Only commenting on location . . . IMO #2 has is by far the best location.

I agree, the location of the 2nd apt is much more desireable. Both apartments look nice, so it seems like location would be the deciding factor.

For the location in Paris I would choose #2 Luxembourg as well.

I know how that is, it takes forever to narrow things down and then you've had enough.

ok, this is a tough one because there are some things I like and others I don't about each, so it is hard to choose. I like the first one better in terms of the apt. and it is a lot bigger. The issue is the metro stop it is closest to (Ternes) is not a very convenient metro line so you are going to have to transfer at the Etoile to go anywhere by metro. The top end just goes north to places I don't think you'll want to go, and the other end goes over in the 16th where you won't want to go either. And it is far enough away from things that you are not going to be able to walk to a lot of what you will want to do (except the Arc, of course).

The other apt. is nice for waht you see, I like the balcony, but it is much smaller and I am rather suspicious that there is no photo of the bathroom, actually. The rest of it is pretty nice, but the first one is better and bigger. Now to be honest, that isn't even near a metro line, just the RER B, so I guess it isn't really any more convenient to the metro in many ways. Walking down to Cluny metro is quite a walk to get the metro, or Odeon, I guess, but there are some bus lines along there you might want to use. I'll admit I'm not that familiar with the bus lines over near Ternes but most of them kind of go E-W so not a lot of help. But there is the bus 92, actually, which will go pretty much right by that apt (down ave McMahon to the Arc and then across to Invalides and then Gare Montparnasse. There are some other buses that go near there that go to the Opera and Madeleine, though.

Being near Luxembourg Gardens would be nice, and that part of Paris is a little more casual than the 17th over near Ternes, I think you might just like walking around that area more.

I can't picked based on the amenities as that is really up to you, I think, and what is most important to you. rue Gay Lussac is not exactly bucolic, by the way, it is a pretty major street. Not as big as some, but I can't quite envision a balcony overlooking it as being that great. There is a bus I take a lot that goes down that street, so I know it and from the map, that location isn't near bd St Michel but kind of in front of some schools down to the SE a bit. it isn't a real scenic street in that location at all and it's actually quite a bit farther even to the RER stop from there, you can't cut through directly west.

I guess I'd go with the one near Ternes now that I am seeing more where the second one is located.

The Luxembourg apartment description of the internet access is something I would need to check out to make sure it worked for me ("The flat-screen TV is Internet-Enabled for checking e-mail and web browsing"). I usually only book places with Wi-Fi these days.

You don't say the age of your kids, but kids over 10 like the Champs-Elyesees area at night more than Fodor's posters do, and all kids like riding the metro and buses. The Luxumbourg area is better, however, if much of the time you are going to be looking for space for your kids to just run around.

Oh -- one more thing.

Balconies in Paris can be fairly useless if they hang over a lot of traffic or cafes with a lot of cigarette smoke, or you are traveling during a time of year when you would rather be inside with the doors shut for reasons of heat or air con. Also, European apartments usually have much less kiddie-proofing, so if either of your kids are very small, the balcony might be more nervous-making than an asset.

Kids are teen daughters 15 and 17. A bit nervous now about proximity of metro for both places. Arriving in Paris at 8pm, so the schlep to either apartment is going to be a pain in the a** I think.

Christina and goldenautumn, thank you especially for your detailed info.

WiFi is needed, so I have to check that out for apt #2.

Now it's basically space vs location. Is the first one really that bad location wise?

We appreciate all of your kind responses.

Have you looked at the balcony? It appears to hold a single chair - not much use for 7 people. My only other thought is that I wouldn't want to stuff so many people into an apartment that's not very large.

I like the first one, simply because I like padded seats at the dining room table. It looks bigger and more comfortable. Riding the metro is so easy, I'd be more concerned about the comfort of the place while I'm there.

nytraveler, good point. I was thinking it would be nice/fun for the girls for breakfast, but *realistically*, I have a feeling that the novelty would wear off after a few minutes of them squeezing on and off the balcony. They are both petite and about 100lbs, but true ,it looks pretty small.

>> not much use for 7 people.

There are only 4 of us, but I get what you mean

>>I am rather suspicious that there is no photo of the bathroom, actually.

