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 "quaint" 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&B in the states. I NEVER stay in a B&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..."to each his own"...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 "$75, $90, $100$120?? I can't believe it? Impossible!"
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 "on the cheap" and splurged very "on the more expensive"...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 "picnic" 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 "others who can't afford expensive things" 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 "real" 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....

<<<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.>>>

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&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 "lower quality" 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 "upgrading" 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 "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?" 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 "the absolute lowest priority for the budget is the expenditure on expensive accomodations", not "gee, I wish I could spend more money on hotels". 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&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 "roughing it" 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 "maybe someday..." 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.