We've got three days between London and Italy that we need to fill. We think we'd like Amsterdam or Brussels, maybe Paris. What do you recommend?
If you've never been....Paris, hands down. Also, somewhat easier transportation links to Italy than Amsterdam or Brussels.
I vote for Paris as well, it's a beautiful city with lots to see, and also works logistically.
For full disclosure, I have yet to go to Amsterdam, and although I feel Brussels would be a great city to live in, but during the two times I was there as a visitor, I was underwhelmed with the city.
Paris is easy,, take Eurostar and you are downtown to downtown in 2.5 hours. If you book early enough its cheap too.
I have not been to Amsterdam or Brussels. However, last fall I went to Paris only because my good friend really wanted to go. I was sure I would not like it. After a short visit (2 and a half days), I cannot wait to go back! There are so many options. It has big city appeal yet it was easy to get around and find great spots to relax. We did the Eurostar from Paris to London and it was very nice.
I love Amsterdam....but it's no contest with me. Paris all the way!
I'll be the dissenting vote.
I think you should go to The Netherlands/Amsterdam. It will really be a different culture to enjoy and give you a taste of the Germanic countries, so to speak.
Head to Paris when you can go for a longer trip so you can easily deal with strikes and have a nice slow pace going through the city.
I agree with the majority here..if you havent been to Paris that would be my choice. Been there twice and will be back again. You can easily spend 2-3 days there and still not see everything it has to offer.
Definitely Not Brussels.
Amsterdam is fun and much different architecturally. A couple of outstanding museums and churches. When I was last there - several years ago - visiting hours at all the sights were only till about 5 pm. The beer is good.
Paris is, well, Paris. There are different sights open every evening, many museums, churches, palaces, everything. The wine is good.
But you only have 3 days, so you will easily fill them up in either city and have a good time. And the other will still be there next time.
Easily Paris.... there is so much to see and do and its a great walking city. You can even book the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre ahead of time which saves waiting in line.
Getting to Paris from London is quick and easy, you go under the channel and should be there in about 2 and a half hours
agree, Paris! Amsterdam is a great litte city- very pretty- and Brussels is interesting, but I would only do those if I had additional time, and would certainly not select them over Paris, 1 of the most breautiful cities in Europe! Nice thing is that, as large as Paris is, it's pretty easy to see most of the "major" sites (Eifel Tower, Champs Elysee, Arc d' Triumph, Place de la Concorde, Jardines Tulleries, the Louvre, Notre Dam, Musee d' Orsay, Jardines du Luxembourg) in 3 days, especially if you follow Rick's suggested itinerraries in his France book. As you'll see, much of it is laid out in such a way (i.e. Arc, Champs Elysee, Tulleries, Louvre) that it's easy to group these sites together, especially if you get an early start each day. IF you had the time, a side day-trip to Versailles (very easy by train from Paris) is a lot of fun, but if that would be too rushed, than focus on Paris' main sites and leave that for next time.
Paris for sure :)
Rachel, I've spent years and years in Paris (and just got back last week from a month there) and have never been there during a strike. It's not a common occurrence.