Non-quaint and cheap accommodation
 

To judge from a significant number of posts on this branch, I must be in a minority. When I am in France (for about eight weeks every two years or so), the absolute lowest priority for my budget is expenditure on expensive, or 'quaint', or 'characterful' accommodation. I usually lease a car and stay at the cheap chain hotels normally located on the outskirts of most provincial towns/cities. These typically charge about 30-40€ per room per night. I sleep there, and spend the rest of my time and money visiting the places of real interest to me, which no hotel room is. Quite a bit of the money thus saved is spent on very serious restaurants, of which I will attend quite a few on each trip. I do understand that for many posters a wonderful hotel is a significant part of a European visit; but I don't understand WHY that is the case.

May I ask - are you male or female?
I suspect it is more of a 'female thing' to incorporate a pleasant hotel and room into the travel experience.

My husband has said,
'can we just pick a hotel and go THERE from now on?' so it isn't that important to him.

Well I guess I can't really answer your question because I think like you do. Location of a hotel is my number one criteria, and if for the same money I can get something with a tad of charm then I will, but I totally agree that spending more than 100€ is something I just cannot understand. My only "guess" is that either people are afraid that if they don't spend the money they'll end up in something dirty/unsafe (definitly not the case) or they want to vacation like they'd like to live. If they live in a boring house, with boring furniture they want their vacation sleeping quarters to be something romantic, exciting, whatever. I'd also be interested in hearing people's rationales for why they spend more on lodging.

For some money isn't a problem, so why not go for the comfort?

The answer is really very simple. It is for the same reason that some people are content with a minimum apartment or other living quarters at home, while others take great care and pride in expensive furnishings and decor. It is for the same reason that when decorating their homes, some people will put all their money into the living quarters, but be very cheap and casual about how they decorate their bedroom since others won't see it, but some people will spend oodles on their bedroom because that's the most important room to THEM. It is the same reaason why some people throw their clothes on the floor of their bedroom, and others couldn't leave the room until the bed is made and every item is in perfect order. Some people are very particular about their surroundings and some aren't. We aren't all alike. Now read that carefully -- neither description was meant as a put down, they are just accurate descriptions of two different types of people.

I don't concern myself for a minute about why you could care less about a place to stay, why do you concern yourself with others who prefer a nice place to stay? In fact why are you so concerned about others' interests that you bothered to question them? That's the difficult question here.

>...I do understand that for many posters a wonderful hotel is a significant part of a European visit; but I don't understand WHY...<

For the same reasons that people purchase art.

((I))

I don't think it's male or female, and I don't think it's art vs. barbarian. I think it is partly priorities-on-a-budget, as adeben described, and I also think for some it is like the difference between people who insist on buying a new house and not a "character-filled" old house. For some people, new construction inspires more confidence.

And sometimes new construction with parking lots does make for easier travel if you have a car. But other times the best locations are in historic buildings in the historic center.

I can go either way depending on the place. While I'm not made of money, "cheapest" is not the highest priority for me. Ease is.

My approach is one of staying in little B & B's in out of the way places, which rarely get a mention in these pages. If the place is quiet and clean, and the hosts are friendly, and helpful with their suggestions re exploring their neighbourhood, that's all I ask.

How many of those who spend 100E and up for their accommodation or patronise 'chain hotels on city outskirts' have also found an email correspondent for life?

Harzer

Adeben, there are hotels which are an attraction in themselves. Read the guidebooks! Many guidebooks list grand hotels on the same rank as cathedrals and museums because of their architecture, their decoration and furnishings, their historical significance (who stayed there? What happened there?) and their atmosphere.
You may visit such a hotel's lobby like visiting a castle, but to catch the genius loci, the place's spirit, you should stay there.
Especially in France, I like to stay at castle hotels (www.chateauxhotels.com lists castle hotels which are not very expensive, usually 3-star-class), and each time it is a wonderful experience to sleep in the very rooms where princes have slept, to walk through the park, to lounge in salons etc. It creates a feeling of well-being.
Well, if you leave your room at 8 a.m., spend the whole day with sightseeing, have dinner elsewhere, and come back at night to fall asleep immediately, Ibis or Etap Hotel will do. But in my age, I have stopped rushing from attraction to attraction. I like to return to the hotel in the early afternoon, to have a swim in the pool and to relax in my room. Then, the quality of the hotel matters. I admit, it was different when I was a student with a tight budget and very greedy to see as most attractions as possible within one day.

