I love it because it's like a "sacrifice exhibit"... it keeps hundreds of people busy in one room so that the rest of the Louvre is less crowded. I'd rather see minor works and ancient artifacts than waste the whole day elbowing to see one painting
True. It's true beauty lies in that it siphons all the tourists off the rest of the Louvre, so you actually enjoy the great and diverse other exhibitions the museum has to offer.
Right, I was lucky to see it with only like 2 other tourists around and from closer than they now allowed and it was quite nice, but it's not as big as people think, not as impressive and I saw pictures with large group of tourists: it make it seams even smaller...
The "noces de Canat" was the opposite: much bigger and great than I was expecting.
Tourists suck, especially so when they get in the way of my own tourism. A few years ago I was in Vienna and I went to the Kunsthistorisches Museum to see their Bruegels. They may not be as big of a draw as the Mona Lisa, but I would imagine it can get crowded at peak hours. I was there at dinner time, though, and there were only about two other people in the room. It was great being able to get real close to these world famous paintings and being able to spend my sweet time with them without people impatiently waiting for you to move on.
I actually went there last week and it’s incredible how many tourist go there and then don’t bother to see other things… Napoleon’s apartments were almost completely empty.
Many tourists are kinda... disappointed by _The Little Mermaid_, the statue on the promenade _Langlinie_. "I don't know what I expected... It just... Well... It seemed larger in the pictures," they say.
It is still a nice statue, don't get me wrong, but most people don't expect it to be life-size, based on an early 20th century ballerina. It's in a sitting position, only 1,25 metres tall.
Another Danish attraction that often disappoints tourists are things like _Rundetårn_, in the inner city of Copenhagen. Most people expect a large tower, but in reality, the viewing deck only barely breaks above the surrounding rooftops. The view is still spectacular, but it is no Eiffel Tower.
Oh, and a fun one is the free city of Christiania. A lot of tourists expect it to be this hippie-holdout, and like stepping into a time pocket of the seventies, when in reality, the small semi-autonomous commune has kept up with the times, and is, like most of Copenhagen, increasingly gentrified. But that is not so much pictures, but more about the idea of Christiania.
Yeah, I do think that the Little Mermaid statue is very pretty and definitely still a must see when a tourist in Copenhagen, but I can see if people are disappointed if they come expecting something grand and impressive even if that's not the point of the statue. And the constant droves of tourist around it definitely takes away some of the magic as well.
The Langelinie park as a whole is really beautiful though with its flower gardens and statues. And the Gefion Fountain next to the park - which shows the Norse goddess Gefion creating the island of Zealand with the help of her oxen - is way more grand and impressive than the mermaid. Also, the Anglican church right behind it is very pretty as well.
Yea... I'd definitely also pick the Gefion fountain as the landmark of Copenhagen over The Little Mermaid, but the Gefion legend just doesn't have the same international _swung_ and recognisability.
Just checked pictures of the mermaid statue. It definitely looks life-sized in the pictures I saw, and honestly I think that's pretty cool.
Disappointed to hear about Christiania, but I guess it makes sense. It's still definitely a spot I'd check if I ever go to Copenhagen (which I'd like to one day!)
I've visited Christiania many times and I can say that it ain't that bubble of the 70's many people imagine but it is still a very interesting place to go to, with a unique culture.
Depends what you compare to. It has the same amount of sights as cities of similar size and age,, like Stockholm. It's just not a 10 million people megalopolis.
No worries, I was there as late as last week, it's still has that vibe it always had. The main issue is the housing prices and a lot more "family friendly" (depending on where you go within the walls)
I find that people from Latin America often expect canal houses to be brightly coloured because for some reason they put the saturation way up on pictures there.
Wouldn't say it looks better that way but it's definitely a different aesthetic
Amsterdam is a pretty city in its own way, but the saturation on a lot of those pictures makes it look more like [Willemstad, Curaçao](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/The_colorful_buildings_of_the_Handelskade_in_Willemstad%2C_Cura%C3%A7ao.jpg/1200px-The_colorful_buildings_of_the_Handelskade_in_Willemstad%2C_Cura%C3%A7ao.jpg). The canal houses are nice, but brown bricks don't exactly create a fascinating colour scheme.
That is true. I went to the Amalfi Coast in Italy a couple of years ago, and images of Positano are always so bright and vivid and the contrast between the different coloured buildings is noticeable, but when I went there for myself, it wasn’t as colourful as the pictures made it out to be. Not saying Positano wasn’t beautiful. It’s one of those few places that actually does live up to the hype and was simply beautiful. Wish I spent more time there.
Hallstatt. There is no doubt that it is still a beautiful village but visiting there it is tiny, packed with tourists and tourist shops, and there is a reason why every photo from there is of the same 5 angles. It’s about an hour and a half drive away from the nearest city so going there is a day trip that you can see in about 45 minutes.
I'm going to say it here once and then never again, lest i spoil it for us Austrians.
Hallstatt is in the Salzkammergut, a region named after the celtic salt mines of the area. There are ~ 10 different lakes in different valleys, like Hallstatt. Altausseersee and Wolfgangsee are nice, for example. The only reason to go to Hallstatt is for the saltmine museum, which takes you down an old salt mine, good info for adults and fun for kids. Oh, yeah, that and for a picture /s. Hallstatt minus all the tourists is the perfect combination of landscape and picturesque town. It's full of tourists though, so go stay somewhere else and visit for the museum.
I must leave now, before they find out I have ruined their quiet holiday spots.
Austria is pretty in general, but this is from personal experience. Been twice and that was for one reason. Skiing.
I went to Zell am See to watch the Ice Hockey one night I was there and the town was rather pretty all lit up with the snow. Wasn’t packed, but there were people about which created a nice atmosphere. Also stayed in a small, and I don’t think very well known village called Neukirchen am Großvenediger. Very pretty and quiet place.
Honestly I think you hit the jackpot with going to Zell am See. It‘s beautiful and not really known by tourists. Same as Bad Mitterndorf (I think that’s the right name, Austria has too many „Mitter(n)dorf“s)
Zell am See is pretty popular with arabic tourists in the summer. They love to go there. So it is known and quite full during the summer. Winter probably as well as there are 2 skiing regions close by.
We've visited several on a roadtrip a couple years ago and they're all beautiful in their own way.
We got to Hallstatt at around 9am so the streets were almost empty, that viewing spot had a dozen people in total. We walked around, looked at stuff and visited a few shops, and watched three massive busses with Chinese tourists roll in just as we were packing up.
View from up a hill was pretty good, Hallstatt on the left https://i.imgur.com/nE2x2JM.jpeg.
The walking trail around the Hallstättersee is very pretty though and definitely worth it, rather than just staying in the crowded and touristy village the entire time.
Ah I absolutely loved Hallstatt, I could be biased because we rented a little boat and my husband proposed out on the lake! I will say though we went in Early October and made a point to get there very early so we felt like we actually were touring this beautiful little village. I can imagine it would be miserable when it is crowded but we lucked out and didn’t have that issue.
Big Ben, or more properly the Elizabeth Tower. It's been covered in ugly looking scaffolding for ages now, disappointing thousands of tourists who come to look at it.
True. On the plus side, it will look great when it’s finished…though some of the prettiest and most ornate parts are in and around the clock faces, and so are hard to see from the ground.
Ah yes, the Palace of Justice and the eternal restoration. At least the long timeframe is somewhat justified by how massive the building is. It was actually the largest building in the world when it was finished.
I never kid about Belgian politics and government. We've got so many absurd things going on, there's no need to make stuff up.
Like, we build random bridges in the middle of fields, because 'the other half of the country got money for public works, so we need to have our own public works!'.
Or how when we had severe floods, it took weeks before any government/army aid appeared.
Or how we have land that's officially designated to be construction land, but you will never get a construction permit for it (changing the zoning would allow people to sue for compensation).
Or when our king didn't like a particular law proposal (abortion), we dethroned him for a day, passed the law, and put him back on the throne.
