This just in: Arthur Frommer agrees with Robespierre!
Dec 27th, 2007, 05:11 PM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This just in: Arthur Frommer agrees with Robespierre!
Something I have preached for years is what I call <i>Robespierre's Law of Lodging Value</i> which, in its simplest form suggests that you get more for your hotel money the further you get from the "high rent district" in cities.
Now, no less a travel light than the venerable writer of travel books for 50 years plus has chimed in with his variation on the liturgy: tinyurl.com/2ywbon
Yes, it's nice to step out of one's hotel into central London or Paris - but is it worth a thousand dollars (on a typical family trip) to be able to do so?
Now, no less a travel light than the venerable writer of travel books for 50 years plus has chimed in with his variation on the liturgy: tinyurl.com/2ywbon
Yes, it's nice to step out of one's hotel into central London or Paris - but is it worth a thousand dollars (on a typical family trip) to be able to do so?
Dec 27th, 2007, 05:51 PM
#2
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We stay VERY central in Italian cities and have never spent more than 200 Euros for a 3 star hotel. I would NEVER spend a 1000 Euros. That's just crazy. You don't need to do that.
[email protected]
[email protected]
Dec 27th, 2007, 07:01 PM
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Mr. Frommer's point is that you could stay less central for half the price. I know it's mine.
To me, the tradeoff is between a fairly small amount of travel time and a fairly substantial outlay.
<i>p.s.</i> The "thousand dollar" figure is the differential between a ten-day jaunt for a family of five downtown as opposed to outside the city. I didn't see 1000€ mentioned anywhere.
To me, the tradeoff is between a fairly small amount of travel time and a fairly substantial outlay.
<i>p.s.</i> The "thousand dollar" figure is the differential between a ten-day jaunt for a family of five downtown as opposed to outside the city. I didn't see 1000€ mentioned anywhere.
Dec 27th, 2007, 07:18 PM
#4
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I just don't buy this arugment. In any case, I think that the key is to find cheap lodging in a central location rather than to find cheap lodging within a 30 minute radius.
It's not impossible to find cheap, decent lodging in the big cities. It just requires more work and research. You may have to give up on some amenities.
One man's meat is another's poison. I don't think it's a matter of whether it's worth $1000 or $x. It's worth this to some people. To some, it's not. In any case, is it worth $y to fly to Europe in the first place? Some will say no.
I think there's value in everything -- even in living in a central location. The smart traveler will know how to get the most bang of the buck in each chosen category.
It's not impossible to find cheap, decent lodging in the big cities. It just requires more work and research. You may have to give up on some amenities.
One man's meat is another's poison. I don't think it's a matter of whether it's worth $1000 or $x. It's worth this to some people. To some, it's not. In any case, is it worth $y to fly to Europe in the first place? Some will say no.
I think there's value in everything -- even in living in a central location. The smart traveler will know how to get the most bang of the buck in each chosen category.
Dec 27th, 2007, 07:50 PM
#5
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's good advice for those sitting at home and whining that they will never to able to see Paris, or London, or Amsterdam, or whatever city.
Some visitors are also under the misconception that each and every European capital has a narrowly defined city center, so that any sight is in walkable distance from a centrally-located hotel.
In many cases you will end up using public transportation (almost) as often as those who stayed on the outskirts.
I often get amused when friends ask for a "central location" to stay in Berlin, and they find out that there are several, but no medieval walled old town district, and that you have real freeways to go from one end of the city to the other ;-)
There are also many cities where an "off-central" location can be nicer, i.e. rent a cottage near Stockholm or Amsterdam on the seashore.
If you can afford a good hotel in a central location, I don't see anything wrong with that. If you cannot afford it, there are tons of other options.
By the way, only the very few and wealthy of us Europeans actually live in those most-favorable central districts. But that does not "ruin" our experience of our home towns or make us less Romans or Parisians ;-)
Some visitors are also under the misconception that each and every European capital has a narrowly defined city center, so that any sight is in walkable distance from a centrally-located hotel.
In many cases you will end up using public transportation (almost) as often as those who stayed on the outskirts.