There are over 80 photos (hit the arrow), and there are a few of the bathroom. It's pretty small, but that's to be expected.

everyone is saying the first one has more amenities . . . I don't see it. #! has a sofa and the dining chairs and that's it.

#2 has a sofa, additional upholstered chair, plus the balcony (and the dining set)

I think the 2nd one would be more comfortable for 4.

and not sure why your are worried about the wifi w/ #2. It says >>Your flat is set up with FREE WIFI and UNLIMITED FREE TELEPHONE CALLS to over 70 countries, including the U.S., Canada and Australia.<<

That would seem to be unrelated to the 'web TV' or whatever.

I would want to be nearer a metro, and I like the second location a bit better, but with two teens I would go for larger rather than smaller, especially for 7 nights. A few dinners is not never, and if anyone gets ill or overtired it is nice to have more space.

I don't understand what Christina means about there being no picture of the bathroom for the Lux. place. There are several and it's a small bathroom.

I think it really depends on your family and how comfortable you are with being very close and cozy for a week. I'd be fine with that and probably would go for the place near Luxembourg gardens, but everyone is different about how much space they need. I also have an aunt who, when she comes to visit me in my center-of-my-city apartment, never tires of looking out my bay windows at all the action on my street. And I'm on a bus line and not even in Paris. So I think that, while not bucolic, the view over Rue Gay Lussac would be interesting and enjoyable to some (many?).

Anyway, I'd take the Luxembourg apartment because I like that location better.

Have a great trip!

538 sq feet vs 409 sq feet.. I like the *look* and space of the first one much better. But I'm so torn over the location. We don't mind riding the metro and walking.

Definitely #2!
The girls will love to be able to go and explore by themselves after they get their bearings and armed with map and address!
I can't imagine doing that with apt #1.
You will find that you can walk to lots of places w/apt #2.
Lastly, apt #2 has more of a true apt in Paris and a memory maker!

I like the first one for your group. The front room has more area for the couch to unfold , I think the girls would feel it was more like there room, where as the 2nd one would be a bit cramped with the couch unfolded.
They are both fine for the girsl, the first one they will wander to the Champs El, the second one they will wander in the latin quarter which is where the university is and lots of young people or St Germain, which will cost you if they like to shop!
The metro is fine in the first one, better than the second one. It is very easy to switch lines, and the main metro that they suggest is a great starting point to get anywhere in the city. The second one is a little far from a metro, but really the walk to it will be fine and lots of good shops to pass on the way.
Both are lovely.

I agree with all of your points, chapla. One trip we had a very small apartment but a fabulous location and it made the trip. Being within walking distance of markets, sights, and a good metro stop is important, imho.

#2 Luxembourg

On location alone, hands down I'd pick the second one (over by Luxembourg gardens). The first is just so so so far out of all the main tourist areas and it seems to be farther away from transportation options. The walk to the RER at the first option seems to be longer than the walk to the RER station at the Luxembourg option. Considering that with the first location, you'll be forced to take the metro everywhere, access to the metro/rer is going to make a big difference. So for me it's not so much the arrondisement it's in but the metro connections.

Yes, the first one has a sightly better layout and maybe a little bit more room, so if you don't think you can tolerate being all up on top of eachother for 7 solid days... it's something to consider. For 7 days, I'd sacrifice a little space for easier metro connections but my kids are still little (7 and 10) and both girls.

What I don't know first hand is the time it would take to walk from the 1st apt to either the RER/Metro station at CDG Etoile (where you'll have the straightest shot to everything) and also to the Ternes station (which sounds like it might not run as often and will add to the number of transfers you need to do.)

Good luck.

I've stayed in an apartment near the 2nd one you are considering and the location was great. We could either catch the RER to a connecting station, or a bus straight down the blvd st Michel. We would often wander through the Jardin du Luxembourg. It was a very quick trip to rue mouffetard where we could shop for groceries and there was a very nice patisserie nearby. On the blvd st Michel we found a few small grocery stores that were adequate.

My only reservation is that it is small for 4 people, however the location more than makes up for that.

I LOVE the location of the first one! Not only is that a beautiful neighborhood, you'd be right around the corner from rue Poncelet, a market street that is totally untouristy (unlike those such as rue Cler and rue Montorgueil). Yes, getting to the "major sights and attractions" would take a bit longer, but you would find that worth your while. We stayed a bit farther west (Hotel Concorde Lafayette) for two weeks and rode the buses everywhere, never took the metro at all.

