# Pick 4 cities for a US-tourist's first european vacation.



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

Jonesy55 said:


> All of Europe is the 'true' Europe.
> 
> Portugal, Ireland, Finland, Romania are not less 'True Europe' than the Alps.


Geographically all those countries are in Europe, but in the minds of people it does not seem to be so. 

The people of UK & Ireland allways felt more connected to America and the commonwealth than to Europe. As Winston Churchill once said:


“We are with Europe but not of it; we are linked but not compromised. We are associated but not absorbed. If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea.” — Winston Churchill, House of Commons on May 11, 1953.


So if you pay a pretty dear price for your airline tickets as americans do. You first head to England which has the best and cheapest air-connections with the U.S. from there you head to a city which will give give you full value for the money, a city with sights, culture, history and a true continental european atmospheare. If there's an old man with a barrel organ on the square in that european city, then you have made the right choice for your vacation.

One more thing: This forum is full of subjective selfpromoters, that is people who promote their city and their country to the fullest without considering the 
actual tourist value of their native whereabouts.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

NordikNerd said:


> If there's an old man with a barrel organ on the square in that european city, then you have made the right choice for your vacation.


:nuts:

What if you are an American who doesn't like barrel organs?


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

I always chose holiday destinations based on barrel organ density.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

NordikNerd said:


> Geographically all those countries are in Europe, but in the minds of people it does not seem to be so.
> 
> The people of UK & Ireland allways felt more connected to America and the commonwealth than to Europe. As Winston Churchill once said:
> 
> ...


From what I read(never been to the UK btw), there are similarities between UK and other Anglophone countries, but the UK's mindset is more aligned with Europe than US.


----------



## Time Lord (Dec 13, 2012)

1-) Istanbul
2-) London
3-) Paris
4-) Venice


----------



## Adde (May 8, 2011)

Chicagoago said:


> How did this become all about Sweden of all places. My family is of Swedish heritage and I've been to Stockholm a few times. I loved it but it wasnt jam packed with tourists and I've never met anyone else from the USA who's been there. Nothing wrong with Stockholm at all, but its hardly on an Amsterdam or Venice level.


I don't know when you visited Stockholm last, but these days it's actually pretty packed with tourists in the summer. I live there, and in June and July, 85% of the people you pass on the street downtown are tourists. Tourism has grown very quickly over the last 10 years or so.

I'm not surprised you've never met any American who's been to Stockholm. It's not London or Paris, obviously, and the number of US tourists are still relatively modest (though growing). 

In terms if sights, I'd actually say Stockholm's got more than Venice, which is a gorgeous city but very doable in a weekend. Of course Stockholm's no where near as much of a tourist draw though. The reason Venice seem to have fewer overnight stays is probably because relatively few tourists actually stay in the city (if you've been there and stayed in the city you know how empty it gets after the last train for the night leaves at 10). I'm not familiar enough with Amsterdam to comment on it.


----------



## Adde (May 8, 2011)

NordikNerd said:


> One more thing: This forum is full of subjective selfpromoters, that is people who promote their city and their country to the fullest without considering the
> actual tourist value of their native whereabouts.


While people certainly do promote their own cities and countries (which is pretty natural), the fact is that a lot of places have lots of tourist value regardless of how famous they are. I think you can pretty much travel anywhere that is reasonably safe and get tremendous value out of the experience if you prepare a little bit.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Perhaps we should actually move away from the "big" tourist sites and focus more on the hidden gems? I mean, Italy we all know is a tourist hot-spot, but tourists are also likely to feel the brunt of the "tourist menus" at restaurants and get tired of touts, or the "street artists" in Paris that accost you, draw your picture and then insist upon being paid. So does anyone have any suggestions as to places where this kind of behaviour is less likely to happen whilst still offering an amazing experience for tourists to Europe?

I'm surprised no one has mentioned St. Petersburg or Budapest, Krakow or Vienna - some of the "lesser" known but fantastic places to see without the usual throngs of tourists that one associates with the more known.


----------



## dj4life (Oct 22, 2009)

London, Paris, Berlin, Rome/Moscow - I would have suggested to visit these classical cities first. 
If the one divided Europe in four parts and wanted to visit the most representative cities in each part of the continent, then the options could be: London (Western Europe), Moscow (Eastern Europe), Stockholm (Northern Europe) and Rome (Souther Europe).


----------



## dj4life (Oct 22, 2009)

Adde said:


> I don't know when you visited Stockholm last, but these days it's actually pretty packed with tourists in the summer. I live there, and in June and July, 85% of the people you pass on the street downtown are tourists. Tourism has grown very quickly over the last 10 years or so.
> 
> I'm not surprised you've never met any American who's been to Stockholm. It's not London or Paris, obviously, and the number of US tourists are still relatively modest (though growing).
> 
> In terms if sights, I'd actually say Stockholm's got more than Venice, which is a gorgeous city but very doable in a weekend. Of course Stockholm's no where near as much of a tourist draw though. The reason Venice seem to have fewer overnight stays is probably because relatively few tourists actually stay in the city (if you've been there and stayed in the city you know how empty it gets after the last train for the night leaves at 10). I'm not familiar enough with Amsterdam to comment on it.


The popularity of both Stockholm and Sweden as an atractive tourist destination is inceasing quite quickly. Despite the costs, more people tend to visit the cities in Northern Europe these days, because some countries located in Southern Europe are losing their attractiveness.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

dj4life said:


> The popularity of both Stockholm and Sweden as an atractive tourist destination is inceasing quite quickly. Despite the costs, more people tend to visit the cities in Northern Europe these days,* because some countries located in Southern Europe are losing their attractiveness.*


Source?


----------



## DiggerD21 (Apr 22, 2004)

DiggerD21 said:


> + Budapest
> (Bratislava)
> + Prague
> (Dresden)
> + Berlin (Potsdam)


Btw, I was proposing this route because the train travel times between those cities are reasonable and you would experience cities and countryside along the railroad in 5 countries:

Budapest - Bratislava: 2:45 hours (EC train)
Bratislava - Vienna: 1 hour (regional express train)
Vienna - Prague: 5 hours (EC train)
Prague - Dresden: 2:16 hours (EC train)
Dresden - Berlin: 2 hours (EC train)


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

Adde said:


> The reason Venice seem to have fewer overnight stays is probably because relatively few tourists actually stay in the city (if you've been there and stayed in the city you know how empty it gets after the last train for the night leaves at 10). I'm not familiar enough with Amsterdam to comment on it.


Venice is very expensive and most people visit over the day, they stay in nearby Mestre or at campings along the Adriatic. Venice has excellent connections with train to Verona and Milan and the train arrives in the heart of Venice right next to the canals.

Venice is a topnotch holiday destination attracting tourists from all over the world. Visit the San Marco Square and you will notice that people have arrived from places like India, Brazil and Japan. That is, these visitors have payed a decent amount of money to see this wondercity with its canals and gondoleers, where else in the world can you experience something similar ?

Also when I was there I noticed that the people coming out of the hotels were very well dressed high society tourists.

Venice & Italy is so famous that the authorities dont have to advertise it, the tourists come in hordes anyway. Doesnt matter if it's expensive and if no one speaks english.

