Please sign in to post.

Venice: How many days?

Arriving with a tour (but not doing much in Venice) on Oct. 23, staying one night.
How many days/nights would you recommend beyond that?
Thanks!

Posted by
69 posts

My concern: starting to get too cold in late Oct.
Pros: Less tourists!

Posted by
2922 posts

Three nights is ideal and I’ve been there late Nov and it was not cold. I’ve heard that Feb is a nice time to go too because you don’t have crowds.

Posted by
6429 posts

I was there in late October a few years ago and the weather was OK. No guarantees of course. Another consideration is the beginning of the season for acqua alta, the flooding that occurs when a high tide conincides with storms pushing north through the Adriatic into the city, plus rain. There was a big one in early November the year I was there. A new seagate system called MOSE has apparently helped mitigate these, but again no guarantees.

That said, I'd give Venice at least several days more. I had four full days before starting my tour (which included two more full days), and I could have used more. Padua is a good easy day trip, and there are others. Crowding should be much less that time of year than earlier.

Posted by
15678 posts

cowboycork, is this a land tour or a cruise? There's a reason I'm asking but I figure if it was a cruise, you would have called it that versus a "tour".

Posted by
2922 posts

flooding

If that happens while there you can buy plastic rain boots that fit over your shoes and pant legs just about anywhere, I’ve read.

Posted by
4324 posts

What do you think of Rick's recommendations in his guidebook (hint hint)?

Posted by
5953 posts

What do you think of Rick's recommendations in his guidebook (hint
hint)?

for the most part i think his recommendations for how many nights to spend in any given place are on the too short side-
ok to use as a "minimum nights needed"

his itineraries are also too fast paced- way too many 1 and 2 night stays

Posted by
351 posts

For me Venice is 4 nights, since you need to travel by foot (which is a joy to do in Venice) it takes longer than a city where you can jump in a taxi. Yes there are boats, however it still takes lots of walking. Visiting all the churches along the way, so grand. I once saw a chihuahua scare a great dane in a back allie, can't pay enough for those memories. Enjoy your trip

Posted by
144 posts

Depends on what time you arrive. We landed at 9:00 am and spent two nights, giving us two full days. I would look at days, not nights. At least two days.

Posted by
471 posts

We stayed three nights and I wished we'd done, at least, one more. Buy the neon boots for the deep water. Inexpensive and you'll be glad you did.

Posted by
69 posts

Kathy: land tour. Coming in from Croatia and Slovenia.

Posted by
2462 posts

We stayed 4 nights--3.5 days this past August. That was a good length of time for a first visit and allowed us to spend one day visiting the islands. There is much we did not see and we would like to go back but we felt we got a good taste.

Posted by
69 posts

ChristineH My copy of Rick's book says, "While doable in a day, Venice is worth two." Yet it sounds like others here would recommend more.

Posted by
4022 posts

My copy of Rick's book says, "While doable in a day, Venice is worth
two." Yet it sounds like others here would recommend more.

Count me as part of the 'others.' If there is one flaw I find in the RS advice, it is the length of time he recommends in places. We spent 5 days there prior to a cruise which included a day trip to Verona. We were satisfied with that but wouldn't have been disappointed to spend a few extra days. 2 days is fine to check out the highlights, but not to experience it. For me, it was the perfect place just to wander.

Posted by
4728 posts

2 days is fine to check out the highlights, but not to experience it.

Please note the last five words of the above. We've been to Venice a number of times, and recommend at least five nights if you don't think you'll return. Venice is a place to be savored, not gulped.

Posted by
1045 posts

Let me throw this into the mix: except for the corona years, I spent 5 nights in Venice every year for 14 years. It's painful to not be there now. For me, Venice is a place you see (tourist) the first year. But then the real Venice gnaws at you until you return over and over again. That first look when you exit the train station is breathtaking. You just know that this is going to be a time of experiences you'll never find elsewhere. And, for me, that's what Venice is: experiences. Yes, there are things to see and do. You can check those off your list easily. But it's the real Venice that has only begun to reveal itself. Get lost, get on a vaporetto and just ride, see a group of people and join them, sit along the Giudecca Canal and look back into time, sit on the steps of Salute and feel at home. I could go on and on. So, how many days/nights would I recommend? How many will it take to get beyond 'tourist' and really experience Venice?

Posted by
15678 posts

Kathy: land tour. Coming in from Croatia and Slovenia.

Thanks for the clarity, cowboy. Venice has closed the port to the bigger cruise ships so many are now docking in Ravenna, thus the question. That little detail has been an unexpected surprise to a number of travelers!

Posted by
3065 posts

I've been there five times, and the last two times stayed two weeks!
It still wasn't long enough.
We did do day trips to Padua, Verona, Vicenza, but mainly explored the city out to the outermost parts.
If you only have a few days, I think four nights would be ok.

Posted by
1219 posts

I am with Robert and SJ. Our first visit was six nights, the next visit, two years later, was for eight weeks.

