Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a Londoner living in Paris, I'm interested to hear what others who've had experience in both cities?
I find many of London's huge French community seem to prefer London. The Brits/Irish over here seem split on the issue: many love it, but some yearn to be back over the channel - only their spouses/jobs keep them in Paris.
I for one think Paris has the edge: you can do everything you can do in London - shop, eat out, party, visit galleries, beautiful parks etc - only it's just a little more human in size. You can walk most of the city in a couple of hours. There's fresh bread and incredible greengrocers on every corner - and I find the "up and coming east" (eg Belleville, Oberkampf) less pretentious and more chilled out than its London counterpart. You can sit and chat the night away with a bottle of red if you like, whereas in London your options after 11.30pm are more limited unless you want to get wrecked in a club. And the climate is (marginally) better.
What I don't like compared to London is the price of a drink in bars and the miserable little one-person bedsits everyone seems to live in (as opposed to lively flatshares in London). Oh and the snooty 16th arrondissement ladies with their little pathetic dogs!
I also think the poverty you see in Paris is regrettable - the armies of homeless you see bedding down for the night on pavements, and the terrifying HLM (council estates/housing projects) in the northern suburbs are on a scale that's way worse than in the UK. And they always say that the French welfare state is better than Britain's: I think the streets of Paris tell a different story.
However, I think if you're lucky enough to have a job and a fair middle- class existence, Paris is hard to beat.
I am French and much prefer Paris. I think Paris is for my tastes more beautiful, far more coherent Architecturally, more human in size, you can walk around it a lot easier in terms of most things of interest being within walking distance. Because it was very fortunate and was not bombed during WW2 it does not have the vast swathes of hideous 50s,60, 70s etc... architecture and its skyline is to me esthetically far more pleasing.
I visit London from Oxford on a regular basis but I find it an exhausting city, beautiful and fascinating in parts truly hideous and dull in others. I go for the Museums, Art Galleries , the Theatre and the Opera but am always glad to come home. Leaving London to me is like finally taking off some tight shoes you have on all evening. I always feel provincial in London which does not happen in Paris. It is as though everyone as a purpose, must fulfill it really fast and everything seems more rushed and less leisurely.
I adore the fact that you have such fabulous city Parks though, and that the suburbs are on the whole much nicer than Paris'. Paris has some truly monstrous "cites dortoirs" which are either dull as ditch water or hideous and full of deprivation and disconnected people which of course tourists never see. In London it seems this side is more obvious and "inner city" rather than hidden away and forgotten about.
London is vibrant but then again so is Paris and for someone like myself who adores Architecture, Museums etc... on the whole I prefer Paris. I miss Paris ( I used to live there) but I don't think I would ever miss London. Give me Edinburgh anytime.
I would miss the House of Commons, Big Ben, Tower Bridge and the Parks and a couple of Museums but would never miss the atmosphere or "presence" of it.
I suppose the visual aspect is really important to me and London looks "bitty" and has too many unsympathetic buildings tagged on areas which should be lovely. I always despair in the "City" of what must have been a fascinating area at one point ( the most fascinating in London )with its medieval quarters, churches and so much fabulous history, how little is left and how much is taken up by crappy modern architecture which is so soul-less and bland. Readind the names of little lanes and streets alone in the old city and the area opposite just South of the River conveys a whole forgotten history of tanners, prostitutes, fishmongers etc... obliterated and now filled up by what I deem urban junk.
Paris lost most of its historical quarters and during the 19th century became more homogenised but at least the style is to me anyway a pleasing and attractive one, there are virtually no high rise buildings in the city centre and the skyline remains one I can never tire to look at . I like that. I realise others will hate it precisely for that but to me a city must feel liveable and human in scale and London simply does not.
To live in I would have to live somewhere like Hampstead Heath or bits of Muswell Hill which feel more like a town. I don't like huge cities and London has a way of swallowing you up which Paris does not. By Paris I mean within the Peripherique of course. London just feels too big, to sprawling, too much for me. To visit I love it. I would not be keen on living there at all though.
I find many of London's huge French community seem to prefer London.
However, I think if you're lucky enough to have a job and a fair middle-class existence, Paris is hard to beat.
When it comes to nuts and bolts, that's the edge that London has over Paris: London offers more career opportunities, especially in international finance, in a more open jobs market.
Otherwise Paris edges out London, at least in my view, on almost ever other score, as Moosketeer describes.
Just for example, the Louvre beats the British Museum with a stick (though the British Library Museum, albeit tiny in comparison, has some breath-taking gems).
I suppose the visual aspect is really important to me and London looks "bitty" and has too many unsympathetic buildings tagged on areas which should be lovely. I always despair in the "City" of what must have been a fascinating area at one point ( the most fascinating in London )with its medieval quarters, churches and so much fabulous history, how little is left and how much is taken up by crappy modern architecture which is so soul-less and bland. Readind the names of little lanes and streets alone in the old city and the area opposite just South of the River conveys a whole forgotten history of tanners, prostitutes, fishmongers etc... obliterated and now filled up by what I deem urban junk.
I couldn't agree more Mooseketeer. I used to work in the City and find the soulless glass architecture and endless chain coffee shops totally depressing - particularly considering the history of the City! However so much of the City was destroyed in the war I don't think there was much left to preserve in the end.