Stockholm, Sweden is well advertised to attract forregin tourists and tourists arrive but they have not travelled that far and did not pay that much to get there. They are ordinary people with medium income. Most forregin tourists in Stockholm come with the ferries from Finland and the Baltics. Stockholm is a beautiful city but I dare to say it's slightly overestimated and a bit remote. The Old Town is worth a visit though.

*Conclusion:* Some cities will always attract a high number of tourists no matter what happends. London, Paris, Rome, Venice, Barcelona

*Other cities struggle to attract tourists.* The authorities advertise and decrease taxes for tourists, police is present everywhere, public transport is improved, fluent english is spoken, hotelstaff is serviceminded and they smile all day long. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If I was an american and I wanted to get an idea about what Europe is about If I had a limited amount of time and money I would do like this:

Fly to London, England. stay at a hotel, the next day Eurostar to Paris, spend a day there, in the evening take the RER to the intl camping in Maissons La Fitte. Next day a train to Aachen, Germany check out the central square and the cathedral, then ride the bus to Heerlen, NL where I board the train to Amsterdam. Stay at a hostel there, next day check out Amsterdam. Then train to Brussels-one day for sightseeing, in the evening take the eurostar back to London. stay at a hotel, check out London next day, then leave Heathrow for America the day after that.

By doing this I would see 5 nearby countries in a 7 or 8 days, including London, Paris, Amsterdam & Brussels.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

NordikNerd said:


> If I was an american and I wanted to get an idea about what Europe is about If I had a limited amount of time and money I would do like this:
> 
> Fly to London, England. stay at a hotel, the next day Eurostar to Paris, spend a day there, in the evening take the RER to the intl camping in Maissons La Fitte. Next day a train to Aachen, Germany check out the central square and the cathedral, then ride the bus to Heerlen, NL where I board the train to Amsterdam. Stay at a hostel there, next day check out Amsterdam. Then train to Brussels-one day for sightseeing, in the evening take the eurostar back to London. stay at a hotel, check out London next day, then leave Heathrow for America the day after that.
> 
> By doing this I would see 5 nearby countries in a 7 or 8 days, including London, Paris, Amsterdam & Brussels.


That sounds like a nightmare holiday to me :laugh: more transiting from place to place than anything. How can you possibly get to know anything about huge cities like London or Paris if you only spend a few hours there? It will just be airports, train stations, hotels and maybe a couple of the most obvious landmarks...


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Svartmetall said:


> Perhaps we should actually move away from the "big" tourist sites and focus more on the hidden gems? I mean, Italy we all know is a tourist hot-spot, but tourists are also likely to feel the brunt of the "tourist menus" at restaurants and get tired of touts, or the "street artists" in Paris that accost you, draw your picture and then insist upon being paid. So does anyone have any suggestions as to places where this kind of behaviour is less likely to happen whilst still offering an amazing experience for tourists to Europe?


To be fair you can easily avoid such hassles from touts, unwanted street artists, overly assertive waiters trying to drag you in to their restaurant etc even in the most touristic cities like London, Paris, Venice, Prague, Barcelona etc. Simply move a few hundred metres away from the honeypot sites where they congregate. 

In vast cities like London or Paris that still leaves around 99% of the urban area where you won't find such things and even in smaller places like Venice there are places to explore that are well away from such hassles.

In London for example don't go to Leicester Square or Piccadilly Circus or Oxford Street, go to Brick Lane or Hoxton Square or Wimbledon Village or Brixton or countless other places instead where you won't find throngs of tourists everywhere and the associated people trying to make money from tourists.

Likewise in Italy, central areas of Venice, Florence, Rome, the Amalfi coast etc might be full of tourists andpeopletrying to make money from tourists but it's a big country with plenty of other cities and regions to visit away from that. 

The city I've visited most often in Italy is Trieste, lovely city, nice food, impressive squares etc but not overrun by tourists at all, there are a few of course but the city is not dominated by them. Italy has dozens of other cities well worth visiting but not dominated by international tourism.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

NordikNerd said:


> So if you pay a pretty dear price for your airline tickets as americans do. You first head to England which has the best and cheapest air-connections with the U.S. from there you head to a city which will give give you full value for the money, a city with sights, culture, history and a true continental european atmospheare. If there's an old man with a barrel organ on the square in that european city, then you have made the right choice for your vacation.


London is certainly a big hitter but I also don't see such a big necessity for Americans to travel via London or to even include it in their iternary. If only 4 cities are part of the trip, they might choose places other than the British Isles, for something subjectively more "exotic" for example. There are good deals available for all kind of connections to Europe. 

That said, many Americans will choose to include London, maybe also other destinations on the British Isles, especially in Ireland or maybe also some scottish highlights. But many would like to see more than just that. 




NordikNerd said:


> Conclusion: Some cities will always attract a high number of tourists no matter what happends. London, Paris, Rome, Venice, Barcelona
> 
> Other cities struggle to attract tourists. The authorities advertise and decrease taxes for tourists, police is present everywhere, public transport is improved, fluent english is spoken, hotelstaff is serviceminded and they smile all day long.


Those destinations you name are indeed among the most prominent choices. But to suggest other cities necessarily struggle to attract lots of tourists is hilarious. 



> One more thing: This forum is full of subjective selfpromoters, that is people who promote their city and their country to the fullest without considering the
> actual tourist value of their native whereabouts.


I haven't seen a lot of that in this thread.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Overall I think we can conclude that it is a futile effort to make any list of four places that 'Americans should visit' for their first time in Europe.

What interests one American might be completely uninteresting to another. It totally depends on individual preferences and interests.


----------



## bulgarian20 (Apr 25, 2009)

1. Lisbon,Portugal
2. Varna,Bulgaria
3. Reykjavick,Iceland
4. Valletta,Malta


----------



## IThomas (Feb 11, 2011)

If a my american friend have to make a choice of four cities in Europe, and visit the old continent for the first time, I would say to him to choose one of these three my itineraries. 

*The big cities of Europe's charming*
Amsterdam, Berlin, London, Paris

*The wonder cities of the European-Mediterranean' contrasts*
Barcelona, Istanbul, Rome, Venice

*The niche's cities in the part of hidden Europe*
Bratislava, Budapest, Praha, Wien


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

Adde said:


> I don't know when you visited Stockholm last, but these days it's actually pretty packed with tourists in the summer. I live there, and in June and July, 85% of the people you pass on the street downtown are tourists. Tourism has grown very quickly over the last 10 years or so.
> 
> I'm not surprised you've never met any American who's been to Stockholm. It's not London or Paris, obviously, and the number of US tourists are still relatively modest (though growing).
> 
> In terms if sights, I'd actually say Stockholm's got more than Venice, which is a gorgeous city but very doable in a weekend. Of course Stockholm's no where near as much of a tourist draw though. The reason Venice seem to have fewer overnight stays is probably because relatively few tourists actually stay in the city (if you've been there and stayed in the city you know how empty it gets after the last train for the night leaves at 10). I'm not familiar enough with Amsterdam to comment on it.


I wasn't saying anything bad about Sweden, just that from an American perspective as a tourist it isn't really on the radar. My family is of Swedish decent, and I went there once about 7 years ago and then I took my parents back 3 years ago. I'm trying to get my boyfriend to go with me at some point. I enjoy Sweden, and I traveled around a bit to our old home town from the late 1800's (Karlskooga), and spent time on other trips in Norway going to Oslo, train rides, fjords, Bergen and then to Copenhagen, Helsinki and Iceland.


