Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

So after spending 5 days in each city and surrounding area, Sienna is
the hands down winner in my opinion?

Florence felt like a tourist trap with crowds and lines and high prices
eveywhere I turned.

What do you think?

TJ Palvino

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

On 2006-08-04 17:44:05 -0500, [email protected] said:

    > So after spending 5 days in each city and surrounding area, Sienna is
    > the hands down winner in my opinion?
    >
    > Florence felt like a tourist trap with crowds and lines and high prices
    > eveywhere I turned.
    >
    > What do you think?

I think you drive a Toyota. :-)

But seriously, Florence has way more cool art then Siena, like all the
Michelangelos.

    >
    > TJ Palvino


--
Dan Stephenson
Photos, movies, panos from the Europe, USA, plus N.Z.:
http://homepage.mac.com/stepheda

(remove nospam from email address to reply via email)

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

[email protected] wrote:

    > So after spending 5 days in each city and surrounding area, Sienna is
    > the hands down winner in my opinion?
    > Florence felt like a tourist trap with crowds and lines and high
    > prices eveywhere I turned.
    > What do you think?



I'm entirely with you. Except for the contents of its museums, I don't
particularly like Florence, but Siena (note the spelling, btw--*one* "n") is
one of my favorite places anywhere.

Siena has its crowds too, but they are mostly day-trippers, so mornings and
evenings are fine.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

    >> Florence felt like a tourist trap with crowds and lines and high
    >> prices eveywhere I turned.
    > Except for the contents of its museums, I don't particularly like Florence

The combined contents of its museums are the greatest any city in
the world can offer, with the possible exception of Paris (only if you
love Impressionist paintings, though), and the main reason many
tourists visit Florence. Long queues go with the territory.


Pete

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

Pete wrote:

    >>> Florence felt like a tourist trap with crowds and lines and high
    >>> prices eveywhere I turned.
    >> Except for the contents of its museums, I don't particularly like
    >> Florence
    > The combined contents of its museums are the greatest any city in
    > the world can offer, with the possible exception of Paris (only if you
    > love Impressionist paintings, though), and the main reason many
    > tourists visit Florence. Long queues go with the territory.


I'm not sure if you're trying to disagree with me or not, but I don't
particularly disagree with that statement. I even intimated the same thing
when I said "except for the contents of its museums." Nevertheless, as a
city, not as a collection of museum contents, I don't particularly like
Florence and much prefer other Italian cities--in particular Siena, which is
what this thread is about.

If your mileage differs, that's fine with me.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

On 4 Aug 2006 15:44:05 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

    >So after spending 5 days in each city and surrounding area, Sienna is
    >the hands down winner in my opinion?
    >Florence felt like a tourist trap with crowds and lines and high prices
    >eveywhere I turned.

Florence is a beautiful city, with much more art per square meter than
any other city I know. However, it's best visited on a rainy day in
January. I agree that it's extremely unpleasant when crowded with
tourists. I went there once with my daughter in August, and swore I
would never return there in the summer.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ups.com...
    > So after spending 5 days in each city and surrounding area, Sienna is
    > the hands down winner in my opinion?
    > Florence felt like a tourist trap with crowds and lines and high prices
    > eveywhere I turned.

I have lived in both -- Siena was nicer for living, Florence was nice to
make day trips to. If you have been to neither, Florence packs more artistic
and historic wallop, Siena is perhaps more beautiful. They are only an hour
apart -- either one can be visited from the other.
Both cities suffer from recent allowance of traffic-- neither are as
pleasantly walkable as they once were. . Florence is hellish to drive in,
Siena is better.
rjf

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

    >>>> Florence felt like a tourist trap with crowds and lines and high
    >>>> prices eveywhere I turned.
    >>> Except for the contents of its museums, I don't particularly like
    >>> Florence
    >> The combined contents of its museums are the greatest any city in
    >> the world can offer, with the possible exception of Paris (only if you
    >> love Impressionist paintings, though), and the main reason many
    >> tourists visit Florence. Long queues go with the territory.
    > I'm not sure if you're trying to disagree with me or not, .....

I am in a sideways sort of way. Many replies here recommend to
posters to avoid Florence because of the crowds. Well, is the OP
looking for solitude or great art? Telling someone to visit Rome or
Siena instead assumes that the OP does not really care what he/she
sees. Rome is wonderful, but in terms of museum contents is not
near the equal of Florence or Paris (ruins and architecture, yes).


