which area Gare du Nord or Gare de LYon is more safe in Paris?

Question

i am coming as tourist to Paris and trying to chose hotel,need advice about safety in both areas

Answer 1

Gare de Lyon is safer, though there's no danger to be next to Gare du Nord.



The good thing about Gare de Lyon is that you have both subway line 1 (Louvres, Champs Elysées) and line 14 that goes all over to the middle of Paris (stop at Châtelet)

Answer 2

The area immediately around the train station is never the nicest part of town, and Paris is no exception. However there are few parts of Paris that are unsafe for tourists. You'd be fine near either station. It is my own opinion that the area around Gare de Lyon is just a little bit nicer. Also, Gare de Lyon is on Line 1 of the Metro, and so more convenient to many popular tourist sites.

Answer 3

As already pointed out, neither area is dangerous, and Paris in general is not known as a city especially prone to violence or crime. (The same can't be said of certain suburbs, but within Paris city limits you should be fine.) The Gare de Lyon is located in a posher area than the Gare du Nord. The latter is located a jump and a half skip from Barbès-Rochechouart (in the 18th arrondissement), which has a large immigrant community from the Maghreb and sub-Saharan Africa. Some people tend to assume that such neighborhoods, which aren't full of pasty white guys like myself, are dangerous. I can vouch from personal experience that this isn't so.

Answer 4

The Gare de Lyon is only a 15 mins walk from the Bastille area which is quite nice, plenty of cafes etc. So you might want to pick a hotel close to the Place de la Bastille.

Answer 5

Gare de Lyon area is a lot nicer and practical.

Answer 6

The comments about Australia are crazy. They absolutely were originally a Gun Nut nation and protested when their government wanted to take them away. However, they have not had a mass shooting since 1992 as a result and the Australians (even the ones who protested) will now tell you they feel much safer. In addition, not all guns were taken away; people still have hunting rifles and if a bad guy or boogie man broke into your house, you would still be able to do plenty of damage with a hunting rifle. My point - do we really need every American to have access to machine guns and sniper rifles? Can't we restrict specific gun access and only make hand guns and hunting rifles accessible? Just saying.