London or Paris?

Which would you rather visit?

  • Paris

    Votes: 22 61.1%

  • London

    Votes: 14 38.9%
  • Total voters
    36
amur leopard

amur leopard

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
The aim of this thread is essentially to ask which city you would rather visit. Forget language barriers and distances/difficulty getting there, imagine you are fluent in both languages. I will post a few factors below to help you come to a decision if you are unfamiliar with either of the cities. :)
 
Know London pretty well so voted Paris. I know Paris less well but I lived there for a very brief period.

Love both cities but I feel like I've pretty much explored London and that there is much more waiting for me to explore in Paris if I ever find myself there again.
 
I did not vote because my answer is neither (and I have been to both on more than one occasion). The issue for me is they are both too congested (though you can get around both on the metro or underground). I love Europe - have been six times and hope to return next year - but I prefer the smaller towns. In my opinion (and here is where I may get pushback) neither city even has a zoo that is that spectacular and worth visiting (and yes I have been to both - or all three if you include Le Menagerie).

As I type this I realize that I am sitting directly underneath a huge 40x60 inch print of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris that I photographed on a previous trip at dusk, and that my bathroom has a 24x36 inch print of Seine River and Eiffel Tower at dusk and my hall has a 24x36 inch print of London Eye at dusk. So maybe I like them more than I think! In my opinion the best reason to visit London is to see (in person) the annual Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibition at Natural History Museum. Paris has more interesting architecture (which is my main photographic interest in Europe), so I suppose if push came to shove I would vote for Paris for that reason. (In fact I will go ahead and vote for it now, negating my opening sentence and original intent).

However having seen them I now use them primarily as hubs to pass through. I fly into Heathrow (London) because British Air has a daily nonstop from Phoenix (except during pandemics of course). I often change trains in Paris, taking the Eurostar from London or Ashford, perhaps spending a night en route to somewhere smaller and quieter.
 
I've been to the Jardin des Plantes twice, more than thirty years apart, and to the Vincennes Parc once. Much enjoyed both. I love the atmosphere of the Jardin, old enclosures repurposed for new exhibits and more appropriate species for the spence available.
Maybe it's because I'm overfamiliar with London Zoo, and disappointed with how it has developed, but I would rather visit the Jardin des Plantes any day.
 
ThomasNotTom said:
To the UK, or the mainland? :)
Click to expand...
For my return I assume you mean? Not sure yet, though UK is low on my radar. My recent visits are more for architecture and not so much for zoos (unlike earlier visits). If I do a zoo it would possibly be the two Berlins with their updated carnivore houses. Then I would add on Prague and perhaps Budapest for architecture. Or I may stay west and do Brugges, Rocamadeur, and possibly central/southern Spain (Toledo, Granada, etc).
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNT
I will first give a brief outline of what each city has to offer and then go into more detail on both in each category. Of course you don't have to agree with me, the whole point of this is that it is subjective. I haven't given a definitive answer in order to allow room for different opinions, especially since this is a highly debatable subject which is often decided by what somebody likes in particular.

