Like Chicagoan Glenfarcas, I would say "on Trafalgar Square" for a building that adjoins the square. I would say that the Nelson Monument is in Trafalgar Square: the paved open area of the "square" surrounds the monument. If someone took a photograph of me standing on the pavement of the square, I would say, "Here is a picture of me in Trafalgar Square."An American would say in Trafalgar Square and not on Trafalgar Square. << ... >>, we Americans would say that the Metropolitan Museum of Art is located on Fifth Avenue.
In AmE usage, we generally say on for streets and in for squares, circles, plazas, parks, neighborhoods.
Does this distinction make a difference to anyone?Legendary 75-year-old club reopens in the heart of Times Square on W. 47th Street in a gorgeous four-floor space.
At the Trafalgar Square website:
Did you know?
Probably the smallest police box ever built is located in Trafalgar Square, along with the statues and fountains.
Located on Trafalgar Square, The National Gallery houses one of the greatest collections of European paintings in the world.
As a matter of fact, it does. "Times Square" is being used here as the name for a district rather than for the actual square itself. Times Square (well, actually the northern half is Duffy Square, but we will call it "Times Square" for the sake of the tourists) properly so called is an open space bounded by Seventh Avenue and Broadway. The club in question is down 47th Street about 200 yards west of Broadway, and certainly does not front on Times/Duffy Square in any way.
The police box is within the borders of the square. (in the square)These examples make me wonder if located in Trafalgar Square and located on Trafalgar Square are both acceptable in British English.
So I see people in Britain would use "in" for both Nelson's Column in the square and the National Gallery (not for me!) facing the square, while American English users tend to make a distinction between monuments located in the square proper ("in Trafalgar Square") and monuments facing onto the square ("on Trafalgar Square"). I find this an interesting point; thank you all for contributing!!
Hi again.Oh, sorry grubble! That makes it confusing then. Once again things are not as clear-cut as I -- and those who ask me -- would want/expect them to be .
Apologies.o I see people in Britain would use "in" for both Nelson's Column in the square and the National Gallery facing the square , while American English users tend to make a distinction between monuments located in the square proper ("in Trafalgar Square") and monuments facing onto the square ("on Trafalgar Square").
I think the distinction here is too fine. It is almost metaphysical e.g., "Are the infinitely thin lines comprising a square part of that square?"The police box is within the borders of the square. (in the square)
The National Gallery is not within the boundary of the square, it faces onto the square. (on the square)
Then we speak the language quite differently. No American I know would say, for instance, that the Time Warner Center is ON Columbus Circle, nor that the Marriott Marquis hotel is ON Times Square, or that Macy's in ON Herald Square. At least no New Yorker.I agree with Fabulist and Glenfarcas, and disagree with MuttQuad: an American would say that a building which faces a square is on the square, not in the square: They were married in St. George's Church on Stuyvesant Square.