10 days - How to split time btwn London & Paris?
Dec 13th, 2004, 01:43 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 days - How to split time btwn London & Paris?
Hello all!
I am in the VERY preliminary stages of planning our next vacation for May '06. My husband and I feel it's time to hit the biggies - London and Paris.
We've got 10 days - any thoughts on how to split up the time? We're big foodies & wine lovers, so if time allows we'd also love to see some French countryside.
Of course we could easily do 10 days each, but alas, we have a small child (who will be staying home) and jobs with only 2 weeks vacation!
Thanks in advance!
I am in the VERY preliminary stages of planning our next vacation for May '06. My husband and I feel it's time to hit the biggies - London and Paris.
We've got 10 days - any thoughts on how to split up the time? We're big foodies & wine lovers, so if time allows we'd also love to see some French countryside.
Of course we could easily do 10 days each, but alas, we have a small child (who will be staying home) and jobs with only 2 weeks vacation!
Thanks in advance!
Dec 13th, 2004, 01:53 PM
#2
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For our first trip to Paris/London, we spent 4 days in each city - not enough time at all, but enough time to scratch the surface, see highlights, and know we wanted to return.
I would either split it 5 and 5 or I would would spend 5 days in Paris and then 5 days in another location in France.
It'll be a great trip no matter what!
Sally
I would either split it 5 and 5 or I would would spend 5 days in Paris and then 5 days in another location in France.
It'll be a great trip no matter what!
Sally
Dec 13th, 2004, 01:57 PM
#3
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well no one can really answer that for you - whatever you decide you will be cutting one or both short. All we can do is offer opinions. But 10 days is what you have to deal with, so I personally would spend a little more in London. Not because I dislike Paris (at all) but because the logistics of London are a bit tougher. It is a much larger city with wonderful sites spread over a larger area. It just takes longer and there is soooo much to see.
I'd probably do 5+ days in London, 4 in Paris and the extra day/night for somewhere in the French countryside.
I'd probably do 5+ days in London, 4 in Paris and the extra day/night for somewhere in the French countryside.
Dec 13th, 2004, 03:19 PM
#4
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 37,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know, you have to work with what you got. We all would like a month or more in each place but that's not in the cards for most of us. Probably try to prioritize the things you want to see most and try to leave a little time for a pub or two in London and a cafe in Paris just watching the world go by. I think you could do a trip outside the city in each place if there is something you especially want to see...Hampton Court? Windsor? Giverney? Versailles? that sort of thing. Personally, I would take the Eurostar from London to Paris to cut down on the travel time..about 2 1/2 hours now from Waterloo to Gare de Nord but you will pick the way that suits you best I'm sure. Again, personally, I would split the time evenly between the two but some of that will depend on your "must see's". May should be a nice time for both cities..not too cold but probably some rain now and then. You're going to two of the most fabulous cities in the world so what ever you decide on, it can't be bad.
Dec 13th, 2004, 06:23 PM
#5
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is really a tough question to answer. I have visited London recently (September) and found that I ran out of time fairly quickly. The same is true of Paris.
I would say right now, split it evenly.
In London you have the option of attending plays. In Paris, there are the famous acts at places like the Crazyhorse. Nothing quite like them. No place for prudes!
Let me give a sort of blunt answer here.
If you speak French at all, and can read signs, etc., I think you will like Paris more than London.
On the other hand, both places have unique places to see. Nothing else like them in the whole world.
The biggest logistical problem for me in Paris is the Louvre. Versailles is not far behind. It can take several hours to even get a good sample of the Louvre and I find I get the dreaded "museum staggers" after about 4 hours. My eyes glaze over, I start wandering aimlessly, and all the paintings look alike.
I have tried an hour of painting and a hour of sculpture or Roman antiquities but that does little to help.
Versailles is one of those place that you either love or hate. Either way it is a slice of history that should be seen to be appreciated.
The other problem with both cities is the temptation for out of town excursions. Near Paris Vaux-le-Vicomte for me is such a masterpiece of the fusion of architecture, landscaping, engineering, and artistic accomplishment that I like it better than Versailles.
