London or Paris, which one is better?

You've not been to Paris. It's likely you've never been to London.

Qui perdrait son temps avec un idiot comme toi?

I'll agree with r1. OP doesn't even have a passport.

^I’ve been to both places recently, London three weeks ago. I’m assuming that you haven’t been to either since 1982.

Paris is more beautiful but London is more welcoming

Dallas is DEFINITELY a better city than Paris!

^Sure, Jan.

Why are you such as simple-minded attention-seeking troll that you set this up as a competition??

OP you haven't visited either place, but hopefully one day!

Paris

Central Paris always seems much more gentrified than central London, so it is a tourist trap. I find it superficially more beautiful than London though.

London is more edgy though, which I enjoy. It’s markets and cultural scene is far more accessible.

I like to combine my trips to both, though, by taking a trip on Eurostar to travel from one to the other. It makes for a great two-week holiday.

Paris is more beautiful .. Haussmann did a great job.

Paris is the only city I've seen that looks exactly like the postcards we see. I prefer London, though. But it's a personal preference. And the Parisian French are NOT rude, at least they weren't rude to me.

I think London has a more classical beauty, Paris is too baroque for me, which is why some of you probably think it’s more beautiful.

Paris though I prefer Londoners as people

Everyone knows the only thing that matters on this site is New York City.

R16 Paris over NYC and I am a proud New Yorker.

I am partial to it, [R16]. I was born there.

R5 agreed on both counts.

Haven’t any of you noticed how dirty all of the buildings are in Paris, they’re almost black. In London, the architecture is much better maintained.

R4 I live in Europe and I can tell that you are a little liar. This anti-French redneck rumor is not only false but ridiculous. You sound like a jealous, bitter and frustrated Brit. I found out on the contrary that the French were not at all like the Anglos describe them everywhere on the Internet to damage their reputation. The guys are clean and unlike Americans, they are not fat. They know how to dress with class even when they wear jeans. And their teeth are much more beautiful than the British ones.

I spent 3 months in Paris and not once where people rude though that may be because I tried to speak french with them. That being said, not rude doesnt mean friendly. Friendly they were not. But they aren't particularly friendly to themselves either.

Lindon, the few days I spent, the people were friendlier and very very polite. I liked Londoners much more. But who needs parisians when you have Paris, I say!

Did your boyfriend cheat on you with a Frenchman OP? One thing is certain, the French men are hotter than the British. And much less cold. The clichés about Parisians are very far from reality. To appreciate Paris just don't go to the tourist places. Secondly, you can't compare a city that dates back to the Roman Empire, the remains of which can still be seen in Paris, to an English city. They do not have the same culture nor the same history even if they are cousins. And I know you hate being cousins, but you can't rewrite history OP.

Paris is better than London.

The French are better than the British.

I could never live anywhere where I wasn’t able to drive around my 8 seater Chevy Tahoe. I would miss my nights out at Chili’s and TGI Fridays.

Paris and London, baby you can keep.

Baby you can keep.

Baby you can keep.

It's funny learn a couple of the Latin languages like Spanish and Italian and then French becomes somewhat easier. It's funny I'll break out in Spanish at home sometimes and the husband says stop showing off. Ha ha ha ha Lo siento.

It's all about Istanbul, Bitches.

R28 Yes bitch I agree 100%

R27 True. The Spanish love Paris and the French love Madrid, I noticed that in Madrid.

Berlin is more fun than either in terms of nightlife.

...But Berlin is not as stunning as Paris. Even Hitler, that son of a bitch, couldn't bomb Paris. He was dazzled. He was mad at himself but couldn't give the order to wipe Paris off the map.

Another Erdogan minion. Trump is no longer President OP. Go back to the Turkish Internet

Frenchmen are very flirty in public (bars, clubs) and then kind of boring, predictable? when you get them in bed. Englishmen are proper in public but freaks when the clothes come off.

I'm not sure which I prefer, but I have had dozens of amazingly fun times in both cities.

It's breathtaking how beautiful the german cities were before the war.

R35 where did you have the most fun back then?

Frenchmen boring in bed? LMAO. They litteraly love to fuck and they fuck very well. They don't have many taboos, they cultivate their sensuality it's cultural. It is their Latin side from the Roman Empire and Greek culture.

Now I'm sure that OP is a big liar. A gay man knows that the Frenchmen are delicious in bed, you JEALOUS Turkish. Just put Erdogan and Macron side by side, no one will go for your super ugly Erdogan.

The only time parisian strangers ever spoke to me were men who "catcalled" me...I got a couple of marriage propositions and a couple of gentlemanly enough compliments. But I never fucked any sadly :(.

German men are the hottest btw and I dont even like Germany.

R38 German and Italians are the hottest

The Italians are hot, the Germans aren't hot AT ALL in bed. This thread is a childish troll. I'm out. Keep talking to yourself OP

Was it not obvious from the OP's post that he's a cunting witless troll?

[quote]Secondly, you can't compare a city that dates back to the Roman Empire, the remains of which can still be seen in Paris, to an English city.

Yes, you can r23, because London is a city which was actually founded by the Romans. Ever heard of Londinium?

[quote]Even Hitler, that son of a bitch, couldn't bomb Paris.