----------



## Denjiro (Jun 18, 2012)

1) Paris
2) London
3) Istanbul or Venice
4) Prague or Vienna


----------



## KeanoManu (Mar 1, 2012)

Apart from the two essential cities of London and Paris I would recommend Berlin. It's an underestimated city. Probably my favourite in Europe. Even though the war destroyed much there's still much history there. The cold war gave new historical areas and buildings to see for a tourist.

The fourth city would be Rome. History everywhere. Surprisingly small distances between the landmarks so it's a city that's easy to explore by foot.

However. I don't think these four should be in the same trip as that would force you to go over more or less all of Europe. London and Paris can be done in one trip, with maybe a trip up to Normandy included to get something more than just big dirty cities.

A trip with Berlin as the main target could include trips to Warsaw, Copenhagen, Hamburg and possibly Amsterdam. Or a personal favourite of mine: Lübeck. That's how I usually do when I travel to the US. I pick one or two cities that I want to see and then I build up a travel plan based on what's close-by.

Another city that I like and that probably do not have any American tourists at are the Estonian capital Tallinn. An interesting and fairly large medieval old town, including a building that at one time in history was the highest building in the world. I would probably not recommend that someone who's never been to Europe should go there. But if you've seen London, Paris and 2-3 more of the larger tourist magnets then yes, give Tallinn a chance for a quick stop.

Outsiders that I can't personally recommend since I haven't visited them would be Lisbon or Istanbul.

Regarding Copenhagen and Stockholm airports: Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) uses Copenhagen as their main hub for intercontinental flights. Much of south Sweden has Copenhagen as the main airport too. The third largest city in Sweden, Malmö, are basically a suburb to Copenhagen and if you're traveling from the second largest city in the country, Gothenburg, to a European/American destination that do not have a direct flight from the local airport then it's usually better to go south through Copenhagen instead of northeast through Stockholm.

In other word: Copenhagen are by far the largest airport in Scandinavia but it's not necessary the most visited city. Oslo and Stockholm are no transit hubs, Copenhagen are. Frankfurt are the third largest airport in Europe. It's probably not even top-20 in terms of (non-business related) tourism.


----------



## LuisClaudio (Sep 13, 2011)

London
Paris 
Venice
Ibiza


----------



## bolg (Aug 21, 2012)

London, Paris, Berlin, Budapest.

London seems obvious as the economical capital, Paris for classic culture (sorry Rome, Venice, Barcelona, Milano and the rest), Berlin for its urban vibe (quick before it gets too gentrified), Budapest for its semi-gritty pre war architecture and great culture, less tourists than Prague to boot.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

As an American I think some of you could use some insight on what many Americans want out of a European vacation.

1) they want to see the homeland. From my personal experience, I think more people identify with being Irish than any other Euro ancestry so Ireland seems to be one of the most popular countries to visit. But I also know people who have visited many other European countries solely because that is where their family roots are from. 

2) religious Americans want to see the Vatican and other famous cathedrals so Rome is going to be high on many Americans list, especially among Catholics and Italian-Americans of course.

3) Castles and ancient ruins. We don't have them, we want to see them. More people are going to be interested in seeing a castle, the Colosseum, or the Parthenon for example than seeing a modern skyscraper in London.

4) The overly romanticized places. People want to see Paris since its the city of love, they want to go to Oktoberfest and go to "cute" villages in Switzerland. I think many people want to see the "disneyworld epcot" version of Europe if that makes since.

5) some Americans, especially younger people, are interested in Amsterdam because of how liberal it is and different culturally from the conservative US so I think that city is pretty high on many college aged Americans to do list.

6) train travel on scenic routes: US vacations tend to be by air or the classic road trip so many Americans like the idea of travelling Europe by rail so a train trip across Germany may be more appalling to Americans than you may realize since it is romanticized a bit in the US. 

Also, I think 4 cities is to much, unless they are near each other, for an American vacation. Americans typically don't get long vacations (1 or 2 weeks long), and with the jet lag and having to carry around luggage, deal with the kids, etc, going to 4 major cities is going to be a bit much. I don't think many are going to be interested in ski resorts or beach type destinations as we can stay in north American for those types of places for much cheaper. 

So before picking 4 random cities for an American, I think you have to know who the American is before picking the cities. For a 40 year old that thinks he is Irish, then Dublin should be on the list, for a 60 year old religious person, then Rome/Vatican needs to be on the list. For the college kid then Amsterdam, for the guy who is into art, then maybe Barcelona is a must.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^ I agree, less is more. 2 well chosen cities for a vacation of 1-2 weeks might be more reasonable. That doesn't exclude the possibility of including some day trips to some nearby locations. 

The fairy tale stuff can be found all across Europe I guess. Central Europe is especially rich and might be still something more special for most Americans but also the Mediterranean region, France and of course the British Isles have their very own unique charm. 

Maybe I am culturally biased but I always liked central European castles most. If you are into that, you can fill a whole 2 weeks with Czech castle highlights alone 
The supposedly liberal Amsterdam is getting an increasingly outdated view. It is still fairly liberal but there is a clearly conservative push moving it away from that former liberal glory.


----------



## adevahi (Nov 4, 2012)

Seville
Firenze
Paris
Prague
Athens


----------



## KeanoManu (Mar 1, 2012)

weava said:


> As an American I think some of you could use some insight on what many Americans want out of a European vacation.
> 
> 1) they want to see the homeland. From my personal experience, I think more people identify with being Irish than any other Euro ancestry so Ireland seems to be one of the most popular countries to visit. But I also know people who have visited many other European countries solely because that is where their family roots are from.
> 
> ...


Interesting points.

The homeland and religious angle would probably have to be ignored for this thread to work since those are very personal and can't be used if a general recommendation shall be made.

How are Germany considered in this regard in America? I know that German are the most common heritage for white Americans, but they don't seem to care as much about it as the Irish or Italians do. And won't most Americans of European decent have heritage from all over Europe by now? 

Castles are usually not in cities. I think Prague are the exception here. 

I also feel, like Slartibartfas, that Amsterdam are losing the ultra-liberal reputation in Europe. I don't know if it's because Amsterdam are getting more conservative or if other cities/countries in Europe are catching up. I would guess on the latter. I would probably put Copenhagen and the neighbourhood of Christiania as the most liberal and drug/sex-friendly place in Europe.

But I agree that four cities are way too much for one trip. But as I interpreted the opening post the thread would be about which cities a European would recommend an American to go to, not necessary in the same trip.

A similar thread with reverse roles would be interesting too. Europeans going to America are mostly going to New York. Los Angeles/San Francisco/California and Florida are popular too, but not even close to how popular New York is. Apart from that there's not really much European tourism in the US. Chicago and Las Vegas maybe. But just like many European posters in this thread have talked about hidden gems and smaller destinations in Europe there are hidden gems the US too. Or simply cities that Americans appreciate but that Europeans havn't found yet.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ I've met already US Americans almost obsessed with their German heritage and who were also pretty informed about modern real world Germany, not just some hilariously outdated cliché. 

