This just in: Arthur Frommer agrees with Robespierre!
Dec 28th, 2007, 06:36 AM
#21
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I guess Frommer has to move with the times and suggest cheaper alternatives to dollar-socked Americans. Otherwise fewer people will go to Europe and fewer people will buy his book.
But if one can at all afford it, I think staying in a central, walkable location is much more desireable. For one thing, we often go back to the hotel in the late afternoon after a hard day of sightseeing and rest a bit before we go out again to dinner or the theater. Two round trips on public transportation take more time and cost more money. And, as you walk to/from different directions, you see a lot along the way, far more than you'd see on a subway or even walking back and forth to the same subway stop.
But if one can at all afford it, I think staying in a central, walkable location is much more desireable. For one thing, we often go back to the hotel in the late afternoon after a hard day of sightseeing and rest a bit before we go out again to dinner or the theater. Two round trips on public transportation take more time and cost more money. And, as you walk to/from different directions, you see a lot along the way, far more than you'd see on a subway or even walking back and forth to the same subway stop.
Dec 28th, 2007, 06:52 AM
#23
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well let's think about this objectively: Central is just better. I mean, if it's not better, why would a similar hotel room cost more?
Similarly, Manhattan is better. Sure, Hoboken is separated from Manhattan by the PATH train. But why are Manhattan apartments more expensive?
I think the economics is quite clear. Most people obviously value a central location. If not, then there'd be no price differential and no need for Frommer to write a silly article like this one.
If you're willing to sacrifice some amenitites, you can get some nice rooms in a central location in a European city. In fact, in some European cities, being central requires no sacrifices at all -- take Berlin, for example. I think that my Holiday Inn there was about 50 euros one night on average (maybe even less).
The last time I was in London, I stayed in an LSE dorm for about 60 or 65 pounds a night. It's right near Trafalgar Square. You can't beat that location. There's a private bathroom -- albeit a bit small. I wasn't sharing the room with anyone else -- except my mother. Plus they offered singles too. True, this was an option for the summer. But there're usually other options. Once I stayed in a Days Inn near Waterloo, which again was adequate. And it wasn't very expensive by London's standards.
In Europe I find that some small sacrifices will frequently get you a room in a central location.
The situation is unlike for Manhattan -- when I've not yet discovered the secret to cheap rooms. Most of the time they are just not very nice. But even for Manhattan I think that you can find rooms for under $150, if you know where to look.
Similarly, Manhattan is better. Sure, Hoboken is separated from Manhattan by the PATH train. But why are Manhattan apartments more expensive?
I think the economics is quite clear. Most people obviously value a central location. If not, then there'd be no price differential and no need for Frommer to write a silly article like this one.
If you're willing to sacrifice some amenitites, you can get some nice rooms in a central location in a European city. In fact, in some European cities, being central requires no sacrifices at all -- take Berlin, for example. I think that my Holiday Inn there was about 50 euros one night on average (maybe even less).
The last time I was in London, I stayed in an LSE dorm for about 60 or 65 pounds a night. It's right near Trafalgar Square. You can't beat that location. There's a private bathroom -- albeit a bit small. I wasn't sharing the room with anyone else -- except my mother. Plus they offered singles too. True, this was an option for the summer. But there're usually other options. Once I stayed in a Days Inn near Waterloo, which again was adequate. And it wasn't very expensive by London's standards.
In Europe I find that some small sacrifices will frequently get you a room in a central location.
The situation is unlike for Manhattan -- when I've not yet discovered the secret to cheap rooms. Most of the time they are just not very nice. But even for Manhattan I think that you can find rooms for under $150, if you know where to look.
Dec 28th, 2007, 06:54 AM
#24
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all, hello to Rex, whom I haven't 'run into' for awhile on here; I know you have had health problems lately, so I'm glad to see one of Fodorland's keenest debaters back on form.
