Colombia itinerary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you go to Medellin, avoid staying in Poblado because it's not walkable and hard to get around without a car.

It depends. I would recommend people stay away from staying near Parque de El Poblado if you want a decent night's sleep because it's the center of the party neighborhood. I learned the hard way.

I really like the Manila neighborhood of Medellin and El Poblado, which has a lot of hostels and trendy international resteraunts, which is found north of Calle 10 and west of Carerra 43A. Lots of great food options and the street noise is much quieter.

El Poblado has a financial district on Carerra 43A south of Calle 8 that has a lot of nice hotels with American brands. It also has malls and other upscale amenities. Yes, it gets less dense and your not really walking distance to the Metro, but it's a really green and pretty neighborhood and I guarantee you'll sleep well. The ciclovia runs down Carerra 43A on Sundays and I love those. Nothing better than eating a cheese arepa on the street with coffee during a beautiful Sunday morning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
To the PP’s who suggested Medellín , thank you! Definitely seems more consensus that that’s a destination we should focus on over Bogota.

Both are great cities with a lot going for them. One is not necessarily "better" than the other, though both locations have plenty of pros and cons.

[Anonymous]

we're going for spring break this year. We're spending 4 nights in Cartagena (staying at a airbnb in the walled city, san diego neighborhood) and then flying to Medellin for 4 nights and staying at Sites Hotel.
I found a travel agent who booked all our excursions and transportation and has been great to work with.
Traveling with a 12 and 14 year old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, here we go. Colombia is the new Portugal.

Please stfu. People are allowed to go to places they’ve never been even if you’ve already been there .

Yes, like sheep and because of some stupid reason, like the Disney Bruno film in this case, or Game of Thrones in the case of Croatia, or now White Lotus for Sicily. God forbid people go places for original reasons. It’s a shame, because places like Colombia, Portugal, Croatia, and Iceland were absolutely wonderful decades ago. But mass tourism is unsustainable and completely ruins places. It’s a pity. But oh well, so many other places to explore that people like OP would never even know.

I’m OP. Who do you even think you are to assume I haven’t been anywhere because I haven’t been to a country you went to before me. I’ve been all over Europe, lived in Japan, trekked through India, done all the Caribbean countries, and spent time in most of the US states. I really hate people like you who love to travel shame. The world is massive, you can’t shit on people for not yet making it somewhere you have and then still wanting to go there even though you seem to think it should be closed to tourism once you’ve seen it. Truly, get a life.

Well said OP! People like that look like such pretentious a-holes and don’t even realize it.

[Anonymous]

Kind of curious what folks think is attractive about Columbia (from a touristic perspective). I went there (admittedly 20 years ago) to visit a friend. Bogota is not an attractive city. Teeny tiny historic district - the rest is ugly city. Cali looked like southern california (strip malls everywhere). Cartagena is definitely an attractive town (colonial architecture) but the beach is ugly as sin. We did go to Villa de Leyva (that was cool) and some random/bizarre underground church built in a salt mine. But overall Columbia was very lacking in the natural beauty you see in many other Latin American countries and also lacking in the Spanish/colonial architecture and indigenous aspects (ruins, etc). As my friend said - "we tore it all down and built modern cities."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kind of curious what folks think is attractive about Columbia (from a touristic perspective). I went there (admittedly 20 years ago) to visit a friend. Bogota is not an attractive city. Teeny tiny historic district - the rest is ugly city. Cali looked like southern california (strip malls everywhere). Cartagena is definitely an attractive town (colonial architecture) but the beach is ugly as sin. We did go to Villa de Leyva (that was cool) and some random/bizarre underground church built in a salt mine. But overall Columbia was very lacking in the natural beauty you see in many other Latin American countries and also lacking in the Spanish/colonial architecture and indigenous aspects (ruins, etc). As my friend said - "we tore it all down and built modern cities."

