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 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?