Now, back to the topic:
I think as always the cost-benefits depend on specifics: what one wants to see or do in the city, one's needs during the day, the needs of one's travel companions (any very young children or other physically vulnerable people in the party?) and current market conditions for hotels within N, N + 15 mins, N + 30 mins, etc. of the centre. In short, going further afield is best for those willing to research enough that they are aware of the benefits and liabilities of any given 'field'.
For example, being only 30 mins north of Gare du Nord (as in the example cited in the article) is great if you're planning to visit Montmartre, or even one of the other right bank sites, but it would not facilitate any plans to get to Versailles first thing it opens in the morning.
That said, after allowing for Mr. Frommer's necessarily having to deal in generalities, his point is apt: when researching the market, think out of the box if you run into budget snarls.
Now, back to the topic:
I think as always the cost-benefits depend on specifics: what one wants to see or do in the city, one's needs during the day, the needs of one's travel companions (any very young children or other physically vulnerable people in the party?) and current market conditions for hotels within N, N + 15 mins, N + 30 mins, etc. of the centre. In short, going further afield is best for those willing to research enough that they are aware of the benefits and liabilities of any given 'field'.
For example, being only 30 mins north of Gare du Nord (as in the example cited in the article) is great if you're planning to visit Montmartre, or even one of the other right bank sites, but it would not facilitate any plans to get to Versailles first thing it opens in the morning.
That said, after allowing for Mr. Frommer's necessarily having to deal in generalities, his point is apt: when researching the market, think out of the box if you run into budget snarls.
Dec 28th, 2007, 07:02 AM
#25
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that we should think out of the box -- but maybe Frommer is too old to offer really good advice. 
Wouldn't some tips on how to find cheap rooms in London and Paris (or insert equivalent) be more interesting? I know that I'd find it more useful. There's a lot that can be written there.
Wouldn't some tips on how to find cheap rooms in London and Paris (or insert equivalent) be more interesting? I know that I'd find it more useful. There's a lot that can be written there.
Dec 28th, 2007, 07:23 AM
#26
Like most things, this is not a "one size fits all" solution. It depends not only on who you are, but which city you are visiting.
A place that is swamped by day trippers or cruise ship passengers, like Venice or Rhodes old town, has a quite different feel "off" hours, which you would miss if you weren't staying there.
Good public transport would be a definite requirement, and it needs to run late. Staying with my sister in Reading to visit London isn't such a great idea, for example, because the bus from the Reading station stops early.
Also, if you value returning to your hotel to change for dinner, going out for a good, leisurely meal, and then getting back to your hotel without a major trek, you'll want to stay somewhere central. My homestay in Moscow was 45 minutes by metro from the center, and I found that to be a real pain.
On the other hand, I have considered staying in Chartres rather than Paris, but then I like smaller towns.
I'd really prefer Frommer to spend his energy on finding good deals in town - like the LSE dorms in London, which are a great option during vacations. Out of vacation I may settle for something in the suburbs (but on the tube) but I'd know that I was happier in the center.
A place that is swamped by day trippers or cruise ship passengers, like Venice or Rhodes old town, has a quite different feel "off" hours, which you would miss if you weren't staying there.
Good public transport would be a definite requirement, and it needs to run late. Staying with my sister in Reading to visit London isn't such a great idea, for example, because the bus from the Reading station stops early.
Also, if you value returning to your hotel to change for dinner, going out for a good, leisurely meal, and then getting back to your hotel without a major trek, you'll want to stay somewhere central. My homestay in Moscow was 45 minutes by metro from the center, and I found that to be a real pain.
On the other hand, I have considered staying in Chartres rather than Paris, but then I like smaller towns.
I'd really prefer Frommer to spend his energy on finding good deals in town - like the LSE dorms in London, which are a great option during vacations. Out of vacation I may settle for something in the suburbs (but on the tube) but I'd know that I was happier in the center.
Dec 28th, 2007, 07:25 AM
#27
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 15,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we have stayed in private homes outside the center of Paris and Edinburgh. Although it took only 20 -25 minutes on the bus ( RER in Paris), going back and forth twice a day ( we wanted to go out in the evening), was not my idea of a relaxing holiday.
