skatterfly

OK, the subject line may not make a lot of sense, but I hope someone can help me out.

I'd love to know some places easy to get to by Tube or quick train ride that could get us out of the hussle and bustle of London, to get out and see a small quaint English town with that "old world" feel... would make a nice counterpoint to the urban London experience.

As many of you know, we have a toddler and no car... so this won't be the trip for us to slowly meander through the countryside. But I'd love to see at least one glimpse of that if possible.

I'm not looking for thimble shops and tourist buses... but something quiet and peaceful, that we could stroll around, grab a nice lunch, and enjoy a park or a site or something interesting to do. Preferably something with a "small historical town vibe".

Can you recommend some destinations? Are there neighborhoods around London on the Tube that would fit this bill?

THANKS!!!
~kat

FromAtlanta

At the top of my head, I am thinking Hammersmith ... but there are so many. You will get a lot of responses. I will write back when I can think more clearly (it is late, I am tired)

Greenwich is nice too.... area around Hampton Court Palace

FromAtlanta

I meant AND the area around Hampton Ct.

I have to go to bed

WillTravel

I like Greenwich and it would be good for a day trip.

I've read positive reports about Hampstead Heath, which is an easy tube ride from central London.

janis

My choices woul dbe Hampstead 1st or Greenwich 2nd. Hampstead Heath is a HUGE "country" park. You actually feel you are far out in the country - except there are these amazing views of all of London spread out in the distance.

And Hampstead Village has a villagy-feeling with detached houses (as opposed to London-type town houses) gardens, winding lanes, etc.

Greenwich has more to do, and being on the river means you could take a boat there.

Other choices - Richmond or maybe Windsor (the town is busy but the Great Park and the villages around it give you a real country feeling).

There are many other small villages in Buckinghamshire or Surry w/i easy reach of London - But I'd choose Hampstead mostly for the park and being able to get back into town quickly.

Gardyloo

Maybe not as small as you'd like, nor as close as a tube ride (but not a lot longer,) but have you been to Cambridge? Very rewarding day trip.

Or possibly Windsor/Eton - Clivedon gardens, Eton College, the big castle, even Legoland.

Both are convenient train jaunts with frequent service from central London.

Daneille

Like Gardyloo I'd suggest Eton/Windsor. Not far on the superfast train from London and you have the benefit of a beautiful ancient village of Eton across the river from Windsor (Walking distance) as well as the gorgeous Windsor Castle to tour through and the village of Windsor (a bit touristy, but hey!) You can also take a look at the very prestigious Eton College. So plenty to see or do in these very very pretty towns.

ben_haines_london

Replies you have had fall into three groups.
There are villages that London has swallowed whole. These are mostly on the tube, and include Hammersmith (though in fact Hammersmith has little feeling now of its days as a village), Hampstead (for you, the village rather than the heath), and Richmond (good choice). I would add Highgate and Putney. I have on disc a collection of comments on these places by Fodors forum correspondents and others, which I can gladly e mail to you if you ask me to, via [email protected].
There are villages and market towns that have countryside between them and London, an hour or so by main line train from a London terminus. These days they offer little employment, and they have become commuter towns, but their layout around a big church, market place, pubs, and the village notice board, mean they keep a good sense of being a separate place. Examples are small villages in Buckinghamshire and Surrey. Or towns, such as Guildford, Aylesbury, heart of the fine furniture industry, and such Thames-side places as Marlow, Henley, Maidenhead and Cookham. All four are expanded villages as you ask, though very rich: many houses there cost a million pounds. From 24 May to 24 September the toddler would like a short river trip, through a lock, and all four places are steamer stops, as well as being on stopping railway lines from Paddington. Some of those trains will do your meandering for you, for example from Maidenhead to Marlow. Detail of boats is at www.salterssteamers.co.uk, then scheduled trips. At Cookham Stanley Spencer saw and painted the Resurrection, and the village gallery has some of his pictures. You have seen the resurrection on Baroque ceilings in Catholic Europe, but never like this, with saved souls in suits. Please see http://www.newcastle.edu.au/discipli...sis/judith.htm. But I am losing our target: you did not ask for paintings.
I live the other side of London, in the south east, so I can comment as to Kent that Faversham is a little-known delight. An hour from Victoria, it has medieval churches and tithe barns, Elizabethan town hall and grammar school and eighteenth century streets of fine houses, little shops, and a gunpowder mill, which blew up. Other places are Otford, Rochester (a bit too large for you), and Tunbridge Wells (a little away from your specification, as it is a spa town, of good eighteenth buildings).
There are internationally famous tourist destinations, including Hampton Court, Greenwich, Windsor and Cambridge, and these do respond to your request, as they feel international and touristy. What has happened here is common enough on this forum. People know (and they are right) that a place is good to visit, and wanting to help they list it, however far it lies from your request. The idea of Cambridge as having a small historical town vibe is surreal.

