Reply to Debating between London, England and Venice, Italy...

Forum Index » Travel Discussion

Reply to "Debating between London, England and Venice, Italy..."

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]NP here. I disagree that Venice is strictly a 2-day trip. If you like art and history, there's enough to keep you busy for the better part of a week. There are many museums, from the accademia to the Peggy Guggenheim, plus you could visit the Murano glass making etc. that is on top of the mainstays such as st marks and the doge's palace. Staying longer than 2 days also allows you to linger and explore--have a long morning cappuccino, seek out some interesting shops among the touristy ones.
But that might not be your thing, OP. For you, what's the appeal of Venice, and of London? Weatherwise, I'd take Venice over London at that time of year. [/quote]
Me again, just saw your new post, OP . If Rome is an option! I'd choose that!!!! Rome is so nice. Lots to do. Weather is good in March. Don't worry about the language barrier. Italians speak good english And are friendly. You have almost a year to acquire a few basic phrases to make it even smoother. Rome is a living city, unlike Florence and Venice which are historic but lean heavily towards tourism for their existence nowadays. 
Of course London is very alive, too. It really depends on what inspires you. What do you like to do? [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics