OT: Paris or Rome? - YouLookFab Forum

Category

General

Welcome! Read about what to wear and how to wear it on the YLF Blog. Join the YLF Forum to ask specific questions or just chat about fashion and personal style. Or check out the curated list of things we love in YLF Finds.

Outfits Ensembles Trends Advice

OT: Paris or Rome?

velvetychocolate

Veteran

Bad news (well, not really) and good news...

My trip to SF was postponed - we were supposed to go at the end of July and I was so looking forward to a bit of cooler weather...but we're going in September instead. I'm still really happy about it though, it's just that I could have used some cooler weather in the middle of an insanely hot summer.

The really good news? We're off to Venice for a cruise in October. Very excited, but also a tiny bit stressed since although we were thinking of this for months, it's not until just last weekend that it was "decided" that we'd go and the trip is booked (the cruise itself, that is).

My question is this - we're planning on staying a few days in advance of the cruise in either Paris or Rome (other cites a possibility too, ie. London) - if you were traveling from the US to Venice, and were planning on staying a few days in either Paris or Rome - which would you choose??

The purpose of the extra few days is to rest up, get ourselves turned around time-zone wise, and relax a bit in advance of a cruise that is very "port intensive" leaving out of Venice. See a few sights, if and when we feel like it - but not in a rushed kind of way.

I've been to Amsterdam and Budapest - but never Paris or Rome, or London for that matter.

Where would you hang out for a couple of days before taking a short flight to Venice in advance of a busy cruise? My husband says, "Paris" because he thinks it will be more relaxing and said that it was 'easy' (not sure what he meant by that). Thing is? He's been to Paris, and he has *not* been to Rome. I can tell he'd love to see Rome, but at the same time, he's also saying "Paris" because he's been there and says it'll be the perfect place.

What do the fab YLF'ers have to say? We're only talking a couple of days, and might not get a chance to do a ton of sightseeing - just a tiny bit, really.

I've always had it in my head that when I get to Paris, I'd like to spend at least a week or two there, and make it a 'real' trip rather than just a pit stop en route to somewhere else.

That said, maybe my husband knows what he's talking about, in that Paris might be a bit more relaxing than Rome?

What do you think?

General

40 replies

Latest reply was from Carole

Anonymous

Don't even have to think about it - Paris - end of discussion. Oh, and I'm coming, too.

velvetychocolate

Veteran

This is what my husband is saying - although he'd love to see Rome, he seems to think Paris would be a good place to hang out for a few days and relax before taking a short flight to Venice.

I'll take your word for it shabbychick - thank you for chiming in! Looking forward to hearing what other YLF'ers have to say. Like I said, I haven't been to Paris or Rome, so I don't really know where the best place would be to take a mini breather in advance of the cruise.

Krista

Veteran

If you've never been to Paris, it really is something to see. I felt inspired by everything - everything, I tell you!!

Aziraphale

Veteran

LOVE LOVE LOVE Paris. I've never been to Rome, though it's on my list. So I can't help you, other than to say that Paris is very very nice. (Also, being a total Anglophile, I'm a big fan of London, and I would certainly recommend a visit there if you get a chance).

velvetychocolate

Veteran

Ok - now I'm even more excited. I think I was wondering about Rome because my husband hasn't been there, and I was thinking that it might be more interesting for him to visit somewhere he hasn't been before.

Me? I haven't been to Paris or Rome.

Ok - I'm more and more sold on the Paris idea. The other aspect is that since the cruise leaves out of Venice, I'll be seeing at least part of Italy - but at the same time, the cruise doesn't include Paris at all.

Paris is winning so far...even if it's only just two or three days.

velvetychocolate

Veteran

Don't laugh, but I actually told my husband that I was going to ask the members of YLF about this, and he said, "I bet they'll say Paris..."

Suz

(website)

Veteran

Oh wow! What a choice!! This is actually really, really difficult. BOTH are amazing, wonderful, exciting, fabulous cities.

My vote would probably go to Paris....but really, you can't lose either way.