I often get amused when friends ask for a "central location" to stay in Berlin, and they find out that there are several, but no medieval walled old town district, and that you have real freeways to go from one end of the city to the other ;-)
There are also many cities where an "off-central" location can be nicer, i.e. rent a cottage near Stockholm or Amsterdam on the seashore.
If you can afford a good hotel in a central location, I don't see anything wrong with that. If you cannot afford it, there are tons of other options.
By the way, only the very few and wealthy of us Europeans actually live in those most-favorable central districts. But that does not "ruin" our experience of our home towns or make us less Romans or Parisians ;-)
Dec 27th, 2007, 08:23 PM
#6
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 13,194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that proposing Padua for Venice is insane. It takes a good solid hour to get from anywhere in/"on" to the center of Venice or back "off"/out from.
In Venice (but in many other cities as well), the best two hours of the day (spent outside your room) are immediately upon awakening (ideally before breakfast) and the last hour before you go to bed.
And for no small number of cities, the ability to "pop back in" to your hotel room, mid-day... is priceless (sing along now... "skyrockets in flight..."
Best wishes,
Rex
In Venice (but in many other cities as well), the best two hours of the day (spent outside your room) are immediately upon awakening (ideally before breakfast) and the last hour before you go to bed.
And for no small number of cities, the ability to "pop back in" to your hotel room, mid-day... is priceless (sing along now... "skyrockets in flight..."
Best wishes,
Rex
Dec 27th, 2007, 08:29 PM
#7
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 961
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Robespierre's Law of Lodging Value, suggests you get more for your hotel money the further you get from the "high rent district" in cities.
DUH! it's just common horse sense!
> nothing very profound.
..Again, ones personal choice !
The Frommer article WAS interesting and worth some thought, however.
DUH! it's just common horse sense!
> nothing very profound...Again, ones personal choice !
The Frommer article WAS interesting and worth some thought, however.
Dec 27th, 2007, 08:36 PM
#8
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 12,188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from that Frommer article:
"Generally speaking, the couple choosing Vert Galant for their accommodations will save about $100 a day, or $700 over the entire week -- which ain't hay."
My daughter and I have a 3* hotel room in fairly central Paris in March, with breakfast included, that at current exchange rates will cost about $115 USD/day. So by staying in Vert Galant instead, we would save $100 USD per day? I think not.
I can see staying in an area that has its own intrinsic merits and charms. But huge volumes often mean large discounts are often possible in popular tourist destinations. Accor, for example, has all sorts of promotions for central hotels in major cities.
"Generally speaking, the couple choosing Vert Galant for their accommodations will save about $100 a day, or $700 over the entire week -- which ain't hay."
My daughter and I have a 3* hotel room in fairly central Paris in March, with breakfast included, that at current exchange rates will cost about $115 USD/day. So by staying in Vert Galant instead, we would save $100 USD per day? I think not.
I can see staying in an area that has its own intrinsic merits and charms. But huge volumes often mean large discounts are often possible in popular tourist destinations. Accor, for example, has all sorts of promotions for central hotels in major cities.
Dec 27th, 2007, 08:37 PM
#9
I guess I'm spoiled or maybe I'm just old, but if I'm going to an interesting, world-class city, I want to stay in that city and not 30-40 minutes away.
I've actually done the commute from my cousin's house in Brighton to London. Two days of that was my limit, and I wouldn't have done it at all if not for visiting family.
Likewise, visit Paris and stay near CDG Airport? No way. Prato instead of Florence? Ditto.
If these kinds of budget cuts are required, I'd save more money before travelling.
I've actually done the commute from my cousin's house in Brighton to London. Two days of that was my limit, and I wouldn't have done it at all if not for visiting family.
Likewise, visit Paris and stay near CDG Airport? No way. Prato instead of Florence? Ditto.
If these kinds of budget cuts are required, I'd save more money before travelling.
Dec 27th, 2007, 09:11 PM
#10
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would admit that most examples of the Frommer's article are a bit on the far side, so to speak.
And I would never say that staying away from the central districts is <b>better</b>, it can be cheaper, though.