Pete

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

    > Florence is a beautiful city, with much more art per square meter
    > than any other city I know. However, it's best visited on a rainy
    > day in January.

Regulars know that your informed opinion is made as a resident of
Italy. However, for the average tourist, especially for residents of
North America, January is not a great month to leave to visit Europe.
Having one's vacation cut short by a few days due to a blizzard is a
real possibility anytime from October to April.


Pete

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

Pete wrote:

    >>>>> Florence felt like a tourist trap with crowds and lines and high
    >>>>> prices eveywhere I turned.
    >>>> Except for the contents of its museums, I don't particularly like
    >>>> Florence
    >>> The combined contents of its museums are the greatest any city in
    >>> the world can offer, with the possible exception of Paris (only if
    >>> you love Impressionist paintings, though), and the main reason many
    >>> tourists visit Florence. Long queues go with the territory.
    >> I'm not sure if you're trying to disagree with me or not, .....
    > I am in a sideways sort of way. Many replies here recommend to
    > posters to avoid Florence because of the crowds.


I never suggested to anyone that he avoid Florence. In fact for anyone who
is interested in Rennaissance art, I strongly recommend visiting Florence,
crowds or not.

Nevertheless, as a city, not as a repository of art, I don't particularly
like Florence, and greatly prefer many other cities and towns in Italy.

I know that mine is a minority view, and whenever I express it, I always try
to make it clear that it's *my* opinion, and that's all.


    > Well, is the OP
    > looking for solitude or great art? Telling someone to visit Rome or
    > Siena instead assumes that the OP does not really care what he/she
    > sees. Rome is wonderful, but in terms of museum contents is not
    > near the equal of Florence or Paris (ruins and architecture, yes).


There I simply disagree. Wonderful as Florence's museums are, there's much
more in Rome.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

Pete wrote:
    >> Florence is a beautiful city, with much more art per square meter
    >> than any other city I know. However, it's best visited on a rainy
    >> day in January.
    > Regulars know that your informed opinion is made as a resident of
    > Italy. However, for the average tourist, especially for residents
    > of North America, January is not a great month to leave to visit
    > Europe. Having one's vacation cut short by a few days due to a
    > blizzard is a real possibility anytime from October to April.

Just as real as the same thing happening in many parts of the US. To
imply that tourists should avoid Europe for 7 months of the year is
absurd.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, change 'ten' to 'net' in address)
www.stayparis.net

Rome too Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

On 2006-08-05 10:39:17 -0500, "Pete" <[email protected]> said:

    > Rome is wonderful, but in terms of museum contents is not
    > near the equal of Florence or Paris (ruins and architecture, yes).

I respectfully ask what you think of the Vatican Museum? Granted,
technically not in "Rome" but darned close. I was very impressed with
a lot of the art in that place. My favorite was the Laocoon statue
group, of which the Uffizi in Florence only has a copy. Then there are
the Rafaels and Michelangelos.
--
Dan Stephenson
Photos, movies, panos from the Europe, USA, plus N.Z.:
http://homepage.mac.com/stepheda

(remove nospam from email address to reply via email)

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

Pete wrote:
    > > Florence is a beautiful city, with much more art per square meter
    > > than any other city I know. However, it's best visited on a rainy
    > > day in January.
    > Regulars know that your informed opinion is made as a resident of
    > Italy. However, for the average tourist, especially for residents of
    > North America, January is not a great month to leave to visit Europe.
    > Having one's vacation cut short by a few days due to a blizzard is a
    > real possibility anytime from October to April.

Blizzards in Austria and Germany, but not in Rome. The worst that will
happen in Rome in winter is that it will be cold and rainy. I was in
Istanbul in December...there were no lines anywhere and I took
beautiful pictures of the buildings covered in snow.

January is a great time to visit Portugal, Southern Spain, and Southern
Italy - no crowds and pleasantly cool. For the rest of Europe, I
wouldn't recommend visiting in winter (unless you want skiing,
christmas markets, or another winter-focused trip), but it's an okay
time to visit most of the major cities if you can't go at another time
and you would want your visit to focus on museums, churches, palaces,
and other indoor places and activities anyway. Most of Europe is best
visited in the fall or spring, March or October especially since the
weather is pleasant and the tourist numbers are still very low.