Many times we had to race to catch the last RER, or bus - the taxi would have been rather expensive . Getting to the airport or the railway station was also more complicated.
If it is the only way for one to travel - well, why not. Also,
for families who are out all day and stay 'in" at night, the central location may be less important.
Many times we had to race to catch the last RER, or bus - the taxi would have been rather expensive . Getting to the airport or the railway station was also more complicated.
If it is the only way for one to travel - well, why not. Also,
for families who are out all day and stay 'in" at night, the central location may be less important.
Dec 28th, 2007, 07:32 AM
#29
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, RonZ.
What does brilliance have to do with wealth? Intelligence is overrated IMO.
Yes, it's a matter of personal choice. But all these arguments about time, distance, and transport cost are spurious: it takes the same time to go back to the hotel for a siesta from Pere laChaise whether your bed's in Antony or the VIIe. The ride costs maybe 15¢ more by traveling on a day pass.
The equation holds in every city I've been in, from Taipei to Bucureşti: you get better value where the landlord's mortgage payment is less. Either more lodging for the same money, or the same lodging for less money than downtown.
What does brilliance have to do with wealth? Intelligence is overrated IMO.
Yes, it's a matter of personal choice. But all these arguments about time, distance, and transport cost are spurious: it takes the same time to go back to the hotel for a siesta from Pere laChaise whether your bed's in Antony or the VIIe. The ride costs maybe 15¢ more by traveling on a day pass.
The equation holds in every city I've been in, from Taipei to Bucureşti: you get better value where the landlord's mortgage payment is less. Either more lodging for the same money, or the same lodging for less money than downtown.
Dec 28th, 2007, 07:38 AM
#30
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robespierre writes: 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.
Well, I speak for myself when I say that, if I'm staying in a good, central area, I never tire of walking around the immediate area of my hotel. In fact, exploring the ins and outs of the right neighborhood is one of the great pleasures of traveling. Nothing beats finding a place to eat or sit with a drink and people watch or a great bookstore to browse in after you've popped into your room for a rest or a clean-up.
This could never have happened when I stayed near the Ballard metro stop. Other than some good Chinese restaurants, the area didn't have much going for it. I'd much rather have a smaller (and more charming room) at the Hotel Familia or the Hotel Grandes Ecoles and not feel like I'm in a Gallic version of the Bronx.
Of course one can convince himself that a 30 minute ride on the metro is not that annoying, something easily endured a few times a day for the possibility of more hotel "value", but having done it once, I'm not too keen to do it again.
Well, I speak for myself when I say that, if I'm staying in a good, central area, I never tire of walking around the immediate area of my hotel. In fact, exploring the ins and outs of the right neighborhood is one of the great pleasures of traveling. Nothing beats finding a place to eat or sit with a drink and people watch or a great bookstore to browse in after you've popped into your room for a rest or a clean-up.
This could never have happened when I stayed near the Ballard metro stop. Other than some good Chinese restaurants, the area didn't have much going for it. I'd much rather have a smaller (and more charming room) at the Hotel Familia or the Hotel Grandes Ecoles and not feel like I'm in a Gallic version of the Bronx.
Of course one can convince himself that a 30 minute ride on the metro is not that annoying, something easily endured a few times a day for the possibility of more hotel "value", but having done it once, I'm not too keen to do it again.
Dec 28th, 2007, 07:40 AM
#31
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robespierre writes: 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.
Well, I speak for myself when I say that, if I'm staying in a good, central area, I never tire of walking around the immediate area of my hotel. In fact, exploring the ins and outs of the right neighborhood is one of the great pleasures of traveling. Nothing beats finding a place to eat or sit with a drink and people watch or a great bookstore to browse in after you've popped into your room for a rest or a clean-up.
This could never have happened when I stayed near the Ballard metro stop. Other than some good Chinese restaurants, the area didn't have much going for it. I'd much rather have a smaller (and more charming) room at the Hotel Familia or the Hotel Grandes Ecoles and not feel like I'm in a Gallic version of the Bronx.
