larrya

My wife and I are planning our first trip to London next September, 5 or 6 nights, we're young 60's and don't mind a lot of walking. We will want to see most of the tourist sites so prefer a location fairly central, walkable or by subway. Close to pubs and restaurants is always a plus. Any suggestions for an area or neighborhood and nice hotels, would like to keep the hotel around 100 pounds per night + or - is alright. Would also appreciate ideas for non touristy things to do. Thanks.
































1

nytraveler

London is expensive and 100 pounds per night is going to be quite basic - or at the end of hell and gone. Considering how large and spread out London is I would go for someplace more modest that is still reasonable central. And near a tube stop. (You don;t want a "subway", which in the UK is a pedestrian underpass under a major intersection not a means of transit.)

Sorry can;t help with specific hotels since that isn't our price point but if you search here for London budget hotels you should find some good suggestions.

As for non touristy - in the time you have you will be able to see only some of the most major sights.

Without knowing your specific interests it's not really possible to suggest non-tourist things for you - what are you most interested in - so we at least have a place to start.

janisj

A few random points/reality check:

• £100 is not very much in London (you'd have a hard time @ $160 in Manhattan too). You might want to check travelodge and Premier Inn websites -- though depending on your dates even some of their properties will be outside your budget) Also check Londontown.com and plug in your dates. You'll be able to find something but you may have to raise your budget to get a nice property. Or consider renting a flat -- you get more space for less money. The places I usually recommend require 7 nights minimum but there are many that will w=rent for shorter periods.

• 5 or 6 days isn't long enough to see 'most' of the major sites but will give you a good overview/taste of London

• A 'subway' in London is a pedestrian undercrossing. You mean the Underground or Tube.

• EVERY part of central London will have lots of pubs and restaurants and will be near a tube station(s) and bus lines.

• What do you consider 'non-touristy'? Most things locals do for fun, tourists do as well,.

janisj

Didin't see nyt's post (we were posting at the same time) - great minds and all that

MmePerdu

I've had good luck with the following private B&B site and you should be able to find a very nice place to stay within your budget, much nicer than if a hotel is the only possibility:

http://www.athomeinlondon.co.uk/

janisj

That is a great site -- (I've used it before but not in several years) Out of curiosity I checked for current rates and in central London most of the B&Bs range from right around £100 per night to nearly £200 per night.

larrya

Thanks for the correction, I'll use the Tube and not a subway.

PalenQ

You can get B&B - a traditional B&B in outer London for perhaps 30 quid each and there are lots of these - but it is about a 30-minute train ride from central (to where I always stay - in the Greenwich district) - even with inflation 40 quid would be very possible and these are real authentic B&Bs - in an old lady (usually)'s house - I always get one right next to an Overground train station with quick access to central London.

Now I would if a first-time visitor rather stay right in Central London - and like janisj says check Travel Lodge and Premier Inns web sites for some properties on some dates that you can afford - these are modern chain hotels with no surprises - kind of like Holiday Inns - you know exactly what you are getting.

MmePerdu

Regarding 'At Home in London', the listings give details on transport so you can gauge how long a journey you'll have to the center from all zones, not just zone 1. There are a number of less expensive places if you consider them all. This site vets all the listings and I doubt you'd be disappointed with any of them. You may, in fact, if your tastes run to local neighborhoods, prefer something convenient but out of the center, despite advice you may get to the contrary. Owners of these places are experienced hosts and will be helpful with information of all sorts.

If you copy and paste the locations, for instance at random "Thorparch Road, Vauxhall, London SW8" into Google maps, it will show the street location.

flanneruk

In a perfect world, you'll stay within the area bounded by the Circle Line of the Tube (cross-refer the Tube map at the TfL site with Google Maps or similar)

For most visitors, living beyond that area means tedious commutes back to base about once a day in each direction just to put your feet up. There are a few places outside the area which work. But I'd strongly recommend upping your budget if you can't find somewhere in the centre that suits at what, by our standards, is very little indeed (if you mean £100 per night per couple.)

The concept of "non-touristy" things is, bluntly, downright silly. This site is a terrific resource if you tell people what you want to see or do. Telling them merely that you want to know what we don't do gets you nowhere. The British Museum, or Westminster Abbey, are full of people because they're worth our while visiting.

Take any list of attractions. Cross out Mme Tussauds and the Changing of the Guard, realise that Big Ben is a walk by and Piccadilly Circus just a traffic roundabout, and what's left is stuff any Londoner will be perfectly happy to do. Snobbery about "bridge and tunnel" is a uniquely American nastiness.

BigRuss

<<Snobbery about "bridge and tunnel" is a uniquely American nastiness.>>

Usual anti-American tomfoolery from flanner who understands nothing about Americans.

