Week 2: From London to Oxford
As an extremely forgetful person, trying to remember and compare the two cities over a period of ten days is a very difficult task. This week, the professors asked us to reflect on the relationships of contexts and experiences throughout the course. We are to compare and contrast the experiences of London and Oxford. How do you explore the urban spaces? Though I probably cannot recite details of exactly what I saw in each place, I could probably recount the environment and the feelings of being in the different locations.
Everything at London felt rushed and hurried. From the ubiquitous packaged take-out foods available at Pret a Manger (or any grocery store) to the crowded tube cars and streets to trying to see most of London in three full days, London was busy. Thankfully, there were many squares spread out around the city, and many larger parks, such as St. James's Park and Hyde Park (which I visited), where people could step away from the semi-chaotic city. Here, the paths were still occupied with many people, but many people were also relaxing in the grass, having dinner with friends and family while enjoying the beautiful green spaces. Separated by gates, it felt very much like a separate pocket of the city---a quieter, more peaceful part of the city. However, once out of the parks and squares, I was once again faced with other tourists and residents. Perhaps I felt the city was crowded because we explored popular areas and did not venture to hidden nooks of London. But, even the streets, with houses that are built extremely close to each other, reinforced the crammed feeling of everything in London. Though the buildings were not extremely tall, many of them reach higher into the sky than those in Oxford, making pedestrians feel more enclosed in the city. I especially noticed many residential buildings being built---possibly due to the growing population in London. Throughout London's history, it has been noted to be an extremely dense city, and the density seems to be prevalent and clearly noticeable to this date.
Everything at London felt rushed and hurried. From the ubiquitous packaged take-out foods available at Pret a Manger (or any grocery store) to the crowded tube cars and streets to trying to see most of London in three full days, London was busy. Thankfully, there were many squares spread out around the city, and many larger parks, such as St. James's Park and Hyde Park (which I visited), where people could step away from the semi-chaotic city. Here, the paths were still occupied with many people, but many people were also relaxing in the grass, having dinner with friends and family while enjoying the beautiful green spaces. Separated by gates, it felt very much like a separate pocket of the city---a quieter, more peaceful part of the city. However, once out of the parks and squares, I was once again faced with other tourists and residents. Perhaps I felt the city was crowded because we explored popular areas and did not venture to hidden nooks of London. But, even the streets, with houses that are built extremely close to each other, reinforced the crammed feeling of everything in London. Though the buildings were not extremely tall, many of them reach higher into the sky than those in Oxford, making pedestrians feel more enclosed in the city. I especially noticed many residential buildings being built---possibly due to the growing population in London. Throughout London's history, it has been noted to be an extremely dense city, and the density seems to be prevalent and clearly noticeable to this date.
|
Oxford, on the other hand, feels much more relaxed. I have been more lax about getting around the city because we have more time here, but the issue of time is not the main reason why Oxford feels much calmer than London. Though tourists still visit major sites around Oxford, and streets with many shops (such as Cornmarket Street and High Street) are fairly crowded, it feels much more open than London because of the close proximity of everything in Oxford. This may sound like a contradicting statement and seem to be a ridiculous conclusion. Let me explain myself.
The tube system is well built in London (very expansive and quick, avoiding the traffic in the streets), so a major mode of transport is via tube. Thus, I used the tube to arrive at the major tourist sites. I did not walk through random roads of the city as much to truly explore. Towards the end of the stay, I got familiar with the tube stop names, but I still do not know what is nearby above ground. At Oxford, walking has been our main mode of transportation. To become familiar with the streets and the structure of the city---rather than the stops, I have been walking through random streets and connecting the city streets in my head. Being above the ground, I can connect streets with what type of shops, people, buildings, etc. are around. Since we are able to be closer to the city by |
exploring on feet, it feels much larger than London, though it is less than a twentieth of the size of London (Oxford=45.59 square km; London=1572 square km). This contrast between London and Oxford makes sense given its main purposes. London seems to be mainly a city of workers and tourists. Oxford is mainly a city of students, being a college town. Therefore, the easier and quicker transportation to parts of the city would be convenient for workers and tourists. Close proximity would make it easier for students to use different facilities of the 38 colleges in the University of Oxford.
Another overall impression I received of the cities is uniformity (or inconsistency). London is mixed city. Old structures and constructions contrasted each other everywhere. Modern buildings could often be seen beside many of the historical sites. Construction cranes were not a rare sight. St. Paul's Cathedral looked odd being the only older building (opened in 1708) in its surrounding due to the luck that it was the only structure in its surrounding to have survived the Blitz. I cannot directly comment on whether the buildings are more consistent, but I have noticed that nothing really looks out of place here. Perhaps I will notice more odd things around the city when I explore more. We will see. Thus far, London and Oxford seem like extremely different cities, each with its own special character, accommodating its people well.
Another overall impression I received of the cities is uniformity (or inconsistency). London is mixed city. Old structures and constructions contrasted each other everywhere. Modern buildings could often be seen beside many of the historical sites. Construction cranes were not a rare sight. St. Paul's Cathedral looked odd being the only older building (opened in 1708) in its surrounding due to the luck that it was the only structure in its surrounding to have survived the Blitz. I cannot directly comment on whether the buildings are more consistent, but I have noticed that nothing really looks out of place here. Perhaps I will notice more odd things around the city when I explore more. We will see. Thus far, London and Oxford seem like extremely different cities, each with its own special character, accommodating its people well.