apersuader65

Please remember, Arthur Frommer, and in my opinion, Robespierre, offer advice to save you money. Robespierre goes on to counter some of the obvious objections to staying away from the central district.
As some posters don't find Frommer's advice, or that of Robespierre, helpful, it appears based upon a value judgment. The sacrafice of staying in the city is one of money. If you don't have the money to sacrafice, you can stay at home, or, following the advice, you can go see Paris. The advice of a method to save 700 dollars seems to be good advice, and most of the criticism of the advice appears to be based upon the premise that if you had to stay outside central paris, it wouldn't be worth going to Paris. Your choice. People who dream of going to Paris, but don't have the extra 700 to stay in central Paris should be heartened to know that it is possible.

Sure there is some value to staying centrally located. However, I believe Robespierre, and certainly Arthur Frommer are talking about budget vacations. Budget is the key, if the savings of 700 dollars for lodging alone in one week is the difference between a vacation to Paris instead of Hoboken, by all means, stay outside the central district.

WillTravel

If it were true that you were going to save $700, there might be some merit to these claims. But it's quite possible to have good lodging in a reasonably central location in Paris for $100 USD/day, in which case it would be impossible to save $700 by going to a suburb.

Robespierre

Let me know where I can bed down my family of five for $100 in central Paris. I bet I wouldn't want to stay there.

Corollary: <i>In Lodging, there is Cheap, Clean (or Capacious), and Central. Choose two.</i>

111op

I agree with WillTravel entirely (thanks for such a succint, cogent summary).

In fact, WillTravel is frequently able to spend about 50% of what I spend on a trip and stay in central locations that I've always wondered how it's possible.

It leaves me flabbergasted.

But then, really I don't feel so bad. I know that part of that is because my schedule is not as flexible as hers. (I'd not want to admit that I lack her resourcefulness.)

I bet WillTravel can write a more interesting article than what Frommer came up with.

kerouac

People who stay in the 6th arrondissement get the rates that they deserve. This is incontestable. If Americans remain happy to continue rushing to Saint Germain des Pr&eacute;s, that is absolutely fine with me, as long as they don't complain about the price afterwards. They can have the 7th arrondissement, too, while they're at it.

WillTravel

Without bothering to look it up, if I were in a rush to find cheap, central Paris lodging for a family of five, I'd look for the Ibis 49-Euro deals, and book two rooms. Hopefully at least one member of the party would be under 12, in which case all is well. So that would be 98 Euros (so over the $100 USD mark), but that's just off the top of my head, and maybe I could do better if I really had to look. I could have gotten the Ibis Fauborg St. Antoine on rue Trousseau for my dates for 49 Euros per night, if I had wanted to do so. The other option that comes quickly to mind is Hotel Saint Marie in the 2nd.

thursdaysd

Of course, you could always decide to skip London or Paris altogether and still have a wonderful vacation. I grew up in England, and it would never have occurred to us to spend our holidays in London! We went to places like Cornwall or Kent or the Isle of Wight, but a foreign visitor could have a good time in Bath and Oxford and York, for instance. In France you could visit Provence instead of Paris, or Lyons or Alsace, in Italy go for the south or the Dolomites instead of Rome.

Some whole countries are cheaper - Austria or Portugal instead of England or France or Italy. Or continents, for that matter - South America or Asia instead of Europe. But having tried it both ways, if I decide to visit London or Paris again, I'll stay somewhere central. And if I had to find room for five people, I'd look for an apartment, not a hotel.

111op

Out of curiosity, I'm wondering -- what kind of family of 5 is this? Is it two parents + 3 kids? How old are these kids?

And if it's possible to house these five people in Anthony at $100 = 70 euros or so, how is this actually accomplished?

Didn't someone tell me that having kids is costly? If one is looking for value, why didn't you have two kids instead of three? (Just kidding. )

Robespierre

Frommer's number was $100 a day in savings - with his example. This does not automatically equate to $100 vs. $200.

WillTravel

The point is that Frommer's example is not a very good one.

111op

I'm still looking for the answer about how to house five in Antony for 100 dollars.

This is Frommer's example: &quot;[T]hey stay in Vert Galant, a suburb near Charles de Gaulle Airport, where 60&euro; a night (about $100) bought a fine double room with full buffet breakfast each morning for two persons.... Generally speaking, the couple choosing Vert Galant for their accommodations will save about $100 a day, or $700 over the entire week....&quot;

I agree it's not a very good example. With some (small) sacrifices, I bet you can stay in central Paris for less than $100 extra per day.

For example, one small sacrifice: breakfast.

In any case, Frommer didn't make any claims about a family of five, as far as I can see. (Do Ctrl-F on that page and Windows can't find the word &quot;family.&quot

111op

By the way, the $100 a day was a claim. It really wasn't an example.

We have no idea what room in Paris Frommer used as a comparison to the one near CDG.

There's a bit of poetic license here. To evaluate this claim fully he'd need to come up with a room in Paris and say, this is what I have in mind. Then people would be able to say, how about this other room instead? It will only cost you $50 (say) extra.

thursdaysd

And for some of us, skipping breakfast is not a sacrifice. At home I breakfast on OJ and coffee, and I resent having to pay for breakfast on the road.

apersuader65

Where do you get a free breakfast at home?

WillTravel

With the Ibis example I gave above, a buffet breakfast costs 8 Euros per person (half-price for children). So if a couple that booked a 49-Euro Ibis room wanted to have breakfast each day, then their cost jumps to 65 Euros per day.

So 65 Euros per day in the 11th arrondisement, versus 60 Euros per day in some suburb somewhere near CDG.

apersuader65

And, I assume, that the Ibis room you are mentioning is comparable in size and quality to the imagined one in Vert Galant?

apersuader65

Additionally, the Ibis in the 11th is a 34 minute metro ride to the Eiffel Tower - per transillien.com anyway. So much for staying in central paris

111op

For me I opt to skip breakfast unless it's been included. If I can skip breakfast and save money off the room's rate usually I elect to do that.

It's not worth the extra cost for me -- maybe even at 8 euros. But once in a while I do choose this option if I feel that I may otherwise starve (because frequently I end up skipping lunches if I move in a very fast-paced manner).

To get really argumentative, actually I can get free breakfast at my workplace, if I choose to do so. So &quot;at home&quot; breakfast would technically be free, in fact.

It goes back to what I was saying. Different people will value different things differently. But the fact is, most people see value in a central location, and paying more is worth it. Otherwise these things would not cost more in the first place.

What makes Frommer's argument even weaker is that you can indeed find budget locations in big cities without sacrificing very much.

apersuader65

Sorry, that's transilien.com - one l.

WillTravel

Yes, but the Ibis in the 11th is in the middle of a Paris neighborhood, with old-style Paris buildings, and walkable to a bunch of Right Bank sights. No, it's not particularly close to the Eiffel Tower, not that I would consider that a huge drawback.