He didn’t need to bomb it, because his invasion succeeded so quickly, and it was obvious that the French army was rushing to defensive positions outside of the city and the government was retreating westwards. The Luftwaffe’s time was taken up supporting the ground invasion by destroying the French airforce and strafing fleeing civilians on blocked roads in order to cause panic and hinder French troop movements.

It’s true that his visit to Paris after the German-French armistice convinced him not to destroy the city’s monuments, but that is because he believed France’s grandeur had now been broken for eternity anyway, and that (as the capital of a vassal state of Germany) Paris would be a pale shadow of Germania, the city he planned to build over Berlin.

However, when the allies invaded in 1944, Hitler was determined that Paris should be reduced to rubble. The city was saved because the city’s German military commander, von Choltitz, could not bring himself to destroy it.

If I could speak French a lot better than I do, I'd rather live in Paris than London. Given my language skills, I'd choose London.

I’d choose to live in Strasbourg or York over Paris and London.

Depends on one's interests. Both have fabulous scenery, cathedrals, museums, shopping, public gardens. A foodie might choose Paris; a theatre-lover might choose London. For pageantry no capital beats London.

I would choose London over-all, because I know British history better than I know French---which I know mostly through its connection to England/GB/the UK---and so can appreciate my surroundings more fully.

R23 has never visited the Roman baths in....Bath. Or Hadrian's Wall. Or heard of Boudicca/Boudicea.

[quote]He (Hitler) didn’t need to bomb it, because his invasion succeeded so quickly

France has a long history of accommodation, appeasement and collaboration with authoritarian conquerors/occupiers. Go along to get along, let ‘em butcher Jews, they’ll leave us alone. A mentality which can been seen in France to this day.

[quote] Secondly, you can't compare a city that dates back to the Roman Empire, the remains of which can still be seen in Paris, to an English city. They do not have the same culture nor the same history even if they are cousins.

This is true. Paris is culturally similar to Rome and Madrid. Of the three, I'd choose Rome because it has layers of history still visible, starting from the Roman Empire to the Renaissance to the Modern. No city outside Italy like it.

Fun fact. The French all smoke. All of them!

I know it's literally not every single one, but it feels that way when you move from a place like the U.S. Italy is the same.

This is the most difficult decision of my life. Please don’t make me choose between the two

If you go to Paris expecting Amelie or Emily in Paris, you're in for a shock. But parts of London are very like Ted Lasso.

Paris, London and New York have an atmosphere and excitement about them that’s hard to describe and harder to beat. Rome and Berlin aren’t in the same league even with their histories.

I can’t enjoy paris as much since Emily in Paris. Now when Im there I’m conscious of all the silly cliches more than before and even taking photos makes me feel like a basic caricature.

R48, France is right next door to Germany. Britain was harder to get to because it's an island, but the only part of the UK that Nazi Germany did invade - Jersey - was very easy to take over.

Italy by far, the men are hot, the country is beautiful and the people are warm and friendly. Paris is getting to be kind of a dump, too much turmoil and civil unrest. London is boring and cold and the food sucks.

R23, as a Londoner I prefer Paris because I know the real London, which is not - or is a lot more - than what American visitors see of it.

But.... [quote]Secondly, you can't compare a city that dates back to the Roman Empire, the remains of which can still be seen in Paris, to an English city.

Ok, I know we're not as Roman as the French are, but just who do you think founded Londinium?

[quote]Secondly, you can't compare a city that dates back to the Roman Empire, the remains of which can still be seen in Paris, to an English city.

Oh yes you can. - Rome Italy Venice Italy, Florence Italy and basically all of Italy.

[quote]Paris, London and New York have an atmosphere and excitement about them that’s hard to describe and harder to beat. Rome and Berlin aren’t in the same league even with their histories.

I don't know about Berlin, but Rome has a prettier historic center than Paris; better food, friendlier people and warmer weather.

R48 [quote]France has a long history of accommodation, appeasement and collaboration with authoritarian conquerors/occupiers.

Except for the tens of thousands of French troops who embarked on boats at Dunkirk to continue the fight, not knowing if they would ever return home. Or the French airmen who fought on in The Battle of Britain. Or the tens of thousands who joined the resistance in all its various forms.

Paris is a rich people’s town. A mausoleum. Most people live outside the centre in leafy suburbs.

London has more life and energy.

Pretty doesn’t = exciting though. I guess it’s all subjective. I like Rome but I’m not dying to go back.

I moved from Paris to Rome after visiting, r62.

Paris, no question. Been to both cities 4 to 5 times and I disliked London each time I was there. Smug, self satisfied, rude, arrogant people. The South Coast is beautiful though. Cornwall, Brighton, Isle of Wight.

Love Paris, could go there as many times as possible and I would never get bored.

R60 None of which has a thing to do with how quickly France capitulated to the Nazis, or how well they got along with them. Or how quickly they rounded up, their Jews to be butchered. And as for the "French resistance", it was the Yanks and the Brits who liberated France, certainly not the French.

Well there's some things I don't like and some things I do

I can see why Paris could be ugly for you....

...If you don't think Paris was made for love

Maybe your heart needs a telegram from above

Give Paris one more chance!