Well, budget is usually a priority for me, but if I can afford something attractive, I will.

For instance, this summer we are going to Ireland. For less than E40 a night each, we've got 'quaint' B&Bs booked. At one point, we've a 300-year old farmhouse rented as self-catering, for even less (I think it's E300 for 4 nights). So for me, it's the most bang for my buck.

My last vacation was my honeymoon, so I wanted to splurge on the sleeping arrangments (for obvious reasons). For us, 4* hotels in London was splurging -- and we got them on Priceline for $75 a night.

I would rather spend my money on good food than the hotel room, but if I do enough good research, I can find something good AND cheap :)

Didn't we just go through a very similar "I don't spend money on hotels but I do on restaurants and what's with you people who do things differently" thread started by Robjame?
Why do you care? What difference does it make? Why don't you just count your blessing instead? Because if more people thought like you did, then a) you'd find it harder to get rooms in those hotels and b) the prices would go up.

Obviously, this is yet another of those &quot;eye of the beholder&quot; phenomena. My principal criterion for lodging is <i>value</i>, manifested as comfort, cleanliness, modernity, and spaciousness.

It is an immutable law of nature that the greater the hotelier's expense, the higher the room rates will be for a given accommodation. The biggest item on a hotel's budget is land cost, and it is no secret that the most expensive real estate is at the middle of every city in the world.

Therefore: if you want the most for your money, get away from the high rent district. There are hundreds of brand-new hotels with clean, spacious rooms in the 50&euro;-70&euro; bracket within a few minutes' train ride of central London, Paris, Amsterdam, Munich...

If you have a fixed overall budget for your vacation, you can often double or triple the length of your stay if you are willing to forego the ability to step out of your hotel into the 18th century.

Haven't you ever heard of personal preference? No one needs to justify why they prefer a nice hotel versus a cheap chain hotel. I don't have to justify why I'd rather have comfortable surroundings (nothing over about 150e though) versus a fancy restaurant becuase that's what I like.

The worst thing is to have expensive accommodation with antiquated heating or plumbing or even soundproofing systems. Cheap chain hotels look great by comparison.

I'm like Harzer - I look for the out-of-the-way B&amp;B, which usually combines both &quot;quaintness&quot; and cheapness - which suggests that the tendency to associate expense with character and cheapness with soulless chain is incorrect. I also travel increasingly outside of major cities, which perhaps makes it more possible for me to find the inexpensive B&amp;B with character. In any case, I like such places because when I travel I spend 10-12 hours on my feet, and like to have a nice place to relax at the end of the day.

For me what matters most are 1) location - must be central - within walking distance to as much as possible - why waste time on public transit when I can ride the subway here evrery day and 2) comfort - which man the room must be large with at least comfy chairs if not a sofa, mini-bar and other basic amenities.

I don't really care enough about modern vs traditional to pay for it - but if given the choice will take older places - since they're usually better built. And because of what we're looking for we usualy end up with larger or at least mid-size hotels - but have stayed in private chateaux with only a few rooms.

As to why to pay more for this rather than a simple B&amp;B - because why be less comfortable when you can be more comfortable - it;s a vacation - you're supposed to enjoy it, not suffer through it - or put up with something that's just OK.

And I don;t think this is a male vs female thing - the beau and I feel the same about this. It may be at least in part - a function of age and disposable income (but I have to say I felt the same the first time I went to europe as a 19 year old poor student).

I often find that the soundproofing in hotels that are historic buildings is better than in the ones with modern construction.

Ease of parking increasingly dictates my choice of hotel. In Italy, I especially like staying in countryside albergo ristorantes, and eating dinner in the same building where I sleep. I've gotten some fantastic rooms for 60 euro a nite, along with fantastic food and wine.

And I agree that B&amp;Bs are a great bargain, provided you don't need services like fax machines, etc.

We did just go through the exact same post, guys who like cheap hotels but like to spend a lot of money on food. Seems to be a theme here. You can't great any great hotel room for 30 euro, but I know the kind of cheap bare-bones chain hotels that might be (Etap in France or something).

I think this does tend to be something women care more about than men (although not all, obviously). It's the same gender issue as why women tend to care more about having a nice home, IMO, and men often don't. A lot of men would not clean as much as women if they had to do it themself (argument from my male live-in: but it doesn't bother me, why should I have to help clean up when it's something that only matters to you? I've heard that from other men to). Similarly, a lot of single guys live in drab, undecorated apartments. One of my friends has a 51-yo divorced boyfriend who has lived in his apt. for a couple years, and there isn't a single thing on the walls, not even a calendar. Now, I know from experience, that is true, also. A lot of guys don't care about aesthetics very much.