(I am not saying it is grander, but it is a beautiful blend of all aspects of construction. I don't want to get involved in how both places were funded or how the money was acquired.)
And the proximity of Fontainebleau to Vaux is a great temptation.
In London, I was disappointed by my visit to Greenwich. I somehow expected more than I got. The observatory was interesting, but the maritime museum left me a little adrift. I somehow expected more than I saw. Perhaps I am getting jaded in my old age, but the British Museum did not disappoint. So I don't think it was all my limitations that caused the problem.
The other thing I feel you need to take into account is fatigued. I walked myself silly in both places. In the British Museum, I had to limit what I did because we were scheduled to attend a play that evening. I think endurance is a major factor in visiting both cities. So I think good footgear is a must. And the other thing I decided is that next time, I will not be so miserly and refuse to take taxis to ease the stress of getting from one place to the other. However, those vehicles are so darned expensive as to be prohibitive.
And Paris cab drivers are often rude, particularly to other drivers. Offend one of them and they will actually pursue the culprit, flashing the lights, honking the horn, and making gestures.
At least we learned some French that way: Extend amd raise the arm with two fingers pointed upwards in sort of a V and make a spluttering sound with the lips and tongue. I think that says "How are you today my good man. Give my regards to your family."
I would say right now, split it evenly.
In London you have the option of attending plays. In Paris, there are the famous acts at places like the Crazyhorse. Nothing quite like them. No place for prudes!
Let me give a sort of blunt answer here.
If you speak French at all, and can read signs, etc., I think you will like Paris more than London.
On the other hand, both places have unique places to see. Nothing else like them in the whole world.
The biggest logistical problem for me in Paris is the Louvre. Versailles is not far behind. It can take several hours to even get a good sample of the Louvre and I find I get the dreaded "museum staggers" after about 4 hours. My eyes glaze over, I start wandering aimlessly, and all the paintings look alike.
I have tried an hour of painting and a hour of sculpture or Roman antiquities but that does little to help.
Versailles is one of those place that you either love or hate. Either way it is a slice of history that should be seen to be appreciated.
The other problem with both cities is the temptation for out of town excursions. Near Paris Vaux-le-Vicomte for me is such a masterpiece of the fusion of architecture, landscaping, engineering, and artistic accomplishment that I like it better than Versailles.
(I am not saying it is grander, but it is a beautiful blend of all aspects of construction. I don't want to get involved in how both places were funded or how the money was acquired.)
And the proximity of Fontainebleau to Vaux is a great temptation.
In London, I was disappointed by my visit to Greenwich. I somehow expected more than I got. The observatory was interesting, but the maritime museum left me a little adrift. I somehow expected more than I saw. Perhaps I am getting jaded in my old age, but the British Museum did not disappoint. So I don't think it was all my limitations that caused the problem.
The other thing I feel you need to take into account is fatigued. I walked myself silly in both places. In the British Museum, I had to limit what I did because we were scheduled to attend a play that evening. I think endurance is a major factor in visiting both cities. So I think good footgear is a must. And the other thing I decided is that next time, I will not be so miserly and refuse to take taxis to ease the stress of getting from one place to the other. However, those vehicles are so darned expensive as to be prohibitive.
And Paris cab drivers are often rude, particularly to other drivers. Offend one of them and they will actually pursue the culprit, flashing the lights, honking the horn, and making gestures.
At least we learned some French that way: Extend amd raise the arm with two fingers pointed upwards in sort of a V and make a spluttering sound with the lips and tongue. I think that says "How are you today my good man. Give my regards to your family."
Dec 13th, 2004, 08:04 PM
#6
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I prefer London over Paris. I agree with Janis in that you should split your time to give you a sample of each city. You'll have a good time in both cities.
Crefloor had a good comment about vacations. This country is sadly lacking in giving workers adequate time off. I had 9 weeks off this year - I usually take 4-6 weeks a year. I would go nuts if I only had 2 weeks off.