There's a mass exodus for Jews right now going on in France. Getting lots of hate and harassment. The French are blaming it on the Muslims which they also hate, but the Jewish people say it's not just the Muslims, it's far right groups and white supremacy groups that reside there too. Mostly younger people they have rebranded themselves as nationalist, so they dont call themselves white supremacist anymore.

[quote] it's far right groups and white supremacy groups that reside there too.

R67 The operative fiction perpetuated by French government and media, who don't want to be held accountable for decades of woefully misguided migrant policies. There was little trouble with "nationalists" attacking Jews until the Muslim immigration and open social conflict, which started in the 1980s. At which time the attacks, murders and terror began/increased against Jews.

[quote]...But Berlin is not as stunning as Paris.

Didn't the Allies bomb the hell out of Berlin at the end of World War II?

I’ve live in London and have also lived and worked in Paris although I haven’t been since the pandemic started. It really come down to your location existence in either city between home,, work and play. Both offer a continuum between dystopian bleak and vibrant. If you never leave the tourist bubbles in either city, you’re only getting a very narrow flavour. Covid has changed so much as well, and both cities are in flux. For instance, Oxford street has gone downmarket with many store closures and is now filled with countless pop-up American candy shops, shisha shops and mobile phone case shops. It’s increasingly more of a tourist hell as Londoners are working and shopping from home. By contrast, some of the formerly sleepy outer borough high streets have become more vibrant and filled by locals during the week.

London. Years ago I would have said Paris but it has turned into a shit hole over the last two decades.

[quote]The operative fiction perpetuated by French government and media,

R68, we don't need your conspiracy theory interpretation. Just admit it, French people are still racist as fuck and they want the Jews gone, not like the first time.

R72 And yet those "racist as fuck French people" paid little attention to Jews. The attacks, murders and terror began in earnest with increased Muslim immigration. To the point that Muslims have made life untenable for Jews, driving them from their homes, cities, regions and France itself. While the French turn a blind eye. Just like with the Nazis.

And now Muslims get away with murdering Jews. Just like the Nazis.

[quite]And now Muslims get away with murdering Jews. Just like the Nazis.

And the French let them do it, just like they did in the past. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

When I lived in London I used to go to Paris on the Eurostar as often as I could afford it. Both cities have pluses and minuses. I found the gay scene in Paris much less about socialising and with more emphasis on getting a fuck for the night.

I see that the book of the week was A Tale of Two Cities at OP's book club.

So if you are not in the mood to fuck with strangers or in a relationship basically it's boring to be in Paris it sounds. They sound shallow.

Paris before London, certainly. But Madrid is the best of the European capitals in which to live.

And Spanish men are the hottest. Spain is definitely the best for sex.

Madrid, Berlin, Paris, Rome, Lisbon, Zurich, Amsterdam…..London

Spanish men are more handsome than Brits or the French, but Italians have better bodies faces and bigger cocks. Spanish guys are kind of on the small side.

[quote]There's a mass exodus for Jews right now going on in France. Getting lots of hate and harassment. The French are blaming it on the Muslims which they also hate, but the Jewish people say it's not just the Muslims, it's far right groups and white supremacy groups that reside there too. Mostly younger people they have rebranded themselves as nationalist, so they dont call themselves white supremacist anymore.

WRONG R67 - the Jews in France know exactly who is attacking them - Muslims! Not white supremecists.

Go read the War in France thread, we have discussed this extensively and you can educate yourself by reading the articles and studies that were linked that all provide evidence it is MUSLIMS driving Jews from France.

London because there are more direct flights from New York.

My Mum's family is French, and I still consider myself a Francophile, so I'm not Paris-bashing with any glee when I say it has noticeably gone downhill in recent years. Whereas London (and no, I don't live there) seems to be on the ascendant. When you take into consideration that they were on par in a number of areas only a decade ago, it does worry me that Paris may not regain its former glory anytime soon. The Notre-Dame de Paris restoration looks horrible, but fits in with all the other denigrating changes occurring in the city.

[quote]Go read the War in France thread,

Dont waste your time guys, it's dominated by some islomaphobic troll. Droning on and on and on about how you cant be gay and have Muslim friends because they all want to kills you. And every problem France has is because of the Muslims.

R83 Doesn't detail a single change for the worse in Paris.

[quote]Whereas London (and no, I don't live there) seems to be on the ascendant.

Brexit, Covid, and Boris Johnson, will soon take care of that.

[quote] Madrid, Berlin, Paris, Rome, Lisbon, Zurich, Amsterdam…..London.

Most of those places are not much. London and Paris are certainly the best out of that pool.

London was never on par with Paris.

Yeah, Lisbon - shitty quality of life, bad weather, awful people. Zurich - dangerous, super dirty, awful people. Rome - a bunch of ruins, noisy, awful people, bad food. Berlin - nothing to do, no bars, no clubs, no sex, prudes, but delicious food! Amsterdam - only dirty drug people go there, no art, no culture, but like Berlin, fantastic food.

R84 Attacks, murders and terror in France, especially against Jews, are due to Muslims. Muslims in Muslim countries kill gays and their supporters. Turning a blind eye, pretending doesn't change reality. It simply makes you an apologist for a homo-murdering culture.

