Dear All,
I am trying to plan the perfect trip, which of course is impossible. But here is my dilemma. Going from Lake Como to Lucerne for three days. I am trying to decide if we should do an overnight in Lauterbrunnen Valley or Colmar France or just continue on to Paris for four days instead of three. Everyone here raves about the Lauterbrunnen Valley, but I am wondering is it really that different than the American Rocky mountains? I have spent a lot of time in the American West and really am more interested in the European atmosphere than the mountains. I would for sure do the Lauterbrunnen Valley but the weather sounds so iffy. I will be there at the very end of July. Going to the mountains in bad weather is like hitting the beach in bad weather really not fun!! We have been to Paris before, so planning to spend one day in the city and probably do a day trip outside the other days. Any advice is appreciated. If we don't do Lauterbrunnen we will do Mt. Pilatus since it is such a quick day trip from Luzern.
Posted by
Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, USA
13937 posts
I can't give you suggestions on what to choose, but I can respond with my perception regarding Lauterbrunnen Valley and the Rockies. I live in N. Idaho so on the edge of the Rockies and have been in and around the Northern US Rockies for years. I was completely in awe in the Lauterbrunnen Valley as it was so beautiful and green in September when I was there. It was gorgeous and felt very different. To me it was also interesting because of the extensive cable car/cog rail system from the valley floor up to various points on either side of the steep-sided valley.
I've often heard the Beartooth Highway in Montana/Wyoming compared to Switzerland with alpine meadows. To me it was completely different. Beartooth is wild and uninhabited and you have a very long view of the mountains which seem far away as you are on a high plateau. In Lauterbrunnen, on the valley floor you have steep sides rising above you with the valleys being populated.
Have you looked at the Lauterbrunnen webcams?
http://www.jungfraumarketing.ch/webcam/lauterbrunnen/cam1/current.jpg
Posted by
US Pacific Northwest
10344 posts
Mountain weather is notoriously difficult to predict much ahead of time.
It's the problem with those darn mountains; sticking up there in the atmosphere so high and creating their own weather. Has always been that way.
Posted by
Portland
3595 posts
I think you need to clarify your own thinking on what you most want from your trip. Your comment about European atmosphere suggests a tilt toward Colmar. That would be my choice because my priority in Europe is to go to places very different from what I can visit in the U.S. As to everyone raving about the Lauterbrunnen Valley . . . It may be all it's cracked up to be; but there is a tendency on this site for people to take up an enthusiasm of Rick Steves and to turn it into the be-all and end-all of European travel. The Cinque Terre (not really up there with Rome, Florence, and Venice), and Civita da Bagnoregio (a tiny hamlet with almost nothing of interest in it) come to mind as examples. I think the Lauterbrunnen Valley might also qualify.
Posted by
OP
51 posts
Thanks so much for the reply Rosalyn. I think you are just confirming my gut instinct. I agree with you about Rick Steves fanatics. A couple of summers ago my daughter and I took like five train connections all to stay over night in Rothenburg, Germany and see the nightwatchman tour which Rick and everybody raves about, and we were underwhelmed. It was a nice city, but not worth all the hype. Kind of had the same reaction to the Cinque Terre, which was beautiful but hard to get to and packed. I love lots of the advice here but sometimes I do think everyone just jumps on the bandwagon. So I think I will go with Colmar which has been on my list of places to see for years.
Posted by
Los Angeles
4412 posts
I agree that by virtue of his soapbox Rick can turn something into something else, but he's right about the Lauterbrunnen Valley. It's classic Switzerland. But if you've been there done that, why even consider doing it over there? If your "classic" European experience includes museums, cathedrals, old town squares and sitting in cafes (and there's nothing wrong with that), then don't head for the mountains.
And nowadays you don't have to take anyone's word for a place, just search through Amazon instant video, iTunes and Youtube, you'll find hours and hours of video footage of places you think you'd like to go. That's how we chose the Schilthorn over the Jungfrau.
Posted by
Rick Steves' Europe
16893 posts
You would not be the only person to prioritize "lively" cities over small towns and rural areas. We aim for a mix of both, trying to balance cultural highlights with more relaxed environments, as well as some aspects of tradition that might be better preserved in a small, once-forgotten town than in a larger, always-growing city.
The more relevant choice might have been between Luzern or Berner Oberland, and people in this office would choose the Berner Oberland for more high-mountain activities. Many have been to both; I have not been to Luzern and it sounds like Rosalyn has not been to the Lauterbrunnen Valley. I'm sure you'll enjoy either one and will enjoy Colmar.
You're already returning to Europe after at least one trip and should plan that you will keep returning to experience more destinations. Also, we sometimes have to remind ourselves to appreciate what we find there instead of building up many specific expectations, which one might do when trying to plan a "perfect" trip.