I guess many US Americans are quite serious about their heritage.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Germany isn't a popular tourist destination compared to Ireland or Italy where I live. Don't know why.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

1. Paris



















www.barthworks.com









http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Galerie_Lafayette_Haussmann_Dome.jpg


2. London









Rimski, http://www.flickr.com/photos/rimski/232892224/


















http://beedrunken.blogspot.co.uk/2010_07_01_archive.html



3. Venice









www.lapetitemortgallery.com









http://discoverexcursionsblog.com










http://www.walksofitaly.com/blog


4. Istanbul









http://www.flickr.com/photos/hwithaar/8093406552/


















http://haber.tr.msn.com/ntv/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=250586932&page=8


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

LtBk said:


> Germany isn't a popular tourist destination compared to Ireland or Italy where I live. Don't know why.


 Maybe things are different eg in Pennsylvania?


----------



## Redstear (Aug 15, 2013)

Edinburgh -> Berlin -> Rome -> Istanbul

I think you got the different aspects of Europe covered quite reasonable for such a select choice of cities.

Edinburgh -> Lots of culture, many festivals
Berlin -> Very lively end young city, though be quick, because the spirit it has will be gone in a short time (Like it has gone in Amsterdam)
Rome -> So much history, and one must have met Italians and their country
Istanbul -> Big city, melting pot between east & west, and to show Amaricans that are Muslims can be liberal


----------



## tk780 (Jun 21, 2007)

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ I've met already US Americans almost obsessed with their German heritage and who were also pretty informed about modern real world Germany, not just some hilariously outdated cliché.
> 
> I guess many US Americans are quite serious about their heritage.


German Americans, like Anglo-Americans, generally have a much less pronounced ethnic (or ancestral) identity than other groups in the U.S., a result of their sheer number and the time they have been around (meaning that most things German are simply considered mainstream American) as well as forced and voluntary assimilation following the world wars. Add to this a general ignorance about German culture in the U.S. and its comparatively low prestige, and it isn't surprising why LtBK would perceive other European countries to be more popular destinations than Germany (which doesn't necessarily mean that they are).


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Maybe I got a different impression because I met some of those "German-Americans" that actually made their way to Europe and therefore seem to care more about their heritage. I don't know. I just know that those I met seemed to be very proud about their heritage. 

But then its always a bit awkward. Those Irish-Americans who come to their perceived "homeland" and the real Irish often just see plain Americans in them who'd like to be Irish but aren't.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

It's a damn shame cause there is lot to see in Germany. Keep in mind however that people here(at least the ones I know) usually visit the tourist hotspots like Rome or London. The rest of those countries tends to be ignored.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ Well I guess Venice isn't ignored and possibly some also head to Florence, don't they?

What about Berlin btw? Has the news already made it across the channel that Berlin is one of the hot spots of Europe nowadays.
Don't Americans now that terrible umtata Oktoberfest cliché, ie Munich?


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

I only know two people(one of them my father) who visited Berlin.


----------



## mckeenan (Apr 17, 2013)

I think Europe is too large that it is necessary to separate into geographical areas, unless you have plenty of time and/or money. But, if we can suposse that there are no limitations, then...

1)London -> Berlin -> Paris -> Barcelona
or...
2)London -> Amsterdam -> Prague -> Moscow 
or...
3) Lisbon -> Madrid -> Rome -> Athens/Istambul

EDIT:

It is interesting that you think only in cities to prepare a trip. IMO, the better travels in Europe are those that involve a geographical area. For example: Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Austria. Europe is a place in which globalization still leave some little space to significant cultural differences (south, west, and east Europe are still very different culturally). By choosing only big cities (London, Paris, Moscow) in different cultural areas, you're getting a wrong impression of what Europe is. Despite of big cities being probably more interesting (more places to visit, more history condensated, more city life, etc), they are "western" or are being westernized, and by visiting only them, you're probably losing much about what Europe really is. And, in any case, if you choose to visit big cities only, as I said, pick a region. Visit Krakow, Prague, Wien and you would get an idea about the common past of them (the main common heritage: the Holy Roman Empire, and the Soviet influence). Visit Barcelona, Rome, Athens and Istambul, and you'll have an impressión of how the mediterranean influenced all that cultures. But if you visit London, Paris, Rome and Moscow, you are going to miss the most important thing in a Trave on Europe: the importance of the cultural heritage and local cultures.


----------



## Poul_ (Jan 27, 2011)

London:









Berlin:









Madrid:









Cracow:


----------



## TeKnO_Lx (Oct 19, 2004)

London is far from being a beautiful city.
It´s main interests do not come from the urban fabric itself, but It comes from being a economic and cultural global center whose sperhead is the english language. It´s museums, skyscrapers and parks are top notch yes, but apart from that, you cannot compare it´s beauty to other european capitals


----------



## SE9 (Apr 26, 2005)

TeKnO_Lx said:


> London is far from being a beautiful city.


Hope my gallery can change your mind 

LONDON: A World Capital

And I would call it a 'true European' destination, given that it's in Europe.


----------



## TeKnO_Lx (Oct 19, 2004)

SE9 said:


> Hope my gallery can change your mind
> 
> LONDON: A World Capital
> 
> And I would call it a 'true European' destination, given that it's in Europe.


Maybe I was excessive in my terms. Don´t take me wrong, I like London and I have been there a couple of times. And I don´t think it´s ugly per si. I just think in term of beauty it cannot match Paris, Rome, Amsterdam, Prague, Lisbon etc. London was smart enough though, to overcome this deficit, and invested in other components that only money and good economy (and a global language) can bring, such as:
-World Class parks and museums
-World Class skyscrapers
-Cultural, Sport, Center and Bussiness global meca

Despite arguably not being the most beautiful european city, probably it´s the global "city" #1 of the world, overcoming NYC


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

skyscraperus said:


> London is not truly european destination.


What is it then?



skyscraperus said:


> During Great Fire of 1666 most of London burned to the ground.


Yeah and most pf Lisbon was destroyed in an earthquake in 1755. Most European cities have had major catastrophes destroy parts of their cityscape over the centuries.



skyscraperus said:


> Half of 18th and 19th century London was destructed during WWII blitz.


Half? Not really. I believe something like 30% of the City of London was damaged. Other areas that were badly hit were East London, the port and many industrial areas. West London was left almost intact.



skyscraperus said:


> During 20th and 21th century old 18th and 19th century London cityscape was destructed by scyscrapers and other modern building.


Post- war modernization probably damaged London more then the Blitz, but again it was mostly the river banks, working class areas and the City that suffered. No 18th or 19th century buildings have been demolished to make way for modern skyscrapers. 



skyscraperus said:


> London is mostly modern city with fragments of old european architecture.


London should take better care of her heritage but let's not exaggerate here. You could walk from Fleet Street to South Kensington without seeing many modern buildings. 



skyscraperus said:


> Best choise to understand old european UK are Norwich and York or maybe Edinburgh.


Indeed. However, by your standards places cities like Berlin, Hamburg, Oslo, Stockholm, Helsinki, Rotterdam, Warsaw, Moscow, Athens etc wouldn't make it to your list of "old European cities".


From a historical point of view the most important destinations would be Istanbul, Rome, Paris and London.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

London
Paris
Barcelona 
Amsterdam

If I could add one more it would probably be Venice.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

London and Paris are obvious.

I'd say Venice as being the best "picture postcard" city.

From there, it'd be a tough call between Amsterdam and Prague.

I think Prague would just edge it for variety.


Overall though, I'd just advise people to remember that they don't have to "do Europe" in one or even two trips. Pick one or two bases and see those cities and their surrounds properly rather than trying to turn it into a checklist of "A-list" sights.