But there are more options than either Picadilly Circus or Brighton, either Place Vendome or an airport motel at the runway of CDG, and so on.
As WillTravel pointed out, there are trillions (well, many) of Accor hotels in Paris for 100E or less per night, often at the Peripherique -- but I could not care less as long as it has a Metro nearby.
Since there is Google Earth or others, you can easily check whether your hotel location is an acceptable alternative or if you get dumped in an industrial zone on a freeway ramp.
The advice is probably more suitable for those who are either not able or not willing to spend 200E or more for one single night in a hotel in Paris.
And I would never say that staying away from the central districts is <b>better</b>, it can be cheaper, though.
But there are more options than either Picadilly Circus or Brighton, either Place Vendome or an airport motel at the runway of CDG, and so on.
As WillTravel pointed out, there are trillions (well, many) of Accor hotels in Paris for 100E or less per night, often at the Peripherique -- but I could not care less as long as it has a Metro nearby.
Since there is Google Earth or others, you can easily check whether your hotel location is an acceptable alternative or if you get dumped in an industrial zone on a freeway ramp.
The advice is probably more suitable for those who are either not able or not willing to spend 200E or more for one single night in a hotel in Paris.
Dec 27th, 2007, 09:56 PM
#11
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I prefer to stay slightly out of the center just because it is a bit calmer and more pleasant, at least in Paris and Amsterdam. We are still within the city, but might take 10-minute rides on the metro to cover the distance to the Seine, or 10-minute tram to get to Jordaan or Plantage....
Amsterdam is more difficult to do 'cheaply' in the center than is Paris.
Amsterdam is more difficult to do 'cheaply' in the center than is Paris.
Dec 28th, 2007, 02:50 AM
#12
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,930
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to disagree w/ Mr. Frommer
as time is money.
Owning our own business, my husband
& I could not take extended trips
& we have stayed at primarily 2 &
some 3* hotels in most major European cities incl. Paris, London,
Athens & Venice.
as prev. posters have noted, with a
little R&D it not only can be done but adds enjoyment to the otherall experience.
as time is money.
Owning our own business, my husband
& I could not take extended trips
& we have stayed at primarily 2 &
some 3* hotels in most major European cities incl. Paris, London,
Athens & Venice.
as prev. posters have noted, with a
little R&D it not only can be done but adds enjoyment to the otherall experience.
Dec 28th, 2007, 04:48 AM
#13
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I generally agree with Mr Frommer, definitly love his guide books, but on this point I disagree about 90%.
First, I've often found that I can stay in a large city center for less than the equivalent hotel in the small towns he mentions. I did exactly the opposite of his Madrid -Avila suggestion last summer. After researching hotels I found a much better deal in central Madrid, five minute walk from Plaza Mayor and the Prado than I could find in Avila so I did IT as a daytrip, rather than the other way around as Frommer suggests.
I suppose if you want 4 or 5 star hotels (not something Frommer usually advises though) then it might be true that you can find one for less in the small town/suburb. But there are usually way more 2 stars in the cities than in outlying areas.
And when you add in the transportation costs to get into the city you often find you use up any saving you might have found to begin with. To use the example of a family of four - the one way bus fare from Avila to Madrid is "only" €5 but that's €10 a day times four people or €40 a day. If you are talking about people who only want to spend in the €100-150 a day on lodging that's a substantial amount.
First, I've often found that I can stay in a large city center for less than the equivalent hotel in the small towns he mentions. I did exactly the opposite of his Madrid -Avila suggestion last summer. After researching hotels I found a much better deal in central Madrid, five minute walk from Plaza Mayor and the Prado than I could find in Avila so I did IT as a daytrip, rather than the other way around as Frommer suggests.
I suppose if you want 4 or 5 star hotels (not something Frommer usually advises though) then it might be true that you can find one for less in the small town/suburb. But there are usually way more 2 stars in the cities than in outlying areas.
And when you add in the transportation costs to get into the city you often find you use up any saving you might have found to begin with. To use the example of a family of four - the one way bus fare from Avila to Madrid is "only" €5 but that's €10 a day times four people or €40 a day. If you are talking about people who only want to spend in the €100-150 a day on lodging that's a substantial amount.
