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.
We were in London for 4 days 3 nights in September then took the Euro Star to Paris for 2 days and 2 nights. We didn't get to do everything we wanted to in either city and in the end I wish we had just stayed in London. Some of it was not being experienced with either area and some of our plans took longer than we anticipated they would. Example The Tower of London is really an all day thing when you figure in travel to it whether that be boat or cab etc. Everything there is to actually see there. The crowds moving through there. Whether you wanted a guided tour or not etc. This applies to everything of course. In Paris being there for only two days we really had to take advantage of the hop on hop off buses to see everything we wanted. Paris was the end of a 3 week trip for us that started in Scotland so admittedly on my part I was at the point where I was ready to be home.
Would you recommend 7 full days in London OR: 4 full days in London, 1 travel day, then 2 full days in Paris? Going this winter.
I'm really torn on this.
We're still relatively young, but this might be our last major vacation for several years (guess why....) so I want to make it count.
On the one hand, my wife is a major English history buff so maybe we should really maximize London & surrounding areas. She can start naming castles and queens, etc. Also, we keep hearing how London is this magnificent city.
On the other hand, Paris is "Paris." It has all these iconic landmarks and we'll finally get to use that French we learned in school . Although I've heard the city isn't as nice as London and has gone very much downhill in the past several years. Can I live without possibly ever seeing Paris? Maybe yes, maybe no.
Any advice is appreciated.
(BTW, we're originally from New York and have been to Barcelona and Rome if that helps in describing the cities....)
I'd do both cities. However, I don't quite understand your concern about wasting a full day traveling between the two cities. Do you know that you can get from London (St. Pancras) to Paris (Gare du Nord) in under two and one-half hours by the Eurostar train?
I see you having adequate time to see the major sites in both cities if you do it efficiently.
I'd do both cities. However, I don't quite understand your concern about wasting a full day traveling between the two cities. Do you know that you can get from London (St. Pancras) to Paris (Gare du Nord) in under two and one-half hours by the Eurostar train?
I see you having adequate time to see the major sites in both cities if you do it efficiently.
It's 2 hours 16 minutes, and tickets start at £29 ($37 USD) single and £58 ($74 USD) return.
These are some of the sites I recommend in London:
Buckingham Palace
Big Ben
Houses of Parliament
The London Eye
Tower of London
The British Museum
Westminster Abbey
Covent Garden
Trafalgar Square
Piccadilly Circus
Oxford Circus
Regent Street
Kensington Gardens
For me, also the original Hard Rock Cafe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jkgourmet
Glad you've made your final arrangements. Now the fun part - planning your trip.
The above list is pretty inclusive, hitting all The tourist and historical attractions in the guidebooks. Personally, I think some are way overblown, but I admit that I often purposely avoid touristy places. Instead of Hard Rock Cafe, I'd be sitting in a pub someplace where I'm likely to be the only one without an English accent. That's just MY preferences. In any event, several things on The above list are just a quick walkthrough.
So - a few suggestions:
If you have any interest at all in WWII history, add the Churchill War Room to your list.
Schedule a time to see the Changing of the Guard at the Palace. Yeah, it's touristy, but it's quite an affair - and fun. Arrive EARLY and be prepared to stand.
Add Harrod's to your list - specifically, the food hall in the basement.
Do a day out of London. Not Stonehenge. If your into literature and history, Cambridge or Oxford (don't try to do both). If you enjoy charm and more of a village type atmosphere, I'd suggest Bath. All are easily accessible by train, and the train ride is cool - some very nice scenery.
Hampton Court Palace is lovely, but a bit off the beaten path.
Fish and Chips shop - a REAL one, where they serve it in unprinted newspaper (though I miss the printed newspaper days).
Get a Rick Steve's guidebook. That will offer up many ideas for things that are REAL London (and outskirts) rather than just the tourist sites.
My $.02:
Have high tea at a stately, older hotel.
Enjoy the best South Asian cuisine outside of the subcontinent. My favorite places are around Marble Arch.
Try a chicken shop.
Shop (or window shop) on Bond St.
Visit the Courtould Gallery.
Between the two I would choose London for sure but Paris isn't too far away for a daytrip, personally though you need to 'come back' to see Paris, both cities need a bit of time to discover and you wouldn't be doing either justice by trying to do them both in one vacation (Just in my opinion). Besides only doing one city this time gives you an excuse to have another holiday!
I have been to Paris about 7 times now and have lived in London for at least 5 years, and I'd also suggest you do both -- perhaps 4 days in London and 3 days in Paris.
While big bus tours ply their trade in both cities, the joys of both cities lie in discovering them by foot. And don't limit yourself by just visiting the popular tourist destinations. London and Paris are much more than their icons. There are so many hidden nooks and crannies, like charming alleyways waiting to be discovered. Both have amazing public spaces where you can just unwind, people-watch, and take in the vibrant street life.
Also understand that cities in Europe are made up of self-contained walkable neighbourhoods (even in the suburbs) and each of them have their own distinct atmosphere. In London for example, there are neighbourhoods ranging from posh (Mayfair) to scruffy but trendy (Shoreditch), from industrial-chic (Bermondsey) to small-town chic (Primrose Hill), from the Old World (Hampstead) to the Modern World (Crossharbour).
And then there's the nightlife, particularly in London -- from pub quizzes where you can win cash prizes, to musicals and plays, to symphonies and orchestras, to ballet and the opera, to football matches and concerts, to jazz and other live music, to overnight movie marathons at the Prince Charles cinema, and of course, to the legendary superclubs.
Even seven days will not be enough for London, but you can always come back. Paris will be the same.
It's 2 hours 16 minutes, and tickets start at £29 ($37 USD) single and £58 ($74 USD) return.
Yep. Booked way in advance, there's no reason why you can't do a night or two in Paris as part of a London trip. You can leave most of your bags at your London hotel and go ultra-light. St Pancras and Gare du Nord are both close to everything. Using airports at least doubles your door-to-door travel time.
My question is the 7 day part. I have done plenty of short business trips to Europe in my life but I don't think I've ever held a leisure trip to Europe to 7 days. My usual minimum is more like 9 or 10 nights.
30+ Years ago, I did both spending about 3 days in each. BUT when we traveled from London to Paris, we did it On the Hovercraft. The Hovercraft and related train trips remain one of my very favorite travel experiences - and I'm lucky to have done A LOT of traveling. It was unique, to say the least.
My opinion is do both cities. As you age and/or start carting children on vacations, it gets more complicated and difficult. I would fly into one city and depart from the other. There is no good reason to waste previous time doing the transfer TWICE.
Pick your hotel locations carefully.
I second Jkgourmet. That's a perfect plan.
If you limited yourself to only one of the cities, you may regret because life happens and it may be a decade or longer before you get back, if ever. Once you're in one city, you're closer to the other than you are to home so might as well visit both before coming back home.
I'm saying this as a person who has been to London (2 yrs ago and I fell in love with it - I'm now a self proclaimed Anglophile) but have not been to Paris yet. A variety of life happen moments have come up and delayed my return to Europe. That's why I agree, if you have the option of visiting both, do it.
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.
. Although I've heard the city isn't as nice as London and has gone very much downhill in the past several years. Can I live without possibly ever seeing Paris? Maybe yes, maybe no.
I agree