Europe is a lot more compact, or densely populated to be exact, than most of the USA. There's usually a whole variety of stuff to see and do fairly close to most major cities.


----------



## skyscraperus (Dec 25, 2012)

Mr Bricks said:


> From a historical point of view the most important destinations would be Istanbul, Rome, Paris and London.


Istanbul, Rome, Paris and Prague. :cheers:


----------



## skyscraperus (Dec 25, 2012)

1. Paris for french-norman-anglo-saxon-north-west-rainy-gray Europe
2. Prague for germano-sloven-central-alpine-panonian Europe
3. Rome for mediterranean-south-warm Europe
4. Istanbul for mediterranean-oriental-muslim-asian Europe


----------



## mckeenan (Apr 17, 2013)

skyscraperus said:


> 1. Paris for french-norman-anglo-saxon-north-west-rainy-gray Europe
> 2. Prague for germano-sloven-central-alpine-panonian Europe
> 3. Rome for mediterranean-south-warm Europe
> 4. Istanbul for mediterranean-oriental-muslim-asian Europe


Your geographical and cultural split of Europe is a valid one I think, but I don't think that visiting that 4 cities leave a real taste of the cultural background. I think it is better to visit 4 cities or places within the same cultural/geographical area. Also, european bigger cities are quite western these days, so I don't think its a good idea to visit big cities only. I would propose Balearic Islands, Sicilly, Athens and Istambul as to have a taste on mediterranean Europe, for example. 

The important thing about Europe, I think, is that the local culture and ancestral background or influence are still there in many ways, not only in the architecture or history, but also on the lifestyle of the modern people. But if you travel "Europe" as a whole, visiting only the biggest cities, you're gonna miss it, or have a messy impression of it. The important thing IMO, is to see how many countries shared common influences, and that the ancestral background is a thing compatible with modern times, and that we need to know and preserve.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

skyscraperus said:


> Istanbul, Rome, Paris and Prague. :cheers:


Those four cities I listed have influenced Europe and the world more than any other European city.


----------



## mckeenan (Apr 17, 2013)

Mr Bricks said:


> Those four cities I listed have influenced Europe and the world more than any other European city.


Yep, it's a good choice, of course. But I would prefer visit 4 cities in a certain geographical and cultural area (for example: mediterranean, ex-holy roman empire, ex-soviet-influence, etc).


----------



## svicious22 (Nov 16, 2011)

Paris
Venice or Florence
Prague
Berlin


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

Florence, Barcelona, London, Vienna


----------



## BrickellResidence (Feb 4, 2008)

Theres alot of cities but where i have been id say 

Madrid
Barcelona
London
Paris


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

I would imagine Americans/Asians could spend their entire first european trip in Spain. It has vastly different regions with different languages/history etc for example Andalucia with its muslim heritage, barcelona, celtic Galicia etc. I guess you could say that about a few countries in Europe but maybe Spain in particular.


----------



## mckeenan (Apr 17, 2013)

ukiyo said:


> I would imagine Americans/Asians could spend their entire first european trip in Spain. It has vastly different regions with different languages/history etc for example Andalucia with its muslim heritage, barcelona, celtic Galicia etc. I guess you could say that about a few countries in Europe but maybe Spain in particular.


Thank you, I appreciate that. The bulls-and-flamenco and the cheap costa booze holidays are pretty much the few things that many people can think of when it's about Spain. That, Rafa Nadal, and Penelope Cruz.

I don't know why, but japanese seem to have a very strong crush on Spain.


----------



## apinamies (Sep 1, 2010)

mckeenan said:


> Thank you, I appreciate that. The bulls-and-flamenco and the cheap costa booze holidays are pretty much the few things that many people can think of when it's about Spain. That, Rafa Nadal, and Penelope Cruz.
> 
> I don't know why, but japanese seem to have a very strong crush on Spain.


According to manga and anime I'd say that most popular European countries in Japan are UK, France and Germany.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

^ I've discovered Sweden via Miyazaki's films


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

alexandru.mircea said:


> ^ I've discovered Sweden via Miyazaki's films


Haha, yep! I forgot that the town in Kiki's delivery service was inspired by Stockholm (amongst others).


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

^ I read that another influence was Gothenburg, but from the few pics of it I saw so far I couldn't see the connection. I must check it out better, probably look for a photo thread here...

That particular kind of urban landscape and architecture is a big influence in Howl's Moving Castle, too, and I'm not sure but I think Laputa In The Sky too.


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

mckeenan said:


> I don't know why, but japanese seem to have a very strong crush on Spain.


I haven't noticed that, most japanese are in love with Paris.


----------



## BriedisUnIzlietne (Dec 16, 2012)

An American tourist should visit Rīga, Latvia and it's surrounds (the whole country) if he wants to see:

* German architecture and a huge number of Art Nouveau buildings;
* traditional and other wooden architecture;
* the various events of Rīga 2014 - European Capital of Culture;
* the abandoned Soviet army facilities (for example - The plant) in some of which tens of nuclear missiles once were ready to be launched for Paris and London;
* the largely unspoilt nature;
* how cannabis can be used to make socks :lol:


----------



## Stravinsky (Jan 20, 2012)

Tuscany
Catalunya
Île-de-France
Bavaria


----------



## Manitopiaaa (Mar 6, 2006)

As an American, I'd say:

Barcelona
Istanbul
Paris
Venice

Honorable Mentions:
Amsterdam
London
Madrid
Rome
Vienna


----------



## Kolony (Jan 20, 2012)

London
Paris
Rome
Madrid


Also mentionable:
Barcelona
Milan
Venice
Berlin
Amsterdam
Istanbul
Moscow


----------



## doguorsi2 (Dec 15, 2013)

I'd say,

Istanbul, Rome, Venice, London. 

Venice is straight out of a fairytale. Istanbul is one of the oldest cities in the world yet it is very modern. The old and the new creates a chaos and you will love it. Rome is a small version of Istanbul and less cosmopolitan. London is my favorite European city. It is huge like Istanbul and very cosmopolitan but of course not as old as Istanbul and Rome. All of these four cities have their own smell. You feel it when you exit the plane!

I would avoid Paris because it became the city of immigrants by now. The city is very dirty and everything is over priced. Local French people are very rude because, I assume, they are sick of tourists. You hear more Arabic than French and I am not really into that kind of stuff. If you must visit France, try Bordeaux, Strasbourg and Nice. You would appreciate France so much more if you stay away from Paris. I would also avoid the northern countries such as Germany, Holland, Poland, Sweden etc. They are just boring in my opinion. Trust me, Berlin and Warsaw will not impress your American eyes as Rome, Venice and Istanbul would.

Just an advice from a Euro-American


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

doguorsi2 said:


> Venice is straight out of a fairytale. Istanbul is one of the oldest cities in the world yet it is very modern. The old and the new creates a chaos and you will love it. Rome is a small version of Istanbul and less cosmopolitan. London is my favorite European city.


Are you from Istanbul ?? I dont think Istanbul fits very well into a first eurotrip. Too big, to hectic and too oriental. This is a destination for experienced travellers. 
I think americans in general are suspicious about the middle east.