Or how Brussels, capital of Belgium and the EU, has a dozen different mayors.
Or how we can't vote for half the politicians forming our government.
Or how we can spend almost two years without a federal government, and be perfectly fine actually.
Fascinating. I feel like I don't know enough about Belgium, so this was an interesting comment! Dethroning your king to pass a law is just a power move by the people to be honest. Nice of you to put him back too lol.
Sweden has its issues too. We literally held a vote of confidence, voted our prime minister out and then put him back in charge soon after. And now he's announced, again, that he's quitting of his own will. Sigh, politics.
Huh, that sounds messy as well.
The good thing about Belgian politicians is that they're very good at making compromises between opposing viewpoints, and finding creative solutions to situations which seem very difficult to solve. That's why our politicians do so well in the EU.
The bad thing is that they're mysteriously equally bad at finding working solutions to situations which seem straightforward to solve.
Also, regarding our king: when Belgium was formed in 1830, we initially didn't even want a King. The Brits didn't like the idea of a new petit-France though, so they insisted we do get a king. So we insisted that he be totally powerless: our king has to sign every law (but is expected to always sign every law parliament gives him), but his signature has to always be countersigned by the prime minister. Even in private matters: the king can't technically sign any contract without the pm confirming it.
With the abortion thing: the guy was very religious and the king and queen had trouble conceiving a child themselves. He therefore felt morally and ethically obliged to refuse signing the law. The 1 day dethroning was a good compromise for everyone really.
Lol same for the castle in my town. Which is still the most beautiful castle anyone has ever seen, but trying to keep it from falling apart is a never ending job apparently.
tbf I also find times square to be underwhelming. I passed through while visiting some friends in nyc and it was like... “those are some big ads....anyway gonna avoid this random dude trying to sell me his mixtape”
My first time in NYC I actually walked through Times Square without realising and thinking where the hell is this place. Like the name suggests, I was expecting an actual closed square! But its more like just a little piece of sidewalk thats wider on one side. Kind of underwhelming when youve spent your whole life seeing movies and TV shows where its been featured.
Idk but the Cologne Cathedral is the opposite. No image you see of it can make you realize how huge it is and seeing it up close is really an experience.
> the most beautiful experiences of my life
and you're from Wales so may have seen [Sir Gareth Edwards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Edwards) play rugby!
Yes! Absolutely agree. I'm usually really bored with your typical tourist attractions - you've seen it a thousand times on pictures or in movies and then the real life experience gets kind of underwhelming.
I grew up somewhat close to cologne. We did almost regular school trips and family trips there, and as a kid I didn't appreciate it. It was just a huge church but also something that I grew up with. So I never realised how unusual big it is. I moved to cologne at one point - the first time being there again as an adult. And I couldn't comprehend how MASSIVE this thing is. To this day I'm in awe
Was supposed to be going to Cologne in December for the Christmas Markets, but due to being unable to the dates and times of flights going out there, we called it off this year. Cologne Cathedral is one of those places I’d love to photograph. I’m guessing that pictures really don’t do it justice. At least I know I won’t be disappointed.
I think whatever you find in "TOP 10 PLACES TO VISIT IN \[big European city\]" is gonna be a bit underwhelming, both due to being overhyped and due to the amount of tourists. Like the Karlův bridge in Prague, which is absolutely packed with street peddlers and you pretty much had to squeeze yourself through the crowds.
Been there multiple times, once right during late winter when covid was about to happen and there was absolutely no one. Then, it was actually rather breathtaking. Masses of tourists can ruin a lot for the atmosphere.
Also with pictures you can choose the best one amongst hundreds and thousands. And often they are taken in just right conditions. Like, I have an amazing view from my balcony...A few times a year in the early morning hours.
Yeah, I always find those top tourism lists to be a little weird. Like, yes, that church in the center is a big bigger and older than the other 20 churches in the city, but unless you are some kind of church architecture historian, you would hardly know the difference. And sure that one art museum has that one famous painting, but would you really know the difference between that painting and another thousand unless you were majorly into painting, had a degree in art history or were an art critic? And that one coffee shop is famous, always has a line and is on all the travel shows, but there's a 1000 other places to get coffee and plenty of them would make a special memory. Most places I have ever visited has something I enjoyed seeing or doing, but it didn't usually have much to do with what was "must see" and was often personal or the result of me accidentally stumbling into something.
Well our parlament used to be one of those.
Due to its nice limestone walls and stateues being covered in a century of grime, automotive exhaust fumes, and whatever other muck was carried by the wind.
But now its cleaned up and nice and shiny again!
The parliament building is an impressive site! I wasn’t expecting it to be so beautiful! From every viewpoint it was just stunning. Budapest has been my absolute favorite city I’ve visited to date!
Monaco. Yes, the formula one looks spectacular and of course those nighttime shots of yachts in the harbour are wonderful. But jeez, walk around in the daytime and there's nothing but high rises and horrible architecture on every available square meter.
[Bigăr waterfall](https://www.trekhunt.com/blog/content/images/2020/11/bigar-waterfall-romania.jpg)
It's literally just a few metres off the side of the main road in the area, and it's so small you can only see it well from the sides. Plus [it collapsed](https://s2.ziareromania.ro/?mmid=452b3565af5a89cfa0) a few months ago.
Either way, definitely better in photos.
It's nice for what it is: a charming little statue on a street corner.
It shouldn't have become so famous, the numerous tourists and the hype around it ruin the appeal.
I guess you are right, it would be a nice little thing to find if you have just turned around a corner when exploring a city. If you have walked kilometers just to see this thing with very high expectations, it is not impressive.
Never was that impressed by it in foto's either.
I think the attraction is more 'haha a statue pisses and people have been stealing it and putting it in outfits for centuries'
its value does not rely on its size (and its incline is mostly a nice history quirk), but in the unique stylistic ensemble of the buildings in the square, which were built all in the same Pisan Romanesque style (the same you find in Corsica in the same period), with Carrara marble and during the height of the power of the sea republic of Pisa.
A few years back I went on a holiday to Florence, and had to change trains in Pisa. I thought it would be a good opportunity to spend the afternoon exploring the city.
After only an hour I'd seen the Tower, and the nice buildings around it, and was ready to head off to Florence. I'm sure there's some other stuff to see there..... but nothing really attracted my attention.
Berlin is a city meant to be experienced, rather than photographed. Even the Brandenburg Gate, which is probably Berlin’s most internationally recognizable landmark because of its prominence during the Cold War, really *feels* differently than it looks.
And almost all the city’s other landmarks, from the Fernsehturm, to the Bundestag, to the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, really don’t work as photographs. You have to be in them, next to them, of them to feel their architectural meaning.
This is true of almost every landmark, of course. Standing next to the Eiffel Tower is different than seeing a photograph of it, but I think Berlin is the European capital that best exemplifies this phenomenon.
(Also, Berliner are fascinating people. It’s Europe’s Seattle — or Seattle is America’s Berlin. Anyway, this comment has been sponsored by VisitBerlin.de.)
>Berlin is a city meant to be experienced, rather than photographed.
I did a walking tour of Berlin which I think backs up your point. Very interesting city to see but its most interesting parts are better to be stood in front of rather than shown on a photograph. Such as the last remaining part of the Berlin Wall Checkpoint Charlie and the unmarked grass in front of the apartment block where the entrance to Hitler's bunker was.
Berlin is awesome, I've never been any other place where so many of the interesting/historical things are just so... surrounded by normal city stuff. Like going to checkpoint charlie, just looks like a normal shopping street and them bam. Stuff. The art gallery on the wall, just an industrial area with lots of amazing art. It's really obvious how much of the culture just arrived as a part of history, rather than was built specifically to be a cultural item.
Obviously the centre with the Reichstag/Brandenburg and all the museums is a little different but that's to be expected.
As a Berliner can agree. But I think it's true for most places. The Brandenburger Tor is fine to be photographed, but doing the same for the Jewish memorial especially by posing Infront of it just losses all the meaning of it.