Now, parsing the OP:

<<We will want to see most of the tourist sites so prefer a location fairly central, walkable or by subway. Close to pubs and restaurants is always a plus.>>

What are "most of the tourist sites"? London has dozens (i.e., more than 23) tourist sites and is the largest city in Western Europe. You will be neither able to see them all nor reside within walking distance of them all. There are degrees of proximity and if you're within the original path of the Circle Line (from Edgware Road to Edgware Road, not the part that now goes west from Paddington out to Hammersmith) or within a stop or two on the Tube, you'll be ok. Any place that fits this description will have access to pubs and restos.

You need to prioritize what you want to visit. You can be helped on this board, but not without insight into your interests.

A subway in London is either the taste-free sandwich chain or an underground street crossing that obviates the need to play in London traffic at busy intersections (there's one at Piccadilly Circus, one at Oxford Circus, and some other intersections). The local transport train is the Tube or the Underground.

And if you want to do something non-touristy (and learn some new words, few of them acceptable to reprint), go see a soccer match. For some reason, the Brits call soccer "football" even though they coined the term soccer (it's from "asSOCiation football" - a term created to distinguish soccer from "Rugby football").

annhig

we call it 'FOOTBALL" BigRuss because you play it with your FEET, unlike the american version where you are allowed to kick and throw the ball as well as kick it.

We're about to spend 2 nights in a B&B in Wimbledon which this time of year charges just under £100/night for a double en suite. it's very close to Wimbledon Station so would be convenient for travel into London [loads of overground trains into Waterloo plus the District line Tube as well] but staying out there would be a completely different experience to staying in central London.

larrya

Thanks everyone, I'll look at B & B's but will plan on increasing the hotel budget.

PalenQ

Would also appreciate ideas for non touristy things to do.>

Tis a hard one in central London, infested it seems mainly by foreign and domestic tourists - now for some things many tourists miss or don't care to see but are really popular with locals check out the various markets - foremostly Camden Lock on weekends, said to be one of the most popular place for Londoners to flock to - the whole area around the market is neat - get a pub lunch and people watch in this 'hip' area of London.

The Petticoat Lane market is a big draw with Londoners too - lots of junk and bric-a-brac and Cockneys yelling out adverts for their stall's merchandise -"All for a fiver, all for a fiver" etc. There are dozens of markets in London and all to me are fun to visit. For upscale foods check out Borough Market - now many foreigners flock there to because of the superior qualities of foods - cheeses, etc.

Kensington House in Holland Park makes a neat off-the-radar of most tourists - an ancient stately royal home and a lovely eclectic park and nature preserve - check out the peacocks.

don't miss a stroll along the Thames South Bank between the Eye Over London Ferris Wheel and the New Tate Gallery - always thronged with locals walking, jogging, rollerblading, etc and wonderful views of many of the iconic buildings of London's skyline - like St Paul's Cathedral, Somerset House, Tower Bridge, etc.

And be sure to take in a West End play - doesn't really matter what one it's more the experience and the ornate theatre that's a show but major plays are always on. Don't miss a London play!

travelgourmet

At £100 per night, you might be well-served to look into bidding for a 4-star on Priceline.

janisj

>>You can get B&B - a traditional B&B in outer London for perhaps 30 quid each and there are lots of these - <<

I don't think you've seen a £30 B&B in years - unless you can provide a link to this elusive property you keep talking about???

>>Kensington House in Holland Park makes a neat off-the-radar of most tourists - <<

Care to clarify? Do you mean <B>Kensington Palace</B> which is not in Holland Park and isn't 'off the radar' of most anyone? Or possibly <B>Leighton House</B> -- which IS in Holland Park, but isn't ancient, and IS off many people's radar.

latedaytraveler

" Snobbery about "bridge and tunnel" is a uniquely American nastiness."

Wow, FLANNER, you never can resist, can you?

historytraveler

There is a Kensington House Hotel which is in Kensington just a block from Kensington High Street and entrance to Kensington Park, but the price range for rooms is much higher than the range that the OP posted. You'll easily spend several hundred £s. However, it is a great location and nice hotel.

Also question the statement that Camden Market is missed by most tourists. Since when? Maybe a less touristy option than Madame Tussauds. I also found the idea that any West End play was worth seeing was a bit of hyperbole. Most are good, but I have snoozed through a few. Not all are worth the time or money. Definitely go if one interests you, but don't feel it's a must do. Of course any sensible person knows there are no must see/must do lists.

Ackislander

We find non-touristy things (however defined) by getting a transport pass and riding random buses when we are tired of walking or museumed-out. You can ride until you see something interesting, get off and look around, then continue on the same or another route, or go back the way you came.

Everyone has been to South Kensington, and most tourists visit Chelsea, but how about Golders Green, St. John's Wood, Little Venice, Swiss Cottage, or Islington? Each is a residential neighborhood with a "town center" and nothing for tourists to do, thus are full of ordinary people going about the business of being Londoners. Many tourist go to Hampstead Heath. How about Clapham Common or Bushey Park?

Rubicund

Try these websites, which are searchable on area and price.

www.lastminute.com