Of course one can convince himself that a 30 minute ride on the metro is not that annoying, something easily endured a few times a day for the possibility of more hotel "value", but having done it once, I'm not too keen to do it again.
Well, I speak for myself when I say that, if I'm staying in a good, central area, I never tire of walking around the immediate area of my hotel. In fact, exploring the ins and outs of the right neighborhood is one of the great pleasures of traveling. Nothing beats finding a place to eat or sit with a drink and people watch or a great bookstore to browse in after you've popped into your room for a rest or a clean-up.
This could never have happened when I stayed near the Ballard metro stop. Other than some good Chinese restaurants, the area didn't have much going for it. I'd much rather have a smaller (and more charming) room at the Hotel Familia or the Hotel Grandes Ecoles and not feel like I'm in a Gallic version of the Bronx.
Of course one can convince himself that a 30 minute ride on the metro is not that annoying, something easily endured a few times a day for the possibility of more hotel "value", but having done it once, I'm not too keen to do it again.
Dec 28th, 2007, 07:41 AM
#32
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's a 30-minute ride?
Let's say you stay near École Militaire and make a trip to Notre Dame. The ride will take you 21 minutes via RER C and Métro Ligne 8. Coming from Antony via RER B, it takes 4 minutes longer.
See what I mean by spurious objections?
Let's say you stay near École Militaire and make a trip to Notre Dame. The ride will take you 21 minutes via RER C and Métro Ligne 8. Coming from Antony via RER B, it takes 4 minutes longer.
See what I mean by spurious objections?
Dec 28th, 2007, 07:55 AM
#33
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point was that one doesn't always want to get on a subway AT ALL but just wander a bit near where one is staying. Especially if one's been out all day, it's nice to just hang out near your hotel in the evening and not have to schlep again to the city center to be someplace special.
Spurious? Why does everyone have to agree with you or else it's spurious? It's not like most of us aren't speaking from experience.
Spurious? Why does everyone have to agree with you or else it's spurious? It's not like most of us aren't speaking from experience.
Dec 28th, 2007, 08:01 AM
#34
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to be even clearer, when I was staying at the Familia last summer, it was a pleasure to be able to WALK to Luxembourg Gardens, Notre Dame, any number of restaurants on our list, etc. Walking allows you all kinds of serendipity that the metro doesn't. There's a FEEL to such a situation that I like. You might not agree that this is important, Robespierre, but to many people it is.
Dec 28th, 2007, 08:02 AM
#35
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, but obviously money is not everything. As I mentioned, people see value in a central location -- otherwise they would not pay more in the first place.
And the economics is such that Frommer's view is obviously in the minority. If not, then, as I said, for example, Hoboken apartments would be twice as much as Manhattan apartments, not the other way around.
It's not a matter of whether it takes 30 minutes or not. It could take exactly the same time, but psychologically it just seems far to people. That's why some people who live in Manhattan never go to Brooklyn or Queens or, if they live in the Upper East Side, never venture below 14th Street.
That's why MoMA decided to spend 800 million dollars to get a new building on 53rd Street near Fifth Avenue instead of moving to Queens (where it was located briefly). Wouldn't Queens be cheaper? All this space for art? And it's just a few stops on the E train? Why not?
Also for the sake the argument, even if it does take 30 minutes for Antony or for some Paris location, the effect is not the same. To get to Antony, you rely on RER, which means that psychologically you must plan to catch that train. For people who live in Paris, there's no such constraint.
You're not constrained by the train schedule. You can take the Metro. The taxi. The bus. Or even walk as you please for 15 minutes and do something else later.
There's the freedom and convenience. If you live in Antony, you can't do things on a whim. I won't be able to wander in Paris at 3 am (as I frequently do, if I want to), for example.
And the economics is such that Frommer's view is obviously in the minority. If not, then, as I said, for example, Hoboken apartments would be twice as much as Manhattan apartments, not the other way around.