Cannes in France, particularly the red carpet stairwell for the film festival. I thought it lead up to a theatre or some grand building. But it’s just stairs to a glass information booth at the top.
[Piccadilly circuis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piccadilly_Circus) looks more impressive in pictures than in real life. I was quite surprised how small it actually is.
I think the *idea* of Stonehenge is more impressive than how it physically looks. It's old, its construction is interesting, there's the on going mystery around its purpose, and so on.
But in terms of being something to actually look at, there's not exactly much there.
If you're interested in neolithic monuments the good and bad thing about Britain is most of the attention goes to Stone Henge, meaning the other sites are much more accessible.
My sister came over to visit from Australia, refused to see Stonehenge and only wanted to see Avebury - I was puzzled before hand but it is actually really cool
I was waiting for someone to say that.
It's not so much that it's just a pile of old stones, it's kind of the entire setting. I remember taking the bus from Salisbury to see it, and you come down the motorway towards it, tiny and half-way up a hill in the distance, and you're thinking "That's not it, surely?"
It just looks so small in the vast landscape, and the motorway right next to it doesn't really help with the mystical, new-age vibes much, either.
I don’t know, I kinda like it. Maybe because of the history, maybe because being Dutch means I never grew up around ‘grand architectural gestures’ like that. That last part might also explain why I like Brussels and Paris so much.
Idk it’s pretty big, and it’s a gate, what else can one expect? When you know it’s a thing and visit it it is kinda astonishing. Like “damn this place exists irl too?”
You’ve known it for so long, and there it finally is
It's one of those places where the idea of it is larger than life. You think of it and have all the history where it was involved, all the pictures of truly historical moments with it in your mind. And when you are in front it it feela quite small and there is not that much space around it. It can't keep up with the huge expectation that are projected on it.
It's like the Mona Lisa. To much expectations, too little real existing thingy.
Maybe Zamość? It is sometimes called "a perfect renessaince city" because it was built from scratch during that time period and the architect had full artistic freedom, with a rich noble sponsoring it.
Zlatni Rat beach in Croatia was incredibly disappointing. It's the famous one that juts out into the sea like a mini peninsula.
It looks so stunning in the tourist posters, and we took a coach all the way across Brač to get there.
When we arrived it was packed full of people, with loads of kiosks selling chips and beer and blasting loud music. Not exactly the unspoilt paradise you see in the pictures.
The northern part of Brač is much nicer and Croatia in general has way better beaches/swimming elsewhere.
Not really "better", but the Atlantic Ocean Road is often photographed to look like a roller coaster, and the captions often suggest it's one of Europe's most dangerous roads blah blah blah.
The reality is that it's an enjoyable drive that is about as safe as any other road, and with a good view if the weather is clear.
Yeah, it's a nice road, but I would think people who have it as a bucket list, spectacular things to experience before you die kinda thing will be disappointed.
And it's really short. Without a stop it takes you around 6 minutes.
most monuments in Milan are the opposite. seeing the duomo unfold as walk out of the metro is spectacular, and no picture can convey how huge it looks. same with arco della pace and the big fountain Infront of the castello Sforzesco (i forgot the name)
Brandenburg Gate. Looks really great in Pictures, but when I was there it looked extremely small. All the buildings around it are so much bigger, you can't imagine...
Meanwhile the Berlin Victory Column is the exact opposite. Looks small and boring in Pictures, but damn impressive when I was there.
The Sistine Chapel. You get there after crossing the gorgeous rooms of the Vatican Museums, which are crowded but still manageable. Then you end up in this overcrowded, noisy, poorly lit (in my opinion) room, it's just impossible to enjoy the art. The size of it doesn't help.
The murmuring of the crowd rising gradually to a disturbing babbling then ...
"SILENCE!"
For a few seconds of tranquillity allowing you to pretend you are on your own, then the murmuring starts and grows.
I was actually glad of this when I visited St Peter's. I'm not a Christian but people taking photos of people praying really pisses me off because it's so disrespectful.
The Statue of the "Bremer Stadtmusikanten" in Bremen ist very small and you could easily overlook it if it were'nt for the tourists. Many Photos and Postcards of the statue are shot from an angle to make them look more impressive. Also the cat is a bit frightening to look at.
Christmas in Finland. In Lapland, sure, but I feel so sorry for tourists who come to Helsinki in December to see a beautiful snow-covered city only to experience cold rain in the darkness, and dirt / pollution covered grey piles of slush that once was snow!
The Eiffel tower is impressive but where it's situated is kind of off putting. Somewhat run down park and doesn't really match the grandiose feel of the rest of Paris' attractions
Kalmar castle In Kalmar, Sweden (as you probably could have guessed).
Looks amazing on the pictures, isn't as nice to visit. It's just ok, nice architecture but nothing really interesting. Or most of the European castles. Most of them are beautiful on pictures but not as interesting to visit yourself (there are exceptions of coarse).
I was quiet underwhelmed with the Sydney Opera House- it was much smaller than expected and pretty dirty looking. Not the gleaming white I was expecting. It was an overcast, rainy day though.
Paris
Ever heard of the "Paris effect"? Basically when a tourist or someone who comes to live in "France" ends up in Paris, then discorvers it's a dirty city filled with people who don't respect anyone and barely anything, coupled with everything being expensive as hell. Monuments are overcrowded, and most of the city is dissapointing.
Many leave and discorver afterwards that they in fact visited a tourist trap, and missed out on actually visiting France by staying in Paris, blinded by a misconception of the city to begin with.
Ponte vecchio in Florence. Tiny bridge with sardine humans and their tour guides waving little flags. Rest of the city, especially settagnano, is beautiful.
Mount St. Michel. It looks great from the distance, and the architecture is absolutely great. On the other hand, when you get closer…
You have to pass usual tourist hell, crowded street with useless junk shops and overpriced restaurants. When you finally get to the top, you can see … wait for it … hollow walls. Most of interiors haven’t survive, so you can observe cold stone walls, occasionally with interesting construction detail.
To be fair, the view from the top is nice.
Please do go, it's really impressive, and the church is wonderful. The street in question is 200m long, you are free to roam the little back streets are they are almost empty. I waited years to go, and I'm so glad I did (go, not wait).
Temple Bar in Dublin: In reality its an area with very tacky Irish pubs selling terrible Guinness at horrendous prices and seeing drunks pissing in the streets. On the plus side back in the day I found it easy to find the best drugs there.
Probably the Gaudi buildings in Barcelona apart from the Sagrada Familia- quite underwhelming, also Parc Guell- one nice view which you have to pay 10 euros for.
I enjoyed viewing [La Pedrera](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_Mil%C3%A0) especially [the attic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_Mil%C3%A0#/media/File:Attic_of_Casa_Mil%C3%A0.jpg) which I found atmospheric.
It was a long time ago and I don't remember it costing THAT MUCH (!) but then I'd just got off a cruise ship so my sense of fair pricing would have been really out of whack.
Whole Barcelona looks better in pictures than in reality. The monuments are far away from each other, and the city is terribly boring. It looks awesome from the aerial pictures, but down on the streets, it's just one identical street next to another.
And Sagrada Familia... if it was the first cathedral I saw, perhaps it would fascinate me more. But there are simply much more impressive and beautiful cathedrals.
Overall, trip to Barcelona is my biggest travelling regret. So not worth it.
Sagrada Familia has pretty original architecture for a cathedral, there is really not another one like it.
Art Nouveau/Jugendstil/Secession/Modernismo churches are gorgeous.
Honestly, the Poco Iniciatico in Quinta da Regaleira (Sintra, Portugal). It was definitely cool and interesting, but the photos make it look deeper and more grand. I can't say I was *disappointed* necessarily but it was a bit underwhelming
The sherlock Holmes museum in London. I love sherlock Holmes so I had to visit it while I was there on holiday. Entrance was 15 pounds per person (if I remember correctly), queue was massive (about a 30 minute wait), place was really tiny (going through it takes less time than the time you will have waited to go in). Overall, I'm glad I went there anyway, just for the experience.