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

"Ken Blake" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Pete wrote:
    >>>>>> Florence felt like a tourist trap with crowds and lines and high
    >>>>>> prices eveywhere I turned.
    >>>>> Except for the contents of its museums, I don't particularly like
    >>>>> Florence
    >>>> The combined contents of its museums are the greatest any city in
    >>>> the world can offer, with the possible exception of Paris (only if
    >>>> you love Impressionist paintings, though), and the main reason many
    >>>> tourists visit Florence. Long queues go with the territory.
    >>> I'm not sure if you're trying to disagree with me or not, .....
    >> I am in a sideways sort of way. Many replies here recommend to
    >> posters to avoid Florence because of the crowds.
    > I never suggested to anyone that he avoid Florence. In fact for anyone
    > who is interested in Rennaissance art, I strongly recommend visiting
    > Florence, crowds or not.
    > Nevertheless, as a city, not as a repository of art, I don't particularly
    > like Florence, and greatly prefer many other cities and towns in Italy.
    > I know that mine is a minority view, and whenever I express it, I always
    > try to make it clear that it's *my* opinion, and that's all.
    >> Well, is the OP
    >> looking for solitude or great art? Telling someone to visit Rome or
    >> Siena instead assumes that the OP does not really care what he/she
    >> sees. Rome is wonderful, but in terms of museum contents is not
    >> near the equal of Florence or Paris (ruins and architecture, yes).
    > There I simply disagree. Wonderful as Florence's museums are, there's much
    > more in Rome.
    > --
    > Ken Blake
    > Please reply to the newsgroup

From one who can only handle so much museum, I agree that Siena is great.
Much of a trip is the experience with the towns and people. Probably the
greatest part. We happened on a community Contrada dinner one evening when
returning to Siena. Still one of the highpoints of the trip.

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

Richard J. wrote:

    > Pete wrote:
    >>> Florence is a beautiful city, with much more art per square meter
    >>> than any other city I know. However, it's best visited on a rainy
    >>> day in January.
    >> Regulars know that your informed opinion is made as a resident of
    >> Italy. However, for the average tourist, especially for residents
    >> of North America, January is not a great month to leave to visit
    >> Europe. Having one's vacation cut short by a few days due to a
    >> blizzard is a real possibility anytime from October to April.
    > Just as real as the same thing happening in many parts of the US. To
    > imply that tourists should avoid Europe for 7 months of the year is
    > absurd.


Moreover Europe is a pretty big place, with very large climate differences
from place to place. There are many parts of Europe where there are *never*
blizzards, from October to April or at any other time.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:29:51 -0400, Ken Blake
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > [email protected] wrote:
    >> So after spending 5 days in each city and surrounding area, Sienna is
    >> the hands down winner in my opinion?
    >> Florence felt like a tourist trap with crowds and lines and high
    >> prices eveywhere I turned.
    >> What do you think?
    > I'm entirely with you. Except for the contents of its museums, I don't
    > particularly like Florence, but Siena (note the spelling, btw--*one*
    > "n") is
    > one of my favorite places anywhere.
    > Siena has its crowds too, but they are mostly day-trippers,

i love that beatles song

as well as lucy in the sky with diamonds, the girl with colitis go bye

    > so mornings and
    > evenings are fine.

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

    > There are many parts of Europe where there are *never* blizzards, from
    > October to April or at any other time.

It was not the blizzards in Europe I was referring to.


Pete

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

    > Just as real as the same thing happening in many parts of the US.
    > To imply that tourists should avoid Europe for 7 months of the
    > year is absurd.

Obviously you live in a part of the USA where blizzards are not a
problem. I have missed my plane in April and my friend could not
even get to the airport until a couple of days later for her vacation
in late October. I will not plan a vacation to *anywhere* from late
October to early May.


Pete

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

Pete wrote:

[his original statement reinstated here...]
    >>> However, for the average tourist, especially for residents
    >>> of North America, January is not a great month to leave to visit
    >>> Europe. Having one's vacation cut short by a few days due to a
    >>> blizzard is a real possibility anytime from October to April.

    >> Just as real as the same thing happening in many parts of the US.
    >> To imply that tourists should avoid Europe for 7 months of the
    >> year is absurd.
    > Obviously you live in a part of the USA where blizzards are not a
    > problem.

Wrong. I don't live in the USA at all.

