Christina |
Jan 31st, 2001 01:41 PM |
I always find that a funny term, myself, as if tourists are automatically supposed to stay in dumps compared to the better classes. I have found that generally it is tour brochure lingo for a two-star hotel (in France); I don't know the Italian hotel star system to know what that compares to (I think they have more stars, though, so it may be like a 3-star Italian hotel, not sure on that), but suffice it to say, it is what I would call a step below average accommodations--"budget" is another generic term for this quality. They are gen. adequate, but nothing special and nothing that really feels very "nice"; often cheaply decorated and with cheap, modern furniture and decor; bathrooms can be small and cheap, and sometimes prefab. Sometimes tours throw in a slightly higher quality hotel on such tours (ie, a 3-star in France), but they will be on the cheaper end of that class and in cheaper neighborhoods, which usu. means not central. Now, I took a budget TWA tour once thru England, Scotland and Ireland, and one of the hotels was absolutely charming (in Edinburgh), a small, renovated townhouse; and one was a very nice inn in the Lake District, but the others were cheaper rooms in large 3-starish hotels, the one in Dublin was out of center and sort of like a Holiday Inn in style, but that didn't bother me too much as there was a bus line right outside the door and I was saving a lot of money on that option vs the "first-class" option (which is usually what they call the other category). None of the hotels on that budget TWA tour were terrible or could be described as sad; they were all probably better than most French 2-star hotels. The Galileo is a 3-star.
|