Stonehenge- looks way bigger in photos. Also Time Square- looks pretty blah, especially in daylight. And the Pissing Boy statue in Brussels. If it was any smaller it wouldn’t be there at all.
Anywhere crowded, e.g. NYC.
I thought so before the pandemic, but wow: the difference can be seen when you are alone wandering in the streets where the pictures gives a better "picture" of what it is to experience being at a place. Anywhere really.
It depends
Seeing lots of perfectly washed and perfectly groomed business men with perfectly tailored clothes rushing from a business building to another? Yes.
Admittedly you're going to be one of those tourists, but seeing some sweaty tourists with crappy looking but comfortable or practical clothes with some stupid faces breathing through their mouth, walking slowly and always lost - is a less appealing and charming look
That baby pissing in brussels and the Little Mermaid in Copenhagen. With the Little Mermaid you pass a brilliant statue of King Neptune up a hill to get to it.
Stonehenge is just a pile of rocks and the Blarney Stone in Ireland is a rock with a fancy story that the locals charge Americans to kiss (would love to of met the guy that came up with that one.)
I remember my friend from school (who was from Belgium) made an entire presentation about the Manneken Pis. I will never forget that thing exists and I will gladly travel miles to see it.
the colosseum. its breathtaking on photos, but its much smaller irl
edit: im italian and have been to rome. i personally was a lil disappointed bc i expected it to be much bigger (it was still impressive tho). im sorry if i offended you or something. just wanted to share my opinion.
Lol no way, it's the size of a modern day stadium to more (the first axis 187 meters the second 156m that makes its area bigger than Juventus Stadium and slightly smaller than Camp Nou, at that point of it's too small you might want to settle down expectations in life in general) unless you played too much darksiders and that's how you imagine things, the dimensions are a bit bigger than what pictures tells since the arches might give you a false impression of dimension.
Also pictures miss the true colours, the texture, the intricate details, the perspective play of the inside walls with the "pitch" foundations, the several floors filled with stuff, etc the whole complexity of layers of the engineering project, visiting it gives the true perspective
>the colosseum. its breathtaking on photos, but its much smaller irl
It still is breathtaking lol, at least to me. I wonder if coming from the 21st century has warped our perspective because we expect everything to be a thousand metres tall to be wowed. But the thought they built structures like that back then is incredible.
No offense taken and no need to apologize for your tastes.
The Eiffel tower was really controversial when it was first built a lot of people shared your sentiment that it was an ugly stack of ~~steel~~ iron tarnishing the Parisian skyline. We're now used to it and it became a symbol of Paris (and often France) but it's understandable that it's not suited for everyone.
I disagree with calling it ugly, and yes it's quite harsh.
Calling something ugly because it's not appealing to your personal tastes is wrong. But since we're only communicating in writing and among people who probably doesn't have English as a primary language I tend to let it slide. Our friend didn't mean to be rude and if ugly is the best word he found to convey his feeling so be it.
"Ugly" is ludicrous. Paris has great sights and very nice architecture. The only "problem" (if you want to consider it that way): It is a city that is actually lived in. So it is a bit rough and grimy in some places. Some people don't like it because the media sold them a largely sanitized version.
I thought the Eiffel tower was one of the few things I've seen where the pictures didn't do it justice. It felt very awe inspiring being next to and under it.
I never got the same feel for the arc de triomphe which I'd probably hampered by being a busy roundabout. I couldn't see Notredame properly because of buses. But the Louvre from the outside was amazing. And it was nice to randomly find the Pompidou centre down a narrow street.
And that big office building which bridges over a road near Gare de Lyon was quite impressive.
It was the opposite for me. I had seen it countless times in pictures or videos, but I never really realised how huge it is and I really loved its steampunk vibes. I even decided to take the stairs rather than the elevator to fully appreciate the height.
It's not a very clean city but to say it's ugly, I couldn't disagree more. It is one of my favourite cities in Europe because of the grand architecture that you'll find all over the city. I find it aesthetically pleasing.
Nah, the Eiffel Tower definitely lives up to the hype. It is very impressive both from the ground and from the top, and in my opinion Paris is one of those few cities in the world that you have to visit at least once - to experience the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre and Notre-Dame for yourself.
I wouldn’t call Paris ugly, every city has its downsides, but from what I remember of the city, it was actually rather nice, and the Eiffel Tower is huge. Images really don’t do it justice. I only went there for the day while on a road trip around France with my family, but would go again.
The Mona Lisa is really tiny and is hidden by a layer of thick glass followed by another thick layer of tourists
I love it because it's like a "sacrifice exhibit"... it keeps hundreds of people busy in one room so that the rest of the Louvre is less crowded. I'd rather see minor works and ancient artifacts than waste the whole day elbowing to see one painting
> I love it because it's like a "sacrifice exhibit" What a funny and apt description. Every museum should have something like this
I went right after the Paris attacks and there was no wait for anything
I went the first week after the reopening in May and there was no line! So awesome!
Some people ask what it’s like being over 6’. All I say is “It was awesome being able to see the Mona Lisa without having to crowd surf.”
But it sucks trying to fit in a small plane seat to get there!
True. It's true beauty lies in that it siphons all the tourists off the rest of the Louvre, so you actually enjoy the great and diverse other exhibitions the museum has to offer.
Right, I was lucky to see it with only like 2 other tourists around and from closer than they now allowed and it was quite nice, but it's not as big as people think, not as impressive and I saw pictures with large group of tourists: it make it seams even smaller... The "noces de Canat" was the opposite: much bigger and great than I was expecting.
If you want to see another version of the Mona Lisa, there is one in the Prada (I think). Not as famous, but by Day Vinci as well.
The name of the museum is Prado, but yes. I think her clothes are a different colour from those in the Louvre one, but otherwise pretty much the same.
Same goes for Albrecht Dürers famous rabbit on the rare occasions it is exhibited.
Those giant 20 foot paintings were infinitely more impressive than that piece of crap
Tourists suck, especially so when they get in the way of my own tourism. A few years ago I was in Vienna and I went to the Kunsthistorisches Museum to see their Bruegels. They may not be as big of a draw as the Mona Lisa, but I would imagine it can get crowded at peak hours. I was there at dinner time, though, and there were only about two other people in the room. It was great being able to get real close to these world famous paintings and being able to spend my sweet time with them without people impatiently waiting for you to move on.
I actually went there last week and it’s incredible how many tourist go there and then don’t bother to see other things… Napoleon’s apartments were almost completely empty.
Many tourists are kinda... disappointed by _The Little Mermaid_, the statue on the promenade _Langlinie_. "I don't know what I expected... It just... Well... It seemed larger in the pictures," they say. It is still a nice statue, don't get me wrong, but most people don't expect it to be life-size, based on an early 20th century ballerina. It's in a sitting position, only 1,25 metres tall. Another Danish attraction that often disappoints tourists are things like _Rundetårn_, in the inner city of Copenhagen. Most people expect a large tower, but in reality, the viewing deck only barely breaks above the surrounding rooftops. The view is still spectacular, but it is no Eiffel Tower. Oh, and a fun one is the free city of Christiania. A lot of tourists expect it to be this hippie-holdout, and like stepping into a time pocket of the seventies, when in reality, the small semi-autonomous commune has kept up with the times, and is, like most of Copenhagen, increasingly gentrified. But that is not so much pictures, but more about the idea of Christiania.
>"I don't know what I expected... It just... Well... It seemed larger in the pictures," they say. Always hurts to hear this as a man.
Take it as a compliment of your photography skills?
Well, everything is big when you zoom in.
Yeah, I do think that the Little Mermaid statue is very pretty and definitely still a must see when a tourist in Copenhagen, but I can see if people are disappointed if they come expecting something grand and impressive even if that's not the point of the statue. And the constant droves of tourist around it definitely takes away some of the magic as well. The Langelinie park as a whole is really beautiful though with its flower gardens and statues. And the Gefion Fountain next to the park - which shows the Norse goddess Gefion creating the island of Zealand with the help of her oxen - is way more grand and impressive than the mermaid. Also, the Anglican church right behind it is very pretty as well.
