Printable View
Okay during summer I'll be going to london for a couple of days. I've been there once and I think I've seen the most typical things as well. (Though I no doubt missed a couple) Either way what things can or must one do, visit, see,... when in London? Especially some less obvious and original ideas are most welcome! Other tips or recommendations would be lovely as well!
Get the **** out as fast as possible, it's a ******* ********.Quote:
What should one do in London?
trust me.
What IA says. The tower is cool if you REALLY have to. Otherwise, hijack the plane and tell the pilot to land in Dublin.
I disagree. I was in London for about 3 days ten years ago but only had 8 hours of free time on the last day to see the city. So I did a huge walking loop barely stopping at anything longer than a couple of minutes because there was much to see and so little time. I was astounded seeing all these famous places I've read about since I was a boy. One of the things that struck me was that pictures did not do them justice. Another was the sensation that I could feel the rich history - old history. Not like Gettysburg or Valley Forge - much older. I remember walking along the Parliment building and seeing the statue of Richard the Lionheart in the parking lot. I got instant goosebumps. The funniest moment was when I realized I walked past 10 Downing Street and never saw it.
I'd love to go back to London some day and actually spend some time there. I'd also like to get out into the countryside too. Of course, I'm an uncultured, heathen Colonial overwhelmed at the sight of real civilization, so what do I know?
the english countryside looks nicer than London. well, thats just me, speaking as one who loves spending time in the countryside, regardless of the place.
Drink heavily. That's what the locals do. When in Rome, etc.
Going by that rule, you should also not brush your teeth or mouthwash in any way. :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Watch some soccer match.... Though its off season now.
I come from outside of London, yet have family living in the GLA.
Basically, go to the London Dungeons (Once is enough), Take the tube, carry a bag, dont take a tour bus... the guides are annoying. Take pictures, speak your own language, annoy the locals. Go see a show, just to say you have, invade the tower, and always... Go Staines via Waterloo. Catch the shuttle to Thorpe Park! Never a bad time.
Gah! being Belgian, I'll rather have to teach them what drinking heavily really means!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Also London might not b Paris or something, but you ain't going to tell me that the place doesn't have nice historical monuments and buildings? Or doesn't have great musea?
We were actually planning indeed to see a show. I was thinking about Avenue Q, Monty Python or the great classic Billy Elliot. Though Stomp doesn't look bad either.
Any other ideas for things worth visiting or doing? A city as big as london must have more interesting things to do than what's posted right now!?
Well the tower is actually very cool, you can do the 'glad I am not really here' tour (from the eyes of a prisoner), pretty creepy. But Londen really kinda sucks imho, has this cheapness over it.
1. Travel to London Bridge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
2. Take a dive.
IMHO the British Museum is well worth seeing. 200 years of plundering antiquities from ancient civilizations has its perks, lots of interesting Assyrian, Egyptian and Greek stuff.
Otherwise I'd recommend the National Gallery if you're at all interested in art, and the Imperial War Museum. The former is on Trafalgar Square so has the advantage that you can just pop in while wandering around the main tourist bits, the latter however is out in the middle of nowhere on the south bank of the river and is quite a trip to reach.
The above three all have the added bonus that, last time I checked, they were all free admission (as I believe are most if not all the major museums in London).
Otherwise the Tate Modern has two reasons to visit:
1) The building itself (a former power station) is pretty impressive on the inside.
2) The cafe at the top is quite nice (and you can skip straight past the modern art to the top if you want).
Also, it's a nice walk from there along the river bank to parliament square, from which you can then easily get to Trafalgar Square via Pall Mall, thus seeing half the "famous" bits of London in one fell swoop.
The Science Museum and the Natural History museum are OK, though a little too "kiddy-friendly" for my tastes (though I do work in science, so a historian may well say the same thing about the British Museum).
I haven't been to the Tower in years, but IIRC it was expensive and crowded, though quite fun if you fancy something a bit less serious after all the highbrow art and ancient history.
Avoid the Underground at rush hour (though I suppose that applies to any major city), and I would recommend getting an Oyster card when you first use it, it's not any cheaper but makes getting the Tube a whole lot easier. Try not to have a heart attack when you see how much it costs for a cup of coffee anywhere in London. Be prepared to be molested and have your bag searched (and very likely be glared at by panicky-looking policemen with submachine guns) every time you enter anywhere.
I'm not quite sure why London seems so unpopular here, IMHO of the major cities I've visited London is as good as any, and a lot better than most. Certainly I can't think of anywhere where you can find as much interesting stuff to do for free.
