Friends of mine invited me along on a last minute 6 night trip in May to London followed by a 2 night trip to Belgium. London has never really been on the top of my list of places to go to in Europe, possibly because i have not really researched it yet.

I live in very close vicinity to NYC so the theater and plays do not really entice me. I worry that maybe I would do better traveling somewhere a little more different then home??? Is London very similar to Manhattan? Im 30 and pretty active. I do like art museums, outdoor cafes, visiting castles and cathedrals. (loved, loved, loved Paris!).

I will continue to research, but just wanted some opinions (from those who love london and those who were not very impressed)...Thanks in advance

I am more than sure that you will have plenty of people respond that London is great and should not be missed. I, however, am not one that cared much for it. I have spent time there once just to say that I saw it. Don't get me wrong, there are some amazing things to see in London (Westmister Abbey is on the top of my list). But in my opinion, to spend 6 days there is far too much and so many tourists. I loved, loved, loved Rome. Just my humble opinion...

London is much better than Manhattan, IMO. Where in Manhattan can you find iconic buildings like Big Ben, Westminster Abbey, St Paul's Cathedral? You also can see buildings dating back to Henry VIII time (Hampton Court Palace), and modern buildings like the Gherkin Building.

Most of the major art musuems in London are FREE admission, and if you like art, IMO, there are more art museums/galleries in London than Manhattan. National Gallery, National Portrait Gallery, Courtald Gallery, Wallace Collection, Tate Modern, Tate Britain, Royal Academy of Art, British Museum, Victorai & Albert Museum... and this is just to start! I have been to London over a dozen times and there is still a long list of things I have yet to see/do!

I've lived all my life within an hour of Manhattan. I can go to theater, opera, ballet, museums, any time I want, and I take advantage of the city often. But London is the city I love for its churches, parks, museums, theaters, markets, street life, and -- most of all -- its accessable history.

VirginiaC said it much better than I did. It's history and more history. In fact, you can still see part of the Roman city walls in London.

London isn't Paris. It is more like New York in the frenetic pace. However, the history that is available in London is just tremendous. If you like musuems, they have just about every kind immaginable. For castles, you've got the Tower and Windsor, and if you're willing to stretch a little bit, Hampton Court. St. Paul's and Westminster Abbey provide two rather different versions of large scale European church architecture. Having been to London, there are other places I want to go to before I go back to London for a 3rd time, but if you haven't been before, I wouldn't pass up the chance.

I have only limited experience with Manhattan, but I think London is quite different. It's bigger (area-wise), for one thing, and has so much history, as yk and VirginiaC mentioned. It has art museums in abundance, many, many churches (St Paul and Westminster Abbey are the major ones, but there are many others), and if you're looking for castles, Windsor Castle and Hampton Court Palace are good day trips, plus there's the Tower of London. I spent a semester there in college, have been back twice since, and am going back in June because there are still things I haven't done. And just because I love it.

My personal feeling is that we can sit here all day long and tell you how great it is, but if you're curious and can afford it, just go see for yourself how much you like it. With six days, you can see a lot of London but also do a day trip or two.

London isn't my absolute favourite city (that would be Paris) but I've enjoyed my trips there and would always be up for going again. I don't think six days is too long at all. As yk already mentioned, there are so many things to see and do in London, if you like museums you'll have no problem filling your days.

Some things/places I've really enjoyed in London: the British Library, the City (for its modern architecture and little pockets of history), Southbank, people watching in Trafalger Square, taking a tour of Highgate Cemetery, the National Portrait Gallery, and the National Gallery (which btw has the "Picasso: Challenging the Past" exhibition on until June 7, 2009). I also really enjoyed visiting the Tower of London, and especially love the skyline with the Tower and the Gherkin. Walking across the Millenium Bridge to the Tate Modern, love the view of St Paul's. And St James Park, if the weather's nice I just can't get enough of St James Park.

The Royal Ballet is doing Giselle and a mixed Sylphides/Firebird program in May- one thing NYC doesn't have is Carlos Acosta.

See? Writing this post has made me miss London and now wish <b>I</b> was going for a visit in the spring. I don't think you have anything to worry about, you'll have a great time.

After reading all this, I need someone to come tell me why I should NOT buy myself a plane ticket to London soon!

Hi yk,

Do you like Handel? The Royal Opera is doing a double bill, "Dido and Aeneas" & "Acis and Galatea" in April. I am <b>dying</b> because Dido and Aeneas is probably my all time favourite opera, and Iestyn Davies will be singing. He's a Handelian countertenor- I saw him last October in Partenope at the ENO and he was incredible.

Between that and the Picasso exhibition...well let's just say a little piece of me is dying on the inside because I can't go to London in April

So, if for no other reason, will you please buy a plane ticket soon so that the rest of us can live vicariously through your trip report?

