lavender

When selecting accommodation and you want to keep to a low budget, how important is a good or great location if accommodation is mediocre or even suspect?

I've been looking at a range of accommodation for London and Paris -apartments, bed and breakfast, budget hotels for family of 4 and I'm undecided as to what is the most important factor when choosing. Should I forgo some comforts but be in the heart of things or given a similar price should I choose something further out of town, spend more time and money travelling , but be in more comfortable surroundings. How did you come to your decisions? And more importantly what has hindsight taught you?

Intrepid1

With the greatest of respect, hindisght has taught me that you get better answers the more carefully you define your terms, such as "low budget." For example, my own "low budget" for hotels these days is probably in the $200 range...yours may be different.

It is always somewhat difficult to recommend some accommodations because you can never be certain that what might seem "mediocre" to you and me would also be "perfectly fine" to someone else.

And how do you define "being in the heart of things"..does this mean not having to take any form of public or other transport, "close" (another subjective term I admit) to a tube stop, etc.??

Personally, I would rather be close in and give up a few things to make the travel times shorter. But there are some amenities I would never compromise on such as heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer no matter what anyone else tells me about whether or not they are "needed."


You might do well to name the properties/locations specifically as this thread moves along.

ira

Hi L,

I'd rather spend less on accomodations and be in the heart of things. Every hour spent on a subway is an hour lost.

tedgale

ira: If that were universally true, why is it that my experience of subways in various cities -- NYC, London, Paris, Vienna, Budapest etc. -- are among my sharpest memories.... And experiences that have always seemed a defining element of the character of each of those cities...

kswl

Agree that time spent on transportation is prime "people watching" time. We enjoy learning to get around different cities, and feel we've conquered a tiny part of each once we're comfortable on the trains or subway.

That said, I wouldn't want to stay an hour away from the city unless there was a compelling reason to do so---resort accomodations or specialty inn, or if the hotel were strategically placed for the next leg of the trip, or if I were driving and needed parking. Each trip is unique!

Keep in mind that transportation costs can be high, especially for four people and make sure you figure that into your costs. At times you may be better off in a taxi than on the metro.

jules4je7

We usually spend about $100 a night and are able to find decent accommodations in London and Paris (for a double) for that amount. We find London to be much more expensive, so our room is smaller and simpler than Paris, which tends to give better space for the same amount of money.

As a rule, I don't stay in an outlying area -- always in the city centers, in London we stay near Victoria Station, and in Paris in the 7th. I don't need a minibar in my room to make myself comfortable, and the last thing I want to do after my cafe au lait in the morning is have to get on the subway to go see what I travelled thousands of miles to see, and lose time in the evening trying to get back to my hotel, only to repeat it again in the morning.

I don't know what requirements your kids have, or what you consider to be "comforts"...For me, I just need a bed, private bath, a clean room I can turn around in and a reasonably quiet street so I can sleep at night. The rest is just window dressing, and since I don't spend much waking time in my room, I just don't need it.

My simple needs are pretty easily met at a reasonable price anywhere if I'm willing to do the homework to find it and book early (For London and Paris Rick Steves has great recommendations for budget hotels, I think).

Happy travels,

Jules

suze

Central is important to me because I don't like to have to get on public transportation every time I want to do something. But I won't stay in a 'dump' or place I don't feel safe. If I couldn't afford a 3-star in a central location, I would likely choose a different city or postpone the trip and save up more vacation funds.

Travelnut

In Paris, we stay in the 14th around Place Denfert Rochereau. Many consider this to be 'not central' - why? because it takes 10 minutes on the metro to reach the Seine.

What I consider 'not central' would be in the suburbs (ie. the town name is not "Paris&quot and where it would take 30 minutes or more each time on the subway.

So even that criteria is subject to interpretation.

SusanP

I think you're the only one who can really answer this question. Which is more important to YOU? I think being central is extremely important. Not only do I want to be close to what I came to see, but I also want to have lots of restaurants around so I don't have to go a long way back to my hotel after dinner.

That said, I don't want a dump, but you don't have to stay in a 3-star place to avoid dumps. And as someone else pointed out, transportation for four people can add up.

111op

I think that to me location is always important.

This is a bit of a tangent, but reading Travelnut's posting reminded me of what I "discovered" a few days ago while looking at the times for the first and last Metro trains in Paris.

If you go to ratp.fr and click on Horaires and then Metro and click on a couple of lines, you'll see that it usually take no more than 40 minutes to go from one end of the line to another. (In all the examples I tried, it's more like 35 minutes. On average it's just a little over a minute per stop.)

Granted, rush-hour would take longer (more people getting on and off), but I find this quite remarkable.

It reminds me of another thread in which I had a friendly argument with Robespierre, who took the view that it's not that difficult to reach the Paris center by public transporation from an area more outlying. So you could have more polished digs by staying somewhere further out.

So perhaps Paris is not like Manhattan (try taking the A line from one end to another -- or the N/R or the 4/5/6 -- it's not possible to do this within 40 minutes).

But I think that I still prefer somewhere central.