Anonymous

Either sounds divine, but I'd choose Rome.

annagybe

(website)

Veteran

Actually for only a few days, I'd choose Rome. Paris really needs a week. I did about 3 days in Rome and did Colisseum and the Forum in one day. Then the Vatican another day.

Mochi

Veteran

Why everyone assuming Paris? I've been to both--definitely not an expert on either city--but Rome was the first thing that popped into my head. Maybe that's because I was there only a few years ago.

I don't know. It would probably also depend on what kind of things in particular interested you....food, museums, shopping, etc. They're both gorgeous cities and October is the best time to be in Italy (while Paris is probably lovely too).

velvetychocolate

Veteran

But what will I wear???? I'm kidding, but sort of not.

Seriously, I am freaking out a little tiny bit about this - because earlier in the year, it seemed like we were going to skip this trip. We talked about it a little bit in January/February and then decided to put the whole idea on hold for awhile.

Then, all of a sudden, it turns out that we're going ...

So everything's all happening at once here. From a feeling of "zero" to 60mph or something along those lines.

velvetychocolate

Veteran

Oooh...some more votes for Rome!

Like I said, I only have a few days - and it's just to hang out for two or three days before taking off to Venice. I had the idea in my head that Paris would warrant at least a week or two. Plus, my husband hasn't been to Rome. It might be more fun to be in a place that neither of us has been before?

Diana

Veteran

Jealous!

I have been to Paris but not Rome, so I don't actually know which I would choose. On the one hand, I loved Paris and want to go there again! On the other hand, i would dearly love to see Rome for the first time. So I guess I am no help. =P

Gaylene

Veteran

They are both wonderful cities, but I'm not sure that I'd call either of them exactly relaxing if you are jet-lagged and just there for a couple of days.

Given those circumstances, I'd opt for Paris just because it sounds like at least one of you might be a bit more familiar with the place and can handle logistics like where to eat the first night and what might be the best location for your hotel. And walking along the Seine in the twilight or spending an afternoon people watching in Luxembourg Gardens might be more relaxing than tearing around trying to cram in a lot of sightseeing while jet-lagged.

For me, it takes me a couple of days in an unfamiliar city to get my bearings and to adjust to the tempo and feel of the place. I've spent several weeks in both cities but still have only scratched the surface of all that I'd like to see and do. So why not save Rome for another trip when you can do it justice. And, you'll definitely be planning a return trip to Paris after you get a taste of it on this trip.

But, on the other hand, Rome is so beautiful...

Debbie

Veteran

I don't think you can go either way. Rome is beautiful that time of the year though.

Makrame

Veteran

It is less than 4 hrs by train from Rome to Venice... Just saying... You won't even have to fly.

Actually, if it were me, I would go for Florence if that is a possibility. About 2 hrs by train, gorgeous city, not too busy... Of course, I have not been to either Paris or Rome (only Venice and Florence and Milan) so take this with a grain of salt.

jayne

Veteran

I agree with AnneGybe. rome. Rome at least the cuddly romantic center is small enough to soak up in a weekend...but Paris is huge and needs longer. Take Rome now, do Paris properly with hubby later.

Anonymous

I'm voting Rome. I am micro planning my trip to Paris in November and yes, apparently you need more time. Rome is gorgeous, quaint and more laid back. You'll love it!

Sylvie

Veteran

You really can't go wrong with either city. Paris is probably my favorite destination city in the entire world (I've been there four times). You can cover the highlights of Rome in 2-3 days and the gelato is out of this world. Paris is better for a week long trip.

Would you be able to go back to whichever city you choose in the future or would this just be a one time trip? If I knew I would be able to go to Paris in the next three years, I would go to Rome on this trip. If I knew I'd have to wait 6 years before my next chance to go to Paris, I'd go now and then go again later.

ETA: I agree with the suggestion of Florence as well. Florence is lovely and a very relaxing city. Great for walking around, etc.