London is really NOTHING at all like Manhattan. No canyons of skyscrapers, more human scale buildings, and MUCH more history. "<i>To spend 6 days there is far too much</i>" - just goes to show you there are all kinds. I could not conceive of being done w/ London in 6 days. I lived in the UK for 5 years and try to get back to London at least once a year and have STILL not seen/done everything on my list.

You may poo poo the theatre in London - but top tickets are much cheaper in London. I'm seeing Judi Dench in a new play in May and my ticket in the stalls is $47 (best seats in the house), and Calendar Girls - 2nd row stalls is $45 including a glass of champagne on a special through Cameron Mackintosh..

The beauty of London is that it is only 45 minutes by train from Cambridge, and hour from Oxford and just under 2 hours from York. To be perfectly honest, a trip to any of these cities is probably more worth while than staying in London the whole time. Plus, Apres_Londee should be commended for wanting to see Dido and Aeneas at the ROH, however their mentioned singer will be in the orchestra pit...invisible.

Only you can decide this really. Take a look at what is available in London and whether you think you'd enjoy a trip there. It's not that you've decided that London is not a good destination for you, you just haven't thought about it all that much.

I feel the same way about a lot of the destinations that get mentioned on here. Germany? For a holiday? Why? But having read some of the recommendations and reports I realise that it's a country with a lot to offer and it's now tentatively on my 'future visits' wish-list. But honestly, if I'd heard of a friend going to Germany for a holiday a few years ago, I would have laughed.

I've been to London yearly for the last 40 years and leave again next week. I love the pace and the people. There's a bit of history on every corner that you see. Always some new exhibition to see even the theatre has a different feel than the NY scene.
Also as someone above said , it's great for short daytrips to places you've only heard about, Oxford, Windsor, Cambridge, Stonehenge, etc.

The parks should be glorious in May and are well used by the population.

Well hubby and I moved to London in 2007 so of course we love it! There is so much history packed into one place, and lots of interesting day trips (Stonehenge, Cambridge, Canterbury, Salsibury, Brighton, I could go on hahaha). I've been here now 1.5 years and havent even scraped the top of the barrel of things to see. But it depends what your interests are.

Take a look at a guide book and see if it tweaks your interest...or check out the destinations guide on fodors!

I live close to NYC. I love London and would visit every year, if I could. While it is similar in that it is a large and bustling city, the vibe is completely different. It feels familiar and yet unique. Now, my friend was unimpressed with London, so it's hard to say what your reaction will be. I'd say it's worth a trip.

Wow, thank you so much for all your speedy responses. There were certainly more positives then negatives, so I am starting to feel excited about the prospects of this trip. I was a little nervous because the responses on the forums for other cities (paris, barcelona, rome) seemed to evoke more passion and attention.

Thespirit, The days trips sounded very appealing to me as well (and I will be doing research on them) but why do you state that some of the day trips are more worthwhile then staying in london?

yk, if you book, get me one too! I'm SO ready to go back, and I've only been home 3 weeks! I'm working on finangling another trip back this summer...

I find NYC exhausting (frenetic is the right word for it, for sure), loud and dirty, but for me it has its plusses with the theater and museums. Other than that, I have no real use for it to be honest. I don't get the same feeling in London at all...I loved to be out and walking around, taking in the buildings, the history, the people. I don't get a "frenetic" feel off it at all and don't feel completely worn out by it like I do NY. I don't think you can compare the theater in London and NY fairly, as there are a good number of shows there that will never see the light of day here: Oliver (with Rowan Atkinson which I loved) and the Kevin Spacey/Richard Dreyfus one which I forget the name of now, both were on when I was there last week. And so much cheaper too!

The museums though, blew me away in a way I did not expect at all. Especially for what you can see for free...I spent 4 whole days in museums and didn't pay a dime, and I could easily go back and see what I didn't see and I'm sure spend another week easily. And I am not even considering day-trips yet!

I'd definitely say go. I don't know if you'd like it, you probably will. It's a big city with all kinds of things to do just like any other big city. Of course every city is unique. London is VERY expensive.

I think I should organize a trip for us - amyb, Apres, and perhaps MmeFifi (if we can talk her out of her Rome trip) - to London in May! I think janis will be in London during that time, and we can have a all-girls party there.

In the meantime, I'm heading to Manhattan this week, and it doesn't excite me the way that London does.

I wonder if part of the appeal of London (like someone else has mentioned upthread), is the lack of skyscrapers for the most part. Whereas in Manhattan, I am surrounded by tall buildings that it is suffocating. In addition, London is dotted by many parks with trees, flowers and grass - and they're of decent size - unlike the "parks" in NYC which are no more than 1/2 block in size and mainly covered in concrete.