Dec 28th, 2007, 04:52 AM
#14
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 17,549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The terms "fairly small" (as in travel time) and "substantial" as in money outlay are subjective, as you well know, and therefore the importance is going to vary from traveler to traveler.
When Arthur Frommer starts staying out where God-lost-his-shoes from Paris to save money I'll listen more closely.
OTOH I agree with the general idea. We once stayed in Augsburg instead of Munich and enjoyed it. We traveled into the city daily by rail.
Was it ideal? No and I would not do it again if I didn't have to.
But it is always nice to have one's ideas vindicated by agreement.
When Arthur Frommer starts staying out where God-lost-his-shoes from Paris to save money I'll listen more closely.
OTOH I agree with the general idea. We once stayed in Augsburg instead of Munich and enjoyed it. We traveled into the city daily by rail.
Was it ideal? No and I would not do it again if I didn't have to.
But it is always nice to have one's ideas vindicated by agreement.
Dec 28th, 2007, 05:29 AM
#15
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I live a 35 minute walk from Times Square and would prefer to "stop" in my neighborhood than at a hotel there in the "center" of things. But a hotel across the river in New Jersey or Brooklyn might seem less convenient! Still, staying outside the city center can give you a nice insight into daily life and, depending on location of course, be really pleasant and interesting.
In fact I like being slightly off the track in most cities, though that can vary from a few streets away from the center thoroughfare to a few neighborhoods away. Having stayed on the Aventine in Rome (not at a bargain rate) I'd definitely consider the 16th in Paris.
The other side to the question is, will this "outer" location be something with its own attractions? Like Cowboy's seaside cottage near Stockholm, etc...
The real lesson isn't that you MUST stay outside to save a buck, but that sometimes it works quite well. (If visiting during a major trade period or other peak season, when rates in the center are highest, it may not only be the cheaper alternative, but the only thing affordable - or available.)
In fact I like being slightly off the track in most cities, though that can vary from a few streets away from the center thoroughfare to a few neighborhoods away. Having stayed on the Aventine in Rome (not at a bargain rate) I'd definitely consider the 16th in Paris.
The other side to the question is, will this "outer" location be something with its own attractions? Like Cowboy's seaside cottage near Stockholm, etc...
The real lesson isn't that you MUST stay outside to save a buck, but that sometimes it works quite well. (If visiting during a major trade period or other peak season, when rates in the center are highest, it may not only be the cheaper alternative, but the only thing affordable - or available.)
Dec 28th, 2007, 05:37 AM
#16
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First time I went to Paris, I stayed in the 16th.
Nice area but far off from the center.
I've stayed in the 6th since and the lodging isn't any more expensive.
Yeah the Metro is convenient but being able to walk to places in 5-10 minutes is way more convenient than taking a Metro 15-20 minutes.
Now the rule does generally hold that you pay a premium for location. But really, do you want to stay say 2-3 miles east of the Termini in Rome than stay near the Campo dei Fiori?
You may save money but you will spend a big chunk of your vacation traveling into the centro historico.
Nice area but far off from the center.
I've stayed in the 6th since and the lodging isn't any more expensive.
Yeah the Metro is convenient but being able to walk to places in 5-10 minutes is way more convenient than taking a Metro 15-20 minutes.
Now the rule does generally hold that you pay a premium for location. But really, do you want to stay say 2-3 miles east of the Termini in Rome than stay near the Campo dei Fiori?
You may save money but you will spend a big chunk of your vacation traveling into the centro historico.
Dec 28th, 2007, 05:53 AM
#17
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some travel advice will be work for some people some of the time, but not for all (not even close to ALL) of the people all of the time.
Mr Frommer states:
"In the last years of his life, when he was still appearing on the stage in London's West End, Sir Laurence Olivier would commute home late at night to Brighton, England, whose residential seaside areas he apparently preferred to the locations in London he could easily have chosen. Brighton is less than 40 miles from London."
Truly, I can't see the relevance of that at all. Lord Olivier was not a tourist in London, he was commuting from work to home, something many of us do every day but don't necessarily want to spend time doing while on vacation. Additionally, Lord Olivier traveled by chauffeur-driven car, not by suburban train.