Kirti

(website)

Veteran

I would totally choose Rome. Having been to both places, I can tell you that you need atleast a week to see Paris properly. With just 2-3 days and so many sights,it becomes so hectic! Rome has fewer sights so you will be able to take it all in, while still relaxing.

Janet

(website)

Veteran

I'm not even reading the other responses first. I'd have to say Paris. I've been to both (although Rome was some years ago and DEFINITELY worth visiting!), and I'd give priority to Paris.

rachylou

Veteran

I'd go to Paris to chill. You can eat chocolate croissants with cafe au lait and meander thru parks and a museum perhaps.

You can't meander in London or Rome. Esp. in Rome, IMO, because you always have the Colosseum to get around - and this is always a herculean effort.

Laura (rhubarbgirl)

(website)

Veteran

I only spent a day in Rome, most of it from landmark to landmark, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but it is pretty big and I never got a sense of it as an actual city where people lived. I liked Paris but it is logistically challenging to get to/from sometimes, at least in my experience. It depends a lot on where you stay and how you're traveling.

I like the suggestion of Florence - it seemed more manageable than Rome and a lot of the same kind of things can be seen, plus it's closer than Paris to Venice so you won't have to do as much traveling.

Diana

Veteran

Ooh, I like the idea of Florence. I did 3 days in Florence + 1 in Pisa a few years ago and it was fantastic! It's a very wandering-friendly city, IMO, with lots of smaller but still wonderful things to see.

Jenniferblue

1. Paris
2. Paris
3. Paris
No contest.
But if that doesn't work London is fabulous and any city in Europe will be spectacular.
Just go if you can .

Irene

Veteran

I'm European (Barcelona) but have to admit I haven't been to either of them. Ok, I did go to Paris some years ago but I was 9 and don't remember a thing except it was 'boring' and I got 'tired'. I do remember Mona Lisa though lol

I don't think you can go wrong with either of them, but i don't think they will be easy either. Never been to Rome, but I wouldn't say it's a small, easy to see city. Neither is Paris, of course.

Depends on your interests too, Rome is much more... older. Paris is more modern yet nostalgic. London is cool yet a bit grey, and it will probably rain, which migh be stressful (just saying lol).

I don't know, thought about coming over to Barcelona? We are small, cute and modern (and very nice!)

rae

(website)

Veteran

I was just in Rome, and I agree with Ana that it is very easy to see the main sights in a day. The metro will drop you off smack in front of the Colosseo, and there are beautiful ruins and buildings all around. Even without paying the fees to go inside all the attractions, you can take a nice walk through the city and soak in the sights.

I have not been to Paris, but I have also heard that it needs more time than Rome.

rae

(website)

Veteran

Hm, I just saw the suggestions for Florence.

Now, while I LOVED Florence, I don't think I'd suggest it for a day. My reasoning is just that the things we loved the most about it were very interior/experiential. Going through little shops and restaurants, shopping in the local markets to make dinners, trying to get the best photographs on the river at sunset... I feel like you need a couple days to really get the impact.

Rome was way more visual... you get a lot out of it just strolling and viewing landmark after landmark.

Makrame

Veteran

Like I said, I have not been to Rome but we spent just a day and a half in Florence and felt like we got a good feel for the city. We arrived in the afternoon, went up on the clocktower near the Duomo in the dusk and took a look at the city, then walked up to Piazzale Michelangelo in the dark (where DH bought a can of beer from a group of Chinese students who were having an impromptu picnick), stopped by a "happening" bar area near Ponte Vecchio, sat down at an outside table somewhere, came back to the hotel (in the center of the city) to see open-air cafes and restaurants in the piazza downstairs hopping with activity until 2 AM. Woke up in the morning to the sight of an open-air farmers market in the same piazza, bought some food there. Visited Duomo, Baptisteria, Uffizzi (gorgeous sights of the city in the daylight from the dome of the Duomo), and hopped the train back to Milan. So I figured a couple of days in Florence could be very do-able.

It's great to see everyone's positive take on Rome, too. I've heard from some people that they found visiting Rome to be exhausting so I am glad to hear it is actually quite visitor-friendly.

12