It's also much more spacious (50m2 versus a more than "cozy" 38m2). And, the bathroom has a tub (which the ladies will appreciate) as opposed to a shower only. I'm also quite suspicious of the bathroom (there are photos with a glimpse of the shower) in the second property. I've seen "spacious walk in shower" in apartments and they are not so spacious. Often there's no place to put your toiletries and your elbows hit the sides when shampooing, etc. It's also impossible to get out of the way of the spray for doing other things.

That balcony does look useless. I would definitely not describe it as "a lovely balcony". It would appear there's barely room for one person to sit on it. In one of the photos, you can clearly see that there is no space to pull the chairs out!

Both listings, though, are seriously embellished regarding location. The Eiffel Tower is not an easy walk from either.

You can peruse the neighborhoods of each with Google Maps, street view and "search nearby" for things like supermarkets, patisseries, etc.

If your visit is during the warmer months, neither mentions a/c. You may want to verify location of windows, direction of sun exposure, whether there is cross ventilation. During a spell of hot weather, being on the 6th floor (which is actually the 7th and appears to be the top floor) would be very risky.

As for the "shlep", with four people and bags, take a taxi. It won't cost much more than public transportation. Once in Paris, after you've used the metro, you can decide if you want to save the few Euros on the return trip (you probably won't).

I have one observation about the layout of the units. In the first there is a door to the living room and those in the bedroom can walk to the bathroom and kitchen without going through the living room where your daughters will be sleeping. In the second apartment, one has to walk through the living room to get to the bath and kitchen.

I would choose the first for the space and privacy and kitchen. The second is pretty tight for four people, though I like the balcony.

When are you going--will you need a/c? The second looks as though it's on the top floor and would be hotter in the summer.

I think your daughters will love being near the Champs Élysées.

I would not want my girls wandering the Champs in the evening, but I would let them wander around the Latin Quarter in the evening.

Luxembourg Garden one gets my vote.

I don't think I'd let 17 and 15 year old girls wander without an adult in any city they are unfamiliar with. Eapecially at night and not knowing the language. I'm a bit shocked that this has even been suggested.

We are taking our teen girls to Paris as well, and I certainly am not going to allow them to run off by themselves. Same goes for London and Amsterdam. Ours are 15 and 18. Am I just being an overprotective ninny?

A little bit jinky, sometimes we forget that their smart young brains are just as capable as ours. Some 18 year olds travel a lot on their own, however info understand that you will be anxious.

I don't think anyone suggested that the girls wander around alone at night. But once they learn their way around I would assume they could walk around during the day if they and their parents were comfortable with that.

Actually, avenue des Ternes is much better than the Champs Elysees for shops, bakeries, cafes, etc. Once there, I think you'd feel comfortable with the girls wandering the neighborhood a bit on their own. You might want to send them out for fresh pastries every morning.

For a seven night stay, you will really appreciate the extra space...

Jinky I am shocked that you think a 15 and 17 yr old are too young to wander around, really shocked. Kids ( including my 18 yr old nephew who grew up in rural Vancover island, and had never even been exposed to public transport here) travel to Europe independently at 18 and 19 all the time.. and you are afraid to let your kids walk down the street?????

I find some Americans a tad overprotective .. talking about their "children" who are like 20 and in college like they need to still take care of them all the time.

I let my 13 yr old boy run down the street to the Mcdonalds on his own in Paris, it was in a good touristy area, what could happen, he knows how to cross streets for goodness sake. I also had to let my 11 yr old daughter run downt the street from our hotel once and pick up some food, I WAS reluctant because she was so young, but i had terrible food poisoning and could not leave room, it was already 3 in afternoon and she was starving, and there was no room service etc. I admit that freaked me out, but there is a huge difference between an 11 yr old and a 15 and 17 yr old.

When you are in Paris, look around, on the streets and metro,, you will see local kids walking around without their mommies and daddies.. by 11 or 12 of course. Now, I know you are saying language, but what does that have to really do with it, do YOU speak the langauge? As long as they have a card with the address of the hotel written on it and 20 euros for a taxi if need be, what is the worst case scenerio??

