 cities on the map he shows are in the U.K.

Since I’ve only made one trip to the UK, all of the cities are now on my bucket list. Does my stop for refueling in Glasgow in 1953 count? I spent a few days in Porto and would not hesitate to visit again. Two of my favorite cities in France to which I’ve visited more than once are Lyon and Marseille. Lyon, other than being the gastronomic center of Europe, is full of interesting sites to visit and has a great public transit system. Having been raised in The Bronx, I empathize with Marseille which I refer to as The Bronx of France - just doesn’t seem to get the respect it deserves. A multicultural melting pot with the DNA of every country on the Mediterranean.

Then stop calling them "second cities". Seriously.

I assume "second cities" just means second in terms of population? Perhaps I'm trying to think of it too formulaically.

I am disappointed that pertaining to Germany only Hamburg is on this list, omitting all the interesting cities in eastern Germany and North Germany. That is also where it's at.

Fred those must be third and fourth cities.

Most Americans know about Bath and Glasgow is well...Glasgow.

Hamburg is wonderful and should be on more people's lists though vacation time is probably the number one reason most Americans miss it.

@ Carlos..... That may be depending on the way one defines these cities.

If one wants to see German cities/towns not inundated with summer crowds, then these "third and fourth " cities might be an option.

Several of these cities are not, in my opinion worth the time, considering what is available in the country.
Liverpool, I have been there and enjoyed North Wales much more. I liked the Beatles, but didn't care about Beatles tours.

Marseilles, is worth perhaps a day, but there is so much more in the South of France to see.

Bath, I agree, loved Bath.
Porto, agree, loved it as well as the Douro Valley.
Lyon was worth a couple of days, still not a must see, but yes, I can agree on that.
Hamburg, Germany, been there, it was OK.

Washington Post article written by Rick

"Rick Steves: Don’t skip Europe’s second cities
Unshackled by the obligation to be their country’s role model, second cities are free to just be themselves

Perspective by Rick Steves
February 10, 2023 at 8:00 a.m. EST"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/tips/rick-steves-europe-second-cities/

Unsure if above link will get you past the pay firewall.

So with above added information, are some of the prior comments relevant?

In the grand scheme of things, I'd rather my home be called a "Second City" instead of the oft heard "The Paris of X," which honestly does nothing but cheapen Paris and the uniquely special city/town/village you're attempting to complement.

While I can't say I've ever stayed overnight at a "second city," I infamously daytrip them. Some that spring to mind that I would definitely suggest if you have a history or art bent are:
- Metz, France
- Trier, Germany
- Pavia, Italy
- Trento, Italy
- Czestochowa, Poland
- Malbork, Poland
- Constanta, Romania
- Alba Iulia, Romania

Of those on the list, I have only stayed overnight(s) in Metz to see the city itself and as a spring board for the villages in the area.

Have not visited any of the others, except for Malbork, which is absolutely recommendable.

I wonder what are the second tier cities of the USA? Perhaps Boston? San Francisco? Seattle? Maybe Atlanta?

Sorry Carlos, LA would not be in my top US cities. I would say NYC, Boston, and DC, maybe Chicago. Not Atlanta either. Charleston and Savannah are both more interesting than Atlanta. If you must include a city in CA, San Diego.

I would say Los Angeles, Chicago New York maybe Miami are the first tier cities of the US, at least for those of us from across the Atlantic. Just going by recognition, amount of tourism, and economic factors.

Of course those born and grown up in the US may have different opinions, based on personal preference.

Just as in Europe, what is first second or third tier is not so cut and dry.

I have cruised with British and Australians and many have visited the USA, they all tell me that they have enjoyed visiting cities other than NYC, Chicago, LA and Miami.

Here in Georgia, we have Savannah and not too far away is Charleston, SC, which are great places to visit. Also, in Florida, St. Augustine is wonderful, as is Cape Canaveral.

I can say that while Rome, Florence and Venice are the key to visiting Italy, places like Siena, Ravenna, Pisa, CT, Verona, Padua and Orvieto are not to be missed.

I wonder what are the second tier cities of the USA? Perhaps Boston?
San Francisco? Serattle? Maybe Atlanta?

In the west, San Diego, and in the east, Philadelphia. At home in Canada, Victoria and Quebec City. My travels aren't extensive enough in Europe yet, but Glasgow was my first thought. Would Venice be a 2nd city since Rome gets so much glory? I haven't been yet, but maybe Naples is a better 2nd.

I get a huge chuckle out of foreign tourists who have visited either Orlando, Chicago, Las Vegas, or New York and tell me they have “seen the USA.” Most Americans haven’t even begun to see the USA……..

I am sure we look just as silly with our two or three stops in their countries and the claims such as , “Oh, I did Italy last year. This year I am doing Germany and France,”. All of our countries are much more than a few major cities. All of our countries are complex with interesting aspects that deserve a second look. Alas, it is the time and money requirements that force us into these short snippets of other places.

I will say, I am beginning to find questions such as “ Is town AZY worth it?” pretty offensive. It could be so easily restated as “ I am thinking of going to town AZY. What are some of the interesting things you have seen or done there?” People live in these towns, it is their home. No need to demean these other places.

"Second cities" is the contemporary trend in travel writing. Not just Rick Steves, been in the zeitgeist for several years now.

I for one agree, and also would rather they not advertise.

Chicago has embraced the "second city" moniker. Nothing wrong with that. Chicago isn't NYC. Fine. Chicago has it's own charms.

Yokohama isn't Tokyo. Krakow isn't Warsaw. All second cities means is places that may not come immediately to mind when a country is mentioned, or less populous. We don't need to go around with our nerves rubbed raw just looking for some way to be offended. There is already a flood of that.

But second cities will continue to increase in popularity as the hordes of tourists jam the hot spots. People will look for alternatives. This is a good thing. Dodging crowds in London quickly loses its charm.

I would say you maybe skip some of the traditional and top of the list cities altogether. Over crowded with tourists and locals not happy about it and too small a city to accommodate them with ease anyway.
Barcelona, Venice comes to mind.
Places like London and Paris are OK since they are so much bigger and, the cruise ship crowd will not be showing up to overrun the city.

I for one agree, and also would rather they not advertise.

But if they need tourism to thrive or just survive, then they have no choice but to advertise. It is such a double edged sword - balancing the need for tourist $$ against the 'over-crowding' and being 'loved to death' syndrome.

Oh I'm just saying from my selfish perspective of wanting to go to places like Bordeaux with fewer tourists :-)

I'm sure second cities will happily take the advertising

Apart from the obvious first tier cities in Germany , it's good to know that I have visited numerous towns and cities in the 2nd , 3rd or 4th tier in Germany . Who the tourists and visitors are in those lower tier places is singularly revealing.

Hank, I'm with you. Can everyone please be quiet about the second cities? Once the word is out we all know what will happen.

Perhaps the way the piece is written is partly to blame, but so many of the responses here seem to have read the list as literal, perhaps exhaustive, rather than suggestive and a beginning.

The only real problem with the term 'second city', is that there are a few (very few) countries that don't have a clearly defined single primary city, which is the hub of both political and economic power. Most of us on this forum happens to be from one of those few counties.