Posted by
2922 posts

For the most part i think his recommendations for how many nights to spend in any given place are on the short side.

Rick Steves assumes that most travelers want to see as much as possible. I remember my first trip to Europe was for three weeks and I told my aunt who I was traveling with that I want to see as many countries as possible. Most people who have been to Europe name more than one country that they’ve been to.

His itineraries are too fast paced.

You do have to be organized but independent travelers usually are. What I like about Rick Steves guidebooks is he rates sights with one to three triangles so you can narrow down the must-sees. I do not like every museum so this works for me.

Posted by
15678 posts

To be honest, Rick's itineraries are too rushed for me too. As I've never used one of his guidebooks outside of some pre-research, in combo with other guidebooks, I've also never used his rated must-sees as I'm pretty good at determining my own based on our personal interests and a combination of online and printed resources. I think he would probably approve. :O)

It's all about the trip that will make YOU happy.

Posted by
5953 posts

For the most part i think his recommendations for how many nights to
spend in any given place are on the short side.

His itineraries are too fast paced.

Not sure how or why you edited the part of my post that you’ve quoted?
Whatever

I think Rick’s info is fantastic in general. Nobody covers the travel logistics better than him
OP asked what we thought of his length of stay recommendations- I gave my opinion and from what I’ve seen here over the years that is the majority opinion among other forum members.

I also think most travelers don’t really want to be on a “If It’s Tuesday This must be Belgium” trip.

It’s true that many travelers are quite limited in how much time they have, most Americans hardly get 2 weeks vacation a year!
Even with a short trip I think it’s better to allow enough time to enjoy fewer places rather than hopping town to town -1 night stays with only half-ish days to sightsee, that’s nothing more than checking off a to do list. Memories will be mostly a blur of trains and hotel check ins/outs.
Quality over quantity wins in my book.

Posted by
15041 posts

3 nights (2 full days) in Venice is good.
4 nights (3 full days) even better if you want to add the islands in the lagoon (Murano, Burano, Torcello)

Posted by
317 posts

We typically stay a week in Venice but we often take at least one day trip. I feel happy when we have 4-5 days in Venice. Venice is so intimate that it only takes a few days of walking around to feel like you really know it, especially the areas you frequent most. I'd suggest that you not overload your itinerary and make time each day to simply roam. Also, assume you will go back to that you don't feel like you're missing something. Venice and Rome are my two favorite places to visit so I know you're going to love it! Best wishes!

Posted by
1611 posts

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that 2 full days is enough to see the highlights. Add a day if you also want to go to Murano and Burano.

Of course, more time is always better, but the reality for many of us is that we don't have unlimited time or money, and we have to make choices. I also LIKE to be busy and see a lot when I travel, and I don't mind being a tourist or doing tourist things. That's what I am, after all.

I tend to take a middle road. I often like to be in a place long enough to explore some of the lesser-known sights (e.g. walking the castle moat in Prague), and spend some time wandering, but I also have no interest in sitting around, having coffee, and pretending I live there.

So, if you are trying to determine how long you need to see the main sights, 2-3 full days is my suggestion. If you want to spend more time and really immerse yourself, then add more days.

Do what fits YOUR schedule, budget, and wishes.

Posted by
147 posts

As much time as you can. The first time, I was there three nights. Not nearly enough. The last time, I stayed a week: perfect.

Posted by
1219 posts

Pick up a copy of “Venice” by Jan Morris. Once you have read that book, you will realise that Venice deserves way more time than the Sainted Rick would ever advise.

Posted by
1156 posts

Agree with Roberto - two nights/three days. We have been many times and a couple of days is all we needed to be ready to move on.

Posted by
95 posts

move on....one night is enough in my opinion. Yes, its beautiful....also expensive and after one day of walking around you will see the same touristy stuff in every single shop. Definitely worth seeing the city but so much more interesting adventures await elsewhere. Many folks will disagree I'm sure but after many visits with friends/family during my long stays in Italy, almost all said the same thing "glad I saw it but won't go back".

Posted by
1045 posts

Isn't it amazing how many reasons there are for travel? This conversation has certainly enumerated most of them. Should RS consider dividing the travel forum between the two biggies: check-list or experience?

Posted by
1611 posts

How insulting. Just because people travel differently and make different choices doesn't mean they are simply checking off a list.

Posted by
32517 posts

I've lost track of how many times I've visited Venice. Except when I am just passing through and want a lunch before continuing, we always have a minimum of 4 days. I've never tired of the place.

It is only expensive if you let it be.

Posted by
15041 posts

I consider myself to be sort of a list checker, and for example wouldn't stay in Rome or Paris more than 5 nights. However saying that all you need is a day for Venice is a bit too radical even for me.

