Venice or Florence?

Wow, that's a toss up. Personally, I would choose Florence over Venice if given the choice. It would be easier to get to the more touristed areas as they are very close to the train station and more easily accessible. In Venice, you would have to take the vaporetto from the train station to get to the more touristed areas, so that might give you a time crunch.

It is an apple and orange question. I vote for Florence just for easy of getting to and from and around once there. David probably is worth the trip along. You will need to prebook your admission tickets if you go to Florence.

I don't know which is easier to get to from Milan (although I think our train to Venice went through Milan if I remember correctly)- I would vote for Venice just because it is so different from any city I've ever seen (and had great music!)

Milan to Florence is 1 hour 45 minutes, while Milan to Venice is 2 hours 35 minutes. Each by the direct, fast train. Maybe tht will help you decide?

To maximize your time in either city, here is what you would need to do.

Milano-Firenze: Leave Milano Centrale at 07:15 and arrive at Firenze at 09:00. Leave Firenze at 21:00 and arrive in Milano at 22:45.

Milano-Venezia: Leave Milano Centrale at 06:35 and arrive at Venezia Santa Lucia at 09:10. Leave Venezia at 19:50 and arrive in Milano at 22:25.

I was in both last summer....Florence no doubt! Of course, they are totally different. I am going back to Florence this summer and not Venice (but am going to Verona).

Funny how people can feel so strongly one way or the other :) I'd return to Venice again easily but not so sure about Florence at all

Tim---check your post; it is confusing.

I believe the upper option (the 7:15 am to 9:00 am) is Milan to Florence (not Venezia), and the lower option, leaving 6:35 and arriving 9:10, is Milan to Venezia (not Florence).

Thanks, Lola! My fingers were working faster than my brain. I have edited my previous post and have made the corrections called for.

Excellent. Now it looks right.

Thanks so much--it is really hard to decide. The travel tips are helpful in relation to our time crunch

Unless you're really into art history, I'd vote for Venice of the two. Once you walk 10 minutes away from the train station, you can get a really good sense of the place and its uniqueness. Florence, on the other hand, while a beautiful city, takes a little more time to digest and appreciate. To me, it's just not as striking as Venice is. I doubt you'll be disappointed with wherever you end up going (as long as you move away from the Rialto Bridge and St Mark's Square, that is).

Meredith really hits the nail on the head. Venice is better in my book for just wandering around, while Florence is the clear winner for museums and works of art (although there is plenty of that to see in Venice for a day trip). What a shame that you have to pick between the two and that you can't spend more time there.

But, you really can't go wrong with either choice. They're both amazing.

I've done both and I would say if you said Venice or Rome it would be Rome but in this case I would have to say venice hands down!However,I was there in late october and it was awesome.I wouldn't go there in peak season.You gave no dates that I see.

I think I agree with Meredith- I know I didn't give Florence a fair shot but the problem was probably that I only had a day to spend there (day and a half I guess)- same for Venice, and I felt like I got a lot more out of my day in Venice. Plus, I am just. Not. Into. Art :) Whereas the orchestras in St. Mark's Square, the Vivaldi concert, the gondola ride, water taxi ride, heck even the vaparetto ride all charmed my pants off. But if that extra travel time is going to throw a wrench in your day, or if you are going to appreciate the art in Florence (the David is quite a spectacular thing to see) then maybe that makes more sense for you.

It really depends on what experience you are looking for. I am also not an "art person", but found the Uffizi and Accademia very worth seeing. Florence also has the Duomo, Piazzale Michelagelo, Ponte Vecchio, Santa Croce (Michelangelo and Galileo are entombed there), Piazza della Signoria and the loggia there, and the Museum of the History of Science. All great to see.
Venice is very unique and, in my opinion, an amazing city. Very charming, interesting, DIFFERENT. As stated above, even riding the vaporetti is a unique experience. No auto traffic makes it the perfect setting for walking without fear of being run over. =-)
Either way, you will not be disappointed!

Neither is a great day trip.

Florence has a ton of must sees. If you plan carefully, you can do a couple of museums in the day you are there and maybe see the Duomo but will leave a lot undone while being exhausted.

I've seen the must sees in Florence and probably won't go back. By Italian standards (high to start with), it's expensive. The food and lodging aren't particularly special and it's far from the friendliest place to visit (due, I'm sure, to the hoards of tourists).

Venice is magic. A unique place to visit and one I'll return to whenever I can. Unfortunately the great time to be in Venice is early morning and evening/night. The crowds are gone and you can hear the water lapping against the buildings as you stroll randomly down deserted lanes. If you prefer, you can listen to music in St. Mark's square.

Given your choice. I'd go to Florence and see as much as you can. I'd save Venice for a time when you can experience it at it's best - lest you come away thinking Venice is too crowded with tourists and a waste of time.

I like Florence better, but if I only have 1 day, I'd go to Venice. I think I need at least 2 days for Florence. I love it that much.

We have decided to take the train to Venice in the afternoon, and spend the night, and take the train back to Milan early afternoon the next day. Lots of traveling, but decided we wanted to see the uniqueness of Venice. we will be there the first week of June. Thanks so much for all of your help!