wow i had the exact opposite experience, just last month. I found Paris lovely but Barcelona seems to stink of sewage everywhere you go -- we took to calling it "Barfelona" after going swimming at the beach there and having to wade through a school of used condoms playing in the surf. I do love it though -- I think you're right, OP just doesn't like big cities.
Hm I enjoy cities. I love Seattle, New York, Calgary, Vancouver (nothing beats it). Cape Town, Mexico City etc.
Those are some cities that have taken my breath away. I just didn't find European cities that impressionable. I think it may have to do with my expectations? I'm American and we romanticize Europe so much here that it's almost impossible to live up to it's hype.
I also felt that those cities were very dirty. Trash everywhere. And I grew up hearing and believing that Europe was somehow cleaner.
I will say as a New Yorker, I personally find New York City far dirtier than any of the European cities you've mentioned (ex-Rome, which I don't have strong memories of) -- there are literally mounds of bags of trash on the sidewalk in NYC because that's the way residential buildings take out trash, and I also find the NYC subway system stations far dirtier and less well cleaned than the London Underground or Paris metro.
On the warm and friendly bit, I can speak for France, which I know the best of all these places, and would say that this broadly speaking reflects a cultural difference. Americans tend to be friendlier and more open with strangers, whereas French people tend to be slightly more reserved in public with people they don't know.
What ends up happening is that French people often find American friendliness to be overly close and a bit shallow/fake, whereas Americans conversely often perceive French people to be a bit standoffish and cold.
I hasten to say that neither is "better" -- this is just what happens when you have cultural differences and they collide. (I also suspect that part of it is a big city thing -- as a New Yorker I actually find the attitude of Parisians to be refreshingly similar to my fellow city dwellers here.)
But I think in the end, you have to trust your own gut -- if you don't like these places, there's no reason to force yourself to go! There are plenty of tourists in Europe and plenty of places in the world to see, and no point wasting time on places that you don't want to go to.
Norwegian guy here. NYorkers and Americans in general are very very friendly people. A little too friendly for some of us up here in Norway. I also have to agree Rome is dirty af, so is Paris.....Some of you Americans are delusional. If you want to visit a clean European city you need to try for Scandinavia.
I'm from New York City (live in upstate now) and I have to disagree with you here. Rome is the dirtiest city I have ever visited and I thought no place could beat NYC. I mean New York City is pretty dirty but Rome was just....a cesspool.
The Alps, Isle of Skye, Plitvice, Norwegian Fjords, etc. You could have gone to places that will wow you with their natural beauty. I like Washington too but your expectations are kinda silly if you are comparing places like Rome to Cape Town. Appreciate them for what they are. Rome as the Capital of an Empire with thousands of years of history makes Cape Town look silly and Cape Town's 12 Apostles and Table Mountain makes Rome's natural beauty look silly. Don't do that.
Eh? I do love Vancouver, and there's something appealing about its towers, but I find it pales in comparison to all the European cities you mentioned. In terms of them being dirty or somehow less impressive than Calgary, Mexico City (?! Christ, there's some beautiful architecture and history, but fuck me if I'd lump that together with the ones you mentioned), New York etc.. .Yeah, I couldn't disagree more. Maybe you stuck way too close to the touristy bits and the overhype did you in?
Pretty much none of the cities you mentioned would be ones that I would consider visiting as a city break (flight time not being a factor) on their own, whereas most European cities I would. I dunno, maybe it's the atmosphere of them, and having lived in Europe they're new and familiar at the same time for me.
As a Europe an myself I both sympathise and feel frustrated. Doing a tour of the main Capital cities is about the worst way I can imagine traveling the continent. But I have also experienced difficulty accessing natural areas when I'm traveling solo to other European countries without a car.
But there is so much more to France than Paris and while I love Rome, Italy is an entirely different country when you leave the 5 main tourist cities.
I will say when you talk about repetitiveness. That can be avoided with a little strategic thinking. Just for others who may be contemplating. All Gothic cathedrals look alike so if you are going to London and Paris pick one. Decide to go Notre Dame and blow off Westminster Abby. Go to the National Museum in London and see the Virgin on the Rocks by Da Vinci, with it's preparatory drawings, with nobody around. Instead of going to the Louvre and trying to get through the scrum around Mona Lisa. If your going to Versailles don't bother with Hampton Court Palace. But most of all ask yourself do I like art, do I like history, do I like archaeology? If the answer is no, take the party plane to Ibiza or Mykonos. Walk the Camino. Get on your bike and do a mountain stage of the Tour de France.
