Cobblestones and Medieval Atmosphere in London?
Dec 14th, 2006, 07:25 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cobblestones and Medieval Atmosphere in London?
My understanding is that due to the heavy bombing during WWII, London was rebuilt with modern buildings out of necessity. Where would you say the best pockets of London's past can be found?
I am watching some old Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies in preparation for my trip and now I am dreaming of a happy maze of cobblestone streets....any suggestions?
Cheers,
Murphy
I am watching some old Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies in preparation for my trip and now I am dreaming of a happy maze of cobblestone streets....any suggestions?
Cheers,
Murphy
Dec 14th, 2006, 10:03 PM
#2
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which past are you looking for?
There isn't, wasn't when the Basil Rathbone films were shot, and wasn't when Conan Doyle wrote Sherlock Holmes, any significant area of medieval (pre 1485 is the usual definition) streets with small-scale medieval buildings. Both the stories and the films are set in streets that had been built during the 18th and 19th century.
London does have a reasonable smattering of pre-16th century buildings, but they're mostly monumental, like the Tower or Westminster Abbey, or at any rate reasonably substantial, like the church of St Bartholemew in the City. Generally, the area round the monumental bits isn't terribly quaint, and over the past thousand or so years the street pattern round the Tower and the Abbey in particular has been heavily savaged, and most of the Western part of central London was country till relatively recently (1650 and later) anyway.
But apart from the area round the Tower, most of the street pattern in The City (the eastern part of the central area, self-governing since 885 and now mostlty the financial district) has been unchanged since The City began to be revived in the ninth century - and that revival to a large extent followed the streets laid down by the Romans. So although the buildings get replaced every half century or so (and there are practically no cobblestones anywhere), you get a pleasant sense of history in a lot of the streets round St Bartholemew's. But most City churches were destroyed in 1666.
If you're happy with relatively new-fangled (1700 and later) stuff though, it's just not true that Hitler seriously deprived London of its buildings. While he (and the far more destructive planners of the 1950s and 1960s) took a lot away, there are still huge swathes of London practically untouched by anything worse than road resurfacing, crass road signage and half the GNP of China being poured into building refurbishment and maintenance.
Bloomsbury, for example, has some horrid newish buildings (mostly hotels), but they're surrounded by acres and acres of squares Conan Doyle would easily recognise. Half a mile north of the Euston Rd (the northern boundary of the central area) early 19th century housing, in the style we call Georgian (though mostly built just after George IV died), goes on for miles.
Most importantly, at any rate to a Londoner, is that we don't really accept the notion of "pockets of the past". London wasn't set up as a national capital: it was established to protect trade between the English hinterland and the rest of the known world. That's what it's been here for ever since, with a few centuries off between 400 and 900.
So almost everything built has been constantly messed about with over the centuries. The act of messing about about with things is what London's all about. We've never held with grand plans, like Paris, or preserving places in aspic. Walk down practically any street with a serious guide book (the Encyclopedia of London, or the relevant volume of Pevsner, though both substitute for weight training jolly well) and you'll never be more than a few feet from at least 250 years of history.
There isn't, wasn't when the Basil Rathbone films were shot, and wasn't when Conan Doyle wrote Sherlock Holmes, any significant area of medieval (pre 1485 is the usual definition) streets with small-scale medieval buildings. Both the stories and the films are set in streets that had been built during the 18th and 19th century.
London does have a reasonable smattering of pre-16th century buildings, but they're mostly monumental, like the Tower or Westminster Abbey, or at any rate reasonably substantial, like the church of St Bartholemew in the City. Generally, the area round the monumental bits isn't terribly quaint, and over the past thousand or so years the street pattern round the Tower and the Abbey in particular has been heavily savaged, and most of the Western part of central London was country till relatively recently (1650 and later) anyway.
But apart from the area round the Tower, most of the street pattern in The City (the eastern part of the central area, self-governing since 885 and now mostlty the financial district) has been unchanged since The City began to be revived in the ninth century - and that revival to a large extent followed the streets laid down by the Romans. So although the buildings get replaced every half century or so (and there are practically no cobblestones anywhere), you get a pleasant sense of history in a lot of the streets round St Bartholemew's. But most City churches were destroyed in 1666.
If you're happy with relatively new-fangled (1700 and later) stuff though, it's just not true that Hitler seriously deprived London of its buildings. While he (and the far more destructive planners of the 1950s and 1960s) took a lot away, there are still huge swathes of London practically untouched by anything worse than road resurfacing, crass road signage and half the GNP of China being poured into building refurbishment and maintenance.
