julies

We'll be in Nepal this spring, and I am trying to figure out lodging. I've read many of the old posts here where people talk about loving Kathmandu, but I have also read many other accounts where people say their least favorite part of Nepal was Kathmandu. We are not Hyatt people, and I know that is where many of you stayed so that factor needs to come into consideration too. I've found a place or two in Kathmandu that would suit us (nice, charming, quiet, with character) and one or two in Patan.

I am wondering about basing ourselves in Patan and going into Kathmandu for visits. Would that be dumb? What would I be talking about for logistics here? If based there, could we walk into central Kathmandu where the site are?

We are not big fans of big, noisy, dirty cities which I understand is the description on Kathmandu. In addition to visiting the typical tourist sites, we love to just wander and observe everyday life and markets. We are not big into tourist ghettos and don't need any night life as we are in our sixties. We are adept at hiring local transportation on our own.

Then, I am also considering staying two night in Bhaktapur in addition to the Patan segment.

We are not novices to the general area having previously spent six weeks in India, so I am well aware of what big polluted cities in this part of the world are like. I've heard Nepal described as India lite. Is this accurate?

What is your advice? Thanks.

Kathie

I know you don't want the Hyatt, but the location - walking distance from Boudnath and Pashupatinath - was great. The Durbar Square in Kathmandu is not walking distance from the Hyatt, but it would be walking distance from places in Thamel.

You could base yourselves in Patan. You would have to take taxis to get to any of the many sites in Kathmandu and to get to Bhaktapur. I like Patan, and you could make staying there work, but you'd be taking taxis into Kathmandu a lot. As much as I like Bhaktapur, I wouldn't want to stay there as it's too far away from Kathmandu, where the majority of the sites are.

julies

I've read that it is nice to be in Bhaktapur at night after most of the tourists have left. Is this a place I could spend two nights after I was finished with Kathmandu (wherever I decide to stay there)?

From what I have read, Thamel does not call to me. Are there realistically any areas that are walking distance to most of the places I'd want to go. Or, is it that no matter which location I choose I'd be using taxis for some things?

Thanks for the input.

Kathie

In my experience, Bhaktapur, is pretty quiet even before the tourists leave. You could certainly stay there, use it as a base to go out to Changu Narayan.

No matter where you stay, you will be taking taxis to some places. The area you want to cover is just too large. In Kathmandu itself, you could stay at the Yak and Yeti and could walk to the Durbar Square and to Thamel (at least visit the Garden of Dreams) and perhaps to Swayambhunath if you are up for a long walk. You would have to take taxis to Boudnath and Pashupatinath and to Patan and Bhaktapur, of course. I agree with you, I wouldn't stay in Thamel.

rhkkmk

Kathmandu is a different kind of dirty to india... it is dusty and the roads are worse than in india..

for me the hyatt is the only place I would want to be..

I hated thamel.

we loved Bhaktapur but I fear that at night there might not even be suitable restaurants.

thursdaysd

I could put in a good word for the Courtyard hotel in Thamel. It is a nice oasis in the city, and very convenient for the sights in Kathmandu. Before y ou decide to commute, consider that the roads are appalling.

julies

Thanks all. Normally we like to be close to things so we can walk, but I just don't think that is doable in Kathmandu so that is why I am wondering about staying elsewhere than in the heart.

Kathy, I'll check out the Courtyard. And, this one in Thamel has very good reviews--including from someone who typically stays in the Hyatt.

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Rev...al_Region.html

Bob--As far as restaurants, we are fine with more local, lowkey restaurants so I suspect it wouldn't be a big problem for us.

I guess I am just trying to get a realistic handle on what exactly "commuting" means in this area.

julies

Kathy--the Hotel Courtyard does look nice. Thanks for the tip.

rhkkmk

distances take a lot more time than you would think...

walking far, not sure???

eneeb

I stayed in Boudhanath for six months and loved it, its fairly small, not too busy once you are within the city beyond the main road. Once you get out to the main road it becomes busy Kathmandu, but it feels very removed once in the city. But anywhere near the Hyatt and the Stupa were very nice places to stay, I just walked up to any guesthouse and asked if they had rooms. Boudha is very close to many of the sites (Pashupatinath, Bhaktapur, Patan)at less than 30 minute taxi rides there. Having not lived in Bhaktapur or Patan I am not sure what they are like over night, but I had visited them and they seemed similar to central Kathmandu, except older architecture and more tourist sites. Thamel is very nightlife centered, I would not recommend it based on what you are saying. A lot of people I met there went to Pokhara and said they loved it, maybe you could look into there as well?
As far as recommendations in Boudhanath, I stayed at the Shechen Guesthouse for a few nights, basic amenities but a nice, relaxing garden courtyard where the restaurant is located, good proximity to the Stupa and Pashupatinath, (5-10 minute walks) I would recommend it as a peaceful place to stay. Also Tharlam Guesthouse is right next to the stupa, and has its' own monastery, so you would be able to meet a number of Tibetan monks and visit services if you like.
In Patan, there are many main sites you could walk to, but to walk to Bhaktapur, Pashupati, Boudha, Swayambu Stupa, its is not feasible unless you want to walk for hours. A taxi would be the most efficient way to travel to the various sites. Taxis are very abundant everywhere, it is very eaasy to go almost anywhere in the Kathmandu valley area.
I have not been to India but friends have said India is like Nepal only larger, but Nepal has a quaintness to it not found in India.
I know it is a biased suggestion as I loved there, but I suggest Boudhanath for a definite visit if you want to wander/check out local life. The city around the stupa is lively, but not dirty, and there is a lot to see and do with all of the Buddhist monasteries there. For a small city, it was a lot more peaceful than central Kathmandu and less chaotic.
I wish I had visited Pokhara, I know it is touristy but everyone I met loved it, it was much quieter, more nature oriented, but not as busy as Kathmandu in regards to sites.
Commuting will be easiest by hailing a taxi, although for long distances (1+ hours), you can arrange a bus ticket with any local travel company there found off most main roads.

thursdaysd

Pokhara is mostly a jumping off point for trekking. If there are no clouds no doubt there is a wonderful view, but when I was there the clouds never lifted. When there is no view it is just another stop on the backpacker trail.

Elainee

I was told that Nepal is India Light when I first arrived in Kath. But after being in India I am not so sure Kath is that different in affect. It is harder to stroll around in Indian cities, and Kath is less congested. The Boudh section is pleasant for "strolling". The many pilgrims there make it very interesting. Even at the Hyatt there were pilgrim groups. So charming to see the monk leader sharing food with his followers. In intense countries like India and Nepal we find it necessary for us to have a comfortable place to stay that has backup electricity (Kath has rolling scheduled blackouts), hot water, comfortable beds, etc.