This is from the NYT describing the alternative town of Treviso for when Venice is just too crowded to be fun....
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/10/travel/venice-treviso-overtourism.html?action=click&module=Editors%20Picks&pgtype=Homepage
Posted by
Twin Cities of MN
6937 posts
Shhhhhh. . . .
Thanks for posting! Now how about an alternative to Cinqueterre?
Posted by
Sevilla
1305 posts
Treviso is a nice town and certainly a lot less crowded than Venice. But it's more an add-on to a Venice trip than an alternative. And whilst the crowds are fewer, don't go expecting no other tourists - I'm afraid that ship has sailed, e.g. from several years ago -
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/italy/veneto/articles/Treviso-Italy-an-underrated-gateway-to-Venice/
Posted by
Portland
3659 posts
I agree with Nick’s assessment. If you’ve never been to Venice, Treviso just isn’t a substitute. The sheer density of artistic, architectural, and historic sights in Venice makes most other cities pale in comparison.
Posted by
Arctophilia, Northamptonshire, England
34905 posts
Treviso has a fair number of cheapo cheapo flights though.... although after R.Air gets done with you maybe not ....
Posted by
🏝️ Hobe Sound, FL⛱️
3361 posts
True Treviso doesn’t have the architecture, art and world class sites that Venice has. It is not a substitute for La Serenissima. What it offers is a beautiful city where, not being overrun with fellow tourists, you can enjoy Italy in a relaxed and authentic fashion. It is authentic Italy in which you can truly savor dolce far niente.