wes fowler

The following was originally posted as one of a number of responses I made to a query regarding the whereabouts of London’s Sutton House. That query prompted me to entertain some off beat thoughts. <BR><BR>For travelers to London, even the most frequent and experienced ones, “London” seems to encompass an area from Little Venice east to perhaps Whitechapel then south to Southwark, southwest to Chelsea and north back to Little Venice. That’s an area of about twelve square miles of which slightly less that 6,000 acres are Royal parks. Greater London encompasses a bit more than six hundred square miles. When we visit what we perceive to be London then, we see only about .002% of what the city offers. What do we really see and experience? At best, we experience the city as a “theme park” that encapsulates what London and Britain are. Their history, from Westminster Abbey to the Tower; their culture, from the Tate museums to the British Museum to theatres and concert halls; their law evidenced by the Inns of Court; their commerce and finance epitomized by The City, Regent, Oxford and New Bond Streets and their government evidenced by the Houses of Parliament and Whitehall. Add to these the royal presence evidenced by Buckingham, Kensington and St. James Palaces and the pageantries of the daily Changings of the Guard throughout the city and the annual Trooping of the Colors. We stroll down Sussex Gardens and Lancaster Gate in Bayswater and Paddington, Old Brompton Road and Sumner Place in South Kensington, Cadogan Gardens in Knightsbridge, Ebury Street in Victoria and Montague Street in Bloomsbury. What do we see? Hotel after hotel after hotel, most catering to tourists like us. How many of us, particularly those who have made frequent visits to London, have explored Hackney, the site of Sutton House, or Lewisham, the borough where Ben Haines resides, or Islington, Ealing or Camden Town. Can we truly say we’ve “seen” London if we haven’t?<BR><BR>One could ask the same of frequent visitors to Paris. Its “theme park” of about ten square miles runs southeast from the Arc de Triomphe to the Place des Vosges, south then to the Seine, northwest to Champ de Mars and north to the Arc. If we never escape its borders, have we “seen” Paris? Why are we adventuresome enough to undertake European travel, but lack the spirit of adventure to explore outside the tourist oriented venues?<BR>

Rex

It's a great observation and question, Wes. Maybe it's why I recommend getting outside "the city" (for London, Paris, etc) for 2-3 days when I hear someone planning a 7 day stay there.<BR><BR>You can say the same of several American travel destinations - - both big city (NY, SF) and small (NO, Aspen).<BR><BR>Best wishes,<BR><BR>Rex<BR>

elaine

wes<BR>i don't think people necessarily lack the spirit of adventure, but many lack time and money. If one only has a week (or even two) to visit, should one see Sutton House in Hackney but not<BR>the Tower of London? See Lewisham but not Windsor Castle? See the 17th arrondissement in Paris but not the 6th?<BR>One can always argue that the "real" Paris or London is in the residential neighborhoods beyond the tourist centers, but with limited time and budgets most people want to see the famous places, at least on their first or second visit to a place. I know I do. I never have enough time on a first visit to see even all the famous places. <BR> I was exploring seeing Sutton House because<BR>a. I just found out about it, b. Tudor history and architecture interest me, and c. I've been to London 5 or 6 times.S.H. may turn out to be such a fabulous place that I come back and urge you all to see it and if necessary, skip the Tower of London.<BR>But first of all, who am I to say what's "better" and then of course who on their first or second visit would take the advice of not seeing the Tower of London(not that I'm recommending that anyway!)<BR>On the other hand, even on first visits some of us have already researched some more obscure venue that particularly interests us, and that we wouldn't think of having missed, while others could be baffled by it. On my first visit to London I went to Hempstead to see Freud's house. Wouldn't have missed it, and am still so glad I went, because it meant something to ME. Hempstead is a great area in general, but if time is limited, what other venues should be omitted to make time for Hampstead? And who's to say?<BR>People come to my city, New York, and they want to see the Statue of Liberty and the Empire State building. Should I instead recommend that they go to Brooklyn to walk the neighborhoods and visit the Botanical Gardens? I could try, but on a short, first visit it would be hard to convince anyone and I wouldn't try.<BR><BR>It's always about choices I think.

elaine

sorry for typo of course that should have been<BR>"Hampstead"

mimi taylor

I visited Islington and Ealing, but only because I was invited to there by relatives of a friend. At that time I visited the docklands before it was finished.

janis

I agree with elaine. I've been to Ealing and Islington and Chiswick and Camdem and Highgate and a hundred other places. But most folks on this site are asking about a first or second visit. Since Americans in particular have very short holidays (in comparison to most Europeans) they need to prioritize. After they've been a time ot two, then they will ask about more unusual or out of the way places.

