During my first week in London, I spoke to a British man who boasted, “We have buildings older than your country.” It was an obvious fact that, until then, I had never considered. The United States of America, in terms of geopolitical history, is a young nation – only 249 years old. London, however, has existed for nearly two thousand years (it was built as “Londinium” by the Romans in 43 AD). While America was founded during the time of gunpowder, mercantilism, and Protestantism, the UK’s capital began with swords and shields, the first decade of the Catholic Church, and Tiberius Claudius Caesar. Ergo, London’s history dwarfs that of my home city, Pittsburgh, by more than 1700 years, and the historic difference is widely apparent both in London’s famous ancient buildings (e.g., Westminster Abbey and the Tower of London) and in London’s urban planning (or lack thereof).
A common theme I noticed in St. Paul’s Cathedral, Westminster Abbey, and the Tower of London was the conflict and differences between the Anglicans and the Roman Catholics. Westminster Abbey and St. Paul’s Cathedral were both Roman Catholic Churches before Catholicism was outlawed by King Henry VIII. During a movement known as “iconoclasm,” Catholic statues were defaced or destroyed and eventually replaced with Anglican statues (many of which depicted members of the monarchy, rich Englishmen, or famous Englishmen such as William Shakespeare). The Tower of London was used as a prison, where many of whom were Catholic priests, one of whom famously escaped using orange peels! As an American citizen, whose country constitutionally protects religious freedom, I was both shocked and fascinated by the coalition of the church and state, as well as the concept of a government imprisoning and executing Christians who, despite having some doctrinal differences, worshipped the same God as their fellow Englishmen.
Yet another common theme in London is the lack of urban planning. While I am not an urban planning major and thus cannot adequately explain what makes a city “well-planned,” it is the case that London was never intended to grow to its current size and thus grew relatively randomly and unmonitored for several centuries before its status as an urban center became clearly inevitable. Consequently, communities and roads are winding with few alleyways and even fewer clear turns (a nightmare for navigation). Furthermore, due to the lack of alleyways, buildings are often the same length as entire strips of road and house several companies (much like American plazas). As a city built to be walked (rather than driven) in, the city is very walkable, but the lack of clear districts makes it very easy to get lost.
Famously, London also has an expansive network of subway lines – built to facilitate quick commuting in a city unfavorable to drivers. The London Underground was a highlight of my London experience, allowing quick transport to anywhere in the city, and the Underground maps gave very clear guidance on how to get from one stop to any other in the city. The number of stops, ease of use, and short wait times made the underground extremely convenient to Londoners and foreigners alike, and I will undoubtedly miss it when I return to Pittsburgh given that Pittsburgh’s “subway” serves only a small section of Pittsburgh, leaving Pittsburghers to either walk, bike, drive or take the bus (and, consequently, have a much better independent understanding of where to go). It seems almost like the American emphasis on individualism has bled into its public transport (or lack thereof), expecting Americans to get to where they need to be on their own while the United Kingdom, which has a much greater emphasis on the government’s duty to support its people, expects the government to play a substantial and effective role in facilitating transport throughout its cities.