    > I have missed my plane in April and my friend could not even get
    > to the airport until a couple of days later for her vacation in
    > late October. I will not plan a vacation to *anywhere* from late
    > October to early May.

Oh, I see, you were commenting on America's ability to keep its roads
and airports open for 7 months of the year, not the weather in Europe.
That wasn't clear from what you wrote, which wasn't exclusively about
North American residents. I must admit I didn't realise that transport
in the US was so unreliable. Must remember to avoid those 7 months of
the year when I'm next planning a visit there.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, change 'ten' to 'net' in address)
www.stayparis.net

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 09:39:17 -0600, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >I am in a sideways sort of way. Many replies here recommend to
    >posters to avoid Florence because of the crowds. Well, is the OP
    >looking for solitude or great art? Telling someone to visit Rome or
    >Siena instead assumes that the OP does not really care what he/she
    >sees. Rome is wonderful, but in terms of museum contents is not
    >near the equal of Florence or Paris (ruins and architecture, yes).

I wouldn't tell anyone to avoid Florence, I just urge them to go there
in the winter. Florence certainly has more than its share of great
art, but most people can't take it all in on their first trip anyway.

I have lots of things that I want to see in Florence that I'm saving
for other trips. However, those trips will not ever again be in the
summer if I can help it.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

Re: Rome too Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 20:28:18 GMT, Dan Stephenson
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On 2006-08-05 10:39:17 -0500, "Pete" <[email protected]> said:
    >> Rome is wonderful, but in terms of museum contents is not
    >> near the equal of Florence or Paris (ruins and architecture, yes).
    >I respectfully ask what you think of the Vatican Museum? Granted,
    >technically not in "Rome" but darned close. I was very impressed with
    >a lot of the art in that place. My favorite was the Laocoon statue
    >group, of which the Uffizi in Florence only has a copy. Then there are
    >the Rafaels and Michelangelos.

Rome also has the Capitoline Museums, which has an amazing percentage
of all the classical statues you've ever seen pictures of. Then there
is the Villa Borghese, which has a very nice collection, also several
excellent works by Raphael. Then there are lots of churches that have
world-class paintings, such as San Luigi dei Francesi, which has 3
Caravaggios. Then there are smaller galleries, such as the Doria
Pamphilj Gallery. There is also a museum of modern art, a museum of
Etruscan antiquities, and surely I'm forgetting some.

However, per square meter, Florence probably has more great art than
Rome.

--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

Re: Rome too Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

B Vaughan wrote:

    > On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 20:28:18 GMT, Dan Stephenson
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> On 2006-08-05 10:39:17 -0500, "Pete" <[email protected]> said:
    >>> Rome is wonderful, but in terms of museum contents is not
    >>> near the equal of Florence or Paris (ruins and architecture, yes).
    >> I respectfully ask what you think of the Vatican Museum? Granted,
    >> technically not in "Rome" but darned close. I was very impressed
    >> with a lot of the art in that place. My favorite was the Laocoon
    >> statue group, of which the Uffizi in Florence only has a copy. Then
    >> there are the Rafaels and Michelangelos.
    > Rome also has the Capitoline Museums, which has an amazing percentage
    > of all the classical statues you've ever seen pictures of. Then there
    > is the Villa Borghese, which has a very nice collection, also several
    > excellent works by Raphael. Then there are lots of churches that have
    > world-class paintings, such as San Luigi dei Francesi, which has 3
    > Caravaggios. Then there are smaller galleries, such as the Doria
    > Pamphilj Gallery. There is also a museum of modern art, a museum of
    > Etruscan antiquities, and surely I'm forgetting some.


Also the Palazzo Massimo alle Terme
the Palazzo Altemps
the Galleria Spada
the Villa Farnesina
and lots of other smaller, lesser museums.

And there there are the wonderful temporary exhibitions that are often held
at the Scuderie at the Quirinale, the Complesso di Vittoriana, and the
Palazzo Venezia.


    > However, per square meter, Florence probably has more great art than
    > Rome.


That might possibly be so, but as far as I'm concerned, the total is far
more significant than the square meter count. And Rome has *lots* more than
Florence.

If I had to choose a single favorite museum in the world, it would be the
Uffizi in Florence. Even though there's much more that's wonderful in the
Vatican, the greatly smaller size of the Uffizi makes it much more
comfortable to visit, and the ratio of truly great to just good art is
higher (to my taste) in the Uffizi than anywhere else I know.

