Chiang Mai vs. Luang Prabang
Jan 31, 2011, 10:12 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Programs: AA Million Miler, Mosaic, Delta Platinum
Posts: 1,561
Chiang Mai vs. Luang Prabang
I'm planning a trip to Asia in June. On a solo portion of the trip, I have three nights that I'd like to spend in either Chian Mai or Luang Prabang. I enjoy visiting historical sites, hiking and photography. Not super-adventurous food wise.
Only my second trip to Asia - first included Siem Reap, which I liked a lot, but the fact the my tour guide was able to avoid the crowds contributed much to that.
Any recommendations between the two? Seems like Chiang Mai is probably easier to get to but Luang Prabang less crowded. Is there more to see in one vs. the other on that timeframe.
Only my second trip to Asia - first included Siem Reap, which I liked a lot, but the fact the my tour guide was able to avoid the crowds contributed much to that.
Any recommendations between the two? Seems like Chiang Mai is probably easier to get to but Luang Prabang less crowded. Is there more to see in one vs. the other on that timeframe.
Jan 31, 2011, 2:23 pm
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: body: A stone's throw from SFO, mind: SE Asia
Programs: Some of this 'n some of that
Posts: 17,263
Luang Prabang is the single biggest tourist destination in Laos. Large portions of the city are nothing more than guesthouse/hotel districts.
It's a nice place even though it's been built up and there's no longer dirt streets ... but crowded it always is.
Both cities have good food, good photography possibilities and an ability to get out of the city, if even only for the day.
It's a nice place even though it's been built up and there's no longer dirt streets ... but crowded it always is.
Both cities have good food, good photography possibilities and an ability to get out of the city, if even only for the day.
Jan 31, 2011, 5:38 pm
#3
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: SF
Programs: /usr/bin
Posts: 1,334
Having been to both, I'd definitely pick Luang Prabang even if it's harder to get to.
Chang Mai has got a lot of good sights and it's a good jumping off spot for trekking, but Luang Prabang is just so tranquil and beautiful. There are so many great sights to see, and a short walk can take you down the Mekong river, on a hill overlooking the city, or out in the countryside surrounded by the real Laos. It's a spectacular place.
There is also enough of a tourist infrastructure so that you can get comfort food if you're craving traditional French or American cuisines. Lao food isn't super crazy either, just rice and meat.
Chang Mai has got a lot of good sights and it's a good jumping off spot for trekking, but Luang Prabang is just so tranquil and beautiful. There are so many great sights to see, and a short walk can take you down the Mekong river, on a hill overlooking the city, or out in the countryside surrounded by the real Laos. It's a spectacular place.
There is also enough of a tourist infrastructure so that you can get comfort food if you're craving traditional French or American cuisines. Lao food isn't super crazy either, just rice and meat.
Jan 31, 2011, 6:14 pm
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: body: A stone's throw from SFO, mind: SE Asia
Programs: Some of this 'n some of that
Posts: 17,263
Jan 31, 2011, 6:32 pm
#5
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Southeast USA
Programs: various
Posts: 6,710
Ideally, if considering one's entire travelling life, you will make it to both. I'd fit in whatever works best in your itinerary. Chiang Mai is a city. Luang Prabang is an overgrown small town that can get overwhelmed when the crush of tourists is heavy. However, June is low season in LP so if you want to make the trouble to go there, it shouldn't be too bad.
All other issues (price, time, logistics, etc.) being equal or at least manageable, in Asia I'd tend to choose the place that is in most danger of changing for the worse in the future due to overdevelopment. In other words, go sooner rather than later. By this measure, LP might be the priority. CM has already long ago had its huge growth spurt.
All other issues (price, time, logistics, etc.) being equal or at least manageable, in Asia I'd tend to choose the place that is in most danger of changing for the worse in the future due to overdevelopment. In other words, go sooner rather than later. By this measure, LP might be the priority. CM has already long ago had its huge growth spurt.
Jan 31, 2011, 6:57 pm
#6
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: DCA/IAD
Programs: most of them
Posts: 3,283
I'll second that. CM is a nice city with some interesting things to see and day trip possibilities. But I think 3 days is a good amount of time to see LP and the surrounding sights. But I don't know if the season effects things too much with regard to places to see. I was there in November which was great. Not too hot, rainy season over. LP is very photogenic and filled with temples large and small. If the Kuang Sii waterfall is accessible it is quite nice and worth a visit.
Jan 31, 2011, 7:21 pm
#7
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: SF
Programs: /usr/bin
Posts: 1,334
Okay, Lao food gets a bit more complex than just rice and meat. 