Anyone who says London isn't fun is insane. I lived there for 10 years and it's my favorite city in the world. As PBI said, the British Museum is excellent, but the Imperial War Museum is actually my favorite museum anywhere. It is a glorious place, with lots of fascinating stuff, excellent exhibits, and pleasant staff. If there's nice weather, I also highly recommend a stroll through Regents Park with a picnic lunch.
The British Museum is Paradise on Earth. It's always full of hotties, and has a great bookshop in the middle.:book:
Does the Groucho Club still exist?
And yes, as other posters have said, The British Museum is where they keep the loot of Empire. Very impressive.
Sorry for bursting romantic views of the world, but this is one of my pet peeves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
Do you realize that Valley Forge is much older, and Gettysburg as old, as the Parliament Building and the Statue of Richard the Lionheart?
The United States is ancient, much older than most European states. In the nineteenth century, America was a forward-looking country, constantly renewing her legacy, whereas European states build and invented themselves traditions and a history during this period.
Americans travel to Europe, and go see, for example, Budapest and think they are in an ancient town. Never realising that except for maybe an old cathedral and a fortified castle everything they see around them was build in a historical style at the exact same time that Chicago was already building skyscrapers.
Splendid older monuments apart, most of London, like Paris, is nineteenth century, when the congested medieval town was replaced with wide streets and large appartment blocks. Alas, further twentienth century renewal hasn't been kind to London. I must agree with prince Charles that London has lost its historical character.
Which is not to say that London isn't the hippest, possibly most exciting city in Europe.
-~~-~~-~~-<<((O))>>-~~-~~-~~-
As for what to do - that all depends on one's personal preferences. I usually just barge in and soak up the atmosphere. And..I am actually always proud of being a stupid tourist. I work off the list of famous landmarks that one ought to see. And then get some personal must-sees done. If I'd be in London right now I'd go see:
St. Paul's
Westminster
Canary Wharf
a Dickens tour
the Natural History Museum
Places from where I can avoid seeing that dreadful ferry wheel.
And I would:
Buy a retro-1980 Arsenal kit. One of those with devastatingly short trousers that are tighter and tinier than present day underwear. Then see a Tottenham match in it. Sit myself next to a few fat blokes, and shout for ninety minutes 'this what you (fl)ossers call football? Daylight robbery, I say, twenty quid for this (w)hite!?'
Stand an afternoon on Picadilly Circus. Blasting loud Norwegian Metal from my ghettoblaster, headbanging and shouting at the top of my lungs 'EnglishAssassin! Assassin! Where art thou?'
You got me banged to rights there guv. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. As an American who became a naturalized British citizen, I have spent a great deal of time in the US, the UK, and pretty much all of Europe. There is no place in the US that has anything remotely like the historical feel of even the smallest European towns, let alone the main cities. I went to law school in Williamsburg, Virginia, which is famous for having a large section of rebuilt and restored structures from the Colonial period. Even that place pales in comparison to any random small town in France, Germany, Spain, Italy, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
True, much of Europe has been knocked down and rebuilt. However that is no different than the US. Americans knock down old buildings and put new ones over them far more often than Europeans do, simply because we don't think many of our buildings are historical in any way. The simple fact that Nash townhouses in London are Grade 2 listed structures already goes far beyond the history of most structures in the US. Sure, 90% of buildings in London are relatively new, but a good deal of that other 10% is older than our entire country.
From an American perspective, what is truly amazing about Europe is that your historical buildings are still used for practical purposes. People live in 200+ year old homes and work in 200+ year old offices. And don't get me started on the stupendous number of churches, castles, palaces, and miscellaneous ruins scattered about the countryside, many of which were built before Columbus ever set sail. In the US, structures that old tend to be turned into museums or otherwise taken out of use as normal facilities. This is a reflection of how truly rare they are. It's really not that surprising, because most early American structures were built out of wood. Wood does not last long. All you need to do is wander through the French Quarter of New Orleans. That area has some of the oldest wooden buildings on the continent, and they look BAD. I sure wouldn't want to live in them, and they stink to high hell. Europeans have been building out of stone for a very long time, and that has made their structures last.
If you think that Europe has no more history in it than the US, that's probably because you grew up with that history all around you and don't notice it as much. Americans notice it all, because we don't have it over here. At least, not like you do. It's not the individual buildings that give it the historical feel, it's the entire city, the entire country, indeed the entire continent.
Small towns breath history indeed. :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Many smaller cities can be historical as a city as a whole: Florence, Bruges, Amsterdam, Rome, many in Britain too. Each one a former metropole. Here one can sense history.
There are also old cities, that really consist of modern buildings interpersed with a collection of old monuments. This makes the city appear very old, when most of it is new: Paris, London, Vienna, Barcelona, Rome.
Then there are plain modern cities that simply look like they're old: Munich, Budapest, Berlin, Rome.