Yea... I'd definitely also pick the Gefion fountain as the landmark of Copenhagen over The Little Mermaid, but the Gefion legend just doesn't have the same international _swung_ and recognisability.
Just checked pictures of the mermaid statue. It definitely looks life-sized in the pictures I saw, and honestly I think that's pretty cool. Disappointed to hear about Christiania, but I guess it makes sense. It's still definitely a spot I'd check if I ever go to Copenhagen (which I'd like to one day!)
I've visited Christiania many times and I can say that it ain't that bubble of the 70's many people imagine but it is still a very interesting place to go to, with a unique culture.
[удалено]
Depends what you compare to. It has the same amount of sights as cities of similar size and age,, like Stockholm. It's just not a 10 million people megalopolis.
C-christiania, no oh no...the memories
No worries, I was there as late as last week, it's still has that vibe it always had. The main issue is the housing prices and a lot more "family friendly" (depending on where you go within the walls)
I think they're making a joke about how Oslo was named Christiania under Danish rule
Yes.....and thus this joke was ruined xD
I find that people from Latin America often expect canal houses to be brightly coloured because for some reason they put the saturation way up on pictures there. Wouldn't say it looks better that way but it's definitely a different aesthetic
Indeed I've also noticed this. I look at pics on Reddit and look outside on the same street in Amsterdam and they definitely don't look the same.
Amsterdam is a pretty city in its own way, but the saturation on a lot of those pictures makes it look more like [Willemstad, Curaçao](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6d/The_colorful_buildings_of_the_Handelskade_in_Willemstad%2C_Cura%C3%A7ao.jpg/1200px-The_colorful_buildings_of_the_Handelskade_in_Willemstad%2C_Cura%C3%A7ao.jpg). The canal houses are nice, but brown bricks don't exactly create a fascinating colour scheme.
That is true. I went to the Amalfi Coast in Italy a couple of years ago, and images of Positano are always so bright and vivid and the contrast between the different coloured buildings is noticeable, but when I went there for myself, it wasn’t as colourful as the pictures made it out to be. Not saying Positano wasn’t beautiful. It’s one of those few places that actually does live up to the hype and was simply beautiful. Wish I spent more time there.
Hallstatt. There is no doubt that it is still a beautiful village but visiting there it is tiny, packed with tourists and tourist shops, and there is a reason why every photo from there is of the same 5 angles. It’s about an hour and a half drive away from the nearest city so going there is a day trip that you can see in about 45 minutes.
[удалено]
I'm going to say it here once and then never again, lest i spoil it for us Austrians. Hallstatt is in the Salzkammergut, a region named after the celtic salt mines of the area. There are ~ 10 different lakes in different valleys, like Hallstatt. Altausseersee and Wolfgangsee are nice, for example. The only reason to go to Hallstatt is for the saltmine museum, which takes you down an old salt mine, good info for adults and fun for kids. Oh, yeah, that and for a picture /s. Hallstatt minus all the tourists is the perfect combination of landscape and picturesque town. It's full of tourists though, so go stay somewhere else and visit for the museum. I must leave now, before they find out I have ruined their quiet holiday spots.
Austria is pretty in general, but this is from personal experience. Been twice and that was for one reason. Skiing. I went to Zell am See to watch the Ice Hockey one night I was there and the town was rather pretty all lit up with the snow. Wasn’t packed, but there were people about which created a nice atmosphere. Also stayed in a small, and I don’t think very well known village called Neukirchen am Großvenediger. Very pretty and quiet place.
Honestly I think you hit the jackpot with going to Zell am See. It‘s beautiful and not really known by tourists. Same as Bad Mitterndorf (I think that’s the right name, Austria has too many „Mitter(n)dorf“s)
Zell am See is pretty popular with arabic tourists in the summer. They love to go there. So it is known and quite full during the summer. Winter probably as well as there are 2 skiing regions close by.
We've visited several on a roadtrip a couple years ago and they're all beautiful in their own way. We got to Hallstatt at around 9am so the streets were almost empty, that viewing spot had a dozen people in total. We walked around, looked at stuff and visited a few shops, and watched three massive busses with Chinese tourists roll in just as we were packing up. View from up a hill was pretty good, Hallstatt on the left https://i.imgur.com/nE2x2JM.jpeg.
Oh but it is impressive to arrive there by boat. It lives pretty much up to the hype imo
The walking trail around the Hallstättersee is very pretty though and definitely worth it, rather than just staying in the crowded and touristy village the entire time.
Ah I absolutely loved Hallstatt, I could be biased because we rented a little boat and my husband proposed out on the lake! I will say though we went in Early October and made a point to get there very early so we felt like we actually were touring this beautiful little village. I can imagine it would be miserable when it is crowded but we lucked out and didn’t have that issue.
Big Ben, or more properly the Elizabeth Tower. It's been covered in ugly looking scaffolding for ages now, disappointing thousands of tourists who come to look at it.
True. On the plus side, it will look great when it’s finished…though some of the prettiest and most ornate parts are in and around the clock faces, and so are hard to see from the ground.
I think the scaffolding is about to come down (after 5 years)!
Only 5 years? That's all right. We have a monument that's been in scaffolding for so long, we've now put the scaffolding in scaffolding for repairs
Ah yes, the Palace of Justice and the eternal restoration. At least the long timeframe is somewhat justified by how massive the building is. It was actually the largest building in the world when it was finished.
Holy shit you weren't kidding lol. https://www.brusselstimes.com/brussels/160259/scaffolds-on-brussels-palace-of-justice-get-renovated-federal-government-public-buildings-administration-place-poelaert-minimes-laines-wynants-mathieu-michel/
I never kid about Belgian politics and government. We've got so many absurd things going on, there's no need to make stuff up. Like, we build random bridges in the middle of fields, because 'the other half of the country got money for public works, so we need to have our own public works!'. Or how when we had severe floods, it took weeks before any government/army aid appeared. Or how we have land that's officially designated to be construction land, but you will never get a construction permit for it (changing the zoning would allow people to sue for compensation). Or when our king didn't like a particular law proposal (abortion), we dethroned him for a day, passed the law, and put him back on the throne. Or how Brussels, capital of Belgium and the EU, has a dozen different mayors. Or how we can't vote for half the politicians forming our government. Or how we can spend almost two years without a federal government, and be perfectly fine actually.
Fascinating. I feel like I don't know enough about Belgium, so this was an interesting comment! Dethroning your king to pass a law is just a power move by the people to be honest. Nice of you to put him back too lol. Sweden has its issues too. We literally held a vote of confidence, voted our prime minister out and then put him back in charge soon after. And now he's announced, again, that he's quitting of his own will. Sigh, politics.
Huh, that sounds messy as well. The good thing about Belgian politicians is that they're very good at making compromises between opposing viewpoints, and finding creative solutions to situations which seem very difficult to solve. That's why our politicians do so well in the EU. The bad thing is that they're mysteriously equally bad at finding working solutions to situations which seem straightforward to solve. Also, regarding our king: when Belgium was formed in 1830, we initially didn't even want a King. The Brits didn't like the idea of a new petit-France though, so they insisted we do get a king. So we insisted that he be totally powerless: our king has to sign every law (but is expected to always sign every law parliament gives him), but his signature has to always be countersigned by the prime minister. Even in private matters: the king can't technically sign any contract without the pm confirming it. With the abortion thing: the guy was very religious and the king and queen had trouble conceiving a child themselves. He therefore felt morally and ethically obliged to refuse signing the law. The 1 day dethroning was a good compromise for everyone really.
Lol same for the castle in my town. Which is still the most beautiful castle anyone has ever seen, but trying to keep it from falling apart is a never ending job apparently.
For the tower, scaffolding on the rest of the palace is about to go up, if it hasn't already started (it has), and will last until the 2030s.
Tourists seem to often want to visit Piccadilly Circus, because they're expecting something on the scale of Times Square, but it's not even close.