But first, a bit of history. Both were essentially founded by the Romans, although small-scale settlements existed on site previously. Lutetia (Paris) and Londinium (London) were therefore developed under the rule of the Roman Empire. After their recovery from the Dark Ages, a series of wars between England and France broke out, conflicts which often had no definitive outcome. Both cities started to grow in size. The Great Fire of London destroyed London in 1666 and Cristopher Wren was put in charge of London's renewal. London started to grow yet again. Paris acted as the hub of the French Revolution, and around 60 years later, an architect named Haussmann was put in charge of almost entirely rebuilding Paris. We can still see Haussmannian Paris today - its style dominates almost every street. Meanwhile, London had no such renewal and continued to sprawl outwards. However, when the Second World War broke out, France was almost immediately invaded and defeated by the German Army and no real damage was done to its buildings and architecture. As such, Haussmannian Paris remained and still remains intact to this day. However, London was not so fortunate. It endured the Blitz, in which much of it was bombed and destroyed. Fortunately, many of London's greatest monuments survived the bombing - only once did a bomb hit Westminster Abbey, and it fizzed out and didn't explode having dropped right in the centre of the transepts by chance. This bombing means that London is much more of a mix of architecture - one-story buildings, hundreds of years old, can be found right next to skyscrapers hundreds of metres in height. It also means that many of London's areas are dominated by 50s, 60s and 70s architecture. As a result, London has many more modern attractions than Paris, yet Paris is more uniform architecturally.
However, since Paris was still as densely-packed as before after the war, there was no space to build skyscrapers or even any tall buildings in the city centre (other than La Tour Montparnasse), so these were instead built in La Defense, a district to the West of Paris. However, the destruction that London had endured had allowed architects room to build new creations. As a result, the City of London now has a number of very tall buildings and the tallest of the all, the Shard, is situated just across the river from them. This also allowed more functional buildings to be built such as hospitals and offices. So, out of the ashes of the Second World War emerged two entirely different cities - one massive and sprawling, peppered with all different kinds of architectural styles, some centuries apart, and the other enclosed and almost entirely uniformly constructed.

This, I hope, explains the differences in style one can see in the two cities. In order to compare the two, it is important to take into account this difference, as one may be able to decide which to visit just from this information. However, I will still go through, briefly and then in more detail, the attractions and monuments in both cities and attempt to give my own answer.

Brief run-through of attractions:

London: Big Ben (Elizabeth Tower) and the adjoined Palace of Westminster (Parliament), Westminster Abbey, the London Eye, Tate Britain and Modern, ZSL (London and Whipsnade, if you really stretch it), St Pauls, Madame Tussauds, the City of London, Hyde and Regent parks, Natural History Museum, British Museum, V&A Museum, Science Museum, Tower Bridge, the Tower of London, Shakespeare's Globe, Windsor Castle and many, many more.

Paris: Notre Dame, Tour Eiffel, Le Sacre Coeur, Le Louvre, Musee D'Orsay, Centre Pompidou, Musee D'Histoire Naturelle, Jardin des Plantes, Musee d'Anatomie Comparee et de Paleontologie, Menagerie du Jardin des Planted, Zoo de Vincennes, and many more, including Le Parc des Felins and Zoo de Thoiry if you stretch the definition of Paris a bit :D

Paris has a sort of Big 3 - Le Louvre, La Tour Eiffel et Notre Dame, while London's sights are really more dependent on what you want to see. While almost every visitor to Paris sees the Big 3 no matter their interests, many visitors to London miss the London Eye or the British Museum depending on their interests.

Both have excellent museums - in terms of art, the competition is fierce, with the victor determined essentially by which one you prefers as an individual - such things cannot be measured objectively. Le Louvre is arguably the best Art Museum in the world, rivalled only by the Met, the Vatican Museums and to a lesser extent perhaps the British Museum. This makes overcoming it difficult, even for London, a city with an impressive array of art museums (both Tate Museums, the National Gallery and Portrait Gallery and British Museum among many others). However, depending on one's taste, Paris and London can offer wildly different things. The Louvre covers all spectrums of art other than the works in the last Century. The British Museum covers ancient art and artefacts, the National Gallery and associated museums more recent history (paintings from 17th, 18th and 19th centuries) and the Tate Modern covers modern art. In this respect, London covers more of a spectrum than Paris, which doesn't really have a modern art museum. However, the sheer size and grandeur of the Louvre over leaves visitors in a daze (whether physically from its miles of galleries or mentally from the volume of superb works of art).

