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

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)

[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

    >> 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

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

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

<[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

    >>>> 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

    > 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

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

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

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)

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.

"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.

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