The average american wants to see a more western city on his _first_ trip to Europe like Brussels, London, Amsterdam easilly accesable welcoming tourist friendly cities.




doguorsi2 said:


> I would avoid Paris because it became the city of immigrants by now. The city is very dirty and everything is over priced. Local French people are very rude because, I assume, they are sick of tourists. You hear more Arabic than French and I am not really into that kind of stuff.


Paris is not very dirty, but yes it's expensive and most service staff are tired of tourists (especially loudmouth americans) I remember we needed tickets for the RER trains and there were only complictaed vending machines and noone to ask, so that was a stressful moment.





doguorsi2 said:


> If you must visit France, try Bordeaux, Strasbourg and Nice. You would appreciate France so much more if you stay away from Paris.


Nice is nice. I liked the Jean Medicin avenue and the fountains at the end of that street. The city is very compact and there are few parks but the seafront is wonderful.



doguorsi2 said:


> I would also avoid the northern countries such as Germany, Holland, Poland, Sweden etc. They are just boring in my opinion.


*Germany* is worth seeing, but you have to know where to go. Most big german cities were demolished during WW2 and when rebuilt turned into bland dull modern soulless cities. It's not worth seeing places like Mannheim or Hannover, but Celle or Ratzeburg are preserved cities with half timbered houses.

*Holland* is boring and modern. I have been to a city named Heerleen and it looked like a modern suburb without a citycentre. Nothing to see there at all.

*Poland* is grey and dull. If you want to see eastern europe go to Prague instead.

*Sweden* is remote and sparsely populated, it has nature and open spaces but does not provide much experiences, or value for your travel money, no or low bang for the buck. 

It's like a european would pick Wyoming for his first north american vacation.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

icard:


----------



## dj4life (Oct 22, 2009)

LtBk said:


> icard:


Indeed. NordicNerd is being absolutelly un-nordic. :lol:


----------



## doguorsi2 (Dec 15, 2013)

NordikNerd said:


> Are you from Istanbul ?? I dont think Istanbul fits very well into a first eurotrip. Too big, to hectic and too oriental. This is a destination for experienced travellers.
> I think americans in general are suspicious about the middle east.
> 
> The average american wants to see a more western city on his _first_ trip to Europe like Brussels, London, Amsterdam easilly accesable welcoming tourist friendly cities.


Please excuse me for saying that but you are wrong from top to bottom. Prague is not Eastern European. It is the most beautiful central European city. I am an American of Greek/Turkish descent. Trust me. An average American wants to see the history. Comparing 8000 years old Istanbul to Amsterdam and Brussels is just absurd. Istanbul is big yes. So is London.  

Istanbul is the third most visited city in Europe, after London and Paris. So I guess, people find it attractive for one reason or another. Plus, a city doesn't get more western than Istanbul. I remember all of my American friends were amazed. It is not a bad thing to be middle eastern but if I thought Turkey is remotely middle eastern, I wouldn't suggest it in a Euro-trip. How could the capital of Byzantine be Middle Eastern  

This is not open to debate. This is my very own opinion. 


Rome, Venice, London, Istanbul. :cheers:


----------



## DiggerD21 (Apr 22, 2004)

NordikNerd said:


> *Germany* is worth seeing, but you have to know where to go. Most big german cities were demolished during WW2 and when rebuilt turned into bland dull modern soulless cities. It's not worth seeing places like Mannheim or Hannover, but Celle or Ratzeburg are preserved cities with half timbered houses.


Mannheim and Hannover are better than their reputation (I have been in both), but I agree that they are not the best options for a first visit. Hamburg (with a daytrip to Lübeck or Lüneburg) and Heidelberg would be better alternatives respectively.



> *Holland* is boring and modern. I have been to a city named Heerleen and it looked like a modern suburb without a citycentre. Nothing to see there at all.


Have you been only in Heerleen? Depending on how much of the ultraliberal attitude is left in Amsterdam, that city is worth a visit. As a contrast a daytrip to some small towns like Delft or Groningen is worth as well.



> *Poland* is grey and dull. If you want to see eastern europe go to Prague instead.


Have you been in Poland? I have changed my mind about Poland being "grey and dull" since I am living here. Cities like Krakow, Gdansk and Wroclaw are far from grey and boring (I am counting only the touristic city centres of course). Also, neither Prague nor (all of) Poland are "Eastern Europe". If Linköping would be in Czech Republic, it would be located smack in the middle of the country, with Prague being about 80km WEST of it.



> *Sweden* is remote and sparsely populated, it has nature and open spaces but does not provide much experiences, or value for your travel money, no or low bang for the buck.
> 
> It's like a european would pick Wyoming for his first north american vacation.


Sweden might be serving a niche. For example for Americans who like to see all this monarchy stuff in various countries (because they don't have this at home). And Wyoming might be serving a niche for Europeans who want to see national parks (Yellowstone National Park).


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

What's wrong with Hannover?


----------



## Adde (May 8, 2011)

NordikNerd said:


> *Sweden* is remote and sparsely populated, it has nature and open spaces but does not provide much experiences, or value for your travel money, no or low bang for the buck.
> 
> It's like a european would pick Wyoming for his first north american vacation.


That's ridiculous. No one's claiming Sweden is as good of a tourist destination as say Italy, but it's definitely not "Wyoming". First of all, Sweden is big with lots of varied nature, which is a huge draw for a certain segment of tourists. The difference between say the rolling fields of Skåne in the south, the rocky archipelagos in the east and west, and the tundra and mountains in the north is huge. 

And there's plenty of history and culture. Stockholm is one of the most beautiful cities in Europe, with a large collection of top museums and lots of history. There are hundreds of palaces and castles dotted around the countryside in the southern third of the country. Skåne is just a short train ride from Copenhagen, and Stockholm is conveniently located for cruises in the Baltic (St Petersburg, Riga, Tallinn, Helsinki, Visby etc) so Sweden isn't even that remote.


----------



## UK86 (Sep 20, 2010)

While I would recommend big cities like London, Paris and Rome to get an overall sense of history there are other great places to go that are not quite as hectic. For example in the UK you have Cornwall, Wales and Scotland with heavy Celtic influences and in France the south is just beautiful and so varied. Be open minded that's all I can say, if you get away from the cities you can experience the real culture and people.


----------



## julesstoop (Sep 11, 2002)

NordikNerd said:


> *Holland* is boring and modern. I have been to a city named Heerleen and it looked like a modern suburb without a citycentre. Nothing to see there at all.


:lol:
Poor soul!
That's about the worst you could run into when picking a random city in the Netherlands for a short stay. But please don't judge the entire country by one of its least attractive towns. 

You're being much too judgemental by the way. Even Heerlen could've been interesting if you'd've looked for the history behind its rather menial façade.


----------



## FREKI (Sep 27, 2005)

For a first visit for a person from North or South America with no affiliation or specific regional interest I would recommend these 4 in the following priority:

*#1 - Paris* - a romantic classic with endless streets, charming buildings, great views and wonderful parks..

*#2 - Rome* - old historic and beautiful city with some nice views and lots to see'

*#3 - Monaco* - Romantic "james Bond'ish" mini nation with nature and urbanity fused together in a spectacular way

*#4 - London* - huge, densely urban and classic city with history and new architecture side by side and nice parks to relax in..