Welcome to London

Ben Haines

flanneruk

Ben, as ever, has put his finger on it.

I'm not sure a villager would recognise a "small village vibe" if it did whatever "vibes" do right in his or her face. But if you mean somewhere that feels like a small village, and is on the Tube or on a quick train, the answer is "there isn't one". Except, by a strange series of flukes, in the Roding Valley at the extreme North-East of the Tube's Central Line.

The reason is pretty obvious if you think about it: anywhere that's within an hour of central London by train will inevitably have been highly developed in the 160 years since trains arrived in London from the developed world. Often very impressively and sensitively, as in London's urban villages like Hampstead, in the nicer towns it's swallowed up like Greenwich, or in the impressive towns close by like Cambridge. But nowhere within 60 mins by train or tube, outside the Rodings (which have some delightful walks, but little in the way of tea-rooms, secondhand book shops or quaint pubs), really feels like a small village.

That may be an extreme assertion, and if anyone can think of an exception, I'd be delighted to hear it.

But IMHO the closest such places easily accessible by public transport, with no hint of being part of suburbia, but enough to entertain you, are Woodstock (1 hr train to Oxford, then 15 mins bus) or Rye (105 mins by train). Both BTW resent being called villages, but that's by the by.

This is not to decry the excellence of the undervisited towns (and I'd add St Albans to Ben's Faversham) or of London's wonderful urban villages (although Hammersmith by its tube station is horrid, there are great bits along the river, and a lot of the river area in Chelsea is also triff. Oh, and don't confuse Highgate Village with the rather less picturesque area round its tube station, a few hundred yards away on a very steep hill).

But, to the question as put, the answer is "look for something else"

david_west

The poster above who recommended Hammersmith is (I'm assuming) confusing it with Hampstead - which is quite village like. Hammersmith is bloody awful. I work in the Town Hall there - trust me it's not nice. Unless you think Primark and TK MAXX are small village shops!

My tuppence worth - Strand on the Green and kew (Kew tube station), Theydon Bois (on the central line), Old Amersham (Metroplitan Line) and Barnes (overground from Waterloo) all fit the bill.

Also Ham (nr Richmond) and Hampton Court are nice and there is Bushy Park with it's herds of deer which are rather wonderful.

More info here:

http://www.royalparks.gov.uk/parks/bushy_park/

flanneruk

David is uncharacteristically unfair to Hammersmith.

I thought FromAtlanta was confused too. But find Cromwell Ave, a few yards from the area David so rightly castigates, follow it and the subway at the end to Upper Mall, and you have a couple of miles of really splendid walk westward along the river - much of it with a really unmetropolitan feel. And at the right time of the year, the gardens in the houses are sublime.

One of the many self-guided walks that take in this area, as well as the infrequently visited Chiswick House, is at www.london-footprints.co.uk/wkchiswickroute.htm

londonengland

Another vote for Hampstead here as an easy tube option although Old Amersham comes in a close second. Old Amersham has a lovely villagey feel with antiques shops, tea rooms etc. and was also in the film (movie) Four Weddings and a Funeral as the pub where Hugh Grant and Andie McDowell stayed. Unfortunately the tube only takes you to New Amersham (although it's only a short taxi drive away to Old Amersham)

Enjoy!

Mathieu

Ben : I didn't ask the question but I am grateful for your response - interesting and full of useful information in true 'Ben' style, and is a keeper for me for yet more wonderful things to see and do, in and around London on future trips. Same goes for you Flanner.

Kat, I'd also throw in a vote for Richmond. I have relatives who live a 15 min bus ride away hence I'm a frequent visitor there and never tire of it. There are some quaint and pretty buildings dating back to the time of Henry VIII (complete with wisteria scrambling and twisting across yellowing brick work, lots of wrought iron gates, old fashion English roses, etc.) and a large green where I once spent a pleasant hour observing a cricket match on a sunday May afternoon .