In terms of zoos, which is likely to be very important in distinguishing the two on this forum, the Paris Menagerie is slightly older than London zoo, and more of its older buildings survive to this day. Its location right next to the Natural History Museum and associated acts makes it a must visit for Zoochatters even if it doesn't justify a standalone visit for you. London has a more well-rounded collection, with lions, tigers, giraffes and zebras in terms of ABCs but also quainter, rarer species like the Northern Dry Zone Slender loris, the Potto and others. Meanwhile, the Menagerie has a number of very old buildings inhabited by cats, reptiles and orangutans and other ancient enclosures. However, Paris also has le Zoo de Vincennes, an entirely revamped zoo split into a number of different areas - Europe, Madagascar, Guyana, Patagonia and the Sahel. Rarities include lots of rare species of lemur, manatees, a nice European aviary and South American pumas. The majority are held in very good exhibits, and a highlight is the mini-Masoala under which the Madagascar and part of the Guyana exhibit are located.
Zoos that are arguably inside their respective cities are Parc de Felins and Zoo de Thoiry in Paris and Whipsnade in London (as well as Battersea Park Children's zoo, which is really minor and probably not worth visiting).

As for Natural History Museums, it's a really difficult one. Paris has their collection split into a number of different museums around Paris. Their epicentre is the Jardin des Plantes in which the main museum is located along with the museum with a long name with all the bones :D. There is also a museum focusing on man and the history of humans, as well as a museum dealing with mineralogy and geology. The Pairs Museums have more species on exhibit, including many extinct species and very endangered species. However, the NHM in London is a beautiful building and contains an immense collection despite being limited to a single building. There is also the Grant Museum of Zoology in North London near the British Museum which is small but very dense and holds some interesting specimens, and Tring if you stretch the definition of London a little. These all hold incredible collections in their own right but currently I would prefer to visit the Paris collections over their Londonian equivalents, although this may just be because I want to form a species list for the Paris Museums.

Overall, essentially, it is up tom you. I will give a more descriptive analysis of all the different sectors and hopefully allow those who do not know the cities as well more of an insight into the cities than I have done with this brief summary :).

​
 
Exactly five years ago, I attended a conference in Paris and took my wife and back then baby daughter with me. It was our first trip as a little family - and it was marvellous. Having a cute baby turned out to be the ultimate door opener to Paris. We didn't have to stay in line for any museum (including the Louvre); the museum clerks took us past the long queques to let us quickly in. In one case, we were even allowed in half an hour before the official opening time and had the museum to ourselves. The Parisians, infamous for being rude to foreigners, all treated us friendly or at least acted understandingly. The weirdest thing was the constant flow of Japanese (female) tourists either wanting to take a photo with or kiss my daughter's feet.
(My daughter was objectively a very cute baby back then - golden locked hair, blue eyes, always friendly and smiling)
And thanks to a friend who works in the Menagerie, I got a family multipass and got into the splendid Galerie de Paléontologie et d' Anatomie Comparée and all the other attractions of the Muséum national d’histoire naturelle for free.
So long story short: I see Paris through rather rose-tinted glasses..;)
 
Last edited:
amur leopard said:
(as well as Battersea Park Children's zoo, which is really minor and probably not worth visiting).
Click to expand...

I beg to differ :P

Also, given you are including collections up to 55km outside of the cities in question, you have omitted a lot of notable collections for London ;) Cedar's Nature Centre, Paradise Wildlife Park, British Nature Centre, Chessington etc etc......
 
amur leopard said:
There is also the Grant Museum of Zoology in North London near the British Museum which is small but very dense and holds some interesting specimens, and Tring if you stretch the definition of London a little. ​
Click to expand...

Glad to see you mentioned the Grant Museum of Zoology in there as it is a very special little place and does deserve more visitors. However , I do think that including the Natural History Museum at Tring is really stretching the definition of London way too much as it is (If I remember correctly from when I visited) about 45 minutes from London by rail and in Hertfordshire.

Going by the "stretched definition" of London there are a few more examples of brilliant natural history and history of science related museums worth visiting just outside the capital in Kent such as Darwin's Downe house in North Kent and the Powell Cotton Museum just outside of Margate.

Also, not directly related to animals (though I know they have a few reptiles and amphibians on display) but what about Kew gardens ?

​
 
amur leopard said:
...more of an insight into the cities than I have done with this brief summary :).
Click to expand...
If that is what you consider a brief summary, I fear to see what the full followup is going to look like! ;)
Also interesting that you stretch the boundaries to include Le Parc Des Felins (admittedly my favorite zoo of all time) yet fail to mention Disneyland Paris, which is the most visited attraction in all of Europe.
 