But when it comes to total numbers of great works of art, Florence can't
even come close to Rome.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

B Vaughan wrote:

    > I wouldn't tell anyone to avoid Florence, I just urge them to go there
    > in the winter. Florence certainly has more than its share of great
    > art, but most people can't take it all in on their first trip anyway.
    > I have lots of things that I want to see in Florence that I'm saving
    > for other trips. However, those trips will not ever again be in the
    > summer if I can help it.


With the exception of visiting the family (my grandson't birthday is in late
August and we always go to NY to visit him then) I avoid traveling almost
anywhere in the summer. Even if it isn't as crowded as Florence, almost
everywhere is more crowded in the summer, and I don't like the heat. We
usually do our traveling in the Spring or Fall.


--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

    > I must admit I didn't realise that transport in the US was so
    > unreliable. Must remember to avoid those 7 months of the year when I'm
    > next planning a visit there.

You simply do not understand the USA, period. This winter pay
close attention to what happens during snowstorms in Minneapolis,
Chicago, Detroit, Denver, and Salt Lake City. These are hub cities
for NWA, UA, AA, and probably others. Every winter we see
news stories of people sleeping in airports because all of the hotels
are already full of passengers also stuck by the weather. Europe
does not have a comparable situation, as FRA, AMS, CDG, and
LHR do not have the weather conditions that the aforementioned
American airports have. Add to that the fact that the USA is THE
world's major air transport sector. You have been lucky.


Pete

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

Am Sat, 05 Aug 2006 09:33:49 +0200 schrieb B Vaughan:

    > Florence is a beautiful city, with much more art per square meter than
    > any other city I know. However, it's best visited on a rainy day in
    > January.

I once went there in February, and it was really nice. Sunny weather, a bit
cold, and no crowdes.

    > I agree that it's extremely unpleasant when crowded with
    > tourists. I went there once with my daughter in August, and swore I
    > would never return there in the summer.

ACK, I also been there once in July and it was just too hot. Its not too
much fun to walk around a city or stand in queues in the piping sun.

Regards,

Frank

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

Following up to [email protected]

    >What do you think?

I'm with you, as a non culture vulture I enjoyed doing nothing
much in Siena, although the Jazz restaurant in Firenze was a high
point of the trip.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

Pete napisal(a):
    > >> Florence felt like a tourist trap with crowds and lines and high
    > >> prices eveywhere I turned.
    > >
    > > Except for the contents of its museums, I don't particularly like Florence
    > The combined contents of its museums are the greatest any city in
    > the world can offer, with the possible exception of Paris (only if you
    > love Impressionist paintings, though),

You seem to be forgetting about St Petersburg Hermitage, mate.
cheers
Jck

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:48:34 +0200, Frank Hucklenbroich
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Am Sat, 05 Aug 2006 09:33:49 +0200 schrieb B Vaughan:
    >> Florence is a beautiful city, with much more art per square meter than
    >> any other city I know. However, it's best visited on a rainy day in
    >> January.
    >I once went there in February, and it was really nice. Sunny weather, a bit
    >cold, and no crowdes.
    >ACK, I also been there once in July and it was just too hot. Its not too
    >much fun to walk around a city or stand in queues in the piping sun.

That's another problem. Florence is not near the sea and is in a
natural depression nearly surrounded by hills. It tends to be hotter
in the summer than either Rome or Venice.

--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:03:34 +0200, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:48:34 +0200, Frank Hucklenbroich
    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>Am Sat, 05 Aug 2006 09:33:49 +0200 schrieb B Vaughan:
    >>> Florence is a beautiful city, with much more art per square meter than
    >>> any other city I know. However, it's best visited on a rainy day in
    >>> January.
    >>I once went there in February, and it was really nice. Sunny weather, a bit
    >>cold, and no crowdes.
    >>ACK, I also been there once in July and it was just too hot. Its not too
    >>much fun to walk around a city or stand in queues in the piping sun.
    >That's another problem. Florence is not near the sea and is in a
    >natural depression nearly surrounded by hills. It tends to be hotter
    >in the summer than either Rome or Venice.