Have fun.

Kate

Another vote for Old Amersham. You can either get the Metropolitan line tube, or a faster train (30minsish?)that I think goes from Marylebone. Get a cab from the station and specify "OLD" Amersham.

Another train from Marylebone (it might even share the same line), a quick 30mins, is Beaconsfield. Again, get a cab to OLD Beaconsfield.

skatterfly

Thank you, thank you, thank you all.

Ben and Flanner especially, your insight as locals helps explain it and put it in context. I had assumed there really were no "small villages" left within a a 1-2 hour radius away from London... hence the quotes around it.

But I was hoping (and I think I've gotten great ideas) for places that would have a different feel from big sprawling urban London. I am intrigued by the suggestion to check out some of the urban villages inside London. If they've still got a little of the "feel" of their old heyday, that's probably enough for me on this trip.

Interesting that Putney came up... my brother in law who we're going to visit just moved to London and his coworkers suggested Putney to live in. He chose a flat in Notting Hill... didn't want to live in the suburbs when given the chance to work and live in London. Who can blame him. But he does work in Ealing, and I think we'll go visit his new office one of the days... I wonder what Ealing is like?

Anyway, much thanks to everyone for their help.

~kat

PatrickLondon

I was brought up in Putney, and I wouldn't honestly say it's a place to go to get away from hustle and bustle. In that area, better might be a train to Barnes Bridge station from Waterloo and a stroll down the high street to Barnes pond, where your toddler might like to feed the ducks - this is in the centre of a village green. From there, you could walk across the common (managed open space) to Putney - it's about a mile and a half - and if that's too far for your child, you could get a train back into town from Barnes station. But you would never be that far from the London feel, if only because of the planes flying into Heathrow; and though there are lots of antiquey shops, it's not so much 'old world' as rather up-market (you might see the odd TV actor as many live there).

KidsToLondon

I live in a crowded suburban area, so I was very pleased to take the relaxing walk from Richmond, along the Thames, to Ham House.

Richmond is certainly no village, but it is pleasant (and easy to reach from central London). The views from Richmond Hill are wonderful and, as you head along the Thames pathway, it is hard to imagine that you are still within the London metropolis. The riverside views certainly LOOK like countryside.

Ham House is a National Trust property--not quite a palace, but interesting and easy to see in a short while. There are some pleasant gardens here too.

Like other posters, I'd also give a nod to Eton (and nearby Windsor's Great Park). The town is quaint-ish, the riverside is scenic, and there are some seemingly rural views to be had in Windsor Great Park. Yes, the town of Windsor can be touristy but the castle is worth a visit while you are here.

Dave White
[email protected]

skatterfly

David, on the advice of other Fodorite's recommendations, we're spending our last night in Windsor before flying home. Looking forward to it. (Actually, looking forward to all of it!)

mclaurie

I should not chime in with all these knowledgeable Englishmen, but I'll just mention, from my own experiences (and using Mr. Haines' 3 groups), for the "in London" areas, since you'll be visiting your b-i-l in Notting Hill, you won't be too far from the St. John's Woods, Little Venice, Maida Vale areas which are a bit much more residential and much less hectic than central London. St. John's Wood is famous as the location of the Beatles' Abbey Road studios ( and the cross walk from the album is there) I don't know that these areas were ever actually villages that were "swallowed." I just know they feel different than central London.

In the 2nd group, the town of Marlow <i>is</i> charming and has an old weir. Henley is also very pretty. But I'm not sure this middle group warrants travel since you'll see Windsor at the end of your trip.

I do think if you're yearning for a different scene in the middle of your trip, that a train ride to Rye, mentioned by flanneruk, is worth the effort. It is &quot;picture postcard&quot; with some of it's architecture dating back to the 15th c. It's IMO very different from both Windsor and London.

http://www.visitrye.co.uk/EN/get_index.php

http://www.picturesofengland.com/Rye/

bettyk

I'm glad to hear that Amersham is still a lovely place. When I lived in Beaconsfield in 1982, I use to drive over to Amersham and visit all the shops. That's where I saw my first &quot;David Winter&quot; cottages.

Anyway, the old town of Beaconsfield is quite nice too and there is a miniature village called Beaconscott that I enjoyed. It can also be reached by train.