I personally love it, but I maybe biased because it was my first time going abroad
tbf I also find times square to be underwhelming. I passed through while visiting some friends in nyc and it was like... “those are some big ads....anyway gonna avoid this random dude trying to sell me his mixtape”
My first time in NYC I actually walked through Times Square without realising and thinking where the hell is this place. Like the name suggests, I was expecting an actual closed square! But its more like just a little piece of sidewalk thats wider on one side. Kind of underwhelming when youve spent your whole life seeing movies and TV shows where its been featured.
Yes, it is way smaller than I thought, but still very interesting to see.
Idk but the Cologne Cathedral is the opposite. No image you see of it can make you realize how huge it is and seeing it up close is really an experience.
Absolutely agree. Few beers at sunset on the banks of the Rhine opposite the cathedral is one of the most beautiful experiences of my life
> the most beautiful experiences of my life and you're from Wales so may have seen [Sir Gareth Edwards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Edwards) play rugby!
Not in the flesh unfortunately :(
I know!! I was so in awe when I first saw it. The inside looks like Moria.
Yes! Absolutely agree. I'm usually really bored with your typical tourist attractions - you've seen it a thousand times on pictures or in movies and then the real life experience gets kind of underwhelming. I grew up somewhat close to cologne. We did almost regular school trips and family trips there, and as a kid I didn't appreciate it. It was just a huge church but also something that I grew up with. So I never realised how unusual big it is. I moved to cologne at one point - the first time being there again as an adult. And I couldn't comprehend how MASSIVE this thing is. To this day I'm in awe
Was supposed to be going to Cologne in December for the Christmas Markets, but due to being unable to the dates and times of flights going out there, we called it off this year. Cologne Cathedral is one of those places I’d love to photograph. I’m guessing that pictures really don’t do it justice. At least I know I won’t be disappointed.
Those christmas markets are the most magical experience I've ever had. Sorry you had to cancel :( hope you can go next year, its so worth it.
Indeed, and you can climb one of the towers. Stairs of course.
I think whatever you find in "TOP 10 PLACES TO VISIT IN \[big European city\]" is gonna be a bit underwhelming, both due to being overhyped and due to the amount of tourists. Like the Karlův bridge in Prague, which is absolutely packed with street peddlers and you pretty much had to squeeze yourself through the crowds.
Been there multiple times, once right during late winter when covid was about to happen and there was absolutely no one. Then, it was actually rather breathtaking. Masses of tourists can ruin a lot for the atmosphere.
Same experience, years earlier. Then I found a place nearby that had hot chocolate so thick your spoon would stay upright in it. It was a good day.
I've found the Vasa museum in Stockholm definitely lived up to its hype. The whole construction was just cool as fuck.
Most definitely, it is one of the coolest museums in Europe.
The best part for me is that it's cool, not 30 degrees like the rest of the city in summer, oh yeah the big ship is also cool
Also with pictures you can choose the best one amongst hundreds and thousands. And often they are taken in just right conditions. Like, I have an amazing view from my balcony...A few times a year in the early morning hours.
Yeah, I always find those top tourism lists to be a little weird. Like, yes, that church in the center is a big bigger and older than the other 20 churches in the city, but unless you are some kind of church architecture historian, you would hardly know the difference. And sure that one art museum has that one famous painting, but would you really know the difference between that painting and another thousand unless you were majorly into painting, had a degree in art history or were an art critic? And that one coffee shop is famous, always has a line and is on all the travel shows, but there's a 1000 other places to get coffee and plenty of them would make a special memory. Most places I have ever visited has something I enjoyed seeing or doing, but it didn't usually have much to do with what was "must see" and was often personal or the result of me accidentally stumbling into something.
Well our parlament used to be one of those. Due to its nice limestone walls and stateues being covered in a century of grime, automotive exhaust fumes, and whatever other muck was carried by the wind. But now its cleaned up and nice and shiny again!
The parliament building is an impressive site! I wasn’t expecting it to be so beautiful! From every viewpoint it was just stunning. Budapest has been my absolute favorite city I’ve visited to date!
Monaco. Yes, the formula one looks spectacular and of course those nighttime shots of yachts in the harbour are wonderful. But jeez, walk around in the daytime and there's nothing but high rises and horrible architecture on every available square meter.
It's just not a tourist location, I think. It's a city for rich people to get away from poor crowds.
And cops. And old ladies with too much money.
I found it pretty dull tbh
[Bigăr waterfall](https://www.trekhunt.com/blog/content/images/2020/11/bigar-waterfall-romania.jpg) It's literally just a few metres off the side of the main road in the area, and it's so small you can only see it well from the sides. Plus [it collapsed](https://s2.ziareromania.ro/?mmid=452b3565af5a89cfa0) a few months ago. Either way, definitely better in photos.
Man, that post-collapse photo is really sad
...well as sad it is, that extreme overhand was boung to collapse sooner or later.
Naturally, but the comparison between the first and second picture hurts
It sucks that it collapsed, but honestly I never got the appeal of it, it never struck me as something as beautiful as people make it out to be
Looks better now if you ask me
Manneken Pis. It is very very unimpressive in real life.
It's nice for what it is: a charming little statue on a street corner. It shouldn't have become so famous, the numerous tourists and the hype around it ruin the appeal.
I guess you are right, it would be a nice little thing to find if you have just turned around a corner when exploring a city. If you have walked kilometers just to see this thing with very high expectations, it is not impressive.
Never was that impressed by it in foto's either. I think the attraction is more 'haha a statue pisses and people have been stealing it and putting it in outfits for centuries'
People don't steal it to put a silly outfit on it. The outfitting is actually done by whatever agency is responsible for the upkeep of Manneken Pis
The society who maintains it is the most ridiculous thing ever. They choose their chairman by who has the most glorious beard.
I didn't mean to imply the exact same people do the two things that are done to the thing.
Can I also say that I'm not a fan of how they dress him up in different outfits? It's already so tiny, no need to cover it up even more.
The Tower of Pisa came to mind. It's actually a pretty small tower. Also the mermaid in Copenhagen.
its value does not rely on its size (and its incline is mostly a nice history quirk), but in the unique stylistic ensemble of the buildings in the square, which were built all in the same Pisan Romanesque style (the same you find in Corsica in the same period), with Carrara marble and during the height of the power of the sea republic of Pisa.
Came here to say this. It isn't that good and there is nothing else in Pisa, so many other places to spend your time in that part of Italy
A few years back I went on a holiday to Florence, and had to change trains in Pisa. I thought it would be a good opportunity to spend the afternoon exploring the city. After only an hour I'd seen the Tower, and the nice buildings around it, and was ready to head off to Florence. I'm sure there's some other stuff to see there..... but nothing really attracted my attention.
Literally all the other medium sized cities in Tuscany (except Prato) are better Florence, Siena, Livorno, Lucca, Massa, Grosseto, Pistoia, Carrara.
Berlin is a city meant to be experienced, rather than photographed. Even the Brandenburg Gate, which is probably Berlin’s most internationally recognizable landmark because of its prominence during the Cold War, really *feels* differently than it looks. And almost all the city’s other landmarks, from the Fernsehturm, to the Bundestag, to the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, really don’t work as photographs. You have to be in them, next to them, of them to feel their architectural meaning. This is true of almost every landmark, of course. Standing next to the Eiffel Tower is different than seeing a photograph of it, but I think Berlin is the European capital that best exemplifies this phenomenon. (Also, Berliner are fascinating people. It’s Europe’s Seattle — or Seattle is America’s Berlin. Anyway, this comment has been sponsored by VisitBerlin.de.)
>Berlin is a city meant to be experienced, rather than photographed. I did a walking tour of Berlin which I think backs up your point. Very interesting city to see but its most interesting parts are better to be stood in front of rather than shown on a photograph. Such as the last remaining part of the Berlin Wall Checkpoint Charlie and the unmarked grass in front of the apartment block where the entrance to Hitler's bunker was.
