OT : Florence, Venice, Cinque Terre

A few years ago we did something of a Grand Tour, similar to Raid's. Three weeks to go from Sindelfingen (Bavaria) to Neuschwanstein, Venice, Sirmione (on Lake Garda), Florence, Badia a Coltibuono, Montefalco, Orvieto, Pievescola, and Portofino. Took many day trips from these bases. Then we took two more weeks to go to Paris via the Riviera, Rhone and Burgundy. Something of a wine theme. It was all good - I couldn't say any part was so much better than the rest that I would willfully have skipped any of it.

We traveled in April, and had great weather and much less tourist traffic. The exception was Florence. It seemed that all the Italian grade schools had scheduled their field trips for the week we were there. We didn't go to a single museum, and didn't feel like we were missing much as we hooked up with a local woman who gave walking tours of the city and surrounding country. The day we spent wandering the Medici palaces in the hills was maybe the best architectural/art encounter of the whole trip.

Venice was wonderful. My wife and I stayed in a little hotel over a canal in Accademia, just above a very nice restaurant. We felt very much at home there.

Where ever you end up you will probably have a great time. Just keep in mind that everything will be shockingly expensive if you are carrying dollars.
 
I'd stay in Florence. There's so much to see (and eat!) there. And you can do side trips if you want -- but two weeks in Firenze would be great. One out of the way place, worth a visit, is Urbino, in Le Marche (the Marches). It's the hometown of Raphael, and situated on a hilltop. A beatiful small city.
 
robert blu said:
March-April or sept-oct will be ok, not too crowded. Venice or Florence ? a good match! HAving lived many years not far from Venice as "visitor" I would prefer Florence. But also some other cities in the tuscan area (S.Giminiano, Lucca, Siena) era worth to be visited, and ...taken on film !
Click to expand...
I would completely agree.

Venice for me is a difficult place to be. It is, for all purposes, a living musuem in the French recent tradition of Eze or Vence - exisiting for tourists. That said, it still has to be seen and experienced - but it takes me an immense amount of effort to imagine what it was.

Florence has a bit of the same shoulder to shoulder feel, but it is a real working, living city in a way that Venice cannot any longer be. I find Florence austere and were it not for the warm stones, I'd even say cold. But, for me, there is a charm and air that is only Florence.

If it were me, I'd spend less time in Venice and more time in Toscana. I would pick a few towns (all good suggestions so far for the most part) and just get lost. Siena is a must too.

(For me, the center of the known universe is Bologna, so take my thoughts with skepticism!😉 )
 
We lived an hour away from Venezia in 1970-71. It's much different now: residents have left due to high costs and the pressures of modern life. Take Roger's suggestion and explore small towns between Firenza and Cinque Terre.

And, travel light. If you miss something, you'll just have to go back.

(Tuscan light is amazing. Some pre-photographic artists invented it several hundred years ago.)
 
Definitely have a good pair of walking/light hiking shoes with you if you're planning to do Via dell'Amore, the footpath connect the five villages. Some think it's overrated but I think it's worth it. The first part from Riomaggiore to Monterosso is the flattest and can be overwhelming with a lot of tourist but it'll die down eventually.

En route to Vernazza on Via dell'Amore:
 
BNF said:
I would completely agree.

Venice for me is a difficult place to be. It is, for all purposes, a living musuem in the French recent tradition of Eze or Vence - exisiting for tourists. That said, it still has to be seen and experienced - but it takes me an immense amount of effort to imagine what it was.

Florence has a bit of the same shoulder to shoulder feel, but it is a real working, living city in a way that Venice cannot any longer be. I find Florence austere and were it not for the warm stones, I'd even say cold. But, for me, there is a charm and air that is only Florence.

If it were me, I'd spend less time in Venice and more time in Toscana. I would pick a few towns (all good suggestions so far for the most part) and just get lost. Siena is a must too.

(For me, the center of the known universe is Bologna, so take my thoughts with skepticism!😉 )
Click to expand...

Ah, BNF, we agree on two of three things. The center of the known universe IS Bologna, and I wasn't even born there but in Mantova. I don't think you've eaten until you've eaten in Bologna, or seen what a city can be until you've strolled under its kilometers of porticos. And I agree that traveling around Tuscany without a timed plan is a wonderful way to discover light, color, air, food, wine, and yes, sights. I don't know Florence as well but this is the distinction I make between Bologna and Florence -- both are full of anglophones, but in Bologna they speak, or at least try to, speak Italian; in Florence, it often seems as if the native language is English -- and that makes a very great difference in the experience.

Yes, Venice is more like a playground and museum than a working city, but where else can you match the light and view from the lagoon on a sunny day wi8th cumulus in the sky, getting on the vaporetto that circles Venice and just going, or walking -- yes, there are miles of sidwalks and lots of bridges and you will see a city you never can imagine from Piazza San Marco.

Three different areas, three different cuisines -- much to photograph.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom