London, Paris & Rome - what should I compare / contrast?

Do you want to see the Paris Pantheon just because there's one in Rome, or are you genuinely interested in the Paris Pantheon because of the architecture or who's buried there? Does your family really like river tours, or are you simply not sure what to do in these cities?

I'll be honest and say I don't understand your wish to compare/contrast.

Everyone who's traveling should make a list of what they want to see and do in these cities, time permitting. Your group could even split up for one or two days in each city, according to interests. Is anyone in your family interested in museums? What about Notre-Dame and Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's and the Vatican?

You are a bit late for the London Pantheon as it was demolished in the 1930s. The site on Oxford Street is occupied by Marks and Spencer, and is referred to as the Pantheon Branch.

Altho I have not been to Paris in years and years, I have recently been to Rome (first visit) and London (many visits). They are as different as they can be to me. I would forget trying to see equivalents unless it is the cathedrals as mentioned above. I did go out of my way to see evidence of Roman occupation in London this last time and it was of course miniscule with short pieces of wall, etc compared to the overwhelming sites in Rome. If you compare cities, you then have to compare the inhabitants....Londoners vs Parisians vs Romans all of whom seem to have a different pace.

Looking at the rivers in each town might be of interest, but I didn't get the same sense of the river in Rome as in London or Paris. This could be completely wrong, as I said I have just visited Rome once. The Thames and Seine are so very different as well.

There are a very few things that are worth it. Since Napoleon built the Pantheon as a copy of the Roman one, I think it's interesting to visit them both and compare them. Also, there are tours to the top (in Paris) for a lovely view.

You will naturally compare some things without even trying. Just a few meters from the Roman Pantheon is a church with several wonderful Caravaggios. When you go in, you feel like you're back in Paris. There is that much difference between the typical French and Italian interior styles of churches. You'll go to St. Paul's and Westminster and Notre Dame and St.Peter's and maybe others. Each is magnificent, but probably not comparable.

A ride down the Seine at sunset is wonderful (and yes, very good at any time). I don't think there are many memorable sights along the Thames or Tiber. I find walking anywhere in Paris is terrific, walking many places in London is interesting, but I've only enjoyed a very few walking experiences in Rome.

Rome = gelato, Paris = crepes (or chocolate), London = ?????

Maybe it's like children. Don't try to compare them. Just enjoy and love the best in each of them.

As far as I know, there is no river tour in Rome. Just my opinion, but trying to compare and contrast sights will probably keep you from seeing the organic integrity of each city. As said earlier, you will automatically compare new sights to what is already in your memory. You could compare hop on-hop off buses in each city, but that would be it for me.

I think there are lots of ways you could do this, but the best of them will occur naturally, especially if you are willing to see each place on its own terms and not as day trips from an American bubble. So when you are done you will be able to compare and contrast British, French and Italian

beer
breakfasts
subways
museums
architecture

and hundreds of other things.

That said, I'm not sure the "equivalent sights" thing holds up too well. (That said, the British "pantheon" is arguably Westminster Abbey.)

I too would drop the compare/contrast idea and let each city reveal its own uniqueness. Make a list of those things you want to see/do in each place and plot your daily journeys to encompass them. It is the in-between places where we really discover a city.

I know I am in the minority here but it wasn't until our 8th time in Paris that we did a Seine River boat! For me it was - meh! I would rather walk along the river at either street level or down at water level where you can. You can't pop into a little shop or stop for an impromptu cafe au lait or glass of wine from the boat.

Steve,

"What I wanted to ask was: what should I be comparing/contrasting since I'm going to hit these three capitals on one trip?"

you sound like my art history class essay tests.

One question i would have to ask is anyone else having a say in this trip?

I would see what others would want to see/do in each place since i feel that those answers would probably make some of your questions moot.

as far as river cruises, so far i havent taken one which is funny since i love to sail. But i think if it has a motor, im not interested.

With regards to food, i think if you look you will find some cool stuff to try. Some times its the same stuff, different packaging, but some of the food/treats are different. when i go to the grocery stores im looking for stuff to send back home that i cant get here.

happy trails.

I agree with everyone else about the sights- look at each city individually and see what you want to see. A ride down the Seine feels very different from a ride down the Thames. "Doing" one of them is not the same as "doing" both. There are no river cruises on the Tiber that I am aware of.

I second Zoe's suggestion about the Hop on/Hop off tours. I think that is a great way to get acquainted with a new city. And in London and Paris there is logistically a lot more ground to cover. So it is a good way to get around. Rome is smaller (at least when talking about the tourist areas) but a lot hillier.

I don't know what time of year you are going but Rome will probably be significantly warmer so pack accordingly.

All three cities have a tourist pass (London Pass, Paris Pass, Roma Pass). Each pass works a little differently but in a nutshell, if you get the pass you don't have to wait in the ticket lines which is a huge time saver. You pay a flat fee for the pass and get into the sites for free (Roma pass works a little differently). Roma pass includes public transport. So consider what you want to see and decide if those passes are worth it for you.

