What should one do in London?

[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!

[Xiahou]

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.

[Samurai Waki]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[rasoforos]

Dont listen to anyone who says bad things about London. They are just jealous

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

[miotas]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[SwordsMaster]

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.

[InsaneApache]

Samuel Johnson. He was wrong BTW.

[Gregoshi]

TinCow, thank you for patching the balloon Louis so rudely burst.

[Prussian to the Iron]

[inappropriate, Lemur]

[Beskar]

[inappropriate, Lemur]

???

[Moros]

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!

[FactionHeir]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Harrods (you know women...)

May I recommend Liberty department store? Possible more fashionable, certainly more architecturally interesting.

http://londonarchitecture.co.uk/Building.php?ID=265

-~~-~~-~~((o0o))~~-~~-~~-

White House (1800)

Buckingham Palace:
The interior - mainly late 19th century
The exterior 1913

Capital Building (1811 and 1863)

Houses of Parliament 1836-1868

Brooklyn Bridge (1883)

Tower Bridge 1894


See what I mean?


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: 

[InsaneApache]

Paris? pah! A poor imitation of Southport. It's true.

[Fragony]

In respect to Louis's post, this art-deco masterpiece of architecture, if there is anything like it I would like to know.

[Gregoshi]

Fragony, it is made out of Legos (R).

[Prussian to the Iron]

no frickin way that is so cool!!

[Louis VI the Fat]

Going to see what this dickens tour is.

Well 'a' Dickens Tour, not 'the' Dickens tour.

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: 

In respect to Louis's post, this art-deco masterpiece of architecture, if there is anything like it I would like to know.

Gorgeous.

American cities shouldn't look European. Europe already exists. US cities ought to be bustling, energetic, constantly reinventing themselves. And of course, full of skyscrapers - temples of capitalism reaching out to the heavens as much as the church towers of Mediaeval Europe before them.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

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.