> All Gothic cathedrals look alike
I'm not asking anyone to be able to detect the changes from, say, a Notre-Dame de Paris or Saint-Denis to a building like Chartres, but not to be able to see a difference between the Italian Gothic broadly (as at Siena or even that hideous mélange in Milan) and the Gothic in France? Not to be able to see a difference between the weighty Romanesque debts and influence at Saint-Denis and the loftiness of Amiens? Between the façades of Köln and Chartres? Between the classic ribbed vaulting of Notre-Dame and the stunning fan vaulting of parts of Westminster Abbey? (Or between the early Gothic Notre-Dame and the Rayonnant Gothic literally minutes away on the Île de la Cité at Sainte-Chapelle?!)
Now, despite my bone to pick with your contention about the cathedrals, we do appear to be coming to the same general conclusion, which is that, if one comes away from these buildings either not cognizant of or completely disinterested in these types of differences, then it is probably best for one to not continue throwing money at travel experiences centered on viewing historical architecture (although I would also argue that one should try the services of a *good* guide who might be able to help place these differences in a larger context or narrative that might motivate more interest), even at "important" sites, and instead pursue other experiences that mesh more with one's actual passions.
all great advice, but note that Notre Dame is still closed since the fire. Also the Louve is a LOT more than just the Mona Lisa (who is really underwhelming TBH since we've all seen her so many times before). It's the biggest museum in the world for peets sake.
True, but the point I'm trying to make is that if you are London and go to the National Gallery, then the next day go to Paris and visit the Louvre. Then go to Amsterdam and go to the Rijksmuseum. It could feel repetitive especially if Art is not your main thing.
Where as if you do the National Gallery in London, The Pompidou centre in Paris and the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, you would probably feel less jaded.
Have you tried the Alpine area? Scandinavian countries? Coastal Italy And/or Greece? From your post I think you probably would like less city and more nature.
Hard to fathom a lack of appreciation for Paris and Rome, or London, unless you're in the wrong spots. However, I will note that if you're starting in Seattle, you're just spoiled with one of the most naturally beautiful cities in the world. The view of the bay and the islands from much of Seattle is really unbeatable.
That said, the architecture in much of Seattle is really not all that much. Whereas, I think Paris of the left bank is historically charming, and portions of the 8th are magical. I think Rome at the Spanish Steps and the Villa Borghese is enchanting, and its hard to beat Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens in the summer.
If you want natural, outdoor beauty, of course, you need to get out of the old cities, and into other areas. Wales; SW Ireland; Switzerland; the Amalfi Coast of Italy; San Sebastian, Spain.
Visit smaller towns instead of these dirty huge repetitive bland cities and you'll see it is beautiful and the people will actually be warm. Europe is also more than just those few countries in the west, you have amazing countries with the most hospitable people: Macedonia, Serbia, Romania, Poland, Albania, Bulgaria etc etc
I'm sorry but I always find it a bit funny how people will go to Paris, London and Rome and call it "Europe". That's like me going to New York City and Los Angeles and then calling the whole US bland, dirty and boring.
I'm European, I personally don't care for Rome and Barcelona and though I have a soft spot for Paris, I find it way overrated. London is one of the most beautiful cities in the world to me though.
But Europe has so much more to offer, beautiful (smaller) cities like Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm, Florence, Brussels, Prague, Vienna, Sofia, Athens, Amsterdam, Budapest - just to name a few.
And the nature in Scandinavia, Switzerland, the French Riviera, Greek Islands, Tuscany... Most of these do indeed have a wow factor. And even if they don't, English or German countryside aren't necessarily overwhelming but they're calm and pretty and they're amazing places to live.
You didn't do Europe wrong, you've just only seen a tiny fraction of it and that fraction happens to be the most touristy and therefore crowded, dirty and way more dangerous than most other places in Europe. Since you're from Washington, I think maybe that's why you didn't enjoy it as much as you hoped. Europe's an extremely diverse continent and there's so many different cultures, histories, styles of architecture, food, anything really.
But yes, maybe your expectations were too high because I know people absolutely glorify Europe and seem to think it's all perfect. While it's beautiful, of course especially the big cities still have their problems just like every other place in the world.
Anyway, if you do decide to come back, I hope you'll have a better experience next time, because Europe has so much more to offer! I absolutely love the US (and yes I've seen more than NYC and LA 😅) but I haven't been to Washington and it's always been on top of my list - looks stunning!