Wondering if this is going to turn out like the 2012 Olympic bid, which London won but Paris was considered the favourite?
 
Batto said:
We didn't have to stay in line for any museum (including the Louvre)
Click to expand...

Ah - there's a way to do that without having a tiny child though - go in through a side entrance! There is never a very big line there, and although you don't get to go in through the famous glass pyramid, it can save you hours of queues. Every time I've been I've always bought my tickets in advance though, so I'm not sure if it is possible to go in through the side without pre-booked tickets. At any rate, it's a lot easier :D

Arizona Docent said:
If that is what you consider a brief summary, I fear to see what the full followup is going to look like! ;)
Also interesting that you stretch the boundaries to include Le Parc Des Felins (admittedly my favorite zoo of all time) yet fail to mention Disneyland Paris, which is the most visited attraction in all of Europe.
Click to expand...

Not any more thankfully. The Louvre has 10.2 million annual visitors in 2018 compared to Disneyland at 9.84. However, it is true that this used to be the case, somewhat embarrassingly I must admit :D
However, your point stands, and I was thinking about it. However, I included the PdF just because this is Zoochat if you know what I mean. Anyway, I'll add it on.

My brief summaries are never brief! But, yes, I do have something more comprehensive in store :D. Sadly, just lost all my work due to a clipboard and then Word document error, so I'll have to write it all over again. My in-depth look will be focusing more on the attractions that are likely to attract all Zoochatters (the Natural History Museum, the zoos...).
 
TeaLovingDave said:
I beg to differ :p

Also, given you are including collections up to 55km outside of the cities in question, you have omitted a lot of notable collections for London ;) Cedar's Nature Centre, Paradise Wildlife Park, British Nature Centre, Chessington etc etc......
Click to expand...

Mmm. Fair enough. Although I hold my ground on the Battersea Park Children's Zoo :p. In all seriousness, what is worth visiting there? I know there are a few nice little rarities, but if it is out of one's way and especially if you have a limited time there, I wouldn't go. I mean, around there, there is the power station, which is basically getting demolished, and that's about it!
 
London hands down. London Zoo was my home zoo as a kid, before I moved to New Zealand and I always enjoy visiting this city. It has everything - museums, architecture, a zoo with architecture. I like the underground too - so efficient and easy to use. I also have to say the last Olympics wasn’t a patch on London 2012.
 
amur leopard said:
Although I hold my ground on the Battersea Park Children's Zoo :p. In all seriousness, what is worth visiting there? I know there are a few nice little rarities, but if it is out of one's way and especially if you have a limited time there, I wouldn't go. I mean, around there, there is the power station, which is basically getting demolished, and that's about it!
Click to expand...

It's pretty easy to reach by train from the city centre, and I say that as someone who despises the Tube :P so I wouldn't call it "out of one's way" at all. It's certainly a LOT easier to reach than Whipsnade is!

As for worthwhile species there.....

Northern Luzon giant cloud rat
Pallas's squirrel
Scottish wildcat (high purity)
Yellow-fronted parakeet (pure, which vanishingly few are)

Plus, it is just a very pleasant little collection in both setting and design.
 
amur leopard said:
Ah - there's a way to do that without having a tiny child though - go in through a side entrance!
Click to expand...
That doesn't include the VIP treatment we got back then, though. ;) We had bought our tickets online beforehand, so we were inside in less than a minute. I only had to go through the metal detector with the baby bag, and for that, the museum clerk literally ushered me through while pushing other people in line away to let me pass quickly and constantly congratulated me how cute my daughter was. ^^

Therefore, I can only recommend to have a cute baby with you when you visit Paris. When we visited NYC in the following year, the situation was completely different. While my daughter was still a very cute and charming toddler, the New Yorkers reacted at best indifferently. Maybe I'd have to borrow a cute baby for the next trip to NYC to test for a different reaction, but since I'm not a great fan of that city, I'll pass. ^^
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top