It's not a matter of whether it takes 30 minutes or not. It could take exactly the same time, but psychologically it just seems far to people. That's why some people who live in Manhattan never go to Brooklyn or Queens or, if they live in the Upper East Side, never venture below 14th Street.
That's why MoMA decided to spend 800 million dollars to get a new building on 53rd Street near Fifth Avenue instead of moving to Queens (where it was located briefly). Wouldn't Queens be cheaper? All this space for art? And it's just a few stops on the E train? Why not?
Also for the sake the argument, even if it does take 30 minutes for Antony or for some Paris location, the effect is not the same. To get to Antony, you rely on RER, which means that psychologically you must plan to catch that train. For people who live in Paris, there's no such constraint.
You're not constrained by the train schedule. You can take the Metro. The taxi. The bus. Or even walk as you please for 15 minutes and do something else later.
There's the freedom and convenience. If you live in Antony, you can't do things on a whim. I won't be able to wander in Paris at 3 am (as I frequently do, if I want to), for example.
Dec 28th, 2007, 08:09 AM
#36
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fully appreciate the intangible value of staying in the center of things. And also the monetary value. The thrust of Mr. Frommer's article is that you can stay longer in a place by conserving your lodging dollar. If cost is not an object, you don't have to do that.
But hang out around the shops and bistros? Suburb have those, too, you know.
Constrained by the train schedule? The RER runs every three or six minutes.
Any other spurious objections?
But hang out around the shops and bistros? Suburb have those, too, you know.
Constrained by the train schedule? The RER runs every three or six minutes.
Any other spurious objections?
Dec 28th, 2007, 08:23 AM
#37
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it's not a spurious objection if even you can appreciate this "intangible value."
In fact, the value is tangible -- it manifests itself in the price differential, as I've argued.
So these are not spurious objections. These are reasons, in fact, why things are more costly in the center in the first place.
Anyway, there're shops and bistros in the suburbs too. But then, there must be shops where you live in America. Why do you bother to travel to Paris in the first place?
If there's no difference Joel Robouchon would open his atelier in Antony. Why did he open in Paris instead? And in fact, why only certain select cities?
The point is -- there's a simply a difference!
And, anyway, I don't think that I'm an especially extravagant traveler. But I'd rather make some sacrifices and stay in the center. I don't think that they are major ones, personally, which is why I find Frommer's suggestions not terribly interesting (for me). As I said, there are other things he can write about I personally would find more useful.
In fact, the value is tangible -- it manifests itself in the price differential, as I've argued.
So these are not spurious objections. These are reasons, in fact, why things are more costly in the center in the first place.
Anyway, there're shops and bistros in the suburbs too. But then, there must be shops where you live in America. Why do you bother to travel to Paris in the first place?
If there's no difference Joel Robouchon would open his atelier in Antony. Why did he open in Paris instead? And in fact, why only certain select cities?
The point is -- there's a simply a difference!
And, anyway, I don't think that I'm an especially extravagant traveler. But I'd rather make some sacrifices and stay in the center. I don't think that they are major ones, personally, which is why I find Frommer's suggestions not terribly interesting (for me). As I said, there are other things he can write about I personally would find more useful.
Dec 28th, 2007, 08:26 AM
#38
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 9,232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know about everyone else, but living in suburban USA I spend ENOUGH time sitting in my car or subway or bus.
When I go on vacation I desperately want to WALK. Stroll, hike, walk...
And that's what I love about traveling to European cities.
When I go on vacation I desperately want to WALK. Stroll, hike, walk...
And that's what I love about traveling to European cities.
Dec 28th, 2007, 08:27 AM
#39
"But hang out around the shops and bistros? Suburb have those, too, you know." But not the same ones! And cafes won't have the same view. If you just want to visit the "sights" (museums, cathedrals, etc.), then staying in the suburbs makes sense. If you want to enjoy the ambiance, the feel of a place, staying in the center (or on the river, sea front, whatever) makes a difference.