It is a matter of taste, of preference maybe. The US/Euro view of history I must respectfully leave for another thread, however interesting.
Postcard version of London. There is nothing in the picure below that precedes the 19th century:
https://img194.imageshack.us/img194/4571/londono.jpg
Very true. I prefer small town (rural is not the proper word) Europe to the bigger cities. One of my goals in life is to be able to retire to a small town with good farmer's markets in Britain or France.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Also true, but there's almost nothing in the entire US which pre-dates the 19th century either. The only things that are that old are on the East Coast, mainly small government buildings and townhalls in places like Boston and Philadelphia. Washington DC, our capital and the home of most of our national museums and monuments, wasn't even founded until the 1790s. The White House wasn't finished until 1800 and the impressive Capital building wasn't finished (in its current form) until the 1860s! Ask any American what they consider to be their 'cultural' buildings, and you'll get a list that looks something like this:Quote:
Postcard version of London. There is nothing in the picure below that precedes the 19th century:
White House (1800)
Capital Building (1811 and 1863)
Empire State Building (1931)
Golden Gate Bridge (1937)
Brooklyn Bridge (1883)
Hoover Dam (1936)
Sears Tower (1973)
Times Square, NYC
Hollywood, CA
Sure, we have stuff like Independence Hall and Faneuil Hall, but they aren't often at the top of the list when Americans think about the iconic symbols of this country. Our symbols are often things of industrial history, not cultural history. Menlo Park (Edison) and Dearborn, Michigan (Ford) are major tourist sites!
I spent about 5 days in London a number of years ago. To me, the Tower was by far the most memorable experience from my time there. Followed closely by the British Museum. :2thumbsup:
I don't know. I guess it depends on whose eyes you're looking through in regards to feeling the history of an area... having grown up, and living in a place where its mostly wilderness, and you're out hiking and stumble upon random artifacts like an arrowhead, or cave painting you get a sense of just how new you are to this area. Sure, we've been here a little awhile, but we weren't the first by far, some of those paintings you see that are over 3,000 years old just reinforce that sense of newness..
EDIT: As for London, I really enjoyed Trafalgar Square and the British Museum.
Said 'imho'. There is just something trashy about London I can't stand. What should be a world class city is............. I dunno London and me don't click. War museum is indeed cool by the way.
Dont listen to anyone who says bad things about London. They are just jealous :laugh4:
I love this city.
My favourite place is the Natural History museum. An amazing building and an amazing collection , I would spend many hours in each visit and would go there often while living in London.
There is no way you can visit all museums and sights in less than a month. Just immerse yourself into the atmosphere of London, take the tube and visit anything that sounds like fun.
I ve lived in many places, and I ve only lived in London for a year or so but it is the best place to be :2thumbsup:
Cities in general are terrible places to be, so claiming to be the best of something terrible isn't something to be proud of, if you want to see what a country is really like then go to the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by PBI
In Australia small towns that aren't rural are called regional. That sounds like a good life goal you've got there, I personally would like to spend my far distant retirement years traveling around Australia in a winnebago.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Was it Oscar Wilde who said: "When a man is tired of London, he's tired of life."?
Haven't actually been there myself yet, which is silly as i live a 45 min flight away. So will have to correct that mistake eventually.
Samuel Johnson. He was wrong BTW. :wink:
TinCow, thank you for patching the balloon Louis so rudely burst. :laugh4:
[inappropriate, Lemur]
???Quote:
Originally Posted by John-117
It's cool man. It's just the drugs kikking in.......:wings:
As a student of history I'm quite familiar with the British and the war musuem. But I was also thinking of doing some more different things as well. However as I'm going with my gf, and she has yet to see London, we'll go to some classics like tower as well.
Things we'd probably do:
Tate Modern, the British museum (as it's free anyway no?), A bicycle tour through London, going to a musical, Harrods (you know women...), Picadilly, probably wander around at some places like nothing hill (she's Hugh Grand fan gah! Though I bet the war museum would be wast of our time gah! ~;))
But I'd also like to do more different things (which don't include prostitutes) and as Louis said it: "barge in and soak up the atmosphere". That and try to stay away from shops and shopping streets and malls before it's too late.
Going to see what this dickens tour is.
Of course more suggestions or tips are still welcome!
The V&A is also an excellent museum. It feels like the attic of the British Museum, for all the great things that wouldn't fit in there. Loaded with random excellent stuff pretty much everywhere. They have a truly superb section on arms and armor, with a great East Asian collection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
http://www.vam.ac.uk/
London is an awesome city, there are some shitty areas, but all in all it's a great place. Visit the museums, some very nice presentations are there, and Imperial War Museum is a must-see for a total war fan!