They are MOST unlikely to be accosted or attacked in Paris, I would be far more nervous in many other places in North America .

"Am I just being an overprotective ninny?"

Yes . . . (meant in the most gentle way possible )

Besides - one of yours is 18 and is an adult (even in the States . . . )

Unless they have some particular 'issues'/mental disabilities it is perfectly OK/acceptable/normal/safe for teenagers to wander around London/Paris on their own.

But our European friends do need to understand this American concern (some would call it Helicopter parenting) is partly because MANY kids aren't at all familiar w/ public transport or walking around big cities and aren't very 'savvy'.

I live in a suburb of a large city. Here most kids have never (ever) taken a bus (except school buses), 99.9% have never taken a train, and they are driven everywhere - either by parents or friends.

The ones near ave Ternes isn't really right off the Champs-Elysees. I said there was no photo of the bathroom just because I couldn't see one, but I guess I didn't spend enough time perusing all the photos, that's all. I still don't think that location on Gay Lussac is very scenic, I've been there.

As for the kids runnign around, no teens don't have the same brains and experience as older people, they just don't. A lot of this is not innate IQ, but experience and cities and transportation. If the kids had no experience with either, I might worry for a long period, but depends on the location. My nephew got lost in London and he was 22, which totally amazed me, although no harm came to him. But I found out he didn't have a lot of common sense which maybe is a teen thing (more than 22), even though he is certainly smart enough on paper. It never occurred to him to carry a map around with him, for example. Well, yeah, I always carry a map with me when I'm in a strange city, you would easily get lost if you didn't have one. And some kids and adults even have literally no experience with public transportation, which surprises me but if they've never traveled or been in big cities, that could happen. I live in a big city with a metro and am amazed at some of the questions grown adults who are tourists ask me about using the metro.

So worst case scenerio if a person gets lost is what? They have to figure it out, they are unlikely to be in any danger other then worrying anyone waiting to meet them.

I think we can agree a 15 yr old doesn't need to be let loose for whole day to tour city alone, but that two teens ( especially with an older teen , 17,18) are absolutely fine to wander in an area for an hour or two without mom getting too stressed out.

Just over on Rick Steves forums, theres a Canadian boy who is 18 and considering a trip to Europe with his 15 yr old cousin( posted under General Europe Questions " Age limits at Hostels") ,, on their own.. Canadians on forum are suggesting not the best plan, but no one is freaking out about it. I wouldn't advise a 15 yr old and 18 yr old to travel on their own , but you can see that the difference between some people thinking.. a walk about town is one thing, a cross Alantic journey solo is another!

Thanks for the gentle reminders that I need to relax and let the girls have some fun exploring on their own; my husband said the same thing I can imagine the excitement having breakfast or lunch at a cafe in Paris, just the two of them, without mom and dad there.

Not sure why I'm being so weird about this. As a high school graduation present, my mom sent my friend and I to Europe for four weeks. I was only 17! Shame on me for forgetting how magical Paris can be for a young girl, wandering around on her own without a care in the world.
Thank you kind Fodorites for reminding me

I would take the larger apartment. the second one seems pretty small for four people. You will need the space. Your kids maybe petite, or thin, but they are grown up when it comes to space for sleeping and sitting. And you will need space for four suitcases, even if they are small ones.

No matter where you stay, you will find that you will need to change metro stations, so I would not worry if a major station with multiple lines are not right out the door. Paris is also a great city for walking.

Definitely take a taxi from the airport. You are arriving at night, and with 4 people and your luggage it hardly pays to schlep. On your return trip you can decide if you want to taxi over to a train station and then take the RER to the airport.

Breakfast out in Paris is nothing special. But your girls might enjoy going to the local bakery for coffee and pastries. I would imagine that your girls would like some free time together and that way you and your husband also get some time together.

I like the location of #2 better, as well. Additionally, it looks like there is more storage space in the bedroom which can really make a difference in space. When there isn't hanging room for clothes and a place to stash luggage, there's a lot less space for living. The fact that the kitchen is open to the living room will make it feel larger than if the kitchen is a separate room.

WP,

My preference is for the Luxembourg apartment. I love the fact that it's on the 6th floor with views of the rooftops. I also love the little balcony, even if it's not large enough for two people to sit there. Simply walking out and taking in the view should be a treat. Seeing the little balcony from inside would be please me, too.