I love staying in apartments and having the option to cook certain meals to save money. In London, it will be easier to find a grocery store as we know it. Paris and Rome certainly have grocery stores but outdoor markets and small mom/pop store are much more common.

.> I would rather walk along the river at either street level or down at water level where you can.<

I enjoy this in Rome, too (even though Rick says that it's not worthwhile, I disagree). You can certainly compare how each city relates to its river - quite different among the three.

Just to pile on to the other replies, don't deliberately try to find equivalents, any more than you would if you were seeing Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York on one trip. There will naturally be points of comparison or equivalence (your grocery store example is a good one), but you'll enjoy your trip a lot more if you appreciate each place for what it has to offer, rather than constantly comparing it to someplace else (and thus, inevitably finding it lacking).

Agreed with others that a comparative study of the cities would probably not be a good way to spend your time. Find out what interests you in each city and give them a looksy.

Instead of comparing things, I would look to make each thing in the city as unique as possible: In London, use the river "cruise" as a way to get to your next destination (e.g., Tower of London to Westminster Abbey) to make the most of it. In Paris, try a river cruise at night for something a little different and to see the lights of the city from that vantage point (not sure what time of year you are going though). I would think if you see one catacombs, you should be set, so pick one that fits your schedule (maybe not in Paris given the shorter stay). Use the subway systems (that actually might be a fun comparison). Do try some down time, like sitting in a sidewalk cafe or frolicking in a park, or seeing a theatrical show in London.

As for seeing something Pantheon like in London, maybe try St. Paul's Cathedral (I am picturing a fun scrapbook page with this!).

Have fun.

Just a few more thoughts....

The Seine cruise takes about an hour or hour and a half, not a big chunk of your life for a unique view of the city. Well worthwhile, especially after dark. Each bridge is unique and some are quite wonderful (Alexandre III, Neuf, des Arts). The Thames cruise, as someone said, is more about getting from one end to the other. Boarding at Westminster and exiting at the Tower you replicate the final voyages of various traitors/martyrs in Britain's stormy history. I never miss a boat ride if I can help it!

I'm no more enthused about the "comparison" theme than others, but one thing you might do is visit some of the Roman sites in London and Paris before you eat, so to speak, the Big Enchilada (or is it manicotti?) in Rome. London has the Temple of Mithras in the City, and nearby the Museum of London with fine exhibits of Rome's brief occupation. Paris has the Archeological Crypt under the plaza in front of Notre Dame, with Roman ruins, and also the Arenes de Lutece, a reconstructed circular arena on the site of the original one in the Latin Quarter. Londinium was an outpost of the empire for a few centuries, Lutetia for longer.

I wouldn't spend time at the Pantheon in Paris with only three days. The Paris catacombs would probably interest (and, even better, creep out) your teens but involve a lot of walking and stairs, maybe they can do this without you or your mom.

Have a great trip!

I would think overplanning is the worst part of any trip:)))
With that many people and the variety of ages even if you do plan it probably won't last long. Instead of you doing all the work (as I assume you are paying) why not let each of the kids choose one of the locations and become the 'expert'? They can be more involved and you will be more likely to learn lots of unexpected thing about the location and the child. You will find the kids to be far more enthusiastic and probably a bit more understanding about what goes into the planning of such a big trip.

I agree that instead of comparing and contrasting sights in each city, visit the unique places in each one. Go for the best!
No Roman ruin in any city is going to compare with the Coliseum & Palentine Hill in Rome.

Nothing is going to compare to the Eiffel Tower, the wonderful ambiance along the Seine.
Each city has different, wonderful architecture.
That said,
Definitely see the Pantheon in Rome, (and the church with the Caravaggio paintings nearby--I'm sure it's mentioned by name in the Rick Steves Rome guidebook). The Pantheon in Paris is interesting, but skip if you are staying only 3 days.
Your mom (as well as the rest of your party) will probably really like the Seine cruise, touristy though it is. When I viewed the Tiber in Rome, in September, it was a very unimpressive shallow river, with no boats on it. Not a focal point of Rome to be sure.
In London I took a short cruise on the Thames from Westminster bridge to the Tower of London, that was OK. It was a free ticket I got when I took one of the hop on hop off buses. If you get this, go for the cruise. Else not necessary in my opinion.
I'd visit, Westminster Abbey, Notre Dame, and St. Peter's to be sure -- not necessarily to compare these iconic churches, but because they are great, and there are several more great ones I could add in each city.
And don't forget to hit some of the major art galleries in each city.
Comparing and contrasting the food you eat in each city might be fun though.... enjoy the outdoor dining in Paris and Rome for sure!

Chani- alongside Roman gelati and Parisian crepes, how about London tea, with milk, scones, and clotted cream?