Ultimately, I do care about &quot;value&quot; in accommodations, but what I perceive as comfort and acceptability is not the same as others, obviously.

There is although the position taken in the OP's post that is not true for everyone, although I realize if you can't see beyond yourself, you may not understand. The idea that there is only x dollars to spend on a trip, and you have to move it between the hotel and food column. I don't have a fixed amount of money to spend on a vacation, and if I pay 50 euro a night or 125 euro a night (more my average), wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference in what I spend on food or my annual disposible income because I don't vacation for weeks on end. I spend maybe 14 nights a year in a hotel in Europe, so that is only 1050 total euro a year to travel the way I want over rock-bottom. As I said, it doesn't make any difference in my annual budget.

So, I think we can all agree that we all look for different things when we travel, right? And no one has to justify their choice. Am I right?

What annoys me is the self-righteous martyrdom of some posters....
Different strokes friends...all OK, merely different tastes.
I pat those value conscious people on the back...
I'll part those who can stay at say...George V...
Who cares?

I like central locations.

Character is better than bland.

Bland is better than squalor.

Seeing another guest from time to time is nice.

I'll spend more than I want if I have to.

I wouldn't get defensive about my choices either way, and while the original poster might have put the issue more neutrally, I don't think it's a bad discussion topic -- especially for people planning a first trip to Europe.

I used to spend a lot of time trying to get into the most famous atmospheric hotels and felt extremely disappointed if they were booked up. But increasingly --- after having spent a lot of time in such hotels -- I care less and less.

And it's not bad to have it out there that the differences between &quot;quaint&quot; hotels and others often isn't just charm, but more practical considerations like location, ease of parking, size of bath, size of room, availability of fax, internet access, etc.

It's funny, but I live in the kind of house in the US that is often turned into a quaint B&amp;B in the states. I NEVER stay in a B&amp;B in the US when I travel. I want that giant room with the two huge beds and the multihead shower!

I will say this. If someone puts down others who can't afford expensive things, everyone will yell bloody murder for their rudeness. But if someone who likes inexpensive things puts down those who spend a lot and calls them wasteful or show offs, no one seems to think that's so bad. Why is that? It's OK for the cheap to insult the rich, but not OK for the rich to insult the cheap? (Not that either needs to insult the other, mind you, just questioning this apparent double standard).

I'm almost with adeben. Can't understand why people worry about the kind of car they drive or the label on their clothes. And being curious about other people's choices doesn't mean I'm casting aspersions.

I'm even curious about why so many posters think adeben IS casting aspersions.

So why something out of the Logis de France handbook rather than Formule 1?

1. Location, location, location. If I wanted to sleep on an autoroute slip road, I'd buy a house near one. I don't. Formule 1's are fine on a long journey where it's off the autoroute, sleep and get back on again before dawn. But not if you're staying in a town. You can't walk anywhere from a Formule 1, it's difficult to drink at dinner, and the surroundings are almost invariably dismal.
2. Environment. You rarely just shower and sleep. At a Formule 1, anything else is just drekky. To be honest, it's rarely pleasant to read in any French hotel. But it's just horrid in a Formule 1.
3. Buildings. I don't choose to live in a 20th century bit of ticky tacky. Why stay in one unless you have to?
4. Cost. The choice in France isn't between modern cheap and normal-age dear. It's between grim, modern, very cheap and unpredictable, normal-age cheap. Logis de France are never gold-plated.
5. Quality of build. On the rare occasions I've lived anywhere built since 1800, the plumbing, heating, soundproofing and damproofing have been dire. In most normal-age houses, these things work because houseproud owners update them every couple of decades. 17th century constructors were as capable of jerrybuilding as anyone else. But most Logis de France owners, in my experience, take the same care of their houses any other sensible owner does.

Mind you, this preference for hotels more or less like where I live only really works in la France Profonde. Irrelevant at most seaside places or ski resorts. Impossible in most other countries.

adeben wasn't putting down people that spends a lot, he/sh was putting down people who spend more than he/she does which is hardly anything.

Adeben:
I've said this before in answer to similar OP's...&quot;to each his own&quot;...who cares what others do...my DW and I make our own plans , do our own thing and have thoroughly enjoyed travel experiences and memories as a passion for so many decades.

