I'm looking for advice on hotels. Some friends of mine say not to even consider a hotel unless it has 4 stars, 3 star hotels are almost always terrible.
We are a family of 4 (going to London & Venice)so that seems to boost the price in most places I've checked. I just want clean (very), quaint is good, friendly staff, pretty good location, and quiet.....
We could afford 4 stars (barely) but would feel much more freedom with shopping, eating etc. with a more modest hotel budget......what do you all think???

the stars only indicate the type of amenities - have nothing to do w/ quality or cleanliness. It all depends on how many extras you want.

Heck, even some 1 stars are OK - though quite basic. So your friends do not understand how the star system works.

If you let us know your apprx. budget, we can help you better with recommendations. I know you may not know, but say what you hope for and then people can make suggestions in that range....

I agree with Janis!

Sally

All I know is. . . our favorite place in Venice (La Calcina) is 3 stars and it has everything we want. Ditto for our favorite place in London.

There should be no difference in cleanliness or location. Quaint or charming surroundings and friendly staff are more likely associated with 3 stars that 4.

Generally the extra star is earned by things like indoor pool, spa facilities, room service, etc., which we don't want or need anyway.

Except on a couple of occasions, we always stayed in three stars - including Venice. Our criterea are similar to yours with must have's being a/c, elevator, parking if applicable, good breakfast. We found that once we found the hotel in the location and price range, a better source of judging the hotel was not the stars but the reviews from previous visitors that are posted on sites like venere.com and tripadvisor.com. Just now I can't think of one place that didn't match the review very closely.

You do not need a 4-star hotel. I could not even tell you how many stars most of the hotels have that I have loved but I would guess most of them are 3 stars.
I don't think experienced European travelers use the amount of stars as a guide on where to stay. As has been said above, their allocation is based on things that may mean nothing to you like having a restaurant on site.

toni_g_b has it nailed.

No matter what the stars, if the hotel has bad reviews, then, Duh!

I've stayed in 2 to 5 star hotels. It depends on what you, as a family are looking for.

There are some darn nice hotels out there with 2 stars that venere and tripadvisor both give positive reader reviews.

Start with where in the city(ies) you're going to, and hone in on hotels from there. Check the hotel web site as you might get better rates.

Maybe your friends are fussier, but I always stay at 3-star (or less) hotels and have never once had a "terrible" one.

I have stayed at 2, 3, and 4 star hotels and I have been pleased with all of them. However, every time I have stayed at a 4 star hotel I have felt that I was "ripped off" as I knew I could have had something equally nice for much less money. I don't really care about room service, spas and that type of thing so 2 and 3 star hotels seem to be a better fit. Check the reviews and go with that, not the number of stars.

Agree that amenities versus quality determine the number of stars. What amenities do you need - 24 hour room service? concierge? Spa or health club?

Some 3* are quite pleasant as long as they have the basics that you need - you have to check hote by hotel.

One thing to note is that many/most hotels in europe are either old or in older buildings. (This is ot to say run down, often recently updated - but old in style.) Very few are brand new as you find in the US. And older buildings can have uneven floors, small creaky - but perfectly functional - elevators etc. This is part of their charm. If you don;t find this charming - and want everything new/modern - you need to search carefully.

I prefer 3 star hotels to 4 or 5 star. I think it's partly because I don't feel like a 4 or 5 star girl, and I'm just not comfortable in ritzy hotels, but the 3 star places we've picked have also been more personal. No cookie-cutter decor, etc. Last year we stayed in a 5 star place in Berlin that charged $18 euros for an internet hookup and $25 for breakfast.

A nice 3 star place will usually have breakfast included, as well as other amenities, at a much lower price.

I agree with the folks who recommend checking trip advisor or looking in a good guidebook for hotel recommendations.

We usually stay in 3 star hotels, and while they are small, they're not "terrible." At least, I don't think they are. We've also stayed in 2 star hotels, and I haven't noticed much difference. I'm sure I'd love a 4 star hotel, but it's not in our budget, and we still enjoy our trips.

Sandy

There are good 3* and bad 3* hotels. They are good 4* and bad 4* hotels.

You can find good deals for 4* hotels and you can find bad deals for 3* hotels.

But are 3* and 4* hotels in Italy generally different? Based on my two last trips to Italy, the answer is a definitely <b>YES!</b>

What's more? I paid MORE for three of the four 3*s I've stayed than both of the 4*s.

Furthermore, the best hotel I've stayed in Italy - Palazzo Torre Barbara near Sorrento - isn't even rated. Even though it's a sizeable hotel with ~17 rooms, they call itself a B&amp;B and have no star.

Here are some generalities, although I'm sure someone could rebut them immediately:
* A 2* hotel is likely to have a shower with no shower curtain where it's hard to take a shower without the whole room getting wet. The bathroom is fairly likely to be tiny. A 4* hotel will probably have a bathroom of a reasonable size, and it will be possible to shower without soaking everything.
* A 2* hotel may or may not have 24-hour reception. A 4* hotel almost certainly will.
* A 4* double room is likely, although not guaranteed, to be larger than a 2* double room.
* A 2* hotel is likely to have a small reception area. A 4* hotel is likely to have a large reception area and maybe even a grand lobby.
* A 2* hotel probably does not have an attached bar and restaurant. A 4* hotel is likely to do so.