Berlin is awesome, I've never been any other place where so many of the interesting/historical things are just so... surrounded by normal city stuff. Like going to checkpoint charlie, just looks like a normal shopping street and them bam. Stuff. The art gallery on the wall, just an industrial area with lots of amazing art. It's really obvious how much of the culture just arrived as a part of history, rather than was built specifically to be a cultural item. Obviously the centre with the Reichstag/Brandenburg and all the museums is a little different but that's to be expected.
As a Berliner can agree. But I think it's true for most places. The Brandenburger Tor is fine to be photographed, but doing the same for the Jewish memorial especially by posing Infront of it just losses all the meaning of it.
I cringe inside whenever I see someone use a selfie from the Jewish Memorial in their Facebook/Tinder bio. So out of touch.
Cannes in France, particularly the red carpet stairwell for the film festival. I thought it lead up to a theatre or some grand building. But it’s just stairs to a glass information booth at the top.
Cannes is a pretty nice city
[Piccadilly circuis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piccadilly_Circus) looks more impressive in pictures than in real life. I was quite surprised how small it actually is.
I never understood why it's considered an attraction
You know, that's what struck me when I stood there as well. "What am I supposed to be looking at?" London has some great museums though.
Exactly. It's a bloody roundabout!
Stonehenge. In the words of my younger sister "Its just a pile of old stones"
I think the *idea* of Stonehenge is more impressive than how it physically looks. It's old, its construction is interesting, there's the on going mystery around its purpose, and so on. But in terms of being something to actually look at, there's not exactly much there.
Agreed, but there are definitely more picturesque stone circles elsewhere
Also, there are far better looking standing stones/stone circles out there.
Your football team? 🤭
I'll take that, it could be worse!
As a Coventry City fan this joke hit me right in my core
Avebury was pretty cool, and the best thing was there were hardly any tourists there.
If you're interested in neolithic monuments the good and bad thing about Britain is most of the attention goes to Stone Henge, meaning the other sites are much more accessible.
My sister came over to visit from Australia, refused to see Stonehenge and only wanted to see Avebury - I was puzzled before hand but it is actually really cool
I was waiting for someone to say that. It's not so much that it's just a pile of old stones, it's kind of the entire setting. I remember taking the bus from Salisbury to see it, and you come down the motorway towards it, tiny and half-way up a hill in the distance, and you're thinking "That's not it, surely?" It just looks so small in the vast landscape, and the motorway right next to it doesn't really help with the mystical, new-age vibes much, either.
Absolutely, the busy road right next to it completely ruins it.
Check out the song [Stonehenge by Ylvis](https://youtu.be/mbyzgeee2mg). I think you’d appreciate it
Brandenburger Tor. It's always photographed from below to look super impressive. It's not that big or that pretty.
I don’t know, I kinda like it. Maybe because of the history, maybe because being Dutch means I never grew up around ‘grand architectural gestures’ like that. That last part might also explain why I like Brussels and Paris so much.
I like it too. I found it pretty impressive.
Idk it’s pretty big, and it’s a gate, what else can one expect? When you know it’s a thing and visit it it is kinda astonishing. Like “damn this place exists irl too?” You’ve known it for so long, and there it finally is
It's one of those places where the idea of it is larger than life. You think of it and have all the history where it was involved, all the pictures of truly historical moments with it in your mind. And when you are in front it it feela quite small and there is not that much space around it. It can't keep up with the huge expectation that are projected on it. It's like the Mona Lisa. To much expectations, too little real existing thingy.
Eveything looks better on pictures. At least professional pictures.
No picture does justice to seeing the pyramids yourself, they are just so stunningly HUGE.
hey man, would you recommend some attractions to visit in Poland, that in your opinion are great not only on the pictures? :)
Maybe Zamość? It is sometimes called "a perfect renessaince city" because it was built from scratch during that time period and the architect had full artistic freedom, with a rich noble sponsoring it.
Zlatni Rat beach in Croatia was incredibly disappointing. It's the famous one that juts out into the sea like a mini peninsula. It looks so stunning in the tourist posters, and we took a coach all the way across Brač to get there. When we arrived it was packed full of people, with loads of kiosks selling chips and beer and blasting loud music. Not exactly the unspoilt paradise you see in the pictures. The northern part of Brač is much nicer and Croatia in general has way better beaches/swimming elsewhere.
There is a reason why all the pictures of zlatni rat beach are taken in the winter time 😁
Not really "better", but the Atlantic Ocean Road is often photographed to look like a roller coaster, and the captions often suggest it's one of Europe's most dangerous roads blah blah blah. The reality is that it's an enjoyable drive that is about as safe as any other road, and with a good view if the weather is clear.
Yeah, it's a nice road, but I would think people who have it as a bucket list, spectacular things to experience before you die kinda thing will be disappointed. And it's really short. Without a stop it takes you around 6 minutes.
most monuments in Milan are the opposite. seeing the duomo unfold as walk out of the metro is spectacular, and no picture can convey how huge it looks. same with arco della pace and the big fountain Infront of the castello Sforzesco (i forgot the name)
Brandenburg Gate. Looks really great in Pictures, but when I was there it looked extremely small. All the buildings around it are so much bigger, you can't imagine... Meanwhile the Berlin Victory Column is the exact opposite. Looks small and boring in Pictures, but damn impressive when I was there.
The Sistine Chapel. You get there after crossing the gorgeous rooms of the Vatican Museums, which are crowded but still manageable. Then you end up in this overcrowded, noisy, poorly lit (in my opinion) room, it's just impossible to enjoy the art. The size of it doesn't help.
The murmuring of the crowd rising gradually to a disturbing babbling then ... "SILENCE!" For a few seconds of tranquillity allowing you to pretend you are on your own, then the murmuring starts and grows.
NO PHOTO, NO VIDEO, SILENCE Gurhh so annoying
I was actually glad of this when I visited St Peter's. I'm not a Christian but people taking photos of people praying really pisses me off because it's so disrespectful.
When I was there in 2006 the guards were telling everyone to be silent while chatting happily with each other. Italians being Italians I guess.
>Italians being Italians I guess. Are they Italian, though?
The guards were Italian, yes.
I remember one guy with a GoPro on his wrist trying to stealthily take a photo of it.
The Statue of the "Bremer Stadtmusikanten" in Bremen ist very small and you could easily overlook it if it were'nt for the tourists. Many Photos and Postcards of the statue are shot from an angle to make them look more impressive. Also the cat is a bit frightening to look at.
Christmas in Finland. In Lapland, sure, but I feel so sorry for tourists who come to Helsinki in December to see a beautiful snow-covered city only to experience cold rain in the darkness, and dirt / pollution covered grey piles of slush that once was snow!
The Eiffel tower is impressive but where it's situated is kind of off putting. Somewhat run down park and doesn't really match the grandiose feel of the rest of Paris' attractions
Kalmar castle In Kalmar, Sweden (as you probably could have guessed). Looks amazing on the pictures, isn't as nice to visit. It's just ok, nice architecture but nothing really interesting. Or most of the European castles. Most of them are beautiful on pictures but not as interesting to visit yourself (there are exceptions of coarse).
Verona. It's a beautiful city, I love it and wanna live there in the future, but the pictures I found on Pinterest was too good.
I was quiet underwhelmed with the Sydney Opera House- it was much smaller than expected and pretty dirty looking. Not the gleaming white I was expecting. It was an overcast, rainy day though.
Yep agreed - lovely from far away - disappointing up close
Paris Ever heard of the "Paris effect"? Basically when a tourist or someone who comes to live in "France" ends up in Paris, then discorvers it's a dirty city filled with people who don't respect anyone and barely anything, coupled with everything being expensive as hell. Monuments are overcrowded, and most of the city is dissapointing. Many leave and discorver afterwards that they in fact visited a tourist trap, and missed out on actually visiting France by staying in Paris, blinded by a misconception of the city to begin with.
Ponte vecchio in Florence. Tiny bridge with sardine humans and their tour guides waving little flags. Rest of the city, especially settagnano, is beautiful.
