Perhaps mgmargate,where you come from it is, but I've seen very pleasant hotel rooms without private bathrooms that are not dumps. What they are, are rooms without private bathrooms.

ChevyChasen, look into the Arosfa hotel also, or do a search on it here.
I stayed there last winter. Rooms are small and bathrooms very very small, but the place is pleasant, great location on Gower St (near Goodge St tube, outer Bloomsbury) and they provide a cooked breakfast every morning. No elevator.
A double room at that time was about 55 pounds.

Kay, I have read your post twice and I simply don't get it as it seems to be totally self-contradictory.
You seemed to agree with me that the ratings system in Europe is different from ours and has nothing to do with the quality but rather with the amenities.

But then you seem to indicate that somehow you feel safer getting a four star in Europe to compare with the quality of a three star in the US. I simply don't get this. A four star in Europe is just as likely to be a dump as a two star, although it may be dump with an elevator, room service, and a full restaurant. Is that what you mean by "quality"?
I learned a long time ago, to only look at the star ratings in Europe if they represent things I'm concerned about like AC or private bathrooms or elevators. But I can only rely on other recommendations in terms of the "quality" such as cleanliness, friendliness, and decor, and I really don't feel any safer about getting quality automatically in a four star over a three star.

One thing I'm not clear on is the extent to which the various governments controls rack rate room prices, based on star ratings. I've read allusions to that system in France and Italy, but I haven't seen an explanation. Does anyone know?

Also, apparently lower-star hotels are subject to less tax, so many hotels choose to be downgraded.

I usually do spend more in London, also, which was the original question -- because I don't think the hotels are as good quality for the amount as most anywhere else in Europe. Partly it may be because I don't know the hotels there as well as some other cities, but I don't think so as I've been in some expensive ones in London that were nothing special.

I don't agree with some of these thoughts about star ratingss, either in Europe or the US. First, there is no official star system in the US and the only one I know of (AAA?) may try to rate things on more than just facts, but a 3* hotel in their system is no better than many 3* hotels in Europe, in my experience. A lot of 3* hotels are not that great in the US. The only other US system I know doesn't use stars (MObil?).

AS for quality, most of the things rated by the Eur. star systems do reflect quality to me. I don't know what else people are calling quality, but the type of facilities is a real big quality issue to me. It isn't just amenities, either, I've read them, and some are related to quality beyond that -- such as ventilation, room size, etc. The only other thing people seem to be calling quality consistency is cleanliness, which I agree is important, but I've never been in a dirty hotel in Europe (yes, I know some people have, but this is really not common). I don't trust AAA to rate "friendliness" which is fairly meaningless to me, and decor is rather subjective.

Anyway, I think the ratings do reflect quality, they do to me, but if someone else thinks a 2* can be the same quality as a 4*, they are valuing things differently than I do, I know.

However, I am wondering where you got the information, Patrick, that a French 4* hotel must have a full-scale restaurant or it will be rated 3*? That isn't my general understanding (although I admit I don't stay in 4* hotels in France), and I think there are some 4* French hotels without restaurants. What is your citation for that fact? As some examples, what about these: the Aubusson, the Luxembourg Parc, les Rives de Notre Dame, the Tourville, the Jeu de Paume, the Lavoisier? Do all of these have full-scale restaurants, but I didn't think any of them did. Actually, I thought only large hotels had restaurants in Paris, not just being a 4*.

I know that isn't a criterion in other countries, because I've been in official 4* hotels in the Czech Republic, for example, that didn't have a restaurant.

I read people's comments on biddingfortravel that they recommend not bidding (on pricline) less than a 4* hotel in London, that a 4* is equivalent to a 3* in the US. Is this true?

Monica ((F))

I would try to get the best you can, regardless. even the nice places tend to have small rooms (I don't mean the Dorchester and One Aldwych types). I stayed at the Radisson Edwardian once and though it was a double room, rather tiny. It was nice though, just small.

Once I popped my head into a hotel near Paddington Station (don't ask the name, there were a ton of them all next to the other) - from the outside, really gorgeous and charming - those lovely facades! Inside, the rooms were frightening. I would not have slept there even with a fumigated sleeping bag, standing up, wearing shoes and socks. I'd rather sleep on the tube. ick.

Christina, in answer to your question, the D'Aubusson has a breakfast room, but not a restaurant, and it is a 4-star.

Monica, that suggested Priceline "rule" for London isn't hard and fast, but it is just that you are more likely to get an unpredictable hotel of somewhat lesser quality if you bid for a 3* hotel, than if you bid for a 4* hotel. And the 4* hotels are generally not that much more expensive than the 3* hotels.

Arthur Frommer had a story about a magnificent Rome pension that had bathrooms down the hall. He refused to put the info in his guidebook because he wanted to keep it for himself.

Thanks WillTravel!

Monica ((F))

I'm staying at the Crowne Plaza St James in London and got it for a bit over $100 per night for 4 nights around Christmas. It's a 4 star. I would think that it would be a pretty good deal. Anyone familiar with the place?

Bill

Bill, that sounds great. What zone is that hotel in? I'd suggest posting your win at http://www.betterbidding.com because I haven't seen that hotel come up before.

For 'mgmargates' outrageous generalization... I've stayed in a number of beautiful 3-star hotels (Paris, Venice) and all had private bathrooms. I'm not sure how those two things got lumped together.

To the original question, even my friends in Switzerland complain about hotel prices in London!!

mgmargate (what happened to atlcity?) first you say most 3 star hotels in Europe are dumps and then go on to elaborate that a room without its own bathroom qualifies as a dump.
I have stayed in many 3 star hotels in Germany, Austria, and France and not ONCE have I been given a room without its own bathroom. Who is staying in these 3 star hotels with no private bathrooms?

BTilke and Suze:: I don't know where these hotels with no bath in the room are. I was responding to Patrick,Ask him.I don't stay in 3 star hotels.As for Atlcity it's not needed now that I'm out of my ridiculous detention.

In case your wondering, when we are in London we stay in MK2's nieghborhood, Mayfair at the Dorchester.

Author: mgmargate
Date: 09/24/2004, 05:54 am
Message: You can sometimes get lucky but most 3 star hotels in Europe are dumps by U.S. standards.

Author: mgmargate
Date: 09/24/2004, 04:59 pm
Message: I don't stay in 3 star hotels.

H-E-L-L-O ???

wojazz, I googled your hotel. It's five minutes from buckingham but I like small hotels. This is listed as having 321 rooms.

Suze: HELLO, Read real slow.Just because I don't stay in them doesn't mean I haven't walked by hundreds of them and into dozens.If you've ever stayed in a 5 star hotel then you would know what I'm talking about.

mgmargate- Sorry, I don't buy it. You say "MOST 3 star hotels in Europe are dumps". Just because you have "walked by hundreds of them" does not make you an expert or your statement correct.

Certainly I am not arguing that a 5 star hotel should be nicer than a 3 star. That goes without saying.