3* hotels can go either way with these.

If someone requires a Westin-level room (for example) when in the US, that person is likely to be uncomfortable in a typical European 2* or 3* hotel, and might even be uncomfortable in a European 4* hotel. So I can see someone dismissing 3* hotels in Europe, depending on what they like and are used to getting.

In respect to the original poster's situation, where two rooms are likely to be required, I'd probably book two rooms on Priceline for London at the 4* level (see all the posts on this board about that). This is one instance where you will get 4* value for a less than 2* price.

For Venice, I'd consider every option at every star level, because prices and quality are so variable and not always correlated. That said, I enjoyed this 3* hotel in Venice:
http://www.laforcolahotel.com

So Enzian, What is your favorite hotel in London? I'm always open to suggestion, although I love elegant hotels--but sometimes $ dictates otherwise. So if stars have nothing to do with cleanliness, how are you supposed to know if the place is a dump? Any advice? BMK

I know nothing about hotels in London but in Italy the stars designate what type of services are offered such as room service etc. I know from a friend in Italy that was a manager of a hotel that the percent in taxes that a hotel pays depends on the number of stars they have. Consequently some good hotels do not have the services of a say a 4 star as they do not want to pay more in taxes. The number of stars has no bearing on the room decor etc. I have stayed at top hotels in Italy but quite frankly I have always found the 3 star hotels to be lovely and quite comfortable Cactusue.

Hi

Well, I stayed at Hotel Continental in Venice and that is a three star hotel and it was fine. Here is a link to the hotel http://www.hotelcontinentalvenice.com/no/index.htm and my trip report with a review of the hotel http://gardkarlsen.com/italy_venice.htm . I think it depends on what you are expecting and what you are used to. ANd for me the hotel in a big city is not that important as you normally spend all day out sightseeing and you normally go out at night to eat.

Regards
Gard
http://gardkarlsen.com - trip reports and pictures

Hi BMK,

&gt;how are you supposed to know if the place is a dump? Any advice? &lt;

You look up &lt;(city name) and Hotel&gt; in the &quot;search this forum&quot; box.

You make a short list.

You check them at www.tripadvisor.com.

You choose a hotel and ask if anyone has stayed there recently.

I don't think we often understand star rating systems. Who awards the stars? Is it a government system? A travel website or book's determination, maybe AAA or the equivalent in the country visited?

It depends. Check out this interesting story on Conde Nast's website (I've chosen to start at the pithy part of the article, an explanation of rating systems used in various countries):

http://tinyurl.com/2fzj7r

Here's what it says about France's star system:

&quot;<i>France
French government hotel ratings are notoriously bureaucratic. The number of stars—from one to four—reflects a property's price range and determines its tax burden. To minimize the latter, some hotels opt for a lower rating.

Criteria
The French system considers 57 attributes, including number of rooms, restaurant options, elevator, heating and air–conditioning systems, telecommunications services, bathroom facilities, and disabled access. Four–star hotels are required to have facilities for business travelers.

How Often
Properties are evaluated before they open and then once every six years, unless they request reclassification in the interim.

Reliability
Poor.</i>

Of Italy it reports:

<i>Italy
Italian hotels are evaluated by regional boards, and standards vary from region to region. In its online accommodations guide, the Italian tourism board awards from one to five stars. The top two categories are five–star and five–star deluxe. Unfortunately, the criteria by which properties are judged are not specified.

Criteria
Unclear.

How Often
Unclear.

Reliability
Poor. Ratings are based neither on quality nor the achievement of particular criteria.

Best Alternative source
Michelin Red Guide to Italy.</i>

And, somehow the reporting on the UK doesn't surprise me:

<i>United Kingdom
At present, the government agency VisitBritain, the Royal Auto Club, and Britain's Automobile Association jointly operate a one– to five–star rating system for hotels, bed–and–breakfasts, and other guest accommodations in England. Beginning in January 2006, it will be coordinated with the Welsh and Scottish systems.

Criteria
Hotels, guesthouses, inns, farmhouses, and bed–and–breakfasts earn points based on in–room TVs, elevators, restaurants, room service, bathroom facilities, public areas, and laundry and concierge services. Self–catering accommodations, campgrounds, hostels, holiday villages, and campus accommodations are also evaluated on the basis of established criteria.

How Often
Properties are inspected once a year.

Reliability
Good.</i>

I think I'd rather take my chances with a combination of TripAdvisor, Fodor's, and a guide book or two.

I've stayed in 4 star hotels that did not have shower curtains and in 1 and 2 star hotels that did. The 1 star I stayed in in Vicenza was great....but no phone or TV in the rooom. (didn't need either) It was modern and clean as a whistle.



I've stayed in a 3 star in Catania that was a OK but not as nice as the 1 star in Vicenza ...but I did have a phone and TV...(Didn't use them there either)

My advice is not to worry about the star rating. Use the web and get recommendations from other who've stayed there. Find the hotels own website ( sometimes this can take a little effort but keep after it) and look at the pictures they include.