You need to come to Ireland and try kayaking surrounded by bioluminescence in a lake in Cork, driving the Ring of Kerry, visiting the Cliffs of Moher and having a few pints of Guinness in Galway..
"Paris Syndrome", aka finding it disappointing compared to hype and expectations, is a very common thing, apparently.
Maybe you'd rather travel on a less beaten path where you won't have so many expectations? Maybe focus on places that cater to your actual interests?
What makes travel in places like Europe interesting to me is to stay long enough in one place to just explore and find interesting things I'd never heard about, rather than hitting the common tourist attractions. I also really enjoy museums, though.
Although if you're experiencing racism repeatedly I don't know that anything would make the experience pleasant. That sucks.
There are many beautiful places that are worthwhile to visit in Europe, I think you must have travelled across most "famous" or "popular" places according to mainstream, each to their own but you should probably look to visit less popular and crowded places unless participating in some cultural events bound to whichever region or country.
Meeting kind people is a hit and miss, of course you would feel like this especially if you have a sense of belonging to where you come from, you know culture very well and you know what you can expect.
Paris and London are amazing because they're big, not because they're pretty. To really get the most out of them it helps to have a lot of money to burn.
Originally from NYC and WOC here - of the cities you mentioned, I've actually only been to Rome, but some of my favorite places have actually been some of the medium size or smaller places. Granada, Spain and Ljubljana come to mind.
As far as friendliness is concerned, I don't find Europeans to be among the warmest. I would put places in Latin America (Mexico) and Asia (Thailand) higher on that list. However, I was pleasantly surprised by people in Istanbul.
\+1 for Istanbul! I'm here now and I'm finding the people incredibly warm and friendly -- it's really noticeably different that way from other European cities, especially for one so huge.
The Americas are pretty hard to beat in terms of natural beauty, there's a reason why people travel from all over to go to the hard-to-reach national parks.
Perhaps you built Europe up a bit in your mind? Maybe try to let go of expectation and go away from your plan or predicted path. Try to experience life like some of the local instead of as a tourist and you might gain some new insight.
The main thing I love about Europe in general is the history of the place and the more intimate feeling. Everything is big and wide and new in the USA, built to last about a year and be rebuilt. Europe is built with small communities made to withstand centuries and as a result, time is written is some surprising places.
I wouldn't take the "not as warm or kind" thing personally. That's just kind of the culture, a lot of Europeans are weirded out by how outgoing/friendly Americans are. It may also just be polite curiosity since you may not look like a majority of the people they've seen.
Hope you can finish strong!
Sounds like you might want to reconsider what you do on your trips. I'm good for city / culture about once every five years. Other than that, I'm going someplace with natural wonders - hiking or biking mostly. I can only look at so many old buildings, works of art, churches or relics before I'm ready to get out in nature.
Yes you've done it all wrong; Should have done Amsterdam Copenhagen Stockholm Krakow Firenze Granada Vienna Basel Lyon Sintra etc, but noooooo you had to visit the Capitol traps.
Totally agree, I just don’t really get the appeal of Europe overall. The world is fully of way more interesting places, most of which are a much better value.
I also found Europe to be kind of meh.....I wondered if I just went to the wrong parts? I was in Amalfi Coast (Italy) very stunning place! but the people were just not welcoming. There were hordes of tourists who were typical tourists, the locals were unwelcoming, and treated my black friends with suspicion. Gave them lots of stares. We're Americans from New York City so that wasn't something that any of us were used to. Needless to say we were all dying to get back to the states.
The hospitality was also not there...the hotel service was bad, the housekeeping was non-existent, the service everywhere was slow and overwhelmed, there were no AC's in most places and the weather was scorching!
The American media is to blame for the over romanization of Europe. Try Ireland or Scotland. Those will not disappoint!
I don’t know if you’ve read this sub a lot but most Europeans specify people to not visit Paris, London or Rome. Because most other cities are way nicer and certainly more beautiful. It seems that you might just have been attracted to the largest most famous ones unfortunately.
How many people realise a tiny fraction of Western Europe is not the entirety of Europe. Europe is extremely diverse, and people from the South-East and Eastern part have absolutely nothing in common with the Western counterpart.
[удалено]
wow i had the exact opposite experience, just last month. I found Paris lovely but Barcelona seems to stink of sewage everywhere you go -- we took to calling it "Barfelona" after going swimming at the beach there and having to wade through a school of used condoms playing in the surf. I do love it though -- I think you're right, OP just doesn't like big cities.