Despite Rome also being surrounded by hills and further south :-)
--

Martin

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

Following up to Martin <[email protected]> :

    >On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:03:34 +0200, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
    >>On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 10:48:34 +0200, Frank Hucklenbroich
    >><[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>Am Sat, 05 Aug 2006 09:33:49 +0200 schrieb B Vaughan:
    >>>> Florence is a beautiful city, with much more art per square meter than
    >>>> any other city I know. However, it's best visited on a rainy day in
    >>>> January.
    >>>I once went there in February, and it was really nice. Sunny weather, a bit
    >>>cold, and no crowdes.
    >>>ACK, I also been there once in July and it was just too hot. Its not too
    >>>much fun to walk around a city or stand in queues in the piping sun.
    >>That's another problem. Florence is not near the sea and is in a
    >>natural depression nearly surrounded by hills. It tends to be hotter
    >>in the summer than either Rome or Venice.

I'd hear that as well - I just did a thorough search of all weather-related
sites on the entire WWW (well, 1 anyway) and it seems the average max daily
temps for July and August are 28C in Rome and 31C in Florence. ymmv.

    >Despite Rome also being surrounded by hills and further south :-)

Yep. Odd thing, the weather.
--
Tim C.

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

    >> The combined contents of its museums are the greatest any city in
    >> the world can offer, with the possible exception of Paris (only if you
    >> love Impressionist paintings, though),
    > You seem to be forgetting about St Petersburg Hermitage, mate.

No, I'm not. I love St. Petersburg and have been there a few times.
However, Piter really only has two art museums of any stature, the
Hermitage and the Russian Museum. If you combine the contents
of the Hermitage and the Russian Museum and compare that total
to the contents of all of Florence's art museums, I think you will
see that Florence has the more magnificent total. You are confusing
individual museums with a city's combined contents. I don't think
you read the context of this thread correctly. In terms of individual
museums, the Hermitage would be second in the world, after the
Louvre and before the Metropolitan in NYC. But the first two
tower over the third due to the baroque buildings housing the art.


Pete

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

"Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    >> I must admit I didn't realise that transport in the US was so
    >> unreliable. Must remember to avoid those 7 months of the year when I'm
    >> next planning a visit there.
    > You simply do not understand the USA, period. This winter pay
    > close attention to what happens during snowstorms in Minneapolis,
    > Chicago, Detroit, Denver, and Salt Lake City. These are hub cities
    > for NWA, UA, AA, and probably others. Every winter we see
    > news stories of people sleeping in airports because all of the hotels
    > are already full of passengers also stuck by the weather. Europe
    > does not have a comparable situation, as FRA, AMS, CDG, and
    > LHR do not have the weather conditions that the aforementioned
    > American airports have. Add to that the fact that the USA is THE
    > world's major air transport sector. You have been lucky.
    > Pete
And that's not the full story. One good snowstorm in the Northeast, and here
in sunny Atlanta, the connection capital of the U.S., all the flights back
up and traffic across the U.S. slows to a crawl. The airlines' logistical
web is carefully balanced; if a flight can't get in from up north, there's
no plane to move people west. And vice versa.

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:35:39 +0200, Tim C. <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >>Despite Rome also being surrounded by hills and further south :-)
    >Yep. Odd thing, the weather.

It's not odd at all. See my other post.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:08:12 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:03:34 +0200, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
    >>That's another problem. Florence is not near the sea and is in a
    >>natural depression nearly surrounded by hills. It tends to be hotter
    >>in the summer than either Rome or Venice.
    >Despite Rome also being surrounded by hills and further south :-)

You forgot the "sea" part. Rome has no significant hills between it
and the nearby sea. The prevailing winds are from the sea. It makes a
big difference.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:15:23 +0200, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:08:12 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:03:34 +0200, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>That's another problem. Florence is not near the sea and is in a
    >>>natural depression nearly surrounded by hills. It tends to be hotter
    >>>in the summer than either Rome or Venice.
    >>Despite Rome also being surrounded by hills and further south :-)
    >You forgot the "sea" part. Rome has no significant hills between it
    >and the nearby sea. The prevailing winds are from the sea. It makes a
    >big difference.

