When it snows, which is almost never in Kyoto, Kinkakuji is really beautiful. Otherwise, the gaudiness makes it look like it should be an Osaka/Tokyo monument and not a Kyoto one.
It's one of those weird quirks of Kyoto architecture that doesn't belong in Kyoto, like Kyoto Tower.
Ginkakuji, on the other hand, is not only at the base of Daimonji mountain and at the top of Nenenomichi (which goes from Ginkakuji to Tetsugaku no Michi to Maruyama Park to Kiyomisu), but is much more subtle and beautiful.
If you're planning a trip to Kyoto, skip Kinkakuji and take the walk from Ginkakuji to Kiyomizu Temple instead. You'll get a lot more sightseeing done for the same price and time spent.
Posts
While a number of people understandably prefer the subdued Ginkakuji to Kinkakuji, do you really think a first time tourist to Kyoto should skip it? It’s such a singular piece of architecture that love it or hate it, seems worth a visit to decide for oneself.
ReplyDeleteMy problem with Kinkakuji is not so much about its gaudiness (though that does enter the argument) than its time consuming distance from any other interesting landmark. The closest linking train is Keifuku and therefore impossible to navigate, and the bus from Kyoto-eki to Kinkakuji takes about an hour. Then you take the bus back because there is nothing there.
ReplyDeleteGinkakuji, on the other hand, is at the top of Nenenomichi or the bottom of the Daimonji trailhead, and a tourist can hit at least 5-10 treasures of Kyoto within a short walking distance. I'd rather have a first time tourist skip Kinkakuji and get Ginkakuji, Tetsugaku-no-michi, Nanzenji, Sanmon, Maruyama Park, Yasaka-jinja (and maybe some of Gion), and Kiyomizu-dera in the time it takes to ride a bus or taxi from Kyoto station and back to Kinkakuji.