We are spending 9 days in Europe and had planned on seeing Amsterdam, Bruge, Brussels and Paris. I originally thought we would spend 3 days in Amsterdam, a day in Bruge, 2 days in Brussels and 3 days in Paris. After reading Rick's book, it sounds like I don't want to waste time in Brussels. Should we just use the time to be in Paris longer? What about Bruge? Can anyone help me out on this one?
Posted by
Los Angeles, CA, USA
1003 posts
I won't go into great detail about my opinions regarding Rick's treatment of Brussels, but suffice it to say I personally think he gives it very short shrift. My friend and I were there 4 nights, went to Brugge one day and frankly we'd had enough by about 4pm and went back to Brussels. There is more than plenty to do in Brussels for 2 days, but if you are only interested in the Grand Place area, then one day from Brugge would be enough too. The food is great, chocolate is great, beer is great, and it is a bustling city... I think it's hard for anyone to tell you how to split up your trip because it's yours. You can split it up any way you want. If it were my trip, I would go to 2 cities max in 9 days with a day trip or two, but I hate moving hotels a lot, that's just me. It also depends on the type of travelers you are and what you are interested in - bigger cities, smaller cities, etc. Brussels is definitely more "rough around the edges" than some other European capitals, but I found that I liked cities like that. I know it's not a popular opinion, but I enjoyed Brussels a lot more than Amsterdam to be honest. Of course I can say this with the hindsight of having been. 3 days is probably not nearly enough for Paris. Maybe this is entering "rant" territory here, but I think it's impossible to "waste" time in Europe. There is value in everything. There are things I did and saw that, in retrospect, I may not have done or may have done differently, but I wouldn't say they are a "waste" of time. If you think you want to see Brussels, go in expecting to like - maybe not LOVE - but like it. And I bet you will. Rick picks and chooses the places he focuses on. There are entire areas of lots of countries that he flat out ignores (such as most of Northern Italy). That's his philosophy and it may work, but if you are interested in one of the areas he ignores, you may feel like it's not worthwhile, whereas it may be someplace you personally will just love.
Posted by
Vancouver, BC
162 posts
I think your itinerary sounds good; you could spend all nine days in Paris, but if you want to visit those cities you mentioned, then the time you apportioned is about right. Don't forget travel time between these cities, they may be close, but the time to travel is not zero.
Posted by
New Paltz, NY
9110 posts
I'm not a big fan of Brussels, IMO it's worth just one day; if that. IMO Rick's description of the city being "grimy" is on the money. I would add a day in Bruge or Paris.
Posted by
Danville, VT
12040 posts
Bruges is pretty, but it feels a little moth-balled. Brussels may look nasty from the train tracks and the area immediately around the Grand Place, but the more I explore this city, the more interesting I find it. Brussels gets my votes for one of Europe's most under-rated collection of museums, second only to London in it's beautiful public parks (of which most tourists completely overlook), second only to Paris for food, and the most striking modern-era cathedral. To really experience all that Brussels has to offer, you have to do what most tourists do not- go beyond the Grand Place. Now, if they could just do something about that graffiti problem...
Posted by
Atlanta
3262 posts
Hi Marilyn,
I'd spend part of a day in Brussels to see the Grand Place and add the other two days to Paris.
Posted by
Sacramento, California U.S.A.
10609 posts
I would lose a day in Amsterdam and add it to Paris. I've not been to Brussels, so I can't comment on your time there. Depending on what you like to do, one day in Bruges may be enough.
Posted by
Frankfurt, Germany
9222 posts
I think Brussels has plenty to keep one busy and frankly, as pretty and as interesting as Bruges is, the masses of tourists in such small quarters are annoying after a while.
When visiting Brussels, do a bit a homework ahead of time and then have fun exploring. Beautiful architecture all through the city, there are some great museums there, the botanical gardens, gorgeous churches, some interesting ethnic neighborhoods with unique stores to visit, street festivals, wonderful antique stores, and so on.
Some cities just do not come up and smack you in the face with their interesting features, but if you look under the surface just a tiny bit, you will find treasures.
That said, I think the train station in Brussels is one of my least favorites.
Have you thought about some other towns too, like Antwerp or Ghent?