Some of our friends would never think of staying in a European (or Asian, South American, African) hotel for less than $200-$250+. Heavens no...what would their friends think? And they've been brainwashed to think in those relative dollar terms by Code Nast, Travel and Leisure, etc...knowing full well that anything less than that equates to bedbugs, inadequate heating or sans air, crumbling 18th century plumbing, etc etc.

Meanwhile, we've gone merrily on our way ... as these same friends staring with disbelief at the photos of our lodgings saying &quot;$75, $90, $100$120?? I can't believe it? Impossible!&quot;
Of course, there are times and places where we've paid much more, we've also rented apartments, stayed at much cheaper b and b's, friend's homes, etc etc. We've eaten very &quot;on the cheap&quot; and splurged very &quot;on the more expensive&quot;...we're all ruled by some kind of budget, be it $100 a day or $1,000 a day..whatever we're each comfortable with. Yes, indeed, in the final aalysis, it is so very personal!

The main thing is to keep the passion, enjoy the journey and go back for more!

Stu T.

Why attack adeben for asking the question? What better place than a travel forum to figure out what make other people tick? Such eagerness to judge I simply can't figure out...

As I age, the hotels have become more of the attraction to me. I think of the Chateau de Roussan in Provence, and the happy hours I spent in its lovely garden, reading, playing with the cat, admiring the view. By the way, in France at least, places like this aren't all that expensive.

I'm kind of the opposite of you, adeben. I get very little pleasure from fine dining. I feel trapped in a restaurant eating multiple courses. And I certainly hate the expensive bill. I'm much happier eating street food in a park, having a &quot;picnic&quot; in my room, or finding an inexpensive ethnic restaurant.

I don't mind adeben's OP, nor the other post from a couple of weeks ago on a similar topic - I enjoy hearing about other folks' preferences and/or tastes. I do have one comment, though, in response to Neapolitan, whose post conflated &quot;others who can't afford expensive things&quot; with the cheap. Being cheap and being poor are two different things. I agree that it is rude for people who are cheap to criticize people who aren't, but I have less of a problem with people who are poor criticizing people who are rich, since often a rich person's consumption concerns seem trivial to someone who is hungry or homeless or lacks health insurance. And since money equals power, the rich's criticism of the poor is more likely to be heard than the poor's criticism of the rich - and thus to perpetuate economic policies that favor the rich.

All the OP needed to do to get an answer to his question was read a variety of trip reports. In those reports, many Fodorites post about their hotels, give the price, and explain why they chose it, and why they liked it (or why they didn't).

I frankly prefer a nicer hotel. In the last few years my travel accommodations have ranged from no star Formule 1s to some of the most luxuriously appointed hotels in Europe. I've managed to enjoy myself at all of them, but would choose the 4* and 5* hotels over the no-stars for repeat visits.

We drive around France quite a bit as well and like to pick full service hotels that have better views than a generic office park, suburb or highway offramp. That's our preference. My mother is coming to visit in May and I am trying to book us into the best hotels I can afford. Why shouldn't I want to give Mom some luxury?

*Some* posters think that you can only find &quot;real&quot; Europe in inexpensive hotels. Rubbish. Or that you have to spend a lot to stay in luxury hotels. If I can stay in a five star hotel for 112 euros including breakfast why not? FWIW, our experience is that with shopping around you can get deep discounts even at centrally located fine hotels. When I'm in Paris, I prefer to spend 165 euros for a discounted 4 star hotel room and all that comes with it than 150 euros for a nondiscounted 3 star.

Guy, above....

&lt;&lt;&lt;As I age, the hotels have become more of the attraction to me. I think of the Chateau de Roussan in Provence, and the happy hours I spent in its lovely garden, reading, playing with the cat, admiring the view. By the way, in France at least, places like this aren't all that expensive.&gt;&gt;&gt;

We, too, loved the Chateau du Roussan...but I hear it's rather run down these days, from other posters. The long, plane-tree-lined driveway itself was worth visiting..we had sent many people there over the past fifteen years...perfect example of a very regal place going for exceptionally reasonable rates!
Stu T.

Hi Stu. I was there 2 years ago. Even then there were post-ers on Tripadvisor saying it was rundown, if I'm not mistaken. So I doubt that it's truly dirty and taken that much of a turn for the worse. The place is a bit dowdy and raffish and the service...well, eccentric perhaps? Some people can't handle that. I'm okay with it, as long as I can have that amazing house and that incredible garden!!!