Crefloor had a good comment about vacations. This country is sadly lacking in giving workers adequate time off. I had 9 weeks off this year - I usually take 4-6 weeks a year. I would go nuts if I only had 2 weeks off.
Dec 13th, 2004, 11:06 PM
#7
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well.....let me offer a different element to consider. Are you on a budget at all? The dollar is weak against the Euro, but it's even weaker against the pound. You'll find yourself choking so hard on the money you're spending in London that it may get hard to enjoy your meals! For that reason, when I split my time there, I only spend a few days in London and more time in Paris.
Don't get me wrong, I love London and wish I could spend more vacation time there. But the pound is so oppressively strong that it's impossible to do so right now.
Don't get me wrong, I love London and wish I could spend more vacation time there. But the pound is so oppressively strong that it's impossible to do so right now.
Dec 14th, 2004, 09:02 AM
#8
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually there is a huge misconception that the US$ is weaker against the £ than the €. This just isn't true - sure the UK, and especially London, is expensive, but the $ actually goes farther there than in euro-land.
Two years ago the € was down at 86¢ and now it is around $1.33. That is a devaluation of 35% in dollar buying power.
At the same time the £ was at about $1.50 and is now at $1.93 - a devaluation of only 22%.
Now - neither one is great news for American travelers - but to say the dollar is weaker against GBP vs the euro is just plain wrong.
Two years ago the € was down at 86¢ and now it is around $1.33. That is a devaluation of 35% in dollar buying power.
At the same time the £ was at about $1.50 and is now at $1.93 - a devaluation of only 22%.
Now - neither one is great news for American travelers - but to say the dollar is weaker against GBP vs the euro is just plain wrong.
Dec 14th, 2004, 09:27 AM
#9
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, janis, your argument really doesn't make sense. I can't say in which place the dollar is weaker, and that's not really relevant anyway. But to say that the value of the dollar has fallen less vs. the pound than vs. the euro is completely irrelevant. An example:
If 2 years ago a meal in a particular restaurant in London cost 100 pounds and in a similar restaurant in Paris cost 100 euro then 2 years ago you'd have paid $150 to eat in London and $86 to eat in Paris. Today, if the price was not adjusted for inflation, but just for the value of the dollar, you'd pay $193 to eat in London and $133 to eat in Paris. Still better value in Paris.
So, what's as important as the value of the dollar relative to the Euro or Pound is the cost of what you'd buy in each place.
Certainly one thing to consider is that London has many free museums. Cheap meals, or expensive meals, can be had in both places. On the other hand, London has Enlish-language theater, so if that's how you'd pass your time there, it's expensive.
In any event, given that we're talking about 2-3 days difference it probably won't make or break the trip, so the difference in the value of the dollar or the cost of hotels, meals, etc. is probably not worth worrying too much about for such a short time period.
If 2 years ago a meal in a particular restaurant in London cost 100 pounds and in a similar restaurant in Paris cost 100 euro then 2 years ago you'd have paid $150 to eat in London and $86 to eat in Paris. Today, if the price was not adjusted for inflation, but just for the value of the dollar, you'd pay $193 to eat in London and $133 to eat in Paris. Still better value in Paris.
So, what's as important as the value of the dollar relative to the Euro or Pound is the cost of what you'd buy in each place.
Certainly one thing to consider is that London has many free museums. Cheap meals, or expensive meals, can be had in both places. On the other hand, London has Enlish-language theater, so if that's how you'd pass your time there, it's expensive.
In any event, given that we're talking about 2-3 days difference it probably won't make or break the trip, so the difference in the value of the dollar or the cost of hotels, meals, etc. is probably not worth worrying too much about for such a short time period.
Dec 14th, 2004, 09:47 AM
#10
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a lot of how you end up splitting the time between these two fabulous places is a very personal decision.
I would spend more time in Paris over London... perhaps 6 days in Paris and 4 in London. For food and wine I think Paris wins. Think about how you want to spend your days, what's important to you and prioritize a bit. I think once you get to the nitty gritty of a day-by-day itinerary, you'll have a decision.