It is true that most Colombian cities are lacking in terms of aesthetics (Bogota does suck). If you are looking for a quiet, clean, and efficient city, Colombian cities don't rank very high. Most Americans are also turned off by the fact that most cities are densely populated. They also don't have many suburban areas like we have in the US, and transportation issues make living in rural/suburban areas a pain in the butt.

But as far as tourism goes, there are tons of things to do outside most of the major cities. I think Colombia is #2 in the world in terms of bio diversity. The main thing about Colombia is the people and the experience. Ask anyone who has backpacked around South America and almost everyone will tell you that Colombia is the best country by far. It doesn't take an extremely adventurous person to enjoy Colombia, but it's probably not a country that the cruise ship or Disney crowd would enjoy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kind of curious what folks think is attractive about Columbia (from a touristic perspective). I went there (admittedly 20 years ago) to visit a friend. Bogota is not an attractive city. Teeny tiny historic district - the rest is ugly city. Cali looked like southern california (strip malls everywhere). Cartagena is definitely an attractive town (colonial architecture) but the beach is ugly as sin. We did go to Villa de Leyva (that was cool) and some random/bizarre underground church built in a salt mine. But overall Columbia was very lacking in the natural beauty you see in many other Latin American countries and also lacking in the Spanish/colonial architecture and indigenous aspects (ruins, etc). As my friend said - "we tore it all down and built modern cities."

Isn’t this like saying 20 yrs ago you flew to Newark, visited Fredericksburg, VA, and Myrtle Beach, SC, and yuk, USA is not for me?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kind of curious what folks think is attractive about Columbia (from a touristic perspective). I went there (admittedly 20 years ago) to visit a friend. Bogota is not an attractive city. Teeny tiny historic district - the rest is ugly city. Cali looked like southern california (strip malls everywhere). Cartagena is definitely an attractive town (colonial architecture) but the beach is ugly as sin. We did go to Villa de Leyva (that was cool) and some random/bizarre underground church built in a salt mine. But overall Columbia was very lacking in the natural beauty you see in many other Latin American countries and also lacking in the Spanish/colonial architecture and indigenous aspects (ruins, etc). As my friend said - "we tore it all down and built modern cities."

It’s very hard to take anyone seriously who repeatedly calls the country “Columbia.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kind of curious what folks think is attractive about Columbia (from a touristic perspective). I went there (admittedly 20 years ago) to visit a friend. Bogota is not an attractive city. Teeny tiny historic district - the rest is ugly city. Cali looked like southern california (strip malls everywhere). Cartagena is definitely an attractive town (colonial architecture) but the beach is ugly as sin. We did go to Villa de Leyva (that was cool) and some random/bizarre underground church built in a salt mine. But overall Columbia was very lacking in the natural beauty you see in many other Latin American countries and also lacking in the Spanish/colonial architecture and indigenous aspects (ruins, etc). As my friend said - "we tore it all down and built modern cities."

It’s very hard to take anyone seriously who repeatedly calls the country “Columbia.”

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kind of curious what folks think is attractive about Columbia (from a touristic perspective). I went there (admittedly 20 years ago) to visit a friend. Bogota is not an attractive city. Teeny tiny historic district - the rest is ugly city. Cali looked like southern california (strip malls everywhere). Cartagena is definitely an attractive town (colonial architecture) but the beach is ugly as sin. We did go to Villa de Leyva (that was cool) and some random/bizarre underground church built in a salt mine. But overall Columbia was very lacking in the natural beauty you see in many other Latin American countries and also lacking in the Spanish/colonial architecture and indigenous aspects (ruins, etc). As my friend said - "we tore it all down and built modern cities."

I don't need modern European/American architecture for a city to be beautiful. The north side of Bogota is one of the nicest neighborhoods in Latin America, not just Colombia. Very leafy, lots of parks, great food and drink options, super walkable, good mass transit, easy to get around, nice spring weather. I LOVE LOVE LOVE the north side of Bogota. Wish I could live there.

Is the entire city like the north side? Of course not. But it's a safe, fun place and an amazing experience.