Originally Posted by upgradeluvr

I cannot disagree more. Venice simply doesn't equal Rome, NYC, SF or Berlin in it's size or tourist offerings. It's much smaller and far more manageable to walk across in a matter of 30 minutes....and while yes, it's a lovely place to visit, there remains far less to see than the large cities you've mentioned. Piazza San Marco & Basilica, Rialto Bridge, Doge's palace...Accademia bridge, gondola ride or lagoon boat ride. These attractions simply don't require days and days to see, especially during the off-season. You can get a very good sense of Venice in two nights/three days. The OP never once indicated his plan to remain in one city.

Each traveler has their own pace. Everyone's taste and pace preference is subjective. As the OP has indicated, he prefers to rent a car, staying relatively mobile, driving from location to location. Good luck parking in Venice, as it's a city on the water. Parking is out of the "city center" at a premium and it's hardly convenient leaving your car at Tronchetto, taking a vaporetto every day back to the parking structure....and the cheaper option is to leave your car on the mainland, which is far more inconvenient to get to.

Working as a travel consultant, I've had many clients who have gotten bored after two days in Venice...and for the younger crowd, I've received feedback stating they would much rather have spent one night in Venice. I've also had people wish they stayed longer...but that's only occasionally.

I'm retuning to Milano in February. I plan on extending my work trip by two days, and I want to minimize my transport times, given the limited amount of time. I will more than likely stay in Bologna by train and remain there, since I'm flying out from there.