Both places are on the decline, only old trolls think they are fab. Madrid is the place to be, Amsterdam if you love smoking pot, Rome if you love smoking hot men.

[quote]you can't compare a city that dates back to the Roman Empire, the remains of which can still be seen in Paris, to an English city. They do not have the same culture nor the same history even if they are cousins. And I know you hate being cousins, but you can't rewrite history OP.

No, R23, but you can't rewrite history, but you can learn it, you pompous fool.

You can make a very satisfying day of going to Tate Modern, crossing the bridge to Saint Paul’s Cathedral, then going to the fantastic Museum of London which is built into a remaining part of the Roman City Wall.

this is interesting. I haven't watched it all yet and The Telegraph is centre right editorially and no friend of France. And some of the imagery looks like it was shot on garbage collection day, when no city looks good. But I gather Anne Hidalgo has been a pretty disastrous as a myor for the city.

Paris was on the road to destruction when they approved buildiing the Centre Pompideau, possibly the ugliest building in Paris.

Paris was well and truly destroyed when I M Pei got permission to building the fucking horrific pyramid in front of the Louvre.

R65- What did the French waiter say when the Nazis marched in to Paris?

Table for 70,000?

^^^ Pompidou ^^^

Wow, R95 knows how to hold a grudge, still bitter about the Pompidou center built in 1977. That was 44 years ago Graps. I am surprised you didnt mention the Eiffel Tower! It too was considered an ugly monstrosity in it's day.

R98 The Eiffel Tower has some aesthetic, redeeming value. But the Pompidou?? Mon dieu!!! It looks like an abandoned building renovation.

[quote] Madrid is the place to be

Aside from good weather why exactly?

Yes by ALL MEANS, 1 or 2 post-modernest structures can absolutely ruin everything about one of the worlds greatest cities.

In fact, since every great city in the world has dozens of rapidly dating, once avant-garde structures, which tight-assed low-brow dimwits simply can't bear, there are NO great cities in the world.

Madrid reminds me of LA - all spread out, hard to get around. I left LA and I certainly wouldn't want a mini-version of that in Europe.

Both gorgeous cities with extremely fascinating histories, culture, traditions, etc. Plenty of excellent restaurants to choose from.. Perfect.

As for Madrid: Together with Vienna my two favourite cities in Europe. Vienna probably doesn't need any explanation, Madrid is dear to me because of its vibe, the walkable city centre, the great food and quirky shops..

I could go on and on, but I won't.

R103, I have to agree about Madrid and Vienna. I would go back to both like a shot.

Madrid is nice but lacks...personality? I agree about it being tpo spaced out too. If we're tañking Spaon it has to be Barcelona.

I’ve had some of the best dick of my life in Spain.

I have worked and studied in Paris. I have worked in London. Several years in each. Why yes, I am a cosmopolitan relativist. We live above this silly little human need to rank. One great city is not better than another.

I doubt Hitler held back on destroying Paris due to him appreciating its architectural beauty.

Actually, R108, that's exactly what he did.

Maybe Coco Chanel told Hitler to save Paris, since she was a big Nazi.

Pretty despicable comment, r48.

Paris is prettier. The uniform Haussmannian architecture that lines the boulevards, with its stony facades, and wrought iron balconies, the horse chestnut trees that appear to be holding hands, the way each monument sort of points to the next, and the fact that it's been far better preserved, in that the views have remained unspoiled, with new skyscrapers and the like having been relegated to the financial district (La Défense), all contribute to its superior pulchritude. However, I would much rather spend my time in London, for reasons listed above, and many others. London is the better city.

You could really say the same exact thing about London. If you look at the view from the new Tate Modern addition, you can see how each new building has been carefully considered, and works in harmony with the existing, ancient city.

Neither. Try Positano, Italy.... The Amalfi Coast. Just beautiful!

R111 Martel is furiously spinning in his grave. In the end, his effort/victory for naught.

London for the Indian food, Paris for the French food. There you have it.

[quote]Secondly, you can't compare a city that dates back to the Roman Empire, the remains of which can still be seen in Paris, to an English city

London does date back to the Roman empire.

[quote]Madrid reminds me of LA - all spread out, hard to get around. I left LA and I certainly wouldn't want a mini-version of that in Europe.

WOW Racist much? Madrid is nothing like LA except for a lot of Spanish speaking people. Seriously, it's nothing like LA.

[quote]London for the Indian food, Paris for the French food. There you have it.

But Italy has Italian food! The most loved of all cultures in the world.

Did someone seriously compare Madrid to LA? Why? Because they speak Spanish?

Ranking by best museums:

1. The Hermitage - St. Petersburg, Russia

2. The Prado - Madrid, Spain

3. Vatican Museums - Rome, Italy (technically Vatican City, I know)

4. The Louvre - Paris, France

5. The Uffizi - Florence, Italy

The Met is laughing at above.

[quote] 2. The Prado - Madrid, Spain

3. Vatican Museums - Rome, Italy (technically Vatican City, I know)

No. I don’t think they belong on the list especially not 1 and 2.

Are you serious, r123? How would you have it?

What am I, chopped herring?!