Runner ups:
#5 - Nice
#6 - Copenhagen
#7 - Geneva
#8 - Stockholm
#9 - Barcelona
#10 - Amsterdam


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

FREKI said:


> #6 - Copenhagen


I actually watched the danish news last year when I was staying in Denmark. 
The non european tourists complained about Copenhagen beeing too expensive, not very scenic and that the weather was awful. Rain and +13 C in late june.

Copenhagen is a great city to visit if it's in reach with a 1-2 hour flight, but if you come from very far away I would recommend to choose a more historically interesting place like the priceworthy Prague or the enchanting fabulous Salzburg.


----------



## DiggerD21 (Apr 22, 2004)

Interesting and sad that many people are not recommending any cities in former communist countries. Especially for somebody from the US it might be interesting to see behind the former iron curtain.


----------



## doguorsi2 (Dec 15, 2013)

Well, most Americans view communism/socialism as terrorism, so I don't know if it would be a good idea for them to visit ex-communist countries.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

DiggerD21 said:


> Interesting and sad that many people are not recommending any cities in former communist countries. Especially for somebody from the US it might be interesting to see behind the former iron curtain.


Plenty of shouts for Prague, and a few for Berlin, which was partly communist.

The problem is more that few cities there would make it into anyone's top four, unless they were pushing them.

Make it a top 10 and you'd have a different story.


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

doguorsi2 said:


> Well, most Americans view communism/socialism as terrorism, so I don't know if it would be a good idea for them to visit ex-communist countries.


There are not many socialist countries left in Europe. I think americans in general associate muslim countries with terrorism today. I would recommend Prague which is the Paris of Eastern Europe but it's cheaper and more quaint.

Regarding Istanbul it does not have a reputation of being safe these days, recently there were riots and political unrest.

I think americans would pick Rome or Barcelona instead of Istanbul due to the fact that Istanbul is too close to the unstabile Middle East.


----------



## skyscraperus (Dec 25, 2012)

DiggerD21 said:


> Interesting and sad that many people are not recommending any cities in former communist countries. Especially for somebody from the US it might be interesting to see behind the former iron curtain.


Prague, Budapest, Krakow and Sankt Peterburg are in top european destinations.


----------



## Texas RE (Dec 30, 2013)

This is a very difficult list to put together. There are countless & I mean countless beautiful cities in Europe to visit. Now, this list can easily change the more thought I put into it, but I'll list these 4 of the hundreds of cities to visit. These 4 are in no particular order:

1.) Vienna
2.) Barcelona
3.) Florence
4.) Prague


----------



## TimothyR (Feb 17, 2011)

tk780 said:


> German Americans, like Anglo-Americans, generally have a much less pronounced ethnic (or ancestral) identity than other groups in the U.S., a result of their sheer number and the time they have been around (meaning that most things German are simply considered mainstream American) as well as forced and voluntary assimilation following the world wars. Add to this a general ignorance about German culture in the U.S. and its comparatively low prestige, and it isn't surprising why LtBK would perceive other European countries to be more popular destinations than Germany (which doesn't necessarily mean that they are).


No, Americans of German and English ancestry are just as interested as other ethnic groups. Although at this point the vast majority of Americans of European descent have many different nations in their family history.


----------



## TimothyR (Feb 17, 2011)

The top four destinations on my list now are:

1) Milan and Turin (one trip)
2) Stockholm
3) Vienna
4) Leipzig

Also, Krakow and Budapest


I stayed in Britain for two months, mostly in London. And I had a wonderful month in Germany - I stayed with friends in Hamburg and spent four days each in Dresden and Berlin. 

I would stay away from Britain now.


----------



## TimothyR (Feb 17, 2011)

doguorsi2 said:


> Well, most Americans view communism/socialism as terrorism, so I don't know if it would be a good idea for them to visit ex-communist countries.


I don't understand this post. 

hno:


----------



## erbse (Nov 8, 2006)

As I'm very well-traveled and would always go ahead for a longer vacation time to see a completely new region, it's really hard to pick a top 4. In such short time spans, you'd usually go to 2 major cities perhaps and plan your trip around them.

But for Americans in particular, I think a selection similar to this would be the most enlightening:

1. *Paris*. For the sheer urban experience and 19th century romance. Rather skip the museums and go for the hidden corners instead. You could also pick London, but for an American, for what I've recognized, it just feels too much like "home".

2. *Berlin & Potsdam*. For the hedonism, nightlife experience, worldclass museums, the unusual urban mix, a bit of Iron Curtain feel and the loveliest royal ensemble in the world imho.

3. *Florence & Tuscany* or *Venice & Adria* or *Barcelona* or *Valencia*. For the city- and landscape, culture and mediterranean charme. They are somewhat interchangeable for the kind of experience they give to the visitor.

4. *St. Moritz / Salzburg / Innsbruck / Bozen / etc.*. Pick one of the major Alpine cities as a base for tours. Their surroundings are unparalleled to any mountain resorts and landscapes across the globe. Of course you better go there in winter. Yeah, North America has ski resorts too, so this might be a little controversial, but I think they are very different.

Usually I'd also include places like Budapest, Prague, Krakow, Dubrovnik, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Bruges/Ghent or my Stralsund even. But these "2nd tier" old cities would make a number 5 here. Yeah, I'm putting alpine resorts ahead as an old town lover - it's because they gave me so many great experiences that I can only imagine what they do to Americans. 




NordikNerd said:


> I would recommend *Prague which is the Paris of Eastern Europe* but it's cheaper and more quaint.


:nuts:



TimothyR said:


> I stayed in Britain for two months, mostly in London.
> 
> I would stay away from Britain now.


:lol:


----------



## SASH (Apr 15, 2005)

doguorsi2 said:


> I'd say,
> 
> Istanbul, Rome, Venice, *London. *
> 
> *I would also avoid *the northern countries such as Germany, *Holland,* Poland, Sweden etc. They are just boring in my opinion.


I would avoid London in spring or summer time if you prefer to have any drinks on a terrace. You hardly find this in London:

#f7d 6: Lekker by nldazuufotografeert.com, on Flickr

Groningen by NLHank, on Flickr

DSCF6093 by hansl.geijtenbeek, on Flickr

Koningsplein Nijmegen by Cool Region, on Flickr

een terrasje pakken... by Gerard de Boer, on Flickr

Terrasjes by Lisa van 't Hof ♥, on Flickr

Terrasjes Langweer by GemeenteDFM, on Flickr

So skip London and visit: Utrecht, Amsterdam or any other Dutch city, Stockholm and Berlin or Hamburg instead!


----------



## skyscraperus (Dec 25, 2012)

NordikNerd said:


> I think americans would pick Rome or Barcelona instead of Istanbul due to the fact that Istanbul is too close to the unstabile Middle East.


Most people first pick Istanbul










*01. Istanbul, Turkey*
*02. Rome, Italy*
*03. London, United Kingdom*
*04. Prague, Czech Republic*
*05. Paris, France*

My choice will be

01. Istanbul
02. Rome
03. Paris
04. Prague

London with language, culture, cuisine and arcitecture is not exotic for US-tourist because they all that have in US.
London is more exotic for rest european/asian/african tourist than for US-tourist.

http://www.tripadvisor.com/TravelersChoice-Destinations-cTop-g4


----------



## Mr_Dru (Dec 15, 2008)

A quote from the Dutch forum. Most popular destinations for Americans.



