Which park in London?
Jun 13th, 2014, 04:36 AM
#1
Which park in London?
Our time is limited, but if the weather is good we may want to visit one of the parks in London with our 13 yr. old GD. We are staying near The Eye?
If you had 2 hrs. or so in the middle of the day walking around the city which park which park would you visit?
If you had 2 hrs. or so in the middle of the day walking around the city which park which park would you visit?
Jun 13th, 2014, 05:15 AM
#3
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Battersea park http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battersea_Park
likely more going on than the traditional royal parks
there's even Southwark Park for a change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwark_Park
likely more going on than the traditional royal parks
there's even Southwark Park for a change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwark_Park
Jun 13th, 2014, 10:03 AM
#7
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why on earth, if time is limited, would anyone spend two hours "visiting" a park? Or depend on "weather being good"?
Parks in real cities aren't tourist attractions: they're simply an essential part of daily life. They're places to walk through, to take your lunchtime sandwiches to (far more pleasantly eaten when the weather's just OK than when hot weather brings out the flies and makes your chocolate biccies melt), or to take 13 yos to with a ball for a bit of rolled-up-sweater football (again: far nicer when it's chilly or breezy than when it's hot).
The best park is the one (or in London the many) that lie on, or a tiny detour off, your planned daily itinerary. If this is tricky, just reroute to go through a few squares with public-access central gardens
Unless you've got the misfortune to live somewhere without parks (why?), they're all just parks. Why waste scarce time deciding between them?
Parks in real cities aren't tourist attractions: they're simply an essential part of daily life. They're places to walk through, to take your lunchtime sandwiches to (far more pleasantly eaten when the weather's just OK than when hot weather brings out the flies and makes your chocolate biccies melt), or to take 13 yos to with a ball for a bit of rolled-up-sweater football (again: far nicer when it's chilly or breezy than when it's hot).
The best park is the one (or in London the many) that lie on, or a tiny detour off, your planned daily itinerary. If this is tricky, just reroute to go through a few squares with public-access central gardens
Unless you've got the misfortune to live somewhere without parks (why?), they're all just parks. Why waste scarce time deciding between them?
Jun 13th, 2014, 10:39 AM
#8
"Why on earth, if time is limited, would anyone spend two hours "visiting" a park?"
Maybe because she wants to spend some quality time with her 13 year old granddaughter. Seems like a nice plan to me
We also loved St. James Park (some photos below). Enjoy.
http://travelswithmaitaitom.com/Tom_...2_Entry_1.html
Maybe because she wants to spend some quality time with her 13 year old granddaughter. Seems like a nice plan to me
We also loved St. James Park (some photos below). Enjoy.
http://travelswithmaitaitom.com/Tom_...2_Entry_1.html
Jun 13th, 2014, 11:12 AM
#9
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 6,534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>Parks in real cities aren't tourist attractions>>
????
I was about to start to type about Central Park in New York City, and the Jardins du Luxembourg in Paris, and several small parks in Tokyo and the Boboli Gardens in Florence -- even Griffith Park in Los Angeles -- and then I thought it might be easier to try to think of "real" cities without an historic park that is crucial to understanding the life of the city.
Sure. Go to London and be sure to miss its parks. Total waste of time. You won't understand anything about the history of the city of London or experience its culture if you use any of them. Most of all, don't imagine for one second that you would learn something about American parks by going to a British one. That's -- well, that's just an indication you've actually go an imagination. Not wanted here.
Go for afternoon tea. Take more pictures of horseguards. Buy a t-shirt that says mind the gap. Pay a fortune for roast beef at Rules. Do NOT get off the beaten track every other tourist takes. Go to a London park? Are you kidding us? Did you once read Mary Poppins or something?
????
I was about to start to type about Central Park in New York City, and the Jardins du Luxembourg in Paris, and several small parks in Tokyo and the Boboli Gardens in Florence -- even Griffith Park in Los Angeles -- and then I thought it might be easier to try to think of "real" cities without an historic park that is crucial to understanding the life of the city.
Sure. Go to London and be sure to miss its parks. Total waste of time. You won't understand anything about the history of the city of London or experience its culture if you use any of them. Most of all, don't imagine for one second that you would learn something about American parks by going to a British one. That's -- well, that's just an indication you've actually go an imagination. Not wanted here.
Go for afternoon tea. Take more pictures of horseguards. Buy a t-shirt that says mind the gap. Pay a fortune for roast beef at Rules. Do NOT get off the beaten track every other tourist takes. Go to a London park? Are you kidding us? Did you once read Mary Poppins or something?
Jun 13th, 2014, 12:42 PM
#11
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parks in real cities aren't tourist attractions: they're simply an essential part of daily life.>
Rubbish for foreign tourists anyway - take your local view out of the picture when foreign tourists are the folks asking - Hyde Park is a must sight IMO for any London tourist much like Central Park is in NYC - suppose flanner never went to Central Park in NYC - sure!
So ignore that blinders on take and yes explore gorgeous Saint James Park or Green Park - lovely parks with yes exotic birds.