R123 just wants The Louvre to be first. Very transparent agenda. Sorry no, I like that list they someone posted it. Seems about right.

I say!

I have the best experiences at "small jewels" types of museums - The Mauritshuis in The Hague, Palazzo Doria Pamphilj in Rome and so on. Of course London and Paris have their share.

Is that museum ranking from EWTN? I think the Louvre is way too much, kind of like the Met, I feel overwhelmed and saturated, and I’m over it in 30 mins. It’s like going to an estate sale. I LOVE the V&A, there are some rooms, especially upstairs in the room with the tapestries, that are magical. My absolute favorite museum, the Soane Museum is in the same city, which is a bonus for me. I feel like people who pay attention to “rankings” won’t know what it is.

Oh, forgot to mention, a morning at a museum in London, followed by an afternoon of cheap pints and people watching at Wetherspoons, then a nap, does it get any better?

I agree!

I know 6 equally fun typical activities for each of 10 great cities.

[quote] Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam

Been there, seen that. Spent 10 minutes staring at The Night Watch, which is still huge despite having been trimmed down to fit a space in Amsterdam town hall. But what was far more impressive, what I still remember vividly, was the Vermeer in one of the small exhibition rooms just down from The Night Watch. The painting was 450 years old, yet looked like it was recently completed. The use of light, the detailed simplicity made me understand why Vermeer was considered way above the rest. Since there was no bench in the room, I sat down on the floor against the wall across from the painting and just stared at it. Occasionally I would get up and move a bit, just to see if the light in the painting changed. And it did. One of the most infuckingcredible experiences of my life.

My favorite are more medium sized museums like the Moma, D'Orsay and the Tate. Not to say the Met and the Louvre aren't worth visiting but yes they can be overwhelming which can somewhat lessen the experience. The Louvre especially, I spent so much time looking for the Mona Lisa that once I saw it I was pretty meh on it amd the whole museum. Though the statues/sculptures were breathtaking and my favorite part, and I was moved much more by this painting than the ML anyway

R133- I felt that way when I saw Klimt’s, “The Kiss” in person at the Belvedere in Vienna. Spectacular.

I adore both cities for different reasons. Like I like NY and LA equally.

I’m imagining that all of the “I luv Paris” people are like Patsy’s mother in Ab Fab. “I’ll wash it down with absiiiiiinthe!”

I also love the V&A, OP. There aren't many museums I can spend hours in, but that's one of them.

I like Tate Britain more than Tate Modern - I want to get back there soon.

In Paris you can get good food on every street corner and for a good price. In London you have to pay a fortune for food that doesn't give you indigestion or diarrhoea.

In Paris you can walk around for hours, randomly hitting tree lined boulevards and quiet side streets and you will see interesting, beautiful things.

In London you have to actually look for attractions, because the in between is full of ugly 80s architecture and bad hostile urban design.

London is large. Enormous. Distance between underground stops can be immense. Paris has monumental architecture but not only. Has so much this is smaller scale, and all over the city. Miss a stop on the Paris Metro? Get off the next and have a pleasant walk.

I've lived in both. Paris may be more beautiful but Parisians are such assholes. Londoners are friendly.

Paris is an act of will (the result of a series of acts of will) that started failing in the 1930s.

London is organic and much more tolerable. Nothing too grand, an interesting jumble, many losses were from external causes rather than "improvements" and "vision," except the recent horrors to the east.

I've lived in London and, apart from enjoying too-expensive neighborhoods and amazing attractions in Paris, I much prefer London.

[quote] The Notre-Dame de Paris restoration looks horrible, but fits in with all the other denigrating changes occurring in the city.

What are you on about R83? Notre Dame will be returned to its exact pre-fire state. The international competition to find a new design for the spire returned some fun proposals, but eventually Macron decided to not change one thing. If there is a thing the French don’t fuck with, it’s their monuments.

Like every big city on the planet Paris (and London) has areas that are less than savory, But overall Paris (and London) is a beautiful city full of amazing sights. And the people are lovely if you simply try to learn a little conversational French before you go there. If you walk into a shop and show an attitude if none of the staff speaks English that's your fault. You're in their country.

I’m partial to both cities. I lived 10 years in London, spent my entire 30’s there, and still own a place there (Shoreditch). The 2000’s were an amazing time to be in London. Amazing gay scene, lots of bars, clubs. Vibrant energy. But the country has changed a lot in the 2010’s, and so has the city, in ways that are not immediately discernable to the casual tourist. 11 years of Tories in power have caused a lot of damage. I was there on holidays 2 months ago, and you could already feel the effects of Brexit, with for instance restaurants in Covent Garden opening only half their seats due to the lack of waiting staff.

While I’m planning on retiring in Asia, where I have been living for 10 years now and have bought a place in Bangkok, I want to keep a pied à terre in Europe, and am leaning towards selling my London flat to buy in Paris. There is something more orderly about Paris that I do appreciate now that I’m heading towards my 50’s. And overall it’s a more breathtakingly beautiful city.

R138 "In London you have to actually look for attractions, because the in between is full of ugly 80s architecture and bad hostile urban design."

