London in 3 days??

If that was all the time I had, I would still go to London. It's such a fantastic city that I wouldn't hesitate - even with just two days! In fact, thinking about your question, I already have my two days planned!

We usually stay in Marylebone, at the Gloucester Place Marble Arch Hotel (55 Gloucester Place). Reasonable rates, nice staff, 5 blocks from the Baker Street tube stop, with a number of bus lines that stop right outside the door. It's convenient to everything, and the neighborhood is great.

I've been to London more times than I can count or even guess at. When it's within striking distance, I never fail to duck in again since there's always a bunch of things unseen.

The place must have a couple or three hundred tube stations. Average time anywhere-to-anywhere is maybe twenty minutes, usually less, and once you get to three or four main nubs, everything else is within walking distance. Thus, it doesn't matter where you stay.

In my mind seeing something is always better than seeing nothing. Sure you won't see everything in three days, but you can see and do a lot in that time. London is one of those world class cities where you will never see everything anyway. Plus, who knows when, if ever, you'll be back. I was in Paris for a long layover 11 years ago and saw as much as I could. To day it is still my only visit to that city. Its on my mental list of places to go, but I haven't made it back there yet.

As far as places to stay, perhaps figure out what you most like to see and stay near there. The subway system is really good, so it should be easy to move around. Anything on the Circle or District Tube lines should work well as they connect to many of the areas with top tourist sites. I like South Kensington personally, but there are good options in many parts of the metro area.

Have fun!

Thanks for your replies. We're going to London?
In my search for a mid-priced hotel, I have found that Premier Inn is opening two new hotels in May/June. One of them is in the St. Pancras area - near the tube station and the other one is listed as London Hendon (The Hyde). Which one would be better located as far as seeing the major sites, restaurants, etc.

Thanks again.

Hendon is a suburb some ways from central London. There is an underground (subway) station nearby but it will cost more time and money to get to the major sights. St. Pancras is much more centrally located, better for your limited time I think. Look at a city map and a map of the underground, try to find a place close to a station within the Circle Line (but needn't be on that line itself).

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/londonunderground/1608.aspx
There you go Ed.

Sue, have you tried looking at the Vancouver Studio Apartments in the Bayswater Neighborhood? 3 tube stations to chose from, catch buses along Bayswater RD, loads of eateries, pubs, shops and easy stroll over to Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park. Also relatively close to Paddington Station. Have stayed there more than once. Never been displeased with price or comfort. London is a fabulous city, so yes, go. You can see a lot in two days if you set your mind to it! Enjoy.

Sue, have a look at Premier Inn London County Hall. It is across the river from Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament. Also located right behind the London Eye. Walking distance to many of London's most popular sights, such as Westminster Abbey and Buckingham Palace (walk west across Westminster Bridge). From this hotel you can also walk east along the riverfront and reach Shakespeare's Globe Theatre, Tate Modern Art Museum, and walk north across the bridge (Millennium Bridge) to St. Paul's. It is also convenient to many tube stations and bus routes. Go to "Google", enter Premier Inn County Hall, London, and it will pull up a map for you to see where it is. I think it's a good location for you. Be sure and have a good map of London with you for walking around. Also pick up a tube map at the tube station. Have a great trip.