London after 10 years, with 2 kids now
Nov 13th, 2014, 12:04 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
London after 10 years, with 2 kids now
Hi folks,
About 10 years ago we made our first trip to London with our then 18 month old. She's now 12, with a 9 year old sister joining her on this trip with us. By a sheer stroke of luck we are going to be able to take them to London in 2015.
Last time, we had a great flat on the edge of Earl's Court, but it was a little far out for what we want this trip. We'll have about 4-5 nights, and we want to hit the ground running... or at least at a much quicker pace than we managed with a nursing, teething, stroller-bound baby last time. (I just looked back on my trip notes, and she cut like 9 teeth in the first 15 days of our trip. Fun times!)
I see a lot of posts here saying that Bloomsbury and Kensington have become "too touristy"... but I'm sure that's all relative. I don't lurk on the UK forum enough to know all the nuances, and I really didn't see enough of London last time to know what we want this time.
<b>I'd sure appreciate some help zeroing in on a few neighborhoods.</b>
I don't mind using the tube. (Look ma, no stroller this time!)
We want to see, at a minimum, the British Museum, the London Eye, Buckingham Palace, the Tower of London. Maybe do a London Walk (are there any good ones for 9-12 year olds?) Maybe Kensington Palace. And possibly the Natural History Museum if we can get to it.
I am not at all interested in staying in the Theater District. It seemed more frenetic than other neighborhoods. I loved what seemed like relative quiet in the streets around and behind Harrod's (is that Belgravia?), but I don't know if I have that budget. I tend to prefer the quieter, more residential neighborhoods than to be in the heart of the action.
I'm sure I'll be posting tons of silly questions over the coming months. Hope you'll bear with me.
Thanks for your help!
Skatterfly
About 10 years ago we made our first trip to London with our then 18 month old. She's now 12, with a 9 year old sister joining her on this trip with us. By a sheer stroke of luck we are going to be able to take them to London in 2015.
Last time, we had a great flat on the edge of Earl's Court, but it was a little far out for what we want this trip. We'll have about 4-5 nights, and we want to hit the ground running... or at least at a much quicker pace than we managed with a nursing, teething, stroller-bound baby last time. (I just looked back on my trip notes, and she cut like 9 teeth in the first 15 days of our trip. Fun times!)
I see a lot of posts here saying that Bloomsbury and Kensington have become "too touristy"... but I'm sure that's all relative. I don't lurk on the UK forum enough to know all the nuances, and I really didn't see enough of London last time to know what we want this time.
<b>I'd sure appreciate some help zeroing in on a few neighborhoods.</b>
I don't mind using the tube. (Look ma, no stroller this time!)
We want to see, at a minimum, the British Museum, the London Eye, Buckingham Palace, the Tower of London. Maybe do a London Walk (are there any good ones for 9-12 year olds?) Maybe Kensington Palace. And possibly the Natural History Museum if we can get to it.
I am not at all interested in staying in the Theater District. It seemed more frenetic than other neighborhoods. I loved what seemed like relative quiet in the streets around and behind Harrod's (is that Belgravia?), but I don't know if I have that budget. I tend to prefer the quieter, more residential neighborhoods than to be in the heart of the action.
I'm sure I'll be posting tons of silly questions over the coming months. Hope you'll bear with me.
Thanks for your help!
Skatterfly
Nov 13th, 2014, 03:57 AM
#2
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 57,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloomsbury ad Kensington have been touristy for 50 years. If your find good places to stay NEAR a TUBE STATION then go for it.
We always do more central - but generally higher budget areas: Covent garden, Mayfair and Knightsbridge - so you can start walking immediately to some sights and many restaurants/shops.
We always do more central - but generally higher budget areas: Covent garden, Mayfair and Knightsbridge - so you can start walking immediately to some sights and many restaurants/shops.
Nov 13th, 2014, 06:53 AM
#3
>>I see a lot of posts here saying that Bloomsbury and Kensington have become "too touristy"… <<
Where have you seen any such thing? They are no more 'touristy' than any other part of central London. In fact, Kensington is about as un-touristy as one will find in the middle of London.
Kensington isn't the most convenient area because of tube connections . . . but <u>South</u> Kensington (a different neighborhood) is very handy. Bloomsbury/Russell Square could not be more convenient.
>>I am not at all interested in staying in the Theater District. It seemed more frenetic than other neighborhoods.<<
Not quite sure what you mean by that since there is no single 'Theatre District' There are theatres in Covent Garden, in Soho, at Victoria, at Sloan Square, and several other areas.
The most central/convenient areas would be South Kensington, Covent Garden, Russell Square, parts of the South Bank, Victoria, Westminster, Marble Arch, and a few others.
Knightsbridge and Mayfair are very central but are generally VERY pricey neighborhoods - basically very up market ghettos.
Where have you seen any such thing? They are no more 'touristy' than any other part of central London. In fact, Kensington is about as un-touristy as one will find in the middle of London.
Kensington isn't the most convenient area because of tube connections . . . but <u>South</u> Kensington (a different neighborhood) is very handy. Bloomsbury/Russell Square could not be more convenient.