I feel the same about most of nyc...anything above West Village/East Village at least-

[quote] I think the Louvre is way too much, kind of like the Met, I feel overwhelmed and saturated, and I’m over it in 30 mins.

What? How can you fault a museum for having too much stuff in there? Break it up into two or three days. Geez.

Meh, it took me 3 years to get a good sense of the riches of the Met. Huge rich museums can't be enjoyed for more than a few hours and only ever other month or two. I also happily had 3 winters in the 80s in Paris for the Louvre, and it was before the worst of mass tourism.

Yeah r126, I spent 2 days at the Louvre, and still didn’t see everything.

I barely remember the Prado or Madrid to be honest, although I’m sure it was pleasant enough as I have no negative feelings for it, I’m just not dying to go back there.

As for the Vatican museum, aside from housing the Sistine chapel, it’s not very memorable to me.

The Hermitage and the Prado are the two most impressive collections in the world. They have so much undisplayed art work due to lack of space. The Sistine Chapel alone bumps the Vatican Museums a couple of spots higher.

The Mona Lisa isn't the best painting in the world, and wouldn't be so celebrated if it hadn't been stolen. We should start a thread on the best art work and museums before we get sidetracked.

R151 Great idea for a thread. The Mona Lisa is such a let down. Fight the crowds to get anywhere near her for a peek. And then, when a bit of space finally opens up for your first glance, your initial reaction is "That's it"‽‽‽‽‽‽ because all you see is this dinky picture covered by plexiglas.

[quote]For pageantry no capital beats London.

Pageantry is for tourists. The British Royal Family exists for tourists. You can live in London for years and not hear talk of this archaic postcard imagery - except from tourists and the tabloids.

I love London but capital "pageantry" exists in its own orbit as entertainment to drive a sector of the tourist industry. While not a nuisance as such (because no one pays attention to it), it's not something that makes a city more interesting or livable.

For tourists, Central Paris is a cohesive and beautiful city, whereas central London takes some effort not to spend half the day hunting for beauty amid some gray and miserable stretches of architecture. The one makes a grand impression fast, the other reveals it's charms in due course.

As a place to live, I prefer London but it comes down to very different and personal choices more than one city being markedly superior in easily measured ways..

The downside of both cities is that they are a bit of hard work. Work life is too important, and small day-to-day pleasures in a smaller, less harried city can be hard work of another sort in Paris or London, e.g., the hours spent herding cats to meet a few friends for drinks.

Exactly r152. Especially given there are other Da Vinci works such as The Last Supper, Virgin of the Rocks, Saint John the Baptist and the Annunciation, that offer a much more interesting viewing experience.

R154 The Last Supper, another bloody rip-off. Shlep to Santa Maria della Grazie church, lay down your Euro, wait half an hour to get in to view the fresco. And don't blink because you've got about 2 minutes to view the fresco before you are herded out to make room for the next lot. And NO PHOTOS! (I took several anyway)

I happened to be ushered in with a tourist mob with an Italian guide. Who proceeded to inform everyone that what they were looking at was 85% restoration and 15% what da Vinci had slapped on the wall. So disheartening.

I noticed in R121 you mentioned the Uffizi. Did you happen to walk across the river and view the art in the Palazzo Pitti? I thought it was much better.

[quote]you've got about 2 minutes to view the fresco before you are herded out to make room for the next lot

What? Our lot got 15 minutes. But that was in December of 2019. Took all the pictures I wanted.

[quote]I noticed in [R121] you mentioned the Uffizi. Did you happen to walk across the river and view the art in the Palazzo Pitti? I thought it was much better.

I really love the Uffizi. It still feels like a private collection to me, like the Medicis still live in the palace and could walk in any time. I love Florence and have been to the Palazzo Pitti many times, but to me, the Galleria dell'Accademia holds the most diverse collection. Uffizi still my favourite, though.

On a related point: I moved to Rome from Paris, because I was struck by Rome's beauty, character and history, but also because I chose not to move to my favourite city in the world, Florence, the only city that's left me stunned and agog with wonder. I was afraid living there would blunt that memory and I don't want that to happen (strange logic, I know, hope someone can relate). That and being a bit more expensive than I like.

[quote] Our lot got 15 minutes. But that was in December of 2019

I was there in July. Mobbed. They were running them in/out as quickly as possible. And screamed at anyone who took a snap with a lighting device because it "faded" the fresco.

[quote]Uffizi still my favourite, though.

What really impressed me about the Uffizi was less the art than the view from the first? second/ floor window right off the main staircase. Look right and you had an absolutely stunning view of the river, several smaller bridges and then the Ponte Vecchio.

[quote]I chose not to move to my favourite city in the world, Florence,

Florence is exquisite culturally and artistically. But for me Venice is the apex, the penultimate of culture, art and cuisine. Every calle and campo oozes history and ambiance. Walk around Venice late at night and you can hear and feel the ghosts of her incredible past. La Serenissima is indeed magnificent. Just as long as you don't attempt a visit during tourist season.

Venice is probably better now they've banned cruise ships from the centre.

Addendum R157 The Correr in Venice has a surprisingly nice sampling of Bellinis and Canovas.

R158 Absolutely! Those fucking cruise ships damn near destroyed the lagoon. Was suppose to go for a visit back in May 2020, but Covid buggered that up.