Bloomsbury, for example, has some horrid newish buildings (mostly hotels), but they're surrounded by acres and acres of squares Conan Doyle would easily recognise. Half a mile north of the Euston Rd (the northern boundary of the central area) early 19th century housing, in the style we call Georgian (though mostly built just after George IV died), goes on for miles.
Most importantly, at any rate to a Londoner, is that we don't really accept the notion of "pockets of the past". London wasn't set up as a national capital: it was established to protect trade between the English hinterland and the rest of the known world. That's what it's been here for ever since, with a few centuries off between 400 and 900.
So almost everything built has been constantly messed about with over the centuries. The act of messing about about with things is what London's all about. We've never held with grand plans, like Paris, or preserving places in aspic. Walk down practically any street with a serious guide book (the Encyclopedia of London, or the relevant volume of Pevsner, though both substitute for weight training jolly well) and you'll never be more than a few feet from at least 250 years of history.
Dec 14th, 2006, 11:34 PM
#3
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 5,056
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's plenty of history left in London, it certainly isn't just a post-1940s city. But as flanner said, you won't find perfectly preserved neighbourhoods of just one period, or a medieval 'centre' for example like you might find in some European cities.
Londoners have been pulling things down, building on top of them, adding bits on and amending stuff for the last couple of thousand years as this has always been a heavily working city.
In any case, the 'Great Fire of London' in 1666 was responsible for wiping out much of the very old stuff, not the second world war. There was a first 'Great Fire of London' in 1212 too that most people haven't heard of, that destroyed much of the city at that point too, killing 3000 people in the process.
But you will find a wide range of buildings and areas all mixed together. For creepy Victorian atmosphere along the lines of Sherlock Homes I suggest you go to Wapping underground station. It creeps the hell out of me as it is a tiny little old brick tunnel with a tiny tiny little narrow platform and then you climb up a dark and cobwebby iron spiral staircase to get to street level. When you get to the street you'll be in a docklands area of victorian buildings, now mostly converted to trendy apartments, but the streets and exteriors still have that atmosphere. I don't think it has cobblestones though. ;-)
Londoners have been pulling things down, building on top of them, adding bits on and amending stuff for the last couple of thousand years as this has always been a heavily working city.
In any case, the 'Great Fire of London' in 1666 was responsible for wiping out much of the very old stuff, not the second world war. There was a first 'Great Fire of London' in 1212 too that most people haven't heard of, that destroyed much of the city at that point too, killing 3000 people in the process.
But you will find a wide range of buildings and areas all mixed together. For creepy Victorian atmosphere along the lines of Sherlock Homes I suggest you go to Wapping underground station. It creeps the hell out of me as it is a tiny little old brick tunnel with a tiny tiny little narrow platform and then you climb up a dark and cobwebby iron spiral staircase to get to street level. When you get to the street you'll be in a docklands area of victorian buildings, now mostly converted to trendy apartments, but the streets and exteriors still have that atmosphere. I don't think it has cobblestones though. ;-)
Dec 15th, 2006, 12:00 AM
#4
A morning spent around the Temple [where all the barristers have their Chambers - try watching "Rumpole"] avoiding the Da vinci crowds around the Temple Church, might be very interesting for you. Dress smartish, and you can probably blag your way into Middle Temple Hall for lunch! [but don't quote me].
Dec 15th, 2006, 12:18 AM
#5
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd also suggest legal London.
Yes, the Temple but also Lincolns Inn and
Gray’s Inn.
London walks http://www.walks.com/
do a tour of the Inns of Court but they don't say which ones they visit.
Yes, the Temple but also Lincolns Inn and
Gray’s Inn.
London walks http://www.walks.com/
do a tour of the Inns of Court but they don't say which ones they visit.
Dec 15th, 2006, 01:04 AM
#6
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,969
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The river Thames is pronounced Temz, while the town of Thame is pronounced Tame.
As mentioned above, Norwich is Norridge, while Ipswich is Ip-switch. Just up the coast from Ipswich is the lovely old fishing town of Aldeburgh, pronounced Ald-bruh.
As mentioned above, Norwich is Norridge, while Ipswich is Ip-switch. Just up the coast from Ipswich is the lovely old fishing town of Aldeburgh, pronounced Ald-bruh.
Dec 15th, 2006, 01:19 AM
#7
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two points I should have added:
It's a truism of course that civilisation stops the moment you go south of the Thames. But the first hundred yards or so back from the river on the South Bank, between Southwark and London bridges, has quite a bit of - even occasionally cobbled - atmosphere. Especially, if you look in the right direction and shield your eyes from some of the view, around what's now Southwark Anglican cathedral.