>>I am not at all interested in staying in the Theater District. It seemed more frenetic than other neighborhoods.<<
Not quite sure what you mean by that since there is no single 'Theatre District' There are theatres in Covent Garden, in Soho, at Victoria, at Sloan Square, and several other areas.
The most central/convenient areas would be South Kensington, Covent Garden, Russell Square, parts of the South Bank, Victoria, Westminster, Marble Arch, and a few others.
Knightsbridge and Mayfair are very central but are generally VERY pricey neighborhoods - basically very up market ghettos.
Nov 13th, 2014, 09:04 AM
#7
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 34,858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know what she means by theater district, near Covent Garden where that cheap ticket booth is and a lot of nearby theaters (Leicester Sq).
I've stayed in Kensington and found it very convenient myself (near Gloucester Rd tube stop). It does take you longer to get to some places, that's true, just being farther out. I liked being near Kensington Gardens, Royal Albert Hall, etc. At least that hotel calls it Kensington, if anything south of Cromwell Rd is South Kensington, it would be that.
I've stayed in Kensington and found it very convenient myself (near Gloucester Rd tube stop). It does take you longer to get to some places, that's true, just being farther out. I liked being near Kensington Gardens, Royal Albert Hall, etc. At least that hotel calls it Kensington, if anything south of Cromwell Rd is South Kensington, it would be that.
Nov 13th, 2014, 09:16 AM
#8
>>I've stayed in Kensington and found it very convenient myself (near Gloucester Rd tube stop).<<
The Gloucester Rd tube stop isn't in Kensington . . . depending on exactly where you stayed your hotel was either in South Kensington or Earl's Court. So like I said SOUTH Kensington is fine and more convenient than Kensington.
>>I know what she means by theater district, near Covent Garden where that cheap ticket booth is and a lot of nearby theaters (Leicester Sq).<<
As for the Theatre district . . . Leicester Square isn't 'the' theatre district. it is 'a' theatre district w/ several theatres on/near Charing Cross Road close to the Square. . . but there are even more along/near Shaftsbury Avenue, near Drury Lane/Covent Garden, plus several around Victoria Station, on Haymarket, etc.
My guess is the OP meant the Shaftsbury Avenue area. That would definitely be 'frenetic'.
The Gloucester Rd tube stop isn't in Kensington . . . depending on exactly where you stayed your hotel was either in South Kensington or Earl's Court. So like I said SOUTH Kensington is fine and more convenient than Kensington.
>>I know what she means by theater district, near Covent Garden where that cheap ticket booth is and a lot of nearby theaters (Leicester Sq).<<
As for the Theatre district . . . Leicester Square isn't 'the' theatre district. it is 'a' theatre district w/ several theatres on/near Charing Cross Road close to the Square. . . but there are even more along/near Shaftsbury Avenue, near Drury Lane/Covent Garden, plus several around Victoria Station, on Haymarket, etc.
My guess is the OP meant the Shaftsbury Avenue area. That would definitely be 'frenetic'.
Nov 13th, 2014, 09:17 AM
#9
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
super-prime ghettoes
"they have become bespoke airport lounges for the transitory super-rich as they hopscotch their way from one soft-touch tax regime to another..'
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/60b4e160-f...#axzz3IyQPWOe7
"they have become bespoke airport lounges for the transitory super-rich as they hopscotch their way from one soft-touch tax regime to another..'
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/60b4e160-f...#axzz3IyQPWOe7
Nov 13th, 2014, 10:08 AM
#10
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
""they have become bespoke airport lounges for the transitory super-rich as they hopscotch their way from one soft-touch tax regime to another..'
"
...is an understandable complaint by English people who grew up to believe they were entitled to live in posh parts of town, but turn out to be less good at making money than Russians or Hong Kongers - but I'm not sure what that's got to do with finding somewhere to stay. It used to be the relatively lowly sort who thought migrating to Australia would improve their lot who did all the whingeing. Now it's overeducated underachieving journalists on broadsheet newspapers.
Both are pleasant and central areas, neither are empty, both have a reasonable infrastructure of basic-ish eating places, both have OK supermarkets (London has proper supermarkets anywhere there are lots of offices) - and neither are more obviously stuffed with deracine temporary-resident foreigners than Bloomsbury or Bayswater, but are both a lot less stuffed with shops selling tourist tat.
"
...is an understandable complaint by English people who grew up to believe they were entitled to live in posh parts of town, but turn out to be less good at making money than Russians or Hong Kongers - but I'm not sure what that's got to do with finding somewhere to stay. It used to be the relatively lowly sort who thought migrating to Australia would improve their lot who did all the whingeing. Now it's overeducated underachieving journalists on broadsheet newspapers.
Both are pleasant and central areas, neither are empty, both have a reasonable infrastructure of basic-ish eating places, both have OK supermarkets (London has proper supermarkets anywhere there are lots of offices) - and neither are more obviously stuffed with deracine temporary-resident foreigners than Bloomsbury or Bayswater, but are both a lot less stuffed with shops selling tourist tat.