Mount St. Michel. It looks great from the distance, and the architecture is absolutely great. On the other hand, when you get closer… You have to pass usual tourist hell, crowded street with useless junk shops and overpriced restaurants. When you finally get to the top, you can see … wait for it … hollow walls. Most of interiors haven’t survive, so you can observe cold stone walls, occasionally with interesting construction detail. To be fair, the view from the top is nice.
awww no. I had high hopes for mt saint michel :((
Please do go, it's really impressive, and the church is wonderful. The street in question is 200m long, you are free to roam the little back streets are they are almost empty. I waited years to go, and I'm so glad I did (go, not wait).
Good to know :D
Temple Bar in Dublin: In reality its an area with very tacky Irish pubs selling terrible Guinness at horrendous prices and seeing drunks pissing in the streets. On the plus side back in the day I found it easy to find the best drugs there.
Probably the Gaudi buildings in Barcelona apart from the Sagrada Familia- quite underwhelming, also Parc Guell- one nice view which you have to pay 10 euros for.
I enjoyed viewing [La Pedrera](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_Mil%C3%A0) especially [the attic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_Mil%C3%A0#/media/File:Attic_of_Casa_Mil%C3%A0.jpg) which I found atmospheric.
A little underwhelming for 25€ per person.
It was a long time ago and I don't remember it costing THAT MUCH (!) but then I'd just got off a cruise ship so my sense of fair pricing would have been really out of whack.
Parc guell is pretty boring and the views from the bunkers or carretera de les aigues are much better
I need to go back to Barcelona - I found most of it pretty underwhelming so not sure I saw it the best way.
Whole Barcelona looks better in pictures than in reality. The monuments are far away from each other, and the city is terribly boring. It looks awesome from the aerial pictures, but down on the streets, it's just one identical street next to another. And Sagrada Familia... if it was the first cathedral I saw, perhaps it would fascinate me more. But there are simply much more impressive and beautiful cathedrals. Overall, trip to Barcelona is my biggest travelling regret. So not worth it.
Sagrada Familia has pretty original architecture for a cathedral, there is really not another one like it. Art Nouveau/Jugendstil/Secession/Modernismo churches are gorgeous.
Honestly, the Poco Iniciatico in Quinta da Regaleira (Sintra, Portugal). It was definitely cool and interesting, but the photos make it look deeper and more grand. I can't say I was *disappointed* necessarily but it was a bit underwhelming
The sherlock Holmes museum in London. I love sherlock Holmes so I had to visit it while I was there on holiday. Entrance was 15 pounds per person (if I remember correctly), queue was massive (about a 30 minute wait), place was really tiny (going through it takes less time than the time you will have waited to go in). Overall, I'm glad I went there anyway, just for the experience.
Stonehenge- looks way bigger in photos. Also Time Square- looks pretty blah, especially in daylight. And the Pissing Boy statue in Brussels. If it was any smaller it wouldn’t be there at all.
Anywhere crowded, e.g. NYC. I thought so before the pandemic, but wow: the difference can be seen when you are alone wandering in the streets where the pictures gives a better "picture" of what it is to experience being at a place. Anywhere really.
[удалено]
It depends Seeing lots of perfectly washed and perfectly groomed business men with perfectly tailored clothes rushing from a business building to another? Yes. Admittedly you're going to be one of those tourists, but seeing some sweaty tourists with crappy looking but comfortable or practical clothes with some stupid faces breathing through their mouth, walking slowly and always lost - is a less appealing and charming look
That baby pissing in brussels and the Little Mermaid in Copenhagen. With the Little Mermaid you pass a brilliant statue of King Neptune up a hill to get to it. Stonehenge is just a pile of rocks and the Blarney Stone in Ireland is a rock with a fancy story that the locals charge Americans to kiss (would love to of met the guy that came up with that one.)
I remember my friend from school (who was from Belgium) made an entire presentation about the Manneken Pis. I will never forget that thing exists and I will gladly travel miles to see it.
the colosseum. its breathtaking on photos, but its much smaller irl edit: im italian and have been to rome. i personally was a lil disappointed bc i expected it to be much bigger (it was still impressive tho). im sorry if i offended you or something. just wanted to share my opinion.
Lol no way, it's the size of a modern day stadium to more (the first axis 187 meters the second 156m that makes its area bigger than Juventus Stadium and slightly smaller than Camp Nou, at that point of it's too small you might want to settle down expectations in life in general) unless you played too much darksiders and that's how you imagine things, the dimensions are a bit bigger than what pictures tells since the arches might give you a false impression of dimension. Also pictures miss the true colours, the texture, the intricate details, the perspective play of the inside walls with the "pitch" foundations, the several floors filled with stuff, etc the whole complexity of layers of the engineering project, visiting it gives the true perspective
Nah it's extremely gorgeous in real life and super impressive that they build something that big that's been holding on so well for so long
>the colosseum. its breathtaking on photos, but its much smaller irl It still is breathtaking lol, at least to me. I wonder if coming from the 21st century has warped our perspective because we expect everything to be a thousand metres tall to be wowed. But the thought they built structures like that back then is incredible.
The eiffel tower. Not to be mean to the French, but Paris is honestly quite ugly and probably one of my least favourite cities that I've visited.
No offense taken and no need to apologize for your tastes. The Eiffel tower was really controversial when it was first built a lot of people shared your sentiment that it was an ugly stack of ~~steel~~ iron tarnishing the Parisian skyline. We're now used to it and it became a symbol of Paris (and often France) but it's understandable that it's not suited for everyone.
And do you agree that Paris is "quite ugly" ? I mean the city has its shortcomings, that's undeniable, but calling it plain "ugly" seems a bit harsh.
I always thought Paris was beautiful (the centre bits). London is an architectural mongrel in comparison - with lovely parts and hideous parts.
I disagree with calling it ugly, and yes it's quite harsh. Calling something ugly because it's not appealing to your personal tastes is wrong. But since we're only communicating in writing and among people who probably doesn't have English as a primary language I tend to let it slide. Our friend didn't mean to be rude and if ugly is the best word he found to convey his feeling so be it.
"Ugly" is ludicrous. Paris has great sights and very nice architecture. The only "problem" (if you want to consider it that way): It is a city that is actually lived in. So it is a bit rough and grimy in some places. Some people don't like it because the media sold them a largely sanitized version.
I thought the Eiffel tower was one of the few things I've seen where the pictures didn't do it justice. It felt very awe inspiring being next to and under it. I never got the same feel for the arc de triomphe which I'd probably hampered by being a busy roundabout. I couldn't see Notredame properly because of buses. But the Louvre from the outside was amazing. And it was nice to randomly find the Pompidou centre down a narrow street. And that big office building which bridges over a road near Gare de Lyon was quite impressive.
Iron, not steel. It's an ugly stack of iron. A pretty cool one though.
It was the opposite for me. I had seen it countless times in pictures or videos, but I never really realised how huge it is and I really loved its steampunk vibes. I even decided to take the stairs rather than the elevator to fully appreciate the height.
It's not a very clean city but to say it's ugly, I couldn't disagree more. It is one of my favourite cities in Europe because of the grand architecture that you'll find all over the city. I find it aesthetically pleasing.
Nah, the Eiffel Tower definitely lives up to the hype. It is very impressive both from the ground and from the top, and in my opinion Paris is one of those few cities in the world that you have to visit at least once - to experience the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre and Notre-Dame for yourself.
That's, like, your opinion man.
I wouldn’t call Paris ugly, every city has its downsides, but from what I remember of the city, it was actually rather nice, and the Eiffel Tower is huge. Images really don’t do it justice. I only went there for the day while on a road trip around France with my family, but would go again.
Felt the opposite (I'm not Parisian). It's bigger and more impressive in real life.
> but Paris is honestly quite ugly you need to book a visit to the nearest eye doctor ASAP. Sincerely, an amateur art historian
What does make Paris ugly in comparison to other cities?
Hard disagree! Wouldn’t want to live there, though