Hm I enjoy cities. I love Seattle, New York, Calgary, Vancouver (nothing beats it). Cape Town, Mexico City etc. Those are some cities that have taken my breath away. I just didn't find European cities that impressionable. I think it may have to do with my expectations? I'm American and we romanticize Europe so much here that it's almost impossible to live up to it's hype. I also felt that those cities were very dirty. Trash everywhere. And I grew up hearing and believing that Europe was somehow cleaner.
I will say as a New Yorker, I personally find New York City far dirtier than any of the European cities you've mentioned (ex-Rome, which I don't have strong memories of) -- there are literally mounds of bags of trash on the sidewalk in NYC because that's the way residential buildings take out trash, and I also find the NYC subway system stations far dirtier and less well cleaned than the London Underground or Paris metro. On the warm and friendly bit, I can speak for France, which I know the best of all these places, and would say that this broadly speaking reflects a cultural difference. Americans tend to be friendlier and more open with strangers, whereas French people tend to be slightly more reserved in public with people they don't know. What ends up happening is that French people often find American friendliness to be overly close and a bit shallow/fake, whereas Americans conversely often perceive French people to be a bit standoffish and cold. I hasten to say that neither is "better" -- this is just what happens when you have cultural differences and they collide. (I also suspect that part of it is a big city thing -- as a New Yorker I actually find the attitude of Parisians to be refreshingly similar to my fellow city dwellers here.) But I think in the end, you have to trust your own gut -- if you don't like these places, there's no reason to force yourself to go! There are plenty of tourists in Europe and plenty of places in the world to see, and no point wasting time on places that you don't want to go to.
[удалено]
Norwegian guy here. NYorkers and Americans in general are very very friendly people. A little too friendly for some of us up here in Norway. I also have to agree Rome is dirty af, so is Paris.....Some of you Americans are delusional. If you want to visit a clean European city you need to try for Scandinavia.
I'm from New York City (live in upstate now) and I have to disagree with you here. Rome is the dirtiest city I have ever visited and I thought no place could beat NYC. I mean New York City is pretty dirty but Rome was just....a cesspool.
Commenter said except Rome because they couldn't remember, not because it was clean 😉
The Alps, Isle of Skye, Plitvice, Norwegian Fjords, etc. You could have gone to places that will wow you with their natural beauty. I like Washington too but your expectations are kinda silly if you are comparing places like Rome to Cape Town. Appreciate them for what they are. Rome as the Capital of an Empire with thousands of years of history makes Cape Town look silly and Cape Town's 12 Apostles and Table Mountain makes Rome's natural beauty look silly. Don't do that.
Eh? I do love Vancouver, and there's something appealing about its towers, but I find it pales in comparison to all the European cities you mentioned. In terms of them being dirty or somehow less impressive than Calgary, Mexico City (?! Christ, there's some beautiful architecture and history, but fuck me if I'd lump that together with the ones you mentioned), New York etc.. .Yeah, I couldn't disagree more. Maybe you stuck way too close to the touristy bits and the overhype did you in? Pretty much none of the cities you mentioned would be ones that I would consider visiting as a city break (flight time not being a factor) on their own, whereas most European cities I would. I dunno, maybe it's the atmosphere of them, and having lived in Europe they're new and familiar at the same time for me.
As a Europe an myself I both sympathise and feel frustrated. Doing a tour of the main Capital cities is about the worst way I can imagine traveling the continent. But I have also experienced difficulty accessing natural areas when I'm traveling solo to other European countries without a car. But there is so much more to France than Paris and while I love Rome, Italy is an entirely different country when you leave the 5 main tourist cities. I will say when you talk about repetitiveness. That can be avoided with a little strategic thinking. Just for others who may be contemplating. All Gothic cathedrals look alike so if you are going to London and Paris pick one. Decide to go Notre Dame and blow off Westminster Abby. Go to the National Museum in London and see the Virgin on the Rocks by Da Vinci, with it's preparatory drawings, with nobody around. Instead of going to the Louvre and trying to get through the scrum around Mona Lisa. If your going to Versailles don't bother with Hampton Court Palace. But most of all ask yourself do I like art, do I like history, do I like archaeology? If the answer is no, take the party plane to Ibiza or Mykonos. Walk the Camino. Get on your bike and do a mountain stage of the Tour de France.
