Travel to London/Paris over Spring break

"Graham Harrison" wrote in message
...

"carole" wrote in message
ups.com...
My dad, my son (11 years old) and I am all travelling to London and
then to Paris over spring break this year. What's a good option for a
nice yet decently priced hotel in London - near to the best visiting
spots, i.e. Buckingham Palace, etc. etc. (Not that familiar with the
area myself as of yet.) We're looking for something comfortable, yet
not fancy, and within no more than 6-8 blocks of most of the things
we'll want to take an 11 year old to see....

Thanks!


Places an 11 year old might appreciate:

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/
http://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/
http://www.cuttysark.org.uk/ - try going there on the Docklands Light
Railway and coming back on a boat on the Thames. Investigate the
surrounding area of Greenwich as well e.g.
http://wwp.greenwichmeridian.com/
Getting a bit more esoteric http://www.musicalmuseum.co.uk/ but in the
same
area you have
http://www.kbsm.org/ and
http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/ - this one is possibly more for the adults.
http://www.londoneye.com/ is near http://www.londonaquarium.co.uk/
http://www.towerbridge.org.uk/TowerBridge/English and next door
http://hrp.org.uk/ (select tower of London)
http://hrp.org.uk/ also gives details of other palaces including Hampton
Court and the maze.

Now, if you map all of those you'll find they are fairly well spread out.
Pick a hotel in central London and they'll all be equally (in) accessible!




I have had a 10 yr old boy in London and his favourite things were;

2 of the above, the Science Museum (as there are so many interactive
displays) and the London Eye. The other thing that he really loved was HMS
Belfast http://hmsbelfast.iwm.org.uk/ a WWII battlecruiser moored on the
Thames near Tower Bridge. He really enjoyed wandering around the ship and
climbing up and down all the ladders and the gun decks. We've been to a few
shows in London, his favourite was Joseph and his Amazing Tech Dreamcoat as
it was colourful and in parts very very funny.

We have been to London a few times (for him at ages 10, 13 and 15) and each
time he has asked to do the London Eye and the Science Museum. (and
Lillywhites sports shop in Picadilly Circus to stock up on sports clothes,
coming from a small town he thinks he has died and gone to heaven when he
gets to that shop, boy is he going to have fun in Florida this summer!)

I can't help you with a hotel as we rented a small apartment near Marble
Arch on each of our visits, I found it through this newsgroup originally and
we have returned to the same one 5 times now . Current cost is £80stg per
night and here is link in case you or anybody else is interested
http://www.holiday-rentals.co.uk/Eng...ndon/p1904.htm
.. There are usually 4 of us, so for us it works out really good value.

You can check our website - there you can compare prices from over
20 hotel reservation sites. www.hotels4travelers.com

On 2007-01-17, wrote:

And 6-8 blocks in London could be 100 ft. In San Francisco, that's 2-3
miles.

"Blocks" is a meaningless metric to Europeans. Even miles or furlongs are
better, though naturally km is preferred (except by the British, which is
relevant for London).

Jesper Lauridsen wrote:

On 2007-01-17, wrote:

And 6-8 blocks in London could be 100 ft. In San Francisco, that's 2-3
miles.


"Blocks" is a meaningless metric to Europeans. Even miles or furlongs are
better, though naturally km is preferred (except by the British, which is
relevant for London).

In most places blocks are long rectangles rather than squares.

Frank F. Matthews wrote:

Jesper Lauridsen wrote:

On 2007-01-17, wrote:

And 6-8 blocks in London could be 100 ft. In San Francisco, that's 2-3
miles.


"Blocks" is a meaningless metric to Europeans. Even miles or furlongs are
better, though naturally km is preferred (except by the British, which is
relevant for London).

In most places blocks are long rectangles rather than squares.

It's not particularly useful in some US cities as a comparison either.
Philadelphia blocks are at least twice the length of NYC blocks, and
many cities (e.g. Boston and Cambridge) don't have grid layouts (or not
much of them.)

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote:


It's not particularly useful in some US cities as a comparison either.
Philadelphia blocks are at least twice the length of NYC blocks, and
many cities (e.g. Boston and Cambridge) don't have grid layouts (or not
much of them.)

How long are Philadelphia blocks? The ones in NYC are approx. a tenth
of a mile crossways, and a twentieth of a mile north/south.

S Viemeister wrote:

David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote:


It's not particularly useful in some US cities as a comparison either.
Philadelphia blocks are at least twice the length of NYC blocks, and
many cities (e.g. Boston and Cambridge) don't have grid layouts (or not
much of them.)

How long are Philadelphia blocks? The ones in NYC are approx. a tenth
of a mile crossways, and a twentieth of a mile north/south.

I think the numbered streets are about twice that of the ones in NYC, so
closer to the avenues. It was initially hard to judge how long it would
take to get from 50th to 70th in NYC, compared to say 10th and 30th in
Philadelphia.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

Following up to "Frank F. Matthews" :



Jesper Lauridsen wrote:

On 2007-01-17, wrote:

And 6-8 blocks in London could be 100 ft. In San Francisco, that's 2-3
miles.


"Blocks" is a meaningless metric to Europeans. Even miles or furlongs are
better, though naturally km is preferred (except by the British, which is
relevant for London).

In most places blocks are long rectangles rather than squares.

Except in London where they're often triangles or other oddly proportioned
heptagons, pentagons .... etc
--
Tim C.