What's a realistic target weekly rent for London in July?
Apr 13th, 2006, 01:39 PM
#3
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For an apartment in London, check out London Serviced Apartments.
http://www.londonservicedapartments.co.uk/
They offer 3 price ranges...economy, mid-range and luxury in areas all over London! I've stayed at The Mansions (economy) in Earls Court and was very, very happy with the two bedroom, 2 bathroom apartment!
http://www.londonservicedapartments.co.uk/
They offer 3 price ranges...economy, mid-range and luxury in areas all over London! I've stayed at The Mansions (economy) in Earls Court and was very, very happy with the two bedroom, 2 bathroom apartment!
Apr 13th, 2006, 02:52 PM
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was looking at apartments. I've heard of people finding bargains on priceline so I will have to check that out too.
See 950 pounds seems very high. I just booked a nice apt. in the center of Florence for end of May with all the amenities for 660 euros complete (1 week). I know I can find that in Paris too and maybe a bit more in Rome.
Covent Garden isn't even the most expensive part of town is it? Compared to West End or Mayfair or around Picadilly Circus and Trafalgar Square?
Now I do tend to look for places in the center even though they're more costly. I know the Underground is suppose to be wonderful and I plan to use it. But if I read the maps right, places like Kensington are like 2 miles out from center.
I did look at londonservicedapartments.co.uk and got the sticker shock.
I guess I will check out London Guest Suites. VRBO has some decent prices (700 pounds and under).
My vacation is 13 days. Guess I will be spending half of that in Paris or elsewhere.
See 950 pounds seems very high. I just booked a nice apt. in the center of Florence for end of May with all the amenities for 660 euros complete (1 week). I know I can find that in Paris too and maybe a bit more in Rome.
Covent Garden isn't even the most expensive part of town is it? Compared to West End or Mayfair or around Picadilly Circus and Trafalgar Square?
Now I do tend to look for places in the center even though they're more costly. I know the Underground is suppose to be wonderful and I plan to use it. But if I read the maps right, places like Kensington are like 2 miles out from center.
I did look at londonservicedapartments.co.uk and got the sticker shock.
I guess I will check out London Guest Suites. VRBO has some decent prices (700 pounds and under).My vacation is 13 days. Guess I will be spending half of that in Paris or elsewhere.
Apr 13th, 2006, 02:59 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
We are paying about 100 euro a night for our apartment in Paris.
We are paying about 125 euro a night for a spectacular apartment in Venice.
We are paying just under 100 a night for a great place in Rome.
Our flat in London is a splurge for us. We don't care about the "ritziest" area. We've rented the same flat on Floral Street some 9 or 10 times now. It is very special.
Yes, as I said there are many apartments cheaper. Cheap isn't our goal in London.
We are paying about 125 euro a night for a spectacular apartment in Venice.
We are paying just under 100 a night for a great place in Rome.
Our flat in London is a splurge for us. We don't care about the "ritziest" area. We've rented the same flat on Floral Street some 9 or 10 times now. It is very special.
Yes, as I said there are many apartments cheaper. Cheap isn't our goal in London.
Apr 13th, 2006, 03:01 PM
#7
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>>>>
But if I read the maps right, places like Kensington are like 2 miles out from center.
>>>>
i am not necessarily recommending kensington or anywhere else but london is a bit more spread out than some cities...kensington, for example, is not considered far out. no matter where you stay, you will need to take public transport to get to some places you wish to see.
But if I read the maps right, places like Kensington are like 2 miles out from center.
>>>>
i am not necessarily recommending kensington or anywhere else but london is a bit more spread out than some cities...kensington, for example, is not considered far out. no matter where you stay, you will need to take public transport to get to some places you wish to see.
Apr 13th, 2006, 03:28 PM
#8
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not looking for the cheapest or the ritziest. Just the most convenient where you can limit time on transport.
Two miles is longer than most of the Paris metro rides I've taken.
Oh well it's only money.
Two miles is longer than most of the Paris metro rides I've taken.
Oh well it's only money.
Apr 13th, 2006, 03:40 PM
#9
Contact these folks http://eandeapartments.co.uk/
They have studios for £450, 1-bdrms for £520, and 2-bdrms for £700 for standard and £850 for deluxe -- all in Pimlico/Victoria which is a very conveninet area.
They have studios for £450, 1-bdrms for £520, and 2-bdrms for £700 for standard and £850 for deluxe -- all in Pimlico/Victoria which is a very conveninet area.
Apr 13th, 2006, 03:43 PM
#10
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Covent Garden is one of the most expensive parts of London for tourist accommodations.
