Thread: Peterburg vs. Moscow for visitors

I've been hearing things for a while about both, but I'd like to know from an insider - which city is more "tourist friendly"? (I hate that word..."tourist"... It makes me think of fat, sunburned weirdos with the hawaiian shirts that take pictures of parking meters...) Anyways, what are they like as far as safety, things to do, prices, cleanliness, people etc.? There's only so much you can read about it; I just saw another thread about the "skinhead" situation - I had no idea about that! If you could mention any major differences that would be helpful. Oh yeah, and please vote on the poll.

I voted for Moscow. I think I did so because I live in Moscow and know this city far better than St. Petersburg. Many say that St.Petersburg is more beautiful because there are a large number of palaces, monuments...in other words, places of interest. It's absolutely right but don't forget that Moscow is much older than Petersburg. Therefore, Moscow would be more interesting for me. What's more, Moscow is the capital of Russia which gives it more advantages.
I don't think it's necessary to mention the most attractive places of interest, for if you want to come to one of these cities you should know them.

The skinhead situation... Well, I don't think you should worry about it. There are also lots of such guys in Europe.

On the whole, I'd advise you to visit both cities.

Not being an insider, but been there both, I found St. Petersburg cheaper and richer in tourist attractions. You want age, go to Novgorod or Staraya Ladoga, not far from Pete

I've been to Novgorod twice. It's really beuatiful. So if one day you are in Petersburg, book an excursion to Novgorod. It's worth a visit.

I expressed my own opinion. I think nightfaerie needs such pieces of advice (I mean from 'outsiders' ), as they're more independent. Your opinion doesn't hang on where you live.

The Venise of the North

Isn't Stockholm the venice of the north? Two of my favourite cities both of them so, no competition but...

Your opinion doesn't hang on where you live.

by insiders I simply meant people who had experienced both places, whether or not they lived there.

Good that you've explained what you meant by insiders because I thought you meant people who lived in those cities.

Originally Posted by Zhenya

Isn't Stockholm the venice of the north? Two of my favourite cities both of them so, no competition but...

Never heard that about Stockholm sorry

Originally Posted by Mordan

Originally Posted by Zhenya

Isn't Stockholm the venice of the north? Two of my favourite cities both of them so, no competition but...

Never heard that about Stockholm sorry

Me neither :P

I voted for St. Petersburg as more tourist friendly, but it kind of depends on what you want to get out of your trip. Piter is more European, it has ton of museums, palaces, bridges, parks...the whole city is like one big monument. It's not as rushed as Moscow, so the people are more laid back and easy going.

Moscow is obviously the capital and a huge city. If you want to see the most Russian thing in Russia you'd probably want to visit the Red Square for obvious reasons. If you want more Communist stuff Moscow is the place to go to. It's bigger and more "high tech." It's definetly worth a visit.

They are only 8 hrs or so apart by train. If you are going all the way from the US, might as well see both. Train ticket is pretty cheap as well

Never heard that about Stockholm sorry

Really? - fascinating. Well I never though it was a good "name" anyway

thanks guys - yeah, it's okay that you didn't tell me all the "hot spots" for tourists....Most of them sort of speak for themselves, and you can find information about them online... But I'm glad you all said what you said; there aren't many websites for tourists that will say anything bad about the place they're trying to get you to go to. Most of them start with "Russia, a beautiful land of rich culture and tradition, is at its most majestic in (insert city here)."

oh hurray I have two dots now hehe

you might be mistaking stockholm with bruges.

anyway, neither (i mean bruges and peter) look like venice and they're both miles away from the picturesque italian city).

i voted moscow because it looks more russian to me (and cleaner, peter is awfully dirty) but both are worth a stay.
if you want big, the kremlin is much more impressive than the ermitage. if you want little, the small english church right opposite the rossia hotel is great.

if you go to peter, peterhof is more beautiful than versailles but tsarskoe selo is boring as hell -just an opinion.

i liked vladimir and pskov a lot.

I voted for Moscow not only because I live here but to me St.Petersburg looks a bit unnatural like a museum.
Pardon me this metaphor but St.Petersburg is a gorgeous girl with a lot of make-up on her face and Moscow is a beauty without any make-up.

...and she washes.

you might be mistaking stockholm with bruges.

No i don't...

anyway, neither (i mean bruges and peter) look like venice and they're both miles away from the picturesque italian city).

Agree!

well, moscow has st. basils (did i say it right?) and the kremlin, something ive been dieing to see my whole life. st. petersburg has many monument to tsar peter the great, and i think it located on a sea. for age, i would definatly go to volgograd (i think thats teh ancient one). for extreem cold, id go to yakutsk, that place has like -65 tempratures, or it did last week.

you are probably thinking of novgorod. Volgograd is formerly Stalingrad. A decent city i guess, although kind of odd since its really long as it stretches out on the river. Cool monuments there though.