We travel a lot to Europe and almost always find quaint and budget. We NEVER spend over 50 euros for a double room (but I spend hours and hours searching for B&amp;B's well in advance). We have found some real gems, that's for sure.

Yes- but are they located in the center of major cities, have 24 hour room service and soft comfy sofas in the room?

No?

People just have different wants on vacation - one is not better than another. And believe me - I don't want to spend extra money - I would be much happier to pay $50 a night for hotels than what we do. (I was much happier 25 years ago when the hotels I wanted were $50 per night - but that's another story.)

And I don;t think it's a matter of rich versus poor. I don;t tink we have many really rich people here (they have personal assistants to deal with travel) although we do have some that have more disposable income than others. Or - choose to spend their disposable incomes differently (we have an apartment rather than a large house and moderate/modest older cars vs gigantic new SUVs every 2 years.)

So - it all depends. Let's just not criticize each other for different preferences.

I'm back again: I should perhaps have said that I'm male, retired and Australian, and that to spend time in France every couple of years obviously requires some attention to a budget, particularly if, as will happen this year, a meal at Troisgros in Roanne is only one of several splendid meals scheduled. I tend to value French cuisine.
On the way to Europe, I will as usual stopover in Asia, this time in Singapore. The hotel I stay at there will be quite luxurious by European standards, because neither Singapore, Bangkok, Hong Kong nor Kuala Lumpur has the sort of cheap, basic, OK hotels represented in France by Premier Classe, Roi Soleil, Geo and the like. Neither does Germany, for that matter, so my accommodation costs there are always higher than in France. However, I must restate that I don't go to Europe for the quality of the hotel experience there, and am constantly surprised by the number of posters for whom that seems to be the major factor in the enjoyment of their trip.

adeben -- I'm with you... to a point. Most people have to make trade-offs. For me, if staying at a lower-quality or out-of-the-way place means that I can have a longer vacation then I'll generally make some concessions. I mostly travel by myself and I have a hard time justifying spending oodles on accommodations just for me. I also don't spend gobs on food, either. My splurges are always on attractions and experiences.

I've stayed in numerous convents and they are often well-located but have minimal amenities. But that doesn't matter to me. It may matter to someone else.

But everything within reason. I once stayed at an out-of-the-way place in northern Italy which required me to walk by the troll who lived under the bridge on the way to the bus stop. That frightened me a bit. I'm a little more careful about planning location nowadays.

I don't get to go often to Europe, averaging every 2 years, so I like a tad bit of comfort in my hotels but nothing on a grand scale. Is that ok with you? Have we now explained WHY some do and some don't?

As I read through these posts again, I'm suddenly realizing that I really don't see any posts that would indicate many people would actually pick the &quot;lower quality&quot; hotel if money weren't an object. So right there is your answer. Most people pick the highest level of hotel they are comfortable paying for on each individual trip. Clearly some are comfortable spending more and &quot;upgrading&quot; their hotel rooms, and others are not.

I now go back and read the orignal post and interpret it a little differently than I did the first time. Now I read it as &quot;gee, I wish I could afford nicer hotels but I can't justify the expense. Why do the rest of you spend all that money?&quot; The answer is pretty obvious now isn't it? Some people do because they can.

Interesting because I interpret the OP very differently. He/she states that &quot;the absolute lowest priority for the budget is the expenditure on expensive accomodations&quot;, not &quot;gee, I wish I could spend more money on hotels&quot;. I have no issue at all with someone saving money in one place to spend it on another. I do exactly the same thing with food and shopping. I have very wallet-friendly meals (maybe splurging once)to be able to shop or whatever else I want to do.

Again, we all have different priorities and no one should be judged with how they choose to spend money budgeted for a trip.

We can definitely afford luxury trips but we choose not to travel that way. Our tastes are not expensive. We have stayed in 5 star hotels all over out of necessity (business trips) but that is not our preference. I would take a charming B&amp;B room over marble baths/pillow menus any day. We like the challenge of finding an inexpensive place with character. We do not find it necessary to have 24-hour service - we like &quot;roughing it&quot; and are proud of it. Sure, it is fun to be spoiled once in a while but it's just not us. :-)

I travel bargain prices because I would rather use the money to travel more often; but that's me.

Each person takes a vacation for their own reasons. And everyone should do whatever they want in order to enjoy the experience.

It is the people who never bother to come to Fodor's because they never get close enough to the dream that they just assume must be too expensive and think &quot;maybe someday...&quot; I particularly try to make the point to young people that travel doesn't have to be out of their reach. I wish someone had told me when I was younger.