BabsB

Hi lavender,

I go for price first and location second. I use Tripadvisor a lot to get reviews on properties. I narrow it down to several properties that fit my budget and have good reviews on Tripadvisor. I review their web-site and then I locate them on a map and decide which one I like the best. My hotel costs average $125.00 a night for our trip, some hotels/B&B's are highter and some are lower. I am very budget conscious because we are going for 25 days. In London we are staying a Luna and Simone near Victoria for $145.00 and in Paris we are staying at Hotel St. Jacques for $110.00. I have stayed at the Hotel St. Jacques twice in the past and know for a fact that it is lovely. I hope the Tripadvisor reviews don't steer me wrong on the other properties I have selected for our trip though London, Paris, Belgium and the Netherlands. I think the locations are great, close to transit and close to major sites. It takes a lot of research. Good luck in your search.

yk

For me, it's location also. I'm willing to pay a little more and be at a "central" location.

After a long day of sightseeing, it'd be nice to just return to the hotel room for a brief rest & freshen up before heading out to dinner. I won't do that if I have to spend 30 minutes just to get back to the hotel.

Also, it's always nice to be able to walk back to the hotel after dinner, instead of taking the tube or metro for another 30 minutes.

I'm the kind of person who's always out, and only spend limited time in the hotel room - really just to sleep there. So how comfortable the room is is not that important to me.

Also, beware that the tube in London closes fairly early (like before 1am). If you're out late and not within walking distance to your hotel, you'll either have to take the Night Bus, or a cab.

MLISS

Location, location, location.
The hotel we originally reserved was 75 euro but was overbooked, so we had to stay in a crappy hotel that was 45 euro. This was in the Sacre Cour (sp?) area. We didn't get any sleep because of the bars and noise that goes along with it.
We then stayed in the Louvre area and loved it! Hotel was 115 euro. The aread was so much better. It was full of great shopping and food.
I would have enjoyed the first two days a lot more had we been at the second hotel the entire time. Flying 12 hours, being jet lagged and then not getting any sleep at your hotel just sucks.
Go for location- you'll be glad you spent the extra money.

Indygirl2

I think you can find reasonably priced hotels for decent prices in the center of both Paris and London. It just takes a little work. When I start looking for a good budget hotel, I cross check various recommendations against a variety of sources to make sure that I'll be reasonably satisfied with my ultimate choice. It's worked out well so far and I haven't really had to compromise one for the other. Luckily, I'm content in a budget two-star.

If I had to choose between location and price, however, I'd opt for location (well, within reason). Having been in Paris during a Metro strike (which are common enough in both cities), I would hate to be beholden to public transport. In 2003, I had agreed to meet a friend for dinner somewhere in the 15th or 16th arrondisement at rush hour and it was just awful. I thought I'd either die from lack of oxegen or be crushed to death. Never again.

One other thing to consider is time of year. You can get better hotel and airfare deals if you're willing to travel in the off season.

tracytravelnut

Personally - I like staying as central as possible. In Paris we stayed where Rich Steves recommended on the Rue Cler. We stayed at Grand Hotel Leveque but the Champs du Mars, down the street, looked just as nice. I remeber them both to be for a good price and in a nice location. Rue Cler is a pedestrian only street with a tube stop at the end. The Eiffel Tower was only a few blocks away. In London (some yrs ago) we stayed in the Hyde Park area, very central. Tube stop w/in a block or two. Both Paris & London hotels rated Tourist class. Would stay at either again.

subcon

if you know the metro/bus system in paris, there is virtually nothing "out of the way" within the peripherique...

hotel prices de-escalate rapidly as you move away from the little stone marker at notre dame which is the geographic centre of paris (particularly if one moves east).

so there is really no need to feel one sacrifices convenience for price in paris (or london, for that matter). plus, frequently your budget neighborhood turns out a few finds of its own in terms of authentic ambience which make the decision to stay there worthwhile.

ira

Hi tedgale
If [Every hour spent on a subway is an hour lost]were universally true, why is it that my experience of subways in various cities -- NYC, London, Paris, Vienna, Budapest etc. -- are among my sharpest memories.... And experiences that have always seemed a defining element of the character of each of those cities... <

Hmmmmmmmm. Perhaps you do not have easy access to subways and each time you ride one you are excited, exhilerated and keenly aware of the experience?

RufusTFirefly

Subways? Defining? OK. Different strokes for different folks. Vaporettos, maybe. Rickshaws, maybe. Gondolas, maybe. Subways? Maybe I lived in cities with subways for too many years.

Some of us are local transportation groupies, others of us are not.

nytraveler

We will only stay in the center of things - for us that is a big part of the experience. But we certainly wouldn;t consider lodgings that are suspect - or even mediocre.

So -

First - it depends on you - and what you're willing to put up with

We don't know what you mean by "low budget"

Nor do we know what you mean by mediocre (not the nicest decor, no mini-bar, no AC)?

Or even suspect? (You suspect they don;t change the sheets between guests? You suspect the neighborhood is full of muggers?)

Without some details there's no way to give you a sensible answer.

Elizabeth

I would rather be in a good location in a smaller space.

Someone already pointed out that in a central location you can go back to your room during the day - this is very important to me, I find it refreshing to touch base with my room, drop off packages, maybe change my clothes.

And with kids I would REALLY want to be able to get back to the room. As to money-saving - remember it's easier to buy and eat grocery-store stuff if you have someplace to take it to. Maybe a few lunches like this could absorb some of a higher room rate.

And you'll walk more places too.

And for London- really I hope you will look into Priceline. I have used it so many times and gotten nothing but nice rooms in nice cenral full-service hotels (I almost always end up in Bloomsbury). The most I've paid per nite is $110 (for next week).

I live in Manhattan and would give visitors the same advice if they ask about staying in New Jersey or something. As to my own preferences, of course.