What should one do in London?

[InsaneApache]

What should one do in London?

Get the **** out as fast as possible, it's a ******* ********.

trust me.

[Fragony]

What IA says. The tower is cool if you REALLY have to. Otherwise, hijack the plane and tell the pilot to land in Dublin.

[Gregoshi]

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?

[Hooahguy]

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.

[Lemur]

Drink heavily. That's what the locals do. When in Rome, etc.

[Megas Methuselah]

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.

[Beefy187]

Watch some soccer match.... Though its off season now.

[Moros]

Drink heavily. That's what the locals do. When in Rome, etc.

Gah! being Belgian, I'll rather have to teach them what drinking heavily really means!

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!?

[Fragony]

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.

[PowerWizard]

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!

Gah! being Belgian, I'll rather have to teach them what drinking heavily really means!

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

the sensation that I could feel the rich history - old history. Not like Gettysburg or Valley Forge - much older. I remember walking along the Parliament building and seeing the statue of Richard the Lionheart

Sorry for bursting romantic views of the world, but this is one of my pet peeves.

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?'

[TinCow]

Sorry for bursting romantic views of the world, but this is one of my pet peeves.

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 Chicago was 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.

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.

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

any random small town in France, Germany, Spain, Italy, etc.

Small towns breath history indeed.

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:

[TinCow]

Small towns breath history indeed.

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.

Postcard version of London. There is nothing in the picure below that precedes the 19th century:

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:

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!