London vs Paris vs Rome

Back in July 2007 I did a post that compared London vs Paris. Turns out that to this day it is still a popular post and once or twice a week someone Googles “London versus Paris” and reads it. So I figured I'd take the original post and update it for Rome!

Which city did I like better? Well, I figured I'd do a itemized list of things to compare the three cities on, almost like a competition:


Overall look: London has an interesting mix of buildings both old and new but Paris retains much of its architectural charm. Neighbourhood after neighbourhood looks like it is from the late 19th-early 20th century, with four or five storey apartment buildings side by side with the shuttered windows etc. By keeping the architecture consistent the streets of Paris retain a lot of charm.
Rome is similar to Paris with narrow streets and apartment buildings side-by-side but has a lot more “Wow!” buildings and monuments in a small area and great piazzas to discover.

Winner: for someone who likes wandering around and exploring I will have to give Rome the edge over Paris. London gets third.

Cleanliness: none of the cities were immaculate of course but the parks were well-maintained even though busy streets were a little grungy. Overall things were relatively good considering they are both major cities. I had heard that in Paris and Rome there are dog droppings everywhere but I didn’t find that to be the case at all. Still I felt that Rome was a hint “grungier”, especially at popular piazzas and in Trastevere, maybe due to all the tourists wandering around.

Winner: I’ll give London and Paris a tie, with Rome a close third. All of the cities were fine and not as bad as I had heard.

Air quality: Both cities had some air quality problems due to all of the cars but there was something else with the air in London – blowing my nose would result in a tinge of grey, something that didn’t occur in Paris or Rome. I also saw a number of bicycle riders in London wearing masks/filters, something I never saw in Paris or Rome. I had heard that Rome had some pollution problems but the centre of Rome seemed fine to me.

Winner: tie between Paris and Rome. London takes third.

Least expensive: Don’t get me wrong – all of them are prrrriiicey. Hotel costs are brutal (Rome had the best value for money, maybe I lucked out) and food is not cheap either. Overall though I found beer, coffee and most food items cheaper in London, and wine and bread/pastries cheaper in Paris. Food in Rome was comparable if you could find a place with a special deal otherwise I'd say for your average touristy lunch it was probably more expensive than the other two. However London doesn’t charge for most museums and attractions, while in Paris most museums charge 7-10 euro for entry. I only went to one Museum in Rome (Vatican) and entrance was 15 euro. Considering all of the museums these cities have that adds up for someone doing the tourist thing.

Winner: London, thanks to subsidized museums. Rome takes second because of the hotel and Paris third.

Metro: Both the Paris Metro and the London Underground provide great service to anywhere a tourist wants to go. Rome has a much more limited metro that skirts around the edges of the center of Rome (probably because they can't dig under the historical part of the city as they would destroy Roman ruins or valuable buildings). Always make sure wherever it is that you are staying in Paris and London that it is close to a Metro/Underground station and then you can just use a multi-day pass to get around. I barely ever used the Rome Metro but it was definitely the cheapest at 1 euro a ride. Overall I found the Underground a bit easier to navigate, and trains ran a bit more frequently (usually every 2-4 minutes as opposed to 3-7 minutes in Paris). The Underground was a bit cleaner as well, though that isn’t saying much, but the scent of stale urine was definitely to be found in some Paris Metro stations. I put Rome stations equivalent to Paris.

Winner: London. Paris is second and in Rome you might want to study the bus routes if you don't like walking a lot.

Restaurants: Well I certainly didn’t eat everywhere, and wasn’t eating in top-end jacket & tie types of places, but the food in restaurants was generally good in all cities. I recall some service issues in the occasional place in Paris that didn’t occur in London though, and food was more variable in Rome. In some places in Rome the food was pretty “meh” but I did have the best Fettuccine Alfredo I've ever had in my life there and I can think of at least one other place I ate at where the food was great. Try to scope out what the pizzas look like before you order -- I once ordered a “lunch special” pizza that had four toppings and received a pizza cut into quarters with one topping per quarter! (It was still tasty though.)

Here's two stories about Paris service: One memorable one was in a sidewalk café on the Champs de Elysses where the waiter placed down a paper tablecloth, napkins and cutlery on our table but when we just ordered coffees he grabbed the tablecloth, napkins & cutlery and moved them to another table where another couple was sitting! He then had us move to the table next to them – all because we weren’t ordering food. Weird. We and the other couple had a good laugh when we told them where their cutlery had come from (though we did point out that we hadn’t touched it).

Another time I was at a restaurant/café near the Opera and watched as a waiter cleared tables by stacking all the dirty dishes on one table for two next to the sidewalk. That table was the only empty one. Then for the next 15 minutes, rather than clear the dishes, he turned couples away who were looking for a table -- three times! One couple even pointed to the table with a "we’ll take that table if you clean it” gesture only to have the waiter essentially gesture "sorry, no can do”.

Winner: London, edging out the win due to better service. Rome will get a second due to the variability of food (try to find places locals are eating at -- check out the crowd eating outside of a place for a minute or two), and snarky Paris gets third.