Heck even the local yokels like flanner eating lunch in the park, on the rare day warm or dry enough to permit that! - all dressed in their business suits, etc are a sight for tourists' eyes.
Locals are aninvaluable source for Fodor's but sometimes just cannot think like a foreign tourists and thus can give very poor advice at times for their failure to do so, like in this case.
Rubbish for foreign tourists anyway - take your local view out of the picture when foreign tourists are the folks asking - Hyde Park is a must sight IMO for any London tourist much like Central Park is in NYC - suppose flanner never went to Central Park in NYC - sure!
So ignore that blinders on take and yes explore gorgeous Saint James Park or Green Park - lovely parks with yes exotic birds.
Heck even the local yokels like flanner eating lunch in the park, on the rare day warm or dry enough to permit that! - all dressed in their business suits, etc are a sight for tourists' eyes.
Locals are aninvaluable source for Fodor's but sometimes just cannot think like a foreign tourists and thus can give very poor advice at times for their failure to do so, like in this case.
Jun 13th, 2014, 01:25 PM
#13
Why go to park in London?
Why not? We enjoy Lux, Gardens in Paris, etc. IMO, you can only stand in so many lines, visit so many museums, and walk so many big city streets before you need a break. What's wrong with spending a couple of hours taking in a park?
What would you do? Buy her a beer in a dark pub? She's 13 for God's sake!
maitaitom----
I laughed out loud when I read your report and saw your photos. It sure looks like you had a good time in London.
Thanks for the suggestions. St. James Park looks like it will fit the bill.
Why not? We enjoy Lux, Gardens in Paris, etc. IMO, you can only stand in so many lines, visit so many museums, and walk so many big city streets before you need a break. What's wrong with spending a couple of hours taking in a park?
What would you do? Buy her a beer in a dark pub? She's 13 for God's sake!
maitaitom----
I laughed out loud when I read your report and saw your photos. It sure looks like you had a good time in London.Thanks for the suggestions. St. James Park looks like it will fit the bill.
Jun 13th, 2014, 02:02 PM
#15
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.google.com/search?q=st+j...w=1455&bih=978
This, St James Park, is one of the most beautiful public (royal?) parks in any European city - a must site for anyone IMO since most will be right in the area anyway some time (Houses of Parliament, Buckingham Palace, Whitehall, Downing Street, etc.
This, St James Park, is one of the most beautiful public (royal?) parks in any European city - a must site for anyone IMO since most will be right in the area anyway some time (Houses of Parliament, Buckingham Palace, Whitehall, Downing Street, etc.
Jun 13th, 2014, 05:47 PM
#17
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
St James and Green Park are both very attractive - lots of benches, ponds with all sorts of waterfowl, lovely plantings and in the center of the city. Great for a girl that age (not like having a little one that you need a playground for).
We visit them often on visits - just for an hour or so of relaxing later in the day.
We visit them often on visits - just for an hour or so of relaxing later in the day.
Jun 13th, 2014, 06:50 PM
#18
I can't imagine a 13 yo being thrilled w/ St James's park Pretty, yes, birds, yes -- but that is all it is. A pretty green swath between Admiralty Arch and Buckingham Palace.
If you want a park w/ things to see/do go to Hyde Park/Kensington Gardens - take a boat out in the Serpentine, see the horses on Rotten Row, maybe the Serpentine Gallery if she likes art.
Or - go to Greenwich. Or hike across Hampstead Heath and see Kenwood house among other things.
Or maybe best of all - go to Regents Park - the zoo, boating lake, the Hub sports complex, Primrose Hill.
Any of these would have more to interest a 13 yo.
If you want a park w/ things to see/do go to Hyde Park/Kensington Gardens - take a boat out in the Serpentine, see the horses on Rotten Row, maybe the Serpentine Gallery if she likes art.
Or - go to Greenwich. Or hike across Hampstead Heath and see Kenwood house among other things.
Or maybe best of all - go to Regents Park - the zoo, boating lake, the Hub sports complex, Primrose Hill.
Any of these would have more to interest a 13 yo.
Jun 14th, 2014, 04:33 AM
#19
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
janis - OP asked for a park near the London Eye - all your ideas are great but not what OP is looking for with only two hours.
and I do not agree that a 13-yr-old cannot enjoy a few hours in the park - just seeing the pelicans may be a treat - bring a picnic and and have a relaxed lunch.
and I do not agree that a 13-yr-old cannot enjoy a few hours in the park - just seeing the pelicans may be a treat - bring a picnic and and have a relaxed lunch.
Jun 14th, 2014, 07:30 AM
#20
She said they are staying near the Eye -- that doesn't mean they are limited to places near the Eye - or their visit to London will be VERY limited.
Hyde Park is not much of a walk from The Eye being kitty corner from Green Park.
And Regents Park is a straight shot on the tube from Waterloo. The entire tube journey taking 8 minutes is likely less less than walking to St James's Park.
Hyde Park is not much of a walk from The Eye being kitty corner from Green Park.
And Regents Park is a straight shot on the tube from Waterloo. The entire tube journey taking 8 minutes is likely less less than walking to St James's Park.