I recall there being very little wind when it was hot in Rome.
--

Martin

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

U¿ytkownik "Pete" <[email protected]> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
news:[email protected]...
    >>> The combined contents of its museums are the greatest any city in
    >>> the world can offer, with the possible exception of Paris (only if you
    >>> love Impressionist paintings, though),
    >> You seem to be forgetting about St Petersburg Hermitage, mate.
    > No, I'm not. I love St. Petersburg and have been there a few times.
    > However, Piter really only has two art museums of any stature, the
    > Hermitage and the Russian Museum. If you combine the contents
    > of the Hermitage and the Russian Museum and compare that total
    > to the contents of all of Florence's art museums, I think you will
    > see that Florence has the more magnificent total. You are confusing
    > individual museums with a city's combined contents. I don't think
    > you read the context of this thread correctly. In terms of individual
    > museums, the Hermitage would be second in the world, after the
    > Louvre and before the Metropolitan in NYC. But the first two
    > tower over the third due to the baroque buildings housing the art.

OK, point taken.

Jck

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:17:19 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:15:23 +0200, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
    >>On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:08:12 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:03:34 +0200, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>That's another problem. Florence is not near the sea and is in a
    >>>>natural depression nearly surrounded by hills. It tends to be hotter
    >>>>in the summer than either Rome or Venice.
    >>>Despite Rome also being surrounded by hills and further south :-)
    >>You forgot the "sea" part. Rome has no significant hills between it
    >>and the nearby sea. The prevailing winds are from the sea. It makes a
    >>big difference.
    >I recall there being very little wind when it was hot in Rome.

Regardless of the meteorlogical conditions when you were in Rome, it
is cooler there in the summer, on average, than Florence is, and its
proximity to the sea is the main reason.

--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:51:54 +0200, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:17:19 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:15:23 +0200, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:08:12 +0200, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:03:34 +0200, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>That's another problem. Florence is not near the sea and is in a
    >>>>>natural depression nearly surrounded by hills. It tends to be hotter
    >>>>>in the summer than either Rome or Venice.
    >>>>Despite Rome also being surrounded by hills and further south :-)
    >>>You forgot the "sea" part. Rome has no significant hills between it
    >>>and the nearby sea. The prevailing winds are from the sea. It makes a
    >>>big difference.
    >>I recall there being very little wind when it was hot in Rome.
    >Regardless of the meteorlogical conditions when you were in Rome, it
    >is cooler there in the summer, on average, than Florence is, and its
    >proximity to the sea is the main reason.

Is the average, the average of daily differences between the two
cities or the difference in average monthly temperatures.
Think carefully before answering.
--

Martin

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

Pete wrote:
    > > I must admit I didn't realise that transport in the US was so
    > > unreliable. Must remember to avoid those 7 months of the year when I'm
    > > next planning a visit there.
    > You simply do not understand the USA, period. This winter pay
    > close attention to what happens during snowstorms in Minneapolis,
    > Chicago, Detroit, Denver, and Salt Lake City. These are hub cities
    > for NWA, UA, AA, and probably others. Every winter we see
    > news stories of people sleeping in airports because all of the hotels
    > are already full of passengers also stuck by the weather. Europe
    > does not have a comparable situation, as FRA, AMS, CDG, and
    > LHR do not have the weather conditions that the aforementioned
    > American airports have. Add to that the fact that the USA is THE
    > world's major air transport sector. You have been lucky.

In winter in those northern hub cities, the chance of massive delays is
less than 5% on any given day. They are well accustomed to difficult
weather conditions, and can get the planes out in reasonable time in
anything short of a driving blizzard. And in winter in places like New
York and DC it's more like a 1% chance. If you don't travel for 7
months a year because one time you were stuck in an airport, that's
your loss. I've taken at least 100 flights in my life, including
flying in and out of Minneapolis for four years and out of Boston for
three, and the only time I was ever unable to fly within a few hours of
my scheduled flight was in June in Boston when there was a groundstop
due to a lightning storm.

Re: Florence Vs. Sienna ???
 

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ups.com...
    > So after spending 5 days in each city and surrounding area, Sienna is
    > the hands down winner in my opinion?
    > Florence felt like a tourist trap with crowds and lines and high prices
    > eveywhere I turned.
I have lived in both -- Siena was nicer for living, Florence was nice to
make day trips to. If you have been to neither, Florence packs more artistic
and historic wallop, Siena is perhaps more beautiful. They are only an hour
apart -- either one can be visited from the other.
Both cities suffer from recent allowance of traffic-- neither are as
pleasantly walkable as they once were. . Florence is hellish to drive in,
Siena is better, although you cannot ( unless you are one of the increasing
number of exceptions) drive in the centre of either.
rjf