Museums: The British Museum is iconic, and it’s collection of Egyptian antiquities can’t be beat outside of Egypt, but as a museum the Louvre is in a class on its own. You would have to combine the British Museum, the Tate Gallery, and the Victoria & Albert Museum to even come close to the sheer size of the Louvre collection, and the walls and ceilings of many of the Louvre’s galleries are artworks in-and-of themselves, retaining their centuries-old décor. The park and gardens around the Louvre are also spectacular. And I didn’t even see most of the other museums in Paris. In Rome I only went to one Museum, the Vatican Museum, and while it does not have anything Egyptian its collection is incredible, and like the Louvre the walls and ceilings of the galleries are incredibly decorated, and it also has the Sistine Chapel, which by sheer volume beats out the Mona Lisa (which is also an Italian painting so let's give Italy a little extra credit). The Louvre however is bigger, items are better labeled, and you have a lot more flexibility with wandering around.

Winner: close call -- and this really is just a comparison between the Louvre and the Vatican Museum -- but it's all I've got to go on so I'll give Paris the edge over Rome, unless you are a massive fan for all things Egyptian in which case London's third place gets an upgrade. Of course fans of Roman and Renaissance art should go to Rome.

Other attractions: Cruising the Seine beats the Tiber but I think Tiber would edge the Thames. Eiffel Tower is better than the London Eye, Big Ben, or the Monument to Vittorio Emmanuel II. St. Peter’s beats out Westminster Abbey and Notre Dame. St. Paul’s edges out Sacre-Coeur (St. Paul’s is more historical and has more to see, though Sacre-Coeur has a must-see view of Paris). Both beat the Spanish Steps but credit that an average church in Rome easily beats the other two cities. I’ll take hanging out at Trevi Fountain over the Arc de Triumph, and both leave Trafalgar Square in the dust. Finally there is the walk from the Arc de Triumph, down the Champs de Elysees, through numerous parks, past the Obelisk, past some large fountains, until you reach the parks in front of the Louvre. That walk cannot be matched by anything in London, and while I was really impressed with the walk from the Trevi Fountain to the Piazza Navona I will still give Paris that one.

Winner: This is tough! Maybe it's because I was just recently there but I'm going to have to give Rome the first place because there was just so much great stuff to see. Paris gets a close second and London third.

Nightlife: I don’t know much about the quality of nightlife in any of them (I'm not a club type of guy and was usually back in my hotel room by 11) but London is a pub culture so it seemed that anywhere you looked there was a pub or club that you could pop into. In Paris that was a lot harder to find, cafes were much more plentiful. Bars were aplenty in the Trastevere neighborhood of Rome but it was restaurants and cafés most other places.

Winner: London, just due to the ease of finding places anywhere you were. Rome second. Paris third.

Safety: All cities have their dodgy neighbourhoods but overall I didn’t have any issues. There were a few beggars here and there in all of them, and the odd homeless guy in the parks or metro stations – nothing to the level you see in cities like Vancouver or LA. Twice in Rome (over four days) some guy tried to give me the long sob story for some money. There were signs warning people about pickpockets in Paris and Rome but I never saw anything or heard any commotion. I've never had anything stolen but my friend Janel traveled with me in Paris and had a pair of earrings stolen from her hotel room, probably by a maid but possibly someone came through the window of her 1st floor room. Another friend of mine visited Rome only once and had his wallet stolen from his jacket while he was at a fancy bar.

Winner: I’ll say London first and Rome and Paris tie for second because I've had friends visit both places once and something got stolen.

Queues: Way longer in Paris than in London for all major tourist attractions and Rome was variable. London’s only major queue problem was at Madame Tuseud’s, so we didn’t bother going in. Waited over an hour to go to the top of the Eiffel Tower, and skipped Notre Dame because of the long line. Crowding was pretty bad at the Louvre as well but the Vatican Museum was worse. The lineup at the Vatican Museum was huge but fast and only took only 25 minutes, Colosseum was 30 minutes, and I gave up on the Foro Romano. I went really early to St. Peter's so didn't wait in a line but I've heard that can get bad as well.

Winner: London. You can see some fantastic churches and things with no line up so I'll give Rome second. Paris is third.


The Overall Winner -- let’s see the results. (firsts, seconds, thirds. Ties get half)

Paris 2, 3.5, 4
London 5.5, 1, 3.5
Rome 2.5, 5.5, 2

In my original London vs Paris post London beat Paris 6-4 but Paris won the major ones: overall look, museums, & other attractions. Because of this Paris won. Adding Rome to the mix competed heavily against Paris's wins but had little impact on the categories London won (metro, queues, cost, nightlife) causing Paris and Rome to “split votes” so to speak. So if Paris beat London in my original assessment, and Rome and Paris are now splitting the vote, logic would say that both Rome and Paris edge out London despite the point tally. Does that seem right though? I'd say so. I'd recommend you do Rome or Paris over London if you're an explorer and love either Renaissance art, Roman art, or artwork in general, but if you have the chance really see all three cities. English speakers with young children (who might get tired of art and museums), or people who love of all things Egyptian, would probably like London better.