London is a very, very big place. Think Los Angeles. It doesn't make sense to talk in terms of "two miles out." (And by the way, Covent Garden is within walking distance of both Trafalgar and Picadilly.)
Try Islington, Camden Town or Clapham.
London is a very, very big place. Think Los Angeles. It doesn't make sense to talk in terms of "two miles out." (And by the way, Covent Garden is within walking distance of both Trafalgar and Picadilly.)
Try Islington, Camden Town or Clapham.
Apr 13th, 2006, 05:08 PM
#11
London=Sticker Shock these days, no doubt. Expect to pay more than you will in other parts of Europe. Sigh.
You said your goal was to stay in the most convenient spot where you can limit time on public transport...for, I'm assuming, the big museums, theater, historical sites. Kensington, Victoria, Pimlico, Covent Garden are all great suggestions. Add Bloomsbury, Knightsbridge (expensive) and Mayfair (expensive). No one area of London is central to everything but these areas are close to some sites and are also close to public transport that will quickly take you to the other sites.
If your dates are set in cement and you have no issues about # of beds and/or people per room then Priceline is well worth investigating. Look at biddingfortravel for historical data and bid strategy.
The suggestions of Islington, Clapham and Camden Town are unusual to say the least.
nessundorma,
Your comparison of London to LA is bewildering.
You said your goal was to stay in the most convenient spot where you can limit time on public transport...for, I'm assuming, the big museums, theater, historical sites. Kensington, Victoria, Pimlico, Covent Garden are all great suggestions. Add Bloomsbury, Knightsbridge (expensive) and Mayfair (expensive). No one area of London is central to everything but these areas are close to some sites and are also close to public transport that will quickly take you to the other sites.
If your dates are set in cement and you have no issues about # of beds and/or people per room then Priceline is well worth investigating. Look at biddingfortravel for historical data and bid strategy.
The suggestions of Islington, Clapham and Camden Town are unusual to say the least.
nessundorma,
Your comparison of London to LA is bewildering.
Apr 13th, 2006, 05:22 PM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
I guess I was bewildered by your comment "Covent Garden isn't even the most expensive part of town is it?" Depends on what you're looking at. Recently we looked at some new condo "conversions" -- about 750 square feet for a little over $2 million US. But more importantly it is the most central if you are looking for not doing a lot of transport. We usually stay 10 days to 2 weeks, and never buy a travelcard. Most days we never use public transport because everything is so close. We live for the theatre and most days do two shows a day. The theatres are at our doorstep and we easily pop back between shows.
I guess if you think $200 a day or so for a nice apartment is too much money, you shouldn't be expecting much of anything. Yes London is expensive -- possibly even more than New York. What kind of hotel room would you expect to find in either for under $250 a day.
So what is it you're looking for? On one hand I somehow get the idea you want only the best and on the other hand I get the impression you want bargain basement prices. You won't get both in London.
I guess if you think $200 a day or so for a nice apartment is too much money, you shouldn't be expecting much of anything. Yes London is expensive -- possibly even more than New York. What kind of hotel room would you expect to find in either for under $250 a day.
So what is it you're looking for? On one hand I somehow get the idea you want only the best and on the other hand I get the impression you want bargain basement prices. You won't get both in London.
Apr 13th, 2006, 05:54 PM
#13
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
obxgirl,
Like London, Los Angeles is a megalopolis make up of what were originally separate named villages or towns, but the open space that once separated them has since been overrun with development. Yes, there is an historic "city" in both places, but the fully urban layout spreads out in every direction outside it.
That's quite a contrast to the typical European city with its concentrated central development (sometimes even ringed by walls or gates).
Depending on what you want to do in LA or London, one locale that is inconvenient for somebody else is convenient for you. And you shouldn't expect price to be tagged to "central location" as much as the celebrity nature of the neighborhood and its reputation for exclusivity.
Like London, Los Angeles is a megalopolis make up of what were originally separate named villages or towns, but the open space that once separated them has since been overrun with development. Yes, there is an historic "city" in both places, but the fully urban layout spreads out in every direction outside it.
That's quite a contrast to the typical European city with its concentrated central development (sometimes even ringed by walls or gates).
Depending on what you want to do in LA or London, one locale that is inconvenient for somebody else is convenient for you. And you shouldn't expect price to be tagged to "central location" as much as the celebrity nature of the neighborhood and its reputation for exclusivity.
Apr 13th, 2006, 06:00 PM
#14
>>a megalopolis make up of what were originally separate named villages or towns, but the open space that once separated them has since been overrun with development.<<
This describes the evolution of most major metropolitan areas.