Wouldn't you agree though, r157, that Venice is great for visiting but not really liveable?

R161 Agree. Nice place to visit but living there would be hell. Way too many tourists and way too much tourist orientation. I perfectly understand why the Venetians are so surly. Nine months of the year strangers traipse through their home. Yes they provide income, but they also destroy the feeling of community. I spent three weeks living there in Canareggio and even I was mumbling "when are the fucking tourists all going home"?

Erratum R162 . . . traipse through their home non-stop.

I stayed in Venice for 5 months editing a book and getting dicked down by a skinny horse-hung theatre techie at La Fenice. Heavenly.

[quote]Venice is probably better now they've banned cruise ships from the centre.

Well, because this happened:

[R50], this anecdote was told to me, so I didn't witness the accident. An American couple sits down at a restaurant in Paris. They tell the server they'd like a non smoking table. The server removes the ashtray.

That's funny R166. Unfriendly, I grew up with both parents smoking in the house and car with the windows up. I could never live in a place that still embraced that much smoking. It's nasty and I had my fill of having to smell. I guess I am stuck in America then.

Funny maybe, but untrue though R166. Smoking indoors was banned in France in 2008. Even before that it was frowned upon.

Ha, R134! I was overwhelmed the minute I stepped into the Louvre! Where to go?! What to see first?!

So I followed a tour of Japanese visitors, heh. Got to the "Mona Lisa" in a trice!

[quote]And screamed at anyone who took a snap with a lighting device because it "faded" the fresco.

Isn't that standard in all museums? No flash photography. Perfectly understandable.

R142 not exactly, exactly, but I admire your insistence on making a fool of yourself with blanket absolutes. It can't be the first time, so the persistence is fascinating.

the men in London are beautiful ...I've never seen such stunning creatures

I didnt see that many smokers when I was there 3 years ago for a few months. A bit more than in NYC but not by that much. I DID notice that there were far more younger smokers than in NYC though.

R173 forgot to mention I was talkibg about Paris.

I want Bruce to fuck my throat.

Notre-Dame de Paris is an active place of worship and the seat of the Archbishop of Paris. The Catholic Church is free to do with it as it pleases.

R176: The Catholic Church is but an interested party and is not free to do with the building as it wishes. Because they don't own the building.

Since 1905, the cathedrals of France have been owned by...France, not religious institutions.

"Haven’t any of you noticed how dirty all of the buildings are in Paris, they’re almost black. In London, the architecture is much better maintained.

—OP"

False.

Absolutely false.

Since 1960, the "Loi Malraux sur le ravalement" obliges every building in France, private or public, to be thoroughly scrapped and cleaned every 10 years.

Absolutely r170, and in this case the poster was talking about the Last Supper, which is 500 years old and in a fragile condition. Whoever tried to take photos of it with a flash should be ashamed of themselves, and no doubt they'd already been made aware that flash photography is not permitted yet still tried to sneak a pic in.

[quote]Last Supper, which is 500 years old and in a fragile condition.

What "fragile condition"? The vast majority of it is restoration. Something happens, just bring in the restorers again.

^^^Paris must be super filthy, or, they’re not doing their job, because yikes, the buildings are nearly black in most places.

R181, I’m not sure if it is the case in Paris, but depending on the stone used in their construction certain ancient buildings cannot be cleaned (by sand-blasting, for example) without risking serious damage to the facade.

It's pretty amazing how Paris changed with Napoleon and Haussmann's urban design ideas. I think there are not that many areas left that reflect how it looked before 1850.

R182, sandblasting is like like sand paper, only applied with great force. It's bad for ALL buildings, not least historic buildings and is prohibited in any civilized place.

Water washing at much less pressure, sometimes with a very mild detergent agent is the usual method and produces dramatic results. In buildings with severely deteriorated stone, more careful methods may be required.

Rome.

R185 If you want to, all around the world.

So, r153, Elizabeth's 1952 coronation was "for tourists"? Diana's funeral was "for tourists"? The fact that the Queen's Life (Horse) Guards are real soldiers and must change shifts daily, that change is merely "for tourists"?

You do know that Changing of the Guard ceremonies are also held in Copenhagen and Monte Carlo?

R187:

1. No, it was for people in the UK of sentient age 70 years ago. Neither was George II's coronation a tourist act

2. Diana's funeral was for hysterics.

3. I've fucked a few Queen's Guards. They are real. Of course they have to change shifts. How they change shifts is theatre, always has been. It's now theatre for tourists.

4. And other places, too. See #3.

The expat site, InterNations, compiles and very respected index of the best cities for expats every year. 2021 has Kuala Lumpur (I've never been) toping the list and Rome (one of my favourite cities ever though I understand the criticisms and negatives) last. Paris also ranks very low. Try and find the full pdf of the report if you can. Makes for very interesting reading.

[quote] You've not been to Paris. It's likely you've never been to London.

I've never been to me.

R190, have you been to Georgia, or California?

[quote]^^^Paris must be super filthy, or, they’re not doing their job, because yikes, the buildings are nearly black in most places.

Black buildings matter!

Diana Vreeland is known to have said : "The best thing about LONdon is PARis."