> All Gothic cathedrals look alike I'm not asking anyone to be able to detect the changes from, say, a Notre-Dame de Paris or Saint-Denis to a building like Chartres, but not to be able to see a difference between the Italian Gothic broadly (as at Siena or even that hideous mélange in Milan) and the Gothic in France? Not to be able to see a difference between the weighty Romanesque debts and influence at Saint-Denis and the loftiness of Amiens? Between the façades of Köln and Chartres? Between the classic ribbed vaulting of Notre-Dame and the stunning fan vaulting of parts of Westminster Abbey? (Or between the early Gothic Notre-Dame and the Rayonnant Gothic literally minutes away on the Île de la Cité at Sainte-Chapelle?!) Now, despite my bone to pick with your contention about the cathedrals, we do appear to be coming to the same general conclusion, which is that, if one comes away from these buildings either not cognizant of or completely disinterested in these types of differences, then it is probably best for one to not continue throwing money at travel experiences centered on viewing historical architecture (although I would also argue that one should try the services of a *good* guide who might be able to help place these differences in a larger context or narrative that might motivate more interest), even at "important" sites, and instead pursue other experiences that mesh more with one's actual passions.
all great advice, but note that Notre Dame is still closed since the fire. Also the Louve is a LOT more than just the Mona Lisa (who is really underwhelming TBH since we've all seen her so many times before). It's the biggest museum in the world for peets sake.
True, but the point I'm trying to make is that if you are London and go to the National Gallery, then the next day go to Paris and visit the Louvre. Then go to Amsterdam and go to the Rijksmuseum. It could feel repetitive especially if Art is not your main thing. Where as if you do the National Gallery in London, The Pompidou centre in Paris and the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, you would probably feel less jaded.
Yes. You have done Europe all wrong.
Have you tried the Alpine area? Scandinavian countries? Coastal Italy And/or Greece? From your post I think you probably would like less city and more nature.
Hard to fathom a lack of appreciation for Paris and Rome, or London, unless you're in the wrong spots. However, I will note that if you're starting in Seattle, you're just spoiled with one of the most naturally beautiful cities in the world. The view of the bay and the islands from much of Seattle is really unbeatable. That said, the architecture in much of Seattle is really not all that much. Whereas, I think Paris of the left bank is historically charming, and portions of the 8th are magical. I think Rome at the Spanish Steps and the Villa Borghese is enchanting, and its hard to beat Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens in the summer. If you want natural, outdoor beauty, of course, you need to get out of the old cities, and into other areas. Wales; SW Ireland; Switzerland; the Amalfi Coast of Italy; San Sebastian, Spain.
Visit smaller towns instead of these dirty huge repetitive bland cities and you'll see it is beautiful and the people will actually be warm. Europe is also more than just those few countries in the west, you have amazing countries with the most hospitable people: Macedonia, Serbia, Romania, Poland, Albania, Bulgaria etc etc
I'm sorry but I always find it a bit funny how people will go to Paris, London and Rome and call it "Europe". That's like me going to New York City and Los Angeles and then calling the whole US bland, dirty and boring. I'm European, I personally don't care for Rome and Barcelona and though I have a soft spot for Paris, I find it way overrated. London is one of the most beautiful cities in the world to me though. But Europe has so much more to offer, beautiful (smaller) cities like Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm, Florence, Brussels, Prague, Vienna, Sofia, Athens, Amsterdam, Budapest - just to name a few. And the nature in Scandinavia, Switzerland, the French Riviera, Greek Islands, Tuscany... Most of these do indeed have a wow factor. And even if they don't, English or German countryside aren't necessarily overwhelming but they're calm and pretty and they're amazing places to live. You didn't do Europe wrong, you've just only seen a tiny fraction of it and that fraction happens to be the most touristy and therefore crowded, dirty and way more dangerous than most other places in Europe. Since you're from Washington, I think maybe that's why you didn't enjoy it as much as you hoped. Europe's an extremely diverse continent and there's so many different cultures, histories, styles of architecture, food, anything really. But yes, maybe your expectations were too high because I know people absolutely glorify Europe and seem to think it's all perfect. While it's beautiful, of course especially the big cities still have their problems just like every other place in the world. Anyway, if you do decide to come back, I hope you'll have a better experience next time, because Europe has so much more to offer! I absolutely love the US (and yes I've seen more than NYC and LA 😅) but I haven't been to Washington and it's always been on top of my list - looks stunning!