Joanne

I think Wes' original question is actually two questions: Why do we not get away from (1) the center cities AND (2) popular tourist destinations? One can follow Rex's advice to get away from the center city, but still not get away from tourist venues if (for example) your day trip from London is to the palaces and castles that are popular with tourists, or Stratford or Stonehenge, for example. <BR><BR>I live in Boston (the US one, not the UK one, LOL!), where I have lived in both a popular tourist site (Beacon Hill), watching tourists regularly walk past my house with their noses in guidebooks, as well as one of the regular neighborhoods that never sees tourists (Roslindale). I know how different those locations and experiences can be!<BR><BR>When we went to England last summer, we did a home exchange, which not only saved us a LOT of money (in auto rental as well as housing!) but also gave us the opportunity to live in a British home in a British neighborhood (Finchley). We met the neighbors (some of whom were just as quirky as TV characters), shopped in neighborhood shops, used strange British appliances, breakfasted in our British garden, watched British TV IN a British home, my son slept in another teen's bedroom festooned with shirts from local football teams. Just spending an hour at Tesco's (supermarket) was as interesting a cultural experience as an hour at the British Museum. My teenage kids began to develop a truly deep understanding not only of British history but also of current issues such as immigration and how Monty Python got that way (they met the prototypes of those twittering dowdy ladies, for instance!).<BR><BR>So, Wes, I would say No, if you haven't visited the neighborhoods and homes of London or Paris, or wherever, then you haven't truly experienced the culture. It's often easier to experience an area's history or high culture (art etc.) than its actual everyday life and people.<BR><BR>I agree with Elaine that it's often a lack of time that limits visitors to the well-trodden tourist paths, BUT I do have to agree with Wes that "frequent visitors" who never go beyond the limited "theme park" districts do not truly experience the culture they're apparently so fond of.

wes fowler

I think one of the most unfortunate aspects of the schemes we develop in our travel planning is our tendency to place all our emphasis on what Joanne calls “high culture”<BR>with little or no thought given to a city’s real culture. I can empathize with Elaine’s comments that time and money may dictate what we choose to experience in our travels, particularly if we’re first time visitors to Europe. It’s unfortunate, however, that so much of our travel is dictated by checklists that have us wandering to and through museums and monuments so engrossed in the treasures of our past that we ignore the potential delights of the present.<BR><BR>Some years ago, my wife and I visited London. We dutifully toured the city’s highlights. One afternoon, we stopped in an appealing looking pub just off Regent Street. People were packed three deep at the bar and most tables were occupied. The featured beer of the week was Rolling Rock from Latrobe, Pennsylvania. While having lunch, we eavesdropped on conversations about us. In every instance, the accents were American. A few nights later we strolled to a neighborhood pub a few blocks from our hotel in the residential area near Little Venice far from the madding crowds of tourists. It, too, was filled, both with convivial people and a host of dogs: Golden Retrievers, Springer Spaniels and German Shepherds. We soon learned that the Prince Frederick pub was the terminus for the dog walking residents of the neighborhood. Within twenty minutes we were engaged in conversation with a couple of those residents. By the end of what proved to be a long evening, my wife had helped a recently unemployed middle manager in developing an updated resume; I had engaged in lively debate regarding the merits of the Atlanta Braves pitching staff vs. the batting lineup of the New York Mets, (this with a financial reporter from the Reuters news agency who was addicted to American baseball). In subsequent evening visits, we found that we had become accepted as “regulars” although dogless and engaged in fascinating and enlightening conversations with equally fascinating and enlightening residents on a wide range of subjects. <BR><BR>Assuredly our visits to the British Museum, Westminster Abbey and the Tower of London (all on our checklist) were memorable and enlightening experiences. Equally so were our evenings in an informal setting with some of London’s residents and their retrievers and spaniels. <BR><BR>For most travelers, interaction with “locals” is invariably limited to those in the tourism and hospitality industries. We interact primarily with waiters, hotel desk clerks, tour guides, ticket sellers and souvenir shopkeepers. A planned venture from the tourist’s “theme park” to the heart of a city or region can offer unexpected delights and rewards if we have the courage to truly explore. Why not give it a try by including "down time" in the midst of our checklists? <BR> <BR>