For many of us, what stick out most about the Basil Rathbone films are the foggy dockland scenes. Successive Clean Air Acts have taken away the fog, and Hitler, the planners, containerisation and EU membership have eliminated London's docks altogether. But, apart from Nona's (endorsed) Wapping suggestion, there's a huge mass of restored dock warehouses for nigh on a mile east of Tower Bridge on the South Bank. By day, personally I find them twee, over-restored and soulless (though lots of people have chosen to live there, and the properties aren't cheap). But at night, especially if it's raining, you really can kid yourself you're on a Holmes film set. And the area can be seriously creepy.
It's a truism of course that civilisation stops the moment you go south of the Thames. But the first hundred yards or so back from the river on the South Bank, between Southwark and London bridges, has quite a bit of - even occasionally cobbled - atmosphere. Especially, if you look in the right direction and shield your eyes from some of the view, around what's now Southwark Anglican cathedral.
For many of us, what stick out most about the Basil Rathbone films are the foggy dockland scenes. Successive Clean Air Acts have taken away the fog, and Hitler, the planners, containerisation and EU membership have eliminated London's docks altogether. But, apart from Nona's (endorsed) Wapping suggestion, there's a huge mass of restored dock warehouses for nigh on a mile east of Tower Bridge on the South Bank. By day, personally I find them twee, over-restored and soulless (though lots of people have chosen to live there, and the properties aren't cheap). But at night, especially if it's raining, you really can kid yourself you're on a Holmes film set. And the area can be seriously creepy.
Dec 15th, 2006, 03:05 AM
#9
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 17,549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I recall when they recently re-surfaced part of Monmouth Street in Covent Garden some cobblestones were added. The project drove some rats into nearby hotels but, of course, that's one thing often left out of movies!
Dec 15th, 2006, 07:18 AM
#15
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want quaint movie land sort of stuff London is not the best place to find it. In a way, the UK is not the best place full stop - though there's Durham, York, Chester, and countless small villages that do repay the effort.
London is not England and England is not the UK.
Having said that London is an ancient, ancient city but you need to have that sense of what went before - and your imagination in gear - and that comes from being informed. Read up.
If you want cobbles and stuff go to Spain, Italy or even France (but don't mention the war - thx J Cleese) - or Mexico.
But seeing as you are going to London why not check out the modern buildings?
The Gherkin, the Sainsbury Wing of the National art gallery, Tate Modern - even the Battersea Power Stn.
Loads and loads to explore - don't spend too much time looking for what isn't there.
London is not England and England is not the UK.
Having said that London is an ancient, ancient city but you need to have that sense of what went before - and your imagination in gear - and that comes from being informed. Read up.
If you want cobbles and stuff go to Spain, Italy or even France (but don't mention the war - thx J Cleese) - or Mexico.
But seeing as you are going to London why not check out the modern buildings?
The Gherkin, the Sainsbury Wing of the National art gallery, Tate Modern - even the Battersea Power Stn.
Loads and loads to explore - don't spend too much time looking for what isn't there.
Dec 15th, 2006, 07:26 AM
#16
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For an idea of the history and continuity of London, I'd recommend "London: the biography" by Peter Ackroyd
There's an extract at http://tinyurl.com/y2yuzg
There's an extract at http://tinyurl.com/y2yuzg
Dec 15th, 2006, 07:34 AM
#17
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<OK..what about "wonderfully old fashioned?">
No no no - smacks of being quaint.
As fuzzylogic says:
<don't spend too much time looking for what isn't there> - so i guess as per London we need not look for a euphemism for the world quaint.
but fun to think of one!
No no no - smacks of being quaint.
As fuzzylogic says:
<don't spend too much time looking for what isn't there> - so i guess as per London we need not look for a euphemism for the world quaint.
but fun to think of one!
Dec 15th, 2006, 08:12 AM
#18
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modernity challenged?
Although I do like cities with a feel that's wrapped around a certain era, London is a different situation. The thing I like most about London is that it still feels like a living changing city, with little pieces, good and bad, from throughout history. It's fun to check out different areas, but also step back and look at the city as a whole as well.
Dec 15th, 2006, 09:42 AM
#19
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks everyone for the responses. I embarassingly got my centuries mixed up - I don't know how I made the connection between Sherlock Holmes and medieval London 
quot;>
Lots of great information here, thanks again.
Good Travels,
Murphy
quot;> Lots of great information here, thanks again.
Good Travels,
Murphy
Dec 15th, 2006, 09:52 AM
#20
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<Modernity challenged?> I like that - for one it could apply to many of the post-WWII blah buildings that were put up and which cause the likes of Prince Charles to wax about the terrible architecture. But to be fair in the past decade with the avant-garde unique buildings in the City of London and Canary Wharf and the new City Hall perhaps that will be no longer true.