If one cares to see Piazza San Marco, the Doge's Palace, the Basilica, the Accademia, the Gran Canal, the Frari Basilica, the Scuola Grande di San Rocco, the Peggy Guggenheim Museum of Venice, the Rialto bridge, the Market of Rialto, the Ghetto, the Glass Museum of Murano, Burano, Torcello and its Abbey, as well as savor the Bacari and walk around town among the beautiful buildings, then I don't think it can be done in a day.

But I guess if one takes a trip only for buying souvenirs at the souvenir shops, then even a day is too long. All you need is to descend the train at Santa Lucia and not even get out of the station. Or even better, order the souvenirs on Amazon from home.

But as they say: 'De gustibus non disputandum est'.

Posted by
227 posts

2 -3 nights. Also spend 1 day and see Murano and Burano. We were there a few years ago in mid October and weather was perfect and very little crowds.

Posted by
1045 posts

Traveling to new places works really well if you have a check list. RS's books help you put your check list together: places, sites, hotels, restaurants, transportation. It seems essential that first-timers have a check list. Cities, time warps, like Venice otherwise can be almost too much. I love going through my check list on my first visit but I also keep time open to return to a site, a restaurant, a piazza, a church, a view that seems to have more to offer on a level far beyond tourism. I'll circle those items on my check list. I've been lucky, my work as an opera singer, has brought me back to Italy annually for 16 years. After going through my check lists in Venice, Florence, Rome, Sorrento, Verona, Sicily, etc, etc, etc, my check list has shrunk. It is now highlighted by visiting friends, seeing my favorite waiter, staying in my favorite hotel room or apartment, eating my favorite dish in my favorite restaurant, shopping at my favorite stores, sitting quietly with a gelato. I see that many people on this forum enrich their answers to questions with their own cherished experiences from several visits: places to see, things to do, tour guides to use, hidden treasures to discover. And timing, schedules, hints, and length of stay. So, BB, don't be surprised if our enthusiasm for Venice boils over. Our hope is that everyone can get beyond the initial check list, that we all have, and luxuriate in the magic that is Venice.

Posted by
69 posts

Side note: Anyone have any thoughts or experience about staying in a hotel on Murano?
Seems to be less expensive (and I can use some Hyatt points!), and appears to be an easy 'commute' to the main part of Venice.

Posted by
1611 posts

That's lovely, Robert. My point is that this is not a practical reality for many people, who have limited funds and limited holiday time. Just because we are seeing what we can within those parameters does not mean we are merely checking off a list. It means we have to make choices. So, when someone asks "how many days," of course more is going to be better, but that's not necessarily a useful response.

Posted by
6733 posts

Unless you have unlimited wealth (you're lucky) and you expect to live forever (you're a fool), ALL travel decisions are about trade-offs. There are no correct answers to "how much time in place X is enough?" Instead, there are choices you have-to/get-to make about how you will spend your limited time and money. That's just prioritization.

That's good, because we all have different amounts of time and money available, we have different tastes and needs, and we all have OTHER places we might want to include in our travels as our time and money budgets allow.

When I plan a trip, I try to cover a lot, and I often go quickly (though I have certainly learned to slow down to savor things and places). Even though I repeatedly declare "I shall return" (and I mean it), life happens (or it just ends), and you never know when the next pandemic, layoff, heart-attack, or other unexpected event will occur. I try not to let FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) blind me or drive me to make stupid choices, but I hear the clock ticking, and I see the map of the world, and I'm keenly aware I won't get to everyplace I'd like to. So I try to make each trip count, savor what I can, but not linger so long that I have to skip other places I know I will enjoy. Sometimes that means getting up at oh-dark-thirty to wander the streets, take pictures, and experience a way-too-popular place without any crowds, and then get outta Dodge. Sometimes it means sleeping in and savoring a day with nothing on my agenda.

We all share a large, fascinating planet, and there is too much to see and do in a single lifetime. Each day that you spend relaxing in Venice or witnessing a miracle elsewhere, is a day that could be spent somewhere else doing something different. That does not mean you should skip an extra day (or week or month) in Venice or anyplace else. You just need to make the choices that work best for you. Vive la différence

Posted by
15041 posts

Murano is lovely, and it will give you a feel of what Venice must have been like before the era of mass tourism. Murano gets very quiet after the day trippers who come to visit the glass factories and shops return to the historical center of Venice. So being there in the evening after dinner makes it really special, I really enjoyed it, although my hotel has always been in the historical center so I always made it back from Murano before vaporetto service ended.

It is up to you, just be aware that to return to Murano in the evening the last vaporetto from Piazzale Roma departs before 7pm (check the timetable as you get close to your trip). After that the only option is to go to the Fondamente Nove (the 'sidewalk' pier directly in front of San Michele Island (the cemetery) and get the vaporetto from there. Service ends totally after 11pm or something like that. If you miss the last vaporetto you can always take a water-taxi, but that will cost you quite a bit. Also consider that vaporetti aren't cheap, so your savings may be negated by the extra transportation costs, however there are multi-day passes that can help.