dan woodlief

That is certainly a good way of planning your travel Wes. I generally look at what I want to see, how long it will take to see it, and then add little time to allow for just what you are talking about to occur. Sometimes, I end up using the extra time for sights because I didn't plan well enough, but at other times it does allow for more "interesting" experiences. Honestly, it is these things that remain with us long after our "museum memory" has faded. People wonder why I like Freiburg so much. Sure it has a great cathedral, but there aren't very many "sights." I think that is why I like it so much. I was able to spend a few days in a place that most rush through in a day or so. During that time, I spent lots of time with German students, professors, and other residents in class, at wine tastings, at pubs, at a festival, and just enjoy the real culture of the city. I have noticed in the past how people talk about places they lived for a while, and they sometimes say things that differ greatly from the opinions of travelers, who may have never really seen the charm of the place. It is a way of travel that is hard for most of us to pursue because of time and money and the "tourist" demands, but it is certainly worth trying.

Judy

I believe taking public transportation is one of best ways to know a region and the people.<BR><BR>Except for business and special concerts, I rarely go to major cities in western Europe any more. Following my interests on gardens and walking,I have visited many unknown places by trains or buses,staying at obscure b&bs not listed on any travel guides.<BR><BR>Many a times,I have had interesting conversations with fellow passengers/drivers about local affairs,economy..etc. Especially on some less frequent routes,with very few people(and usually everyone knew each other), sometimes ended up a heated debate among the whole bus.<BR><BR>Last September, I took bus from St.David's to Marlose Sound for walking in southern Wales.I was the only passenger on both ways with the same driver. At the end of the day,I had heard about his family,career history,his dog,local unemployment..,he even took a detour to show me a religious site.

elaine

Y'know, everyone's right about this.<BR>Most of us (certainly I) don't get to travel as much as we would like in our fondest dreams, even if some of us do get to travel a lot more than other folks. I've been to Paris multiple times. If I haven't been for two years<BR>(about my average) and then plan my next trip, I COULD say to myself, "no need to go the Musee d'Orsay or Marmottan again, been there many times." But I DON'T say that to myself, because I "miss" those museums in between trips and wouldn't consider my visit to Paris to be complete without them. The art actually gives me a thrill; I walk into the Marmottan and start to smile broadly.<BR>So once I make choices like that, I've already put limitations on the remaining time for visiting other places. I do try to add at least one or two new activiities each time I go and I certainly h haven't run out of things to see yet.<BR>But my particular interests are that I'd rather spend my limited time seeing a centuries-old church, or art that interests me, instead of spending more time with the locals. That's my loss, and also my choice. I'm not at all antisocial and I do enjoy mingling, but I still almost always have a sightseeing agenda of some kind. That's me, not everyone. 50 years from now when I've lived in Paris or London or Rome for at least a month at a time, I'll be more content to let myself just "hang" at a pub for a whole day.