I find it hilarious when Westerners boast about their drinking capacity. Come to Budapest, if you want to see how drinking should be done in a mature, masculine way. Or Moscow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
May I recommend Liberty department store? Possible more fashionable, certainly more architecturally interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by GertGregoor
http://londonarchitecture.co.uk/Building.php?ID=265
-~~-~~-~~((o0o))~~-~~-~~-
Buckingham Palace:Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
The interior - mainly late 19th century
The exterior 1913
Houses of Parliament 1836-1868Quote:
Capital Building (1811 and 1863)
Tower Bridge 1894Quote:
Brooklyn Bridge (1883)
See what I mean? :beam:
In the nineteenth century, European states created themselves a past. At the same time, America created itself a future.
If Philadelphia, New York and San Fransisco had wanted too, they could've looked like Munich, Berlin and Budapest respectively. Each of these European cities were still small villages at the time these US cities were founded. The demographic development of these cities on both sides of the Atlantic coincided closely, from small settlement in 1750 to major city by 1900.
The difference in looks between these contemporaneous American and European cities is explained by political and planological will, not by their age. By the dominance of either public or private development. The former in Europe, the latter in North America.
Likewise, Washington could've looked like Paris.
The Enlightenment's ideals of city planning were first put into in practice in Bordeaux's late 18th century renovation. Shortly after, Pierre Charles L’Enfant's developed these ideals into large scale practise in his plan for Washington. Washington was mostly modelled after this. And fully half a century later, Haussman's Paris was modelled after this (planned) Washington. Meanwhile, Washington's public development very soon after its founding was squandered to private development.
The different development has been a matter of political and planological will, not of historical age.
Imagine, if you will, what New Orleans could've looked like if the French-Spanish-Carribean style could've been developed to its full potential. Development stopped after New Orleans was sold to the US in 1803, after which little of interest was build anymore. The city's development now continued in the typical American manner: all energy devoted to private luxury, in absence of public elegance and beauty.
NO's could've rivalled the prettiest of Mediterranean Europe's historical cities otherwise. Lisbon was rebuild completely after 1755 - the same period that NO was build. New Orleans would be its rival today, equalling Lisbon in age and grace - if only New Orleans would have wanted to.
Québec City too, if only it wanted too, could've looked like an old European city, complete with city walls, if only it would've had the will not to destroy the old, and had given preference to public development over private development. Wait...it did and so it does look like a historic city:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Paris? pah! A poor imitation of Southport. It's true. :laugh4:
In respect to Louis's post, this art-deco masterpiece of architecture, if there is anything like it I would like to know.
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v.../chryslerb.jpg
Fragony, it is made out of Legos (R). :yes:
no frickin way that is so cool!!
I don't disagree with your points as a whole (somewhat, perhaps), but Munich was capital of Bavaria since 1506ish, Berlin I can somewhat grant you as it only had a population of around 17,500 in 1685 (still not a village by my definition), but in the late 1600s it was also extremely important. Keep in mind also that by 1710 the population of Berlin had more than tripled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Well 'a' Dickens Tour, not 'the' Dickens tour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moros
I rather like Dickens' works itself. He is also synonymous with a specific London. Dark, broody, Victorian. I'd love to be guided around by a guide (book or person) in this London. Not in the footsteps of the man himself, but in the London of his age.
If this London doesn't live in your imagination, it might not be all that interesting. Then again, perhaps it is, and you can get caught up in it.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Well I'd challenge you happily. And every other .orger that is. Though I'm rather small and skinny, I can drink beer without having to swallow and I'm trained at drinking a lot too. I'm quite sure I'm one of the best drinkers on the .org when it comes to beer, if not he best drinker. Whiskey, Wodka,... aren't my thing though as I can't calculate how much and how fast I can drink those as I'm used to beer. Though I'd have no problem to hold a game to drink the most duvels in night out at the bar.Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerWizard
I'll come too! You Hungarian sissies can't handle your beer. You girls should drink sparkly pink sodas instead.Quote:
Well I'd challenge you happily. And every other .orger that is. I can drink beer without having to swallow and I'm trained at drinking a lot tooQuote:
Come to Budapest, if you want to see how drinking should be done in a mature, masculine way. Or Moscow.
I myself, by contrast, can easily manage at least six beers a night. :yes: :smug:
I bet they're those little wussy stubbies not pints though. I'll come as well, just as long as someone else is buying. I've lived in Yorkshire too long to start putting my hand in my pocket now. :laugh4:
Lived here for a while, not that many great sights.
Of those I personally liked were Tower of London, westminster, the theater shows.
Other than that, you can probably find just about any food and shops here.