Westpoort said:


> _Van congreswereld.nl 1 september 2014 :_
> 
> *Amsterdam in top 5 meest populaire Europese steden voor Amerikanen*
> Hotel Price Index heeft een overzicht gepubliceerd met de 50 meest populaire bestemmingen voor reizigers uit Amerika gedurende de eerste helft van 2014. Na Londen, Parijs, Rome en Barcelona blijkt Amsterdam op de 5de plek te staan van de Europese steden. Vergeleken met andere wereldsteden staat Amsterdam op de 11de plek. Londen en Parijs voeren de ranglijst wereldwijd aan. Voor de meeste Amerikaanse reizigers zijn de steden in Latijns Amerika trendy om te bezoeken en deze stijging houdt nog wel even aan tot in 2015. Veel Latijns Amerikaanse steden maken een enorme groei door in de hospitality sector.
> ...


----------



## sebvill (Apr 13, 2005)

Since its Americans we are talking about, I would recommend them Istambul, Kiev, Moscow and some place in the Balkans, so they open their minds and leave the sterotypes media and politicians try to print about anything thats not the "West" and realize people is basically the same everywhere.


----------



## adevahi (Nov 4, 2012)

I wouldn't recommend a capital where everyone heard before lot of things about in this city, and when you go there it happens that you get dissapointed because your expectations were so elevated.

If I travelled to the US I could be more amazed seing things that I don't know about their existance today. Probably, if I go to Times Square, Rushmore or the Great Canyon, my feelings wouldn't be greater than the opinion I had of this places before I go there.
So that, I'm going to recommend 4 cities that are not capitals (except one), are touristic but not over-crowded (well, maybe one of them is over-crowded, yes), and have as much or at least the same cultural destinations, night life and touristic offerts than city like Paris, London, Barcelona, Rome, Venice... I have been in all the cities that I will recommend and also in the cities mentioned before (except London), so is not a typical opinion made only for creating discussion:
My four elections were:

Lviv (when the ukrainian situation improves):
The most "underknown" city where I've ever been. I could be there only for an afternoon and I'm really expecting to be again. I'm sure it wasn't enough been one afternoon, but I'm also sure that one week still wouldn't be enough.
Problems for a US tourist: not many people speak english in Ukraine, except for some young people and with workers of touristic places (restaurants, monuments, hotels...)


Lisbon: the only capital I would recommend. It was a great destiny some years ago and... today is improving. I've been there maybe 5 times and I will go more if I can. Apart of the good things that must have a city which is touristic, it make the difference in another thing: the people is so nice, portuguese use to be helpful with everyone.
Problems: the only bad thing I can remember is the slopes of so many streets. It can make the city more beautiful but also it make it uncomfortable


Firenze: ok, this one maybe is a bit overcrowded, but is the only city that made me excited to go there for a second time. I have been in many cities more than once, but normally the first time is moe special... it didn't happen with Firenze, where my second trip was as great as if I didn't know the city before.
Problems: a bit over-crowded, not as much as Venice or Paris but enough for being sure that in every moment of the day you will have to wait in a queue for visiting places.


Seville: yes, is my city  but I'm sure that everyone which visit it coming from out of Spain and Portugal gets a really good impression, I'm sure is an underrated city hno:. I'm not going to say more things about Sevilla or about the other cities because there is enough information in the internet, but let me put a link where the survey show the names of the most important places in the city if someone want to see: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1244865&page=32
Problems: mainly two. Firstly, is difficult to arrive directly to Sevilla: is in a corner of Europe so by road the trip can be so long and by plane the airport has only 39 destinations, some of them are with small spanish airports. 24 are international destinations, only one is out of Europe. The other problem is the hot, a lot of people travel during July and August... when in Seville the hot is difficult to stand. If you visit Sevilla, is more easy to enjoy during autumm, winter or spring


----------



## sebvill (Apr 13, 2005)

Everybody that I know that has been in Seville, loved it. Ive only heard good things about your city.

Besides, Andalucía is the traditional image of Spain; flamenco, sevillanas, zarzuelas, corridas de toros, orange trees, olives, tanned people, loud speaking, etc.

Every country has a region that adheres to the collective imagination regarding that country. In Brazil is Rio, in Peru is Cusco, in the USA is Texas, in Spain is Andalucía.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

SASH said:


> I would avoid London in spring or summer time if you prefer to have any drinks on a terrace. You hardly find this in London


Are you serious?


----------



## Amrafel (Nov 26, 2006)

1) *Paris* should be definitely on this list, as the center of the european culture, fashion, gastronomy and that kind of the "european style of life" different compared to the US.

2) *Barcelona* is a great example of combination of the best european urban characteristics and mediterranean way of life. Together with the great cultural scene it is a "must-do" for Americans looking for something different and european.

3) *Vienna* is a wonderful Imperial capital and a true heart of Europe. Those, who don't know Central Europe don't really know what is Europe.

4) *Bratislava* (yes, I know :lol is just 60km from Vienna and yet it is totally different world with its communist heritage. Despite being small, it is a city of sharp contrasts and for those from the US, who want to understand how it used to look like behind the Iron curtain, there's no better option. 

However, without any argue there are many great options in Europe: London, Berlin, Rome, Florence, Sarajevo, Prague, Budapest...Any of them is a great city for those who want to see something "european."


----------



## sebvill (Apr 13, 2005)

sebvill said:


> Everybody that I know that has been in Seville, loved it. Ive only heard good things about your city.
> 
> Besides, Andalucía is the traditional image of Spain; flamenco, sevillanas, zarzuelas, corridas de toros, orange trees, olives, tanned people, loud speaking, etc.
> 
> Every country has a region that adheres to the collective imagination regarding that country. In Brazil is Rio, in Peru is Cusco, in the USA is Texas, in Spain is Andalucía.


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

Rev Stickleback said:


> Plenty of shouts for Prague, and a few for Berlin, which was partly communist.


Prague is more compact and it has many scenic views, sights, historical buildings.
It has less traffic, feels quaint and is more walkable than Berlin which is more modern.

*Scanned tourist brochure from Prague 2013*








Tourist Map with drawings of the sights.









City tours in many different languages









Pick a 2h historical tour or a 1h short city tour.








What tourist wouldnt like a 6,5h Prague Unlimited Tour All inclusive ?


----------



## EAUSERB (Sep 28, 2015)

1.Paris
2.Prague
3.Athens
4.Kotor or Dubrovnik, smaller, but more exotic


----------



## Cityfan81 (Sep 29, 2015)

*My Top List*

I have not visited the usual recommendations like London, Paris, Venice and Barcelona yet but here some very cool suggestions.

1. Prague (medieval feeling, culture, a very beautiful old town)
2. Budapest (impresive buildings, culture and cool nightlife scene, good food)
3. Istanbul (oriental feeling, impressive buildings)
4. Munich (beautiful and restful places. nice cafes, restaurants and very good rustic food.
5. Vienna (nice buildings and places, good food)

other cool cities:
My Hometown Zurich (small but very cool old town, Lake Zurich, nightlife)

a ocean drive tour in croatia from Split(cool old town) to the wonderful smaller City Dubrovnik(one of the most beautiful old towns).

Valencia ( i was only one day there but i like the mixture from old and new architecture in this city)

beautiful small cities for a day trip: 
the swiss towns Bern, Lucerne and Fribourg
the french town Colmar


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^
Your list is very focused on ex-Kakania  
Which is just fine for me.


----------