OP had mentioned an aversion to adventurous food, and when compared with neighboring countries, the cuisine is less adventurous IMO. It's certainly not a reason to avoid a city as awesome as LP.
OP had mentioned an aversion to adventurous food, and when compared with neighboring countries, the cuisine is less adventurous IMO. It's certainly not a reason to avoid a city as awesome as LP.
Jan 31, 2011, 7:56 pm
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: body: A stone's throw from SFO, mind: SE Asia
Programs: Some of this 'n some of that
Posts: 17,263
There are lots of places along the Mekong catering to western style Lao/Thai food. Those who aren't adventurous can find what they need. There are some little gems otherwise, though I find the local food is much better in Vieng Chan (more commonly known as Vientiane).
I know it's touristy, but I really liked Tham Pak Ou (literally, cave at the mouth of the Ou River). You can either take a boat there or hire transpo for the day and also see Nam Dtok Kuang Si.
Jan 31, 2011, 8:00 pm
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: body: A stone's throw from SFO, mind: SE Asia
Programs: Some of this 'n some of that
Posts: 17,263
All other issues (price, time, logistics, etc.) being equal or at least manageable, in Asia I'd tend to choose the place that is in most danger of changing for the worse in the future due to overdevelopment. In other words, go sooner rather than later. By this measure, LP might be the priority. CM has already long ago had its huge growth spurt.
Jan 31, 2011, 8:03 pm
#10
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Programs: AA Million Miler, Mosaic, Delta Platinum
Posts: 1,561
Thanks for the advice - I like the point about what is most likely to change. And I'm happy to wander afield.
I'm not overly focused on the food thing but thanks for the input on that.
I'm not overly focused on the food thing but thanks for the input on that.
Jan 31, 2011, 8:46 pm
#11
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DFW
Programs: AA, 1.5MM, GE
Posts: 213
Luang Prabang, Laos
Several years ago when I was in LP the crowds were not to bad but I hear they are worse now. Def more crowds in CM, so I'd vote with the above and head to LP. Both cities are very nice however. You will have a great time either way... and don't forget the trip report!
Luang Prabang, Laos - 2005
More Laos here:
http://www.pbase.com/wandertheglobe/laos_2005
Luang Prabang, Laos - 2005
More Laos here:
http://www.pbase.com/wandertheglobe/laos_2005
Last edited by wandertheglobe; Jan 31, 2011 at 8:50 pm Reason: added link
Feb 3, 2011, 8:56 pm
#12
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Dalat, Vietnam
Programs: Vietnam, Asiana, Singapore, EVA, Southwest
Posts: 934
I was just in LP around Thanksgiving, and there is no doubt in my mind but that should be your destination. CM is just too big for me to be interested (I was there in '09, but don't really want to return). Now when in comes to LP, I'd go again tomorrow! I much prefer the under-developed places much more, and while both are fairly developed, LP is just nicer and friendlier. Food is good in both towns.
If you do decide on LP, don't miss the Scandinavian Bakery (best pizza in town). The Indian place is also very good (I just forget the name). Both are right on the main street of town. One place to avoid is the Coconut Restaurant - terrible food!
If you do decide on LP, don't miss the Scandinavian Bakery (best pizza in town). The Indian place is also very good (I just forget the name). Both are right on the main street of town. One place to avoid is the Coconut Restaurant - terrible food!
Feb 4, 2011, 5:03 am
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: body: A stone's throw from SFO, mind: SE Asia
Programs: Some of this 'n some of that
Posts: 17,263
The places on the river tend to be decent. There are also places to be found just wondering outside of the main tourist catchment.
YMMV.
Feb 11, 2011, 7:23 pm
#14
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Shah Alam, Malaysia
Posts: 3
I'd definitely choose LP over CM -- pls see my site for LP stories:
http://m.naim.my/pictorials-of-laos-trip-oct-2009/
http://m.naim.my/pictorials-of-laos-trip-oct-2009/
Feb 16, 2011, 8:00 am
#15
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Miami, Nice
Programs: Marriott Titanium, AA Concierge Key, Delta, United, Emorates, and others
Posts: 4,694
I seem to agree with everyone else. Luang Prabang is not the nice village it once was, but it is still picturesque and the temples are unique. It will not be so nice five years from now. jiejie has my agreement too. I saw much of this area for the first time decades ago, and loved the undeveloped atmosphere. You can get a little bit of that near, but not in, Luang Prabang. River trips can be arranged to give you more of that feeling.