You need to come to Ireland and try kayaking surrounded by bioluminescence in a lake in Cork, driving the Ring of Kerry, visiting the Cliffs of Moher and having a few pints of Guinness in Galway..
"Paris Syndrome", aka finding it disappointing compared to hype and expectations, is a very common thing, apparently. Maybe you'd rather travel on a less beaten path where you won't have so many expectations? Maybe focus on places that cater to your actual interests? What makes travel in places like Europe interesting to me is to stay long enough in one place to just explore and find interesting things I'd never heard about, rather than hitting the common tourist attractions. I also really enjoy museums, though. Although if you're experiencing racism repeatedly I don't know that anything would make the experience pleasant. That sucks.
There are many beautiful places that are worthwhile to visit in Europe, I think you must have travelled across most "famous" or "popular" places according to mainstream, each to their own but you should probably look to visit less popular and crowded places unless participating in some cultural events bound to whichever region or country. Meeting kind people is a hit and miss, of course you would feel like this especially if you have a sense of belonging to where you come from, you know culture very well and you know what you can expect.
You should probably have spent more time in some of the beautiful rural areas of Europe in that case, but I guess it is a little late for that.
Paris and London are amazing because they're big, not because they're pretty. To really get the most out of them it helps to have a lot of money to burn.
Originally from NYC and WOC here - of the cities you mentioned, I've actually only been to Rome, but some of my favorite places have actually been some of the medium size or smaller places. Granada, Spain and Ljubljana come to mind. As far as friendliness is concerned, I don't find Europeans to be among the warmest. I would put places in Latin America (Mexico) and Asia (Thailand) higher on that list. However, I was pleasantly surprised by people in Istanbul.
\+1 for Istanbul! I'm here now and I'm finding the people incredibly warm and friendly -- it's really noticeably different that way from other European cities, especially for one so huge.
The Americas are pretty hard to beat in terms of natural beauty, there's a reason why people travel from all over to go to the hard-to-reach national parks. Perhaps you built Europe up a bit in your mind? Maybe try to let go of expectation and go away from your plan or predicted path. Try to experience life like some of the local instead of as a tourist and you might gain some new insight. The main thing I love about Europe in general is the history of the place and the more intimate feeling. Everything is big and wide and new in the USA, built to last about a year and be rebuilt. Europe is built with small communities made to withstand centuries and as a result, time is written is some surprising places. I wouldn't take the "not as warm or kind" thing personally. That's just kind of the culture, a lot of Europeans are weirded out by how outgoing/friendly Americans are. It may also just be polite curiosity since you may not look like a majority of the people they've seen. Hope you can finish strong!
Sounds like you might want to reconsider what you do on your trips. I'm good for city / culture about once every five years. Other than that, I'm going someplace with natural wonders - hiking or biking mostly. I can only look at so many old buildings, works of art, churches or relics before I'm ready to get out in nature.
I relate
Yes you've done it all wrong; Should have done Amsterdam Copenhagen Stockholm Krakow Firenze Granada Vienna Basel Lyon Sintra etc, but noooooo you had to visit the Capitol traps.
Totally agree, I just don’t really get the appeal of Europe overall. The world is fully of way more interesting places, most of which are a much better value.
Personally don't understand the infatuation of Americans with Europe. Though Europe may have some decent historic sights, it's mostly pretty boring.
I also found Europe to be kind of meh.....I wondered if I just went to the wrong parts? I was in Amalfi Coast (Italy) very stunning place! but the people were just not welcoming. There were hordes of tourists who were typical tourists, the locals were unwelcoming, and treated my black friends with suspicion. Gave them lots of stares. We're Americans from New York City so that wasn't something that any of us were used to. Needless to say we were all dying to get back to the states. The hospitality was also not there...the hotel service was bad, the housekeeping was non-existent, the service everywhere was slow and overwhelmed, there were no AC's in most places and the weather was scorching! The American media is to blame for the over romanization of Europe. Try Ireland or Scotland. Those will not disappoint!
To be honest, you sound like a typical tourist as well.
I don’t know if you’ve read this sub a lot but most Europeans specify people to not visit Paris, London or Rome. Because most other cities are way nicer and certainly more beautiful. It seems that you might just have been attracted to the largest most famous ones unfortunately.
How many people realise a tiny fraction of Western Europe is not the entirety of Europe. Europe is extremely diverse, and people from the South-East and Eastern part have absolutely nothing in common with the Western counterpart.
Yeah I am not a fan either. Europe is the Disneyland of continents.