Happy travels,
- Sharon
I would spend more time in Paris over London... perhaps 6 days in Paris and 4 in London. For food and wine I think Paris wins. Think about how you want to spend your days, what's important to you and prioritize a bit. I think once you get to the nitty gritty of a day-by-day itinerary, you'll have a decision.
Happy travels,
- Sharon
Dec 14th, 2004, 08:05 PM
#11
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,019
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the poster who suggested 4 days in London followed by 6 days in Paris. (Actually, I would choose 10 days in Paris but that wasn't the question.)
Paris so very different from the US and that makes it very special. Prices are higher in London (ignoring the argument over whether the dollar/pound or dollar/euro is better/worse). The prices in London are simply higher, no matter what the exchange rate.
Paris is more walkable (although we do walk all over London) and Paris is absolutely stunning everywhere you walk. London is a big noisy city. Paris is a small gentle lovely city.
Food is better in Paris and there won't be much argument about that. There is good food in London but you pay dearly for it.
Churches are free in Paris. You have to pay to go in many churches in London (or all of them, for all I know). Of course, many museums in London are free and you do have to pay in Paris, but you can get a museum pass to alleviate the pain of paying.
London is a very energetic city; Paris is magic.
Paris so very different from the US and that makes it very special. Prices are higher in London (ignoring the argument over whether the dollar/pound or dollar/euro is better/worse). The prices in London are simply higher, no matter what the exchange rate.
Paris is more walkable (although we do walk all over London) and Paris is absolutely stunning everywhere you walk. London is a big noisy city. Paris is a small gentle lovely city.
Food is better in Paris and there won't be much argument about that. There is good food in London but you pay dearly for it.
Churches are free in Paris. You have to pay to go in many churches in London (or all of them, for all I know). Of course, many museums in London are free and you do have to pay in Paris, but you can get a museum pass to alleviate the pain of paying.
London is a very energetic city; Paris is magic.
Dec 14th, 2004, 09:31 PM
#12
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other than St. Paul's and Westminister Abbey I have yet to pay to go into any church in London. There are plenty of gardens, squares, churches and musuems all over London to get away from the noise.
>>The pound is oppressively strong right now it is impossible to spend more vacation time there.>>
I would have to disagree. Having made 3 trips there in the last 12 months along with side trips and a trip to Iceland, there are lots of ways to have fun without breaking the bank. London is full of bargains. The exchange rate is irrelavent.
>>The pound is oppressively strong right now it is impossible to spend more vacation time there.>>
I would have to disagree. Having made 3 trips there in the last 12 months along with side trips and a trip to Iceland, there are lots of ways to have fun without breaking the bank. London is full of bargains. The exchange rate is irrelavent.
Jan 31st, 2005, 08:56 AM
#13
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the replies everyone. Now we are considering saving London for another trip entirely and concentrating on France.
So I will re-word my question if I may...
10 Days - how to split time between Paris and the French countryside?
Thanks again!
So I will re-word my question if I may...
10 Days - how to split time between Paris and the French countryside?
Thanks again!
Jan 31st, 2005, 09:11 AM
#14
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi kms,
>10 Days - how to split time between Paris and the French countryside?<
I take it that this is your first time.
10 days in Paris with side trips to no more than 3 of:
Versailles, Chartres, Giverny, Malmaison, Chantilly
Save France for after you have seen Paris.
>10 Days - how to split time between Paris and the French countryside?<
I take it that this is your first time.
10 days in Paris with side trips to no more than 3 of:
Versailles, Chartres, Giverny, Malmaison, Chantilly
Save France for after you have seen Paris.
Jan 31st, 2005, 09:33 AM
#16
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess I would do one of two things: (1)spend the entire time in Paris and take several day trips (Chartres, Versailles, Giverny, other) or (2) spend 5 days in Paris and 5 in one of the many wonderful regions of France (Loire, Provencal, Normandy, Dordogne). All will be lovely in May.