I couldn't agree more Mooseketeer. I used to work in the City and find the soulless glass architecture and endless chain coffee shops totally depressing - particularly considering the history of the City! However so much of the City was destroyed in the war I don't think there was much left to preserve in the end.
WW2 obviously has much to be blamed for in London's landscape but sadly I also think a certain "brutalist" 60s/70s architecture and bad urban planning which ensured that London looks so utterly disjointed. Architects added the "coup de grace" to the damage done by the Luftwaffe.
WW2 obviously has much to be blamed for in London's landscape but sadly I also think a certain "brutalist" 60s/70s architecture and bad urban planning which ensured that London looks so utterly disjointed. Architects added the "coup de grace" to the damage done by the Luftwaffe.
Agreed - but I think money had something to do with it as well. The super-wealthy London of today is a comparably new phenonimum: remember that in the 50s and 60s, when Europe was rebuilding, England lagged behind France and Germany and even Italy when it came to economic growth. So whereas Germany had the cash to rebuild in a tasteful style, Britain had to just throw up cheap concrete blocks and hope for the best.
Another praise Paris bash London thread? Can we just stop with these idiotic comparisons? They have been done to death a million times and they always have the same result.
I am French and much prefer Paris. I think Paris is for my tastes more beautiful, far more coherent Architecturally, more human in size, you can walk around it a lot easier in terms of most things of interest being within walking distance. Because it was very fortunate and was not bombed during WW2 it does not have the vast swathes of hideous 50s,60, 70s etc... architecture and its skyline is to me esthetically far more pleasing.
I visit London from Oxford on a regular basis but I find it an exhausting city, beautiful and fascinating in parts truly hideous and dull in others. I go for the Museums, Art Galleries , the Theatre and the Opera but am always glad to come home. Leaving London to me is like finally taking off some tight shoes you have on all evening. I always feel provincial in London which does not happen in Paris. It is as though everyone as a purpose, must fulfill it really fast and everything seems more rushed and less leisurely.
I adore the fact that you have such fabulous city Parks though, and that the suburbs are on the whole much nicer than Paris'. Paris has some truly monstrous "cites dortoirs" which are either dull as ditch water or hideous and full of deprivation and disconnected people which of course tourists never see. In London it seems this side is more obvious and "inner city" rather than hidden away and forgotten about.
London is vibrant but then again so is Paris and for someone like myself who adores Architecture, Museums etc... on the whole I prefer Paris. I miss Paris ( I used to live there) but I don't think I would ever miss London. Give me Edinburgh anytime.
I would miss the House of Commons, Big Ben, Tower Bridge and the Parks and a couple of Museums but would never miss the atmosphere or "presence" of it.
I suppose the visual aspect is really important to me and London looks "bitty" and has too many unsympathetic buildings tagged on areas which should be lovely. I always despair in the "City" of what must have been a fascinating area at one point ( the most fascinating in London )with its medieval quarters, churches and so much fabulous history, how little is left and how much is taken up by crappy modern architecture which is so soul-less and bland. Readind the names of little lanes and streets alone in the old city and the area opposite just South of the River conveys a whole forgotten history of tanners, prostitutes, fishmongers etc... obliterated and now filled up by what I deem urban junk.
Paris lost most of its historical quarters and during the 19th century became more homogenised but at least the style is to me anyway a pleasing and attractive one, there are virtually no high rise buildings in the city centre and the skyline remains one I can never tire to look at . I like that. I realise others will hate it precisely for that but to me a city must feel liveable and human in scale and London simply does not.
To live in I would have to live somewhere like Hampstead Heath or bits of Muswell Hill which feel more like a town. I don't like huge cities and London has a way of swallowing you up which Paris does not. By Paris I mean within the Peripherique of course. London just feels too big, to sprawling, too much for me. To visit I love it. I would not be keen on living there at all though.
Oh, come on. I've been to London many times and if you really want to see how the WW2 bombing changed a city, then go to Berlin and other German cities. This is hardly noticable in London. One could say London has much more architectural diversity...
And Paris is just as big, if not bigger, than London.
Yes, Paris got lucky and all the ****ty ghettos aren't inside the beltway, but nevertheless, they still do exist. Plenty of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mooseketeer
WW2 obviously has much to be blamed for in London's landscape but sadly I also think a certain "brutalist" 60s/70s architecture and bad urban planning which ensured that London looks so utterly disjointed. Architects added the "coup de grace" to the damage done by the Luftwaffe.
Again, absolutely no comparison to German cities. London looks just fine to me. More than enough "old building". Seriously. Don't even remember seeing anything pre-WW2... besides some spots here and there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by britinparis
Agreed - but I think money had something to do with it as well. The super-wealthy London of today is a comparably new phenonimum: remember that in the 50s and 60s, when Europe was rebuilding, England lagged behind France and Germany and even Italy when it came to economic growth. So whereas Germany had the cash to rebuild in a tasteful style, Britain had to just throw up cheap concrete blocks and hope for the best.
What do you mean by that? "Tasteful style"? They simply built new buildings. I don't think there was/is a "style. They built just regular buildings. Might want to elaborate on that.
About the architecture, it seems like most people like the unifomity of Haussmannian streets in Paris, but to some they feel very monotonous.
When walking in such a street on an overcast winter day (and the weather is such most of the time), only one word comes to my mind: "dull". The odd building that stands out is welcomed as a relief.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes..again ?