I think some of the difference between the 50 sq. meter apartment and this smaller one is due to the larger bedroom of the former. Perhaps the living room areas are of a similar size.

Best wishes with your decision. I hope you'll report back on your choice after your trip.

Yes - definitely look at all the closet space in #2. That essentially makes up for the smaller sq feet.

I just think (just me personally) that the extra storage, the balcony, the better seating arrangements, and the location, would make #2 the better/more 'fun' apartment.

There are two closets (if you look at the floorplan) in the bedroom of #1.

Again, I would encourage you to "walk" around each neighborhood on Google Maps, Street View.

Just because #2 is in the vicinity of Luxembourg Gardens, Latin Quarter, etc., does not make the location "better". And, "more central" is not necessarily a good thing.

A windowless bedroom on the top floor is just too risky in summer, despite the "lovely balcony".

Interesting OP has not weighed in...

How can the bedroom be windowless if it has a balcony? Looking at the floor plan it appears the bd has the same window/balcony arrangement as the living room.

"A windowless bedroom on the top floor is just too risky in summer, . . .

Leely2 is right - there is a window in the bedroom - same size and type as in the living room.

OP here, thanks for all of the replies! I was away for a very unplugged MLK day, and it was nice to check back and see so many responses.

As you can imagine, with all of the advice, I am still really torn between the two. We will be there in April, so it shouldn't be too hot, fingers crossed. I am still leaning towards the first one because of the layout, the way it looks and the fact that there is more space. HOWEVER..the second one is $600 less for the stay, plus the location is seeming a bit "better", and we love the rooftop views.

I will read through the replies again, and also do as recommended and take a "walk" around with Google maps.

By the way, we are arriving by train, not by air - so we will be popping out of the nearest metro stop. Also we (hopefully) will only have carry on bags.

PS: I enjoyed the conversations about teen girls being "alone" in Paris. We are looking forward to giving the girls some space to enjoy the city on their own. Even if it's just lunch, a museum visit, going for walks, etc..

Both too expensive to me. We were very near the Luxembourg one in May; that's an OK area that gets swamped with tour buses etc. in season. Busy street, some good and some awful restaurants. Do love sitting in the park.
I'd take #1 for the space and the more authentic area. Transport isn't bad from there; it's a short walk to CDG-Etoile. Parc Monceau is within reach and very pretty.

Especially since this is your first trip to Paris , I would take the Luxembourg apartment. I think location has a huge impact on your overall experience and this one is in a much better location. You will be able to walk to the Latin Quarter and the St Germain area and I think your girls would enjoy that area more than the first. Plus it is less expensive and only slightly smaller than the first option!

kelbo, I was thinking just the opposite. Because it's their first trip, the 1st one (to me) seems better. Especially with teen girls. We are actually staying somewhere kind of close to that. Location is out of the way of the crowds but within good access of the main sights. It seems to be a fairly quiet street, maybe a 10 to 15 minute walk to the Arc de Triomphe and Champs Elysees. (correct me Fodorites if I am wrong here)

And if you take the train into Paris at night, imagine getting off at the CDG-Etoile and walking out to see the Arc in all of it's splendor! What a way to be welcomed to Paris after the train ride!

Also, their "room" in #1 is more private. It's not right next to the kitchen. as cw said "In the first there is a door to the living room and those in the bedroom can walk to the bathroom and kitchen without going through the living room where your daughters will be sleeping. In the second apartment, one has to walk through the living room to get to the bath and kitchen." I have to agree with that. Not sure about you, but I like to get up early and make coffee. This way, you don't disturb anyone.

Also, and this may sound silly, but #1 just looks more "posh" and pretty.

As for food shopping - There is also the covered market near rue des Ternes - the little Marché des Ternes, as well as Brûlerie des Ternes at the Rue Poncelet Market. Also the Monoprix right around the corner.

"Also, and this may sound silly, but #1 just looks more "posh" and pretty."

True enough -not silly at all . . . but is is $600 more 'posh/pretty'?

If the budget isn't an issue, and the location isn't the most important criteria . . . I might also go w/ #1. But for $600 less AND the location #2 would be my choice.