Mr Frommer goes on to say:
"The dramatic decline of the U.S. dollar should cause us all to consider alternative methods of visiting Europe, and the use of inexpensive suburban locations less than a half-hour from the center of the big city is one of those methods."
I heartily agree, how could one not agree. Alternate methods to save money are always helpful suggestions, and staying out of town is indeed one of those methods, maybe.
But one person's paying 20 euros more is another person's waste of money; while another person's
lower rate in the outskirts is this person's PIA inconvenience.
Yes, we can plot the map routes and calculate actual time spent on the metro and find that it's really only an additional 17 minutes per day to stay in La Defense (and I use both the minutes and the location only as theoretical examples). But that's not where <b>I</b> want to wake up in the morning (not that there's anything wrong with that for someone else), and psychologically, it's farther than <b>I</b> want to go for Rex's referenced "Afternoon Delight," even if that delight is merely dropping off packages or changing clothes. If I had a tighter budget and a family to pay for, I'd perhaps make different choices, or give up amenities and still stay "centrally".
Mr Frommer states:
"In the last years of his life, when he was still appearing on the stage in London's West End, Sir Laurence Olivier would commute home late at night to Brighton, England, whose residential seaside areas he apparently preferred to the locations in London he could easily have chosen. Brighton is less than 40 miles from London."
Truly, I can't see the relevance of that at all. Lord Olivier was not a tourist in London, he was commuting from work to home, something many of us do every day but don't necessarily want to spend time doing while on vacation. Additionally, Lord Olivier traveled by chauffeur-driven car, not by suburban train.
Mr Frommer goes on to say:
"The dramatic decline of the U.S. dollar should cause us all to consider alternative methods of visiting Europe, and the use of inexpensive suburban locations less than a half-hour from the center of the big city is one of those methods."
I heartily agree, how could one not agree. Alternate methods to save money are always helpful suggestions, and staying out of town is indeed one of those methods, maybe.
But one person's paying 20 euros more is another person's waste of money; while another person's
lower rate in the outskirts is this person's PIA inconvenience.
Yes, we can plot the map routes and calculate actual time spent on the metro and find that it's really only an additional 17 minutes per day to stay in La Defense (and I use both the minutes and the location only as theoretical examples). But that's not where <b>I</b> want to wake up in the morning (not that there's anything wrong with that for someone else), and psychologically, it's farther than <b>I</b> want to go for Rex's referenced "Afternoon Delight," even if that delight is merely dropping off packages or changing clothes. If I had a tighter budget and a family to pay for, I'd perhaps make different choices, or give up amenities and still stay "centrally".
Dec 28th, 2007, 05:59 AM
#18
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "time is money" argument doesn't hold water IMO. Once you've walked around the immediate area of your hotel, you have to get wheels under you in any event, and it takes time to travel hither and yon.
Let's say you stay in Antony (for 69€ Fri-Sat-Sun) or the Marais. To get from either to the Eiffel Tower takes about the same time by rail.
And this "cost of commuting" argument is totally off-base. A three-zone <i>Mobilis</i> costs 1,90€ more than a two-zone, so each way you're paying 95¢ to stay further out.
Let's say you stay in Antony (for 69€ Fri-Sat-Sun) or the Marais. To get from either to the Eiffel Tower takes about the same time by rail.
And this "cost of commuting" argument is totally off-base. A three-zone <i>Mobilis</i> costs 1,90€ more than a two-zone, so each way you're paying 95¢ to stay further out.
Dec 28th, 2007, 06:15 AM
#20
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is Antony, a suburb to the West?
What if you wanted to get to Notre Dame or the Pompidou?
Or a number of other places much closer to the Marais than any suburb?
Yeah it's only a longer Metro ride but having to take that every day, maybe several times within a day, wears on you.
What if you wanted to get to Notre Dame or the Pompidou?
Or a number of other places much closer to the Marais than any suburb?
Yeah it's only a longer Metro ride but having to take that every day, maybe several times within a day, wears on you.
