"Sjoerd" <[email protected]> writes:

    >For me it was definitely Florence. Great museums, but as a city I found it a
    >dump.

Really? Having arrived there from Rome, I found Florence to be clean, quiet
and much more civilised

The buildings and general look of the city were also much more interesting
than Rome.

The museums, on the other hand, bored me silly.

Cheers,

Paul.

--
Paul Dwerryhouse

"Why not just have the arresting officer execute you on the spot? If you turn
out to be innocent, they can cancel the invoice for the bullet." -- sharkey

    > "Ryan B" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >For me it's Carcassonne, France. I arrived in town in the early evening;
I
    > >got to the bridge about a half mile away as the sun was setting and I
looked
    > >up at the ancient walled town and thought it was magnificent. I got
inside
    > >only to find it was a highly commercialized Disney type theme park. Just
    > >one junk shop and ice cream stand after another.

I've only seen the photos and still want to get there. But I've heard that
the majority isn't original but badly reconstructed. True?

Surreyman

Pan <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
m...
    > >
    > Name any big city you like, Surreyman. Then, we'll talk.
I agree - most big cities have their dump areas. Most 'tourist' destinations
simply mean the ancient core areas.

Paris's core area just doesn't excite. And it's not even that historic -
Eiffel Tower & Sacre Coeur are barely 100 years old. Even the famed (19th.
century?) Parisian 'atmosphere' ain't there any more.

Of those visited, my top city has to be Istanbul. I greatly like Marrakesh,
Rome. All can be rubbished for services, slums, whatever. But their essence
beats Paris out of town.

Surreyman

On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:17:39 +0100, "a.spencer3"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Pan <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >    ...
    >> >
    >> Name any big city you like, Surreyman. Then, we'll talk.
    >I agree - most big cities have their dump areas. Most 'tourist' destinations
    >simply mean the ancient core areas.
    >Paris's core area just doesn't excite. And it's not even that historic -
    >Eiffel Tower & Sacre Coeur are barely 100 years old. Even the famed (19th.
    >century?) Parisian 'atmosphere' ain't there any more.

The core of Paris is Ile de la Cite', first of all. I question why
you're thinking of peripheral areas of Paris as its core.

    >Of those visited, my top city has to be Istanbul. I greatly like Marrakesh,
    >Rome. All can be rubbished for services, slums, whatever. But their essence
    >beats Paris out of town.

I haven't been to Istanbul or Marrakesh. Rome is an amazingly
interesting place to visit. There's so much to see there that one can
never hope to exhaust it all, and there are really beautiful things
there. But overall, I prefer Paris, which also has so many things to
see that one can never exhaust them, but also has more places to walk.
It's a bigger city (a _positive_ thing for me because it's got a
higher ratio of residents to tourists), and my perception is that the
Paris I visited this past summer was - except for some dogshit -
_cleaner_ than the Rome I visited in 1998. I also think it may have
been safer. Rome in 1998 had a somewhat gritty feel to it that I
didn't remember from previous visits in 1991 and 1994. Paris
definitely has its weird areas, though, I have to say. It all comes
down to taste, though. Paris is a major destination for many sound
reasons, and the city won't suffer from your disapproval and absence.

Michael

Pan <[email protected]> wrote:


    > Florence is bigger and has more of the usual urban problems of
    > pollution and grime, but what exactly is overrated about it? Tell me
    > you didn't like the view from Piazzale Michelangelo.
    > I'm beginning to see that, especially given the list that started this
    > thread, every fantastic city in Europe will appear in this thread.
    > People who don't like big cities should stay away from them and
    > ameliorate their overcrowding problems.


Florence is a dump, but for reasons the tourist will never understand.
Let us be frank, the first pass to making Florence a livable city would
be suppressing all the tourists. The second, however, would be
suppressing half of the florentines :-)

-- -----------------------------------------------------
Luca Logi - Firenze - Italy e-mail: [email protected]

Pan <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
m...
    > The core of Paris is Ile de la Cite', first of all. I question why
    > you're thinking of peripheral areas of Paris as its core.
I'm fully aware of that! But ask most tourists what they want to see first
...

and the city won't suffer from your disapproval and absence.
Ouch! Why do you need to get sarky?

Surreyman

Luca Logi schrieb:

    >Florence is a dump, but for reasons the tourist will never understand.
    >Let us be frank, the first pass to making Florence a livable city would
    >be suppressing all the tourists.

Maybe about ten years ago, I was reading somewhere (no idea where
exactly) that a communist party introduced a bill into Florence city
concil to close the downtown areas for tourists and re-build the the
relevant sights somewhere outside the city as a kind of theme park
where the tourists could be driven through.

Is there any truth behind this anecdote?

Jens

    > I'm fully aware of that! But ask most tourists what they want to see first

Disney?