Your comparison is bogus.
This describes the evolution of most major metropolitan areas.
Your comparison is bogus.
Apr 13th, 2006, 06:37 PM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
I thought Megalopolis was a term coined in the 1960's (but taken from the Greek) to define the Northeastern United States. It doesn't describe one city made up of what was once one city and small villages that grew together, but a grouping of individual major metropolitan areas -- in this case from Washington to Philadelphia to New York to Boston and others in between.
That's radically different from either Los Angeles or London. Maybe what the two have in common is that neither is a part of a megalopolis?
That's radically different from either Los Angeles or London. Maybe what the two have in common is that neither is a part of a megalopolis?
Apr 13th, 2006, 06:54 PM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Apr 13th, 2006, 06:55 PM
#18
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
megalopolis [definition]
The term megalopolis, derived from the Greek words meaning \"great city,\" was proposed by the French geographer Jean Gottmann to describe the continuous, dense population belt on the East coast of the United States that stretches from Boston to Washington, D.C. The term has since come to be applied to other vast metropolitan regions that have developed when urban areas grew together.
Right, now knock yourselves out trying to prove you were right anyway. It's pathetic.
The term megalopolis, derived from the Greek words meaning \"great city,\" was proposed by the French geographer Jean Gottmann to describe the continuous, dense population belt on the East coast of the United States that stretches from Boston to Washington, D.C. The term has since come to be applied to other vast metropolitan regions that have developed when urban areas grew together.
Right, now knock yourselves out trying to prove you were right anyway. It's pathetic.
Apr 13th, 2006, 07:08 PM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
I shouldn't, but I will. Which "urban" areas grew together to make London? And since when did London become a "vast metropolitan "region" in the sense described here -- like Boston to Washington. It doesn't say the term has come to apply to any large city that has grown from smaller villages. Big difference! Huge difference in fact.
The quote you have given is way at the bottom of one of those links I provided. I believe it is the same link that actually lists "all" the megaloposis regions of the US -- ironically LA isn't one of them, as it is not made up of several "urban centers". It's interesting how far you had to sift through to find the part that you thought applied to this situation, yet it still doesn't.
Now let's move on. If it makes you feel good to say LA and London are alike and they are both megalopolis regions, fine by me. You can call them anything you like.
Now I guess it's time for you to call me an idiot again.
The quote you have given is way at the bottom of one of those links I provided. I believe it is the same link that actually lists "all" the megaloposis regions of the US -- ironically LA isn't one of them, as it is not made up of several "urban centers". It's interesting how far you had to sift through to find the part that you thought applied to this situation, yet it still doesn't.
Now let's move on. If it makes you feel good to say LA and London are alike and they are both megalopolis regions, fine by me. You can call them anything you like.
Now I guess it's time for you to call me an idiot again.
Apr 13th, 2006, 07:20 PM
#20
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 12,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you want to, for example, go to Abbey Road, Camden Market, a play near Covent Garden, and the Imperial War Museum in the same day, it's not a practical use of time to walk between these various destinations. I'd describe Covent Garden as most central location, but if you know the sights that interest you are located hither and yon, and you will take public transport to maximize your time efficiency, then it's not that huge a difference between Covent Garden and Bloomsbury, or Covent Garden and South Kensington, or Covent Garden and Belgravia. The most significant factor, for me, is how close the accommodation is to both a tube stop and a grocery store. If it's less than a block, everything seems to become very easy.
Once I was looking at a London tube map, and I decided that probably the most convenient location for me (not necessarily everyone) would probably be near the Holborn tube stop. Even so, I'm not addressing the possibility of buses, which I know can be very convenient also.
On my 2005 trip, I stayed near the Russell Square (in Bloomsbury) tube stop, which was very convenient, and in 2004, I stayed near the Gloucester Road (in South Kensington) tube stop, also very convenient. I've stayed in more outlying locations as well, like right near the Shepherds Bush tube stop, but because the bus, tube, and supermarket were all right there, it didn't bother me at all.
Once I was looking at a London tube map, and I decided that probably the most convenient location for me (not necessarily everyone) would probably be near the Holborn tube stop. Even so, I'm not addressing the possibility of buses, which I know can be very convenient also.
On my 2005 trip, I stayed near the Russell Square (in Bloomsbury) tube stop, which was very convenient, and in 2004, I stayed near the Gloucester Road (in South Kensington) tube stop, also very convenient. I've stayed in more outlying locations as well, like right near the Shepherds Bush tube stop, but because the bus, tube, and supermarket were all right there, it didn't bother me at all.