Capo

Hi Wes. You ask: Can we truly say we’ve "seen" London (or Paris, etc.) if we haven't "escaped the borders of its 'theme park' core"?<BR><BR>If by "truly" seen you mean seen the entire city, then the answer is obviously no. <BR><BR>But my question in return is: is it necessary to "truly" see an entire city in order to experience it and enjoy it? (My answer to that is also no.)

wes fowler

Capo,<BR>Probably the last person to truly "see" London was John Stow, a tailor of all things, who devoted most of his 16th century life to walking the streets of London and documenting the relics of London's past. An antiquarian who continued tailoring, he recognized that the city had no record of historic buildings and undertook the task of documenting them, as well as the professions, dress and customs of the people he saw in the streets. An extraordinary fellow, indeed. His contribution to the history of London is so much recognized that once a year in early spring, London's Lord Mayor in company with a distinguished historian visit the church of St Andrew Undershaft where Stow is entombed. There, there is a bust of Stow, writing in his journals. Each year the Lord Mayor replaces the quill pen in Stow's hand.<BR><BR>"See" is no doubt the wrong word; "experience" perhaps better, although we say we saw Paris or London rather than experienced them. I think that's the point I'm trying to make. Make the visit a meaningful experience, not simply a sight-seeing expedition. An analogy of the latter might be picking up a copy of the New York Times or St. Louis Post-Dispatch, glancing at the headlines only and saying we've read the paper.

Suzy

Wes, I like your newspaper analogy. But I'd say that just visiting the tourist highlights is like reading the comics and every word of the Sports section and not looking at the rest.

Capo

Wes, I understand what you're saying but... a definition of "experience" (the verb) is "to participate in personally" (as opposed to, for example, looking at photos in a coffee-table book) so couldn't someone who personally visits a city be said to "experience" it, even if they never venture out of its central core? <BR><BR>Now, if instead of experience, per se, you mean -- as you say -- a "meaningful" experience, doesn't what constitutes a meaningful experience differ from person to person?

wes fowler

Capo,<BR>I wonder if this conversation is of interest to anyone other than the two of us? I think Joanne, above got the gist of what I was driving at when she wrote:<BR><BR>... if you haven't visited the neighborhoods and homes of London or Paris, or wherever, then you haven't truly experienced the culture. It's often easier to experience an area's history or high culture (art etc.) than its actual everyday life and people.<BR><BR>I agree with Elaine that it's often a lack of time that limits visitors to the well-trodden tourist paths, BUT I do have to agree with Wes that "frequent visitors" who never go beyond the limited "theme park" districts do not truly experience the culture they're apparently so fond of.<BR><BR>In my mind, there are two cultures to consider, the "high culture" of the museums, concert halls and monuments usually based on the accomplishments of the past and the "real culture" that you encounter in the neighborhood pub,greengrocer's or chemist's and the people that inhabit them. Idiosyncratically perhaps, I put equal importance on both as a means of understanding a place. That's not to say someone can't or won't get a meaningful experience by following the tracks of most tourists. My real purpose in posing the initial questions was to stimulate the concept that there's more to London, Paris or any popular tourist attraction than the contents of guidebooks provide and by stepping outside those books' guidelines the traveler can perhaps encounter an unexpected but meaningful "experience".

Capo

Wes, if you're talking about not venturing beyond specific sights, rather than not venturing beyond geographic boundaries -- such as those you outlined -- then your comments about not experiencing "street culture" make sense. I just don't feel that one needs to venture into outlying neighborhoods to experience "street culture." But one certainly would need to venture out of museums and monuments and churches to experience this.<BR><BR>Anyway, as for your purpose in posing your original questions, I couldn't agree more that there's more to London, Paris, and other popular European (and other) cities than what is mentioned in guidebooks. As for myself, while I like museums, monuments, etc., I find just as much -- if not more -- value in spending time in streets, squares, parks, cafes and the like.

SUe

Wes, I see your question as two questions. One is whether one has seen a city if one doesn't venture beyond a certain geographical core. The other concerns the activities we might pursue, and whether we need to vary these between looking at the highlights and trying to see something of everyday life.<BR><BR>With respect to the second, I think you can see something of everyday life, even in the 'tourist zone.' Especially if you pursue everyday things like shop for groceries, wash clothes in laundromats, take the bus, etc. Sounds pretty humble, but this is where I've met the locals. As for museums, I've run into a lot of school groups during the spring season doing just what I'm doing - seeing the highlights. Personally, I find watching the school groups fascinating.<BR><BR>It's a 'theme park' only if that's how a traveller treats it.