Rgds

mig

Paul Dwerryhouse <[email protected]> wrote:
    >"Sjoerd" <[email protected]> writes:
    >>For me it was definitely Florence. Great museums, but as a city I found it a
    >Really? Having arrived there from Rome, I found Florence to be clean, quiet
    >and much more civilised

Heh, I did exactly the same thing. Found Rome to be too hot for my mood,
went north, planning to stop for a day in Florence and stayed three. After
Rome it just seemed so relaxing. I was still fond of Rome, just need to
visit lateter than early September.

    >The buildings and general look of the city were also much more interesting
    >than Rome.

Dunno if I'd go that far...hmmm...maybe...nyah Florence was amazing,
but some of the stuff in Rome was too.

My next trip, around this time next year, I'm hoping to make it
to Florence again, plus some canyoning in Switzerland, plus some
walking on the Pennine Way, plus some other stuff
--
snail @ careless net | What's behind the sky ? - 5 year old.

Padraig Breathnach wrote:
    > "Ryan B" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >For me it's Carcassonne, France. I arrived in town in the early evening; I
    > >got to the bridge about a half mile away as the sun was setting and I looked
    > >up at the ancient walled town and thought it was magnificent. I got inside
    > >only to find it was a highly commercialized Disney type theme park. Just
    > >one junk shop and ice cream stand after another.
    > That's the result of so many people travelling to such places. We want
    > to be fed, to have a drink, to find a place to sleep. Some among us
    > want ice cream, or postcards to send home, or a piece of local craft
    > work. So interesting destinations become commercialised. It's nobody's
    > fault; it's just the way life works.

It's certainly true. I know a perfect little jewel of a walled town near
my home, but after you've parked the car and taken 15 minutes to
circumnavigate the walls, and 10 minutes to photograph the countryside
from the wall, you'll have exhausted the possibilities of the town.
There's one bar, which may or may not be open when you arrive. I took
some visitors there last year, and the bartender remembered me from my
previous visit two years earlier.

People say they want to visit unspoiled places, but if the places are
totally unspoiled, they can't really support tourism. However, some
places seem to strike a balance better than others.

Barbara


Barbara

Paul Dwerryhouse wrote:
    > "Sjoerd" <[email protected]> writes:
    > >For me it was definitely Florence. Great museums, but as a city I found it a
    > >dump.
    > Really? Having arrived there from Rome, I found Florence to be clean, quiet
    > and much more civilised

If Florence was quiet, it must have been a rainy day in January.

I will never again go to Florence in the summer if I can avoid it. In
the center, 95% of the people you see on the streets are tourists, and
they are packed shoulder to shoulder.

I have to go to Florence next week for a doctor's appointment and I've
been wondering if I should try to leave a little time for a museum
visit, or if September will still be unmanageable.

Barbara

Barbara Vaughan <[email protected]> writes:

    >If Florence was quiet, it must have been a rainy day in January.

Rainy is right, but it was late March.

It was still busy enough for it to be too difficult to get into the
Uffizi, but that didn't particularly worry me because I was well and truely
over art after four days there.

Cheers,

Paul.

--
Paul Dwerryhouse

"Why not just have the arresting officer execute you on the spot? If you turn
out to be innocent, they can cancel the invoice for the bullet." -- sharkey

"Tim Challenger" <[email protected]> skrev i meddelandet
news:3d86cf4e$-
[email protected]...
    > > > 2) Vienna (dull center, really; decrepit outside the Ring)
    > > Pehaps but still a good atmosphere and nice people.
    > You must be the only person that thinks that the Viennese are nice. You're
    > not one yourself are you ?
    > Tim.
No ,but I've always been well treated in Vienna.
And I'm definitely not the only person returning frequently to Vienna.
L.P

No, he's not the only one. We lived there for 15 months and found it to be a
beautiful city with friendly people. One time my wife had our youngest in a
stroller waiting for a tram into the Ring and when it stopped, two locals
jumped out and picked up the stoller and carried it into the tram.

We are Americans and her German was terrible. But we got along fine. And
everyone didn't speak English once you got to the outskirts of Vienna. We
lived in Grinzing and there are more good heurigers there than just the big
tourist ones. Ones the locals actually go to, especially starting in October
when most tourists are gone.

"Tim Challenger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:3d86cf4e$-
[email protected]...
    > > > 2) Vienna (dull center, really; decrepit outside the Ring)
    > > Pehaps but still a good atmosphere and nice people.
    > You must be the only person that thinks that the Viennese are nice. You're
    > not one yourself are you ?
    > Tim.

In article <[email protected]>,
"a.spencer3" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Paris's core area just doesn't excite. And it's not even that historic -
    > Eiffel Tower & Sacre Coeur are barely 100 years old. Even the famed (19th.
    > century?) Parisian 'atmosphere' ain't there any more.

Why are these icons for Paris?

Sacre Coeur is especially offensive. The Church built it to "atone" for
the communards of 1870. How condescending.