Here's the full report of the best and worst cities for expats mentioned at r189. Lots of surprises in the top 10 and bottom 10.

Right now living in London is pretty awful, we pretty much all have covid.

The InterNations best/worst cities report (see R189, R194) is interesting but it exposes all of the impossibilities of developing such a list, and yet maybe it's the perfect list for people for whom easy is everything.

InterNations addresses corporate relocation people, retirees, students, digital nomads, etc. -- groups for whom housing quality and affordability, or cost-of-living, ease of finding work, healthcare costs, education costs, friendliness factors are all important or of no importance whatsoever. With Kuala Lumpur and Dubai at positions 1 and 2 and Rome in dead last, it's a list that might inform but definitely would not guide me as it's completely backwards in where I would be happy. More than anything it has the tone of a corporate relocation survey, for people who are shifted about every 3 or 5 years and have the make the beat of where they're shuffled.

Paris is a challenging city, but also one with rewards beyond those of lesser cities. To dump it at the bottom of a list with Rome and Barcelona, and with Dubai at the top reveals the limitations of lists.

Maybe, r196. But it's an actual scientific survey of 12,000 expats, with experience living in multiple international cities opining on their preferred locations based on the quality of life. It's not some party queens passing judgements based on single weekend visits announcing "Ibiza is best place evah!". As mentioned upthread, most people would choose Venice as one of the places they'd like to live based on a tourist experience, but it's not the most liveable place.

R188,

1. Making my point.

2. Siding with HM, are you?

3. How would the Horse Guards change shifts, otherwise?

4. Your point is?

Always have a cracker on you, because French men have that tasty cheese on tap.

Just came back to West Hollywood from London, and it’s a little depressing. Makes you realize that even Beverly Hills is made up of stucco boxes trying to be somewhere else.

I think how one views London is based on the circumstances. My first visit to London was over Christmas while a music student in Germany. I expected great decor however it was not as great as my Chicago. The best was St Paul’s Lessons & Carols service. I was poor, alone and not one person spoke to me.

Fast forward a gazillion years, my husband and I visited London as guests of the Grosvenor family. We were the designers for US projects they developed. We saw a magical London (including a charity dinner at Buckingham P) because we are guests of powerful people. We fell in love with the city because the red carpet had been figuratively unrolled. Magical trip.

Lifelong friendships were formed.

R201 = Humble Bragging is off the charts!

[quote] [London] Makes you realize that even Beverly Hills is made up of stucco boxes trying to be somewhere else.

Most especially Beverly Hills, R200, with its tiny lots and big boxy houses dressed in a 100+ historicist styles that are great when done with finesse but buffoonish when done badly: Kleenex boxes that loom over their small lots, mangled versions of Petits Trianons, Loire chateaux, Tudor castles, Florentine villas, Venentian palazzi, Spanish casas palacio, Bavarian forest fantasies all dumbed down and Disneyfied. In other neighborhoods you can find the same styles but executed much, much better on whole. There are good houses there, but mostly lost amidst chaos and bad stageset facades and misinterpreted styles.

Well in fairness, stucco is easy to fix after a little shaker, London doesn't have big earthquakes, the biggest one was in 1580, a magnitude 5.5. No one in LA would even slow down in traffic for that.

r200, I always feel the same when I fly back from major cities in Europe or Asia. Even from NY or Boston. The plane is descending, I see the PDC, and just how flat and boring everything is.

That's the point about London, r201 - for ordinary people it is a much tougher city to navigate. Regarding your second trip, the same can, however, be said of most major cities - if you have access to the most glamorous, magical parts of the city, of course it will be stunning. Try that with Paris.

Has anyone noticed how the braggart above compares London with “my Chicago”, whatever that means? That’s a comparison is definitely a first!

London, just because Paris was named after Paris Hilton.

I lived in London for years. It has remarkable history, architecture, a vibrant cultural scene, great food from all cuisines, and a buzz like nowhere else. The only problem is that unless you are extremely well paid, as a single person will never be able to buy property. Families who need a bigger property are even worse off, having to buy homes many miles away from where they work, reducing the time they can spend with their loved ones, and causing great exhaustion and stress.

^ And don't forget the clouds and rain. You rarely get clear days out.

Dubai is extremely popular with expats, r196. Again, quality of life.

[quote]Dubai is extremely popular with expats, [R196]. Again, quality of life.

Less popular, I would venture, among gay men such as myself for whom quality of life is THE criterion for where to live.

But then quality of life means very different things to different people. For some it's living in a tax Haven, or a city that was almost entirely created within recent years, everything shining and new and safe and marble villas, with malls.

Speaking of humble bragging, for 25 years of my expat and jet setting life I was tall, great looking and friendly. It never happened that I could visit or live in a city and be lonely. Any city becomes a rich adventure when you meet a local man and are introduced to his circle and experience the culture first hand. GOOD TIMES.

London has terrible weather. Rains most days.

Paris is burning.

[quote]London has terrible weather. Rains most days.

Not true. It certainly doesn't rain most days. It's 111 days a year in London, 30% of days are rainy and 70% are not.

In Paris it's rainy 121 days. NYC 119. Miami 129.