Dave_in_Paris

As a long-time Paris resident and occasional, traveler who will go long and far to enjoy exceptional lodging/and/or food(for example: www.hoteldecarantec.com or http://www.scottshotel.com/eng/) I'm puzzled by the number of posts that seem to insist on a hotel or other lodging within walking distance of the major sites, especially in a city like Paris, with superlative public transportation. It can't be simply that people enjoy walking; one can walk whenever and wherever one wants, regardless of where one is sleeping. So what is it?

RufusTFirefly

It seems pretty simple to me. Time is very important to some people. If you are already amidst the major sites, you don't have to spend time on public or private transportation.

Dave_in_Paris

I don't think it's quite that simple. Walking time from "major site" No. 1 to "major site" No. 2 in Paris may be longer than Metro a taxi time to either from a hotel that's a bit farther away.

StCirq

I think it's just people's way of saying they want to be in a central location. I always find it a bit peculiar too, though - how could one expect centuries of architects and city planners to lay out a city so that today's traveler can walk to everything? Gee, it's such a shame that Sacré Coeur is so far a walk from the Tour Eiffel - someone must have goofed!

But really, I think it's just that people want reassurance that their hotel isn't out in the boonies somewhere.

Ann41

I spent 3 days in Paris recently, hit the major sites, and walked to all of them. DH and I like to walk and don't want to bother with taxis or trains/subways unless absolutely necessary. The weather was beautiful, too, so why spend time cooped up in transport? It really is that simple.

Tallulah

I'll admit it, I'm just lazy!

AisleSeat

I have stayed in hotels in the middle of the tourist sites and ones that weren't. Aside from the ease of access I get the feeling of really being there, being in the place a I came to see. If I can step out of my hotel front door and within a few steps be able to see Notre Dame or the Trevi Fountain or Big Ben then I feel like I am where I came to be.

nytraveler

I think a lot of this is simply a first-timer's misconceptions about the size of a city. The same request always shows up for NYC - since most people don;t seem to understand that the "downtown" - not downtown NYC - but the generic name for the central area - runs miles in each direction. I believe they are thinking about their own small towns - where the central area may be 10 blocks by 10 blocks - and think that in a major city it is a little bigger.

(There was even one poster who wanted a hotel that overlooked both Notre Dame and the Eiffel tower if I recall - can't understand why these people don;t simply look at a map as a first step.)

Dave_in_Paris

Tallalah,

Lazy people take the Metro! Energetic people walk, and I salute them, though I still don't understand why they need to so so from their lodgings. St. Cirq's thought is a good one, though. That may be it.

ira

>...they are thinking about their own small towns - where the central area may be 10 blocks by 10 blocks...<

The central area of my small town is no larger than 2 blks by 2 blks.

Tallulah

Dave: I live in London and, believe me, half the time it's FAR less effort to walk than it is to deal with the tube!! Point taken, however!

RufusTFirefly

Dave--I disagree. If you are located where many of the major sights are located, you don't have to walk to the public transport, wait for the public transport, and then walk from the public transport to the sight.

Sure there will be times when a sight would take longer to get to walking than by public transport even if you stay in a central location, but then you can still opt to use public transport to get to that particular sight.

Dave_in_Paris

Rufus,

How about a test? The next time you're in town, we'll draw 10 "major sights" from a hat. You set out from your centrally located hotel and just "touch base" at all 10 of your sites by foot, and I'll do the same with the 10 I draw, setting out by bus/Metro/taxi from home in the "boondocks" -- the 11th arrondissement. Then we'll compare total time spent. Winner gets a meal in a restaurant of the loser's choice!

elaine

This raises good points, I was reminded of the issue of distances on my own recent return visit to Paris.
I stayed in a well-located hotel in the 6th, well-located in the sense that it was a 5-7 minute walk to the nearest metro (Odeon). We walked to restaurants in the 5th, even 20-25 minute walks were fine. Another day we walked from the Arc to rue Royale, an invigoratingly healthy walk. One evening we walked from Notre Dame back to our hotel, another good walk.

But, one evening as we were leaving the Orsay museum around closing time, I proposed to my friend that we walk back to our hotel along Boul St Germain, after all, we were 'only' walking from the 7th to the 6th. 30 minutes later we were still walking (not meandering, walking), and we were freezing. Around Brasserie Lipp we gave up and got a taxi. My point being that even adjacent areas can lead to very long walks indeed, and, exertion aside, a lot of time can be used up, especially if sightseeing time is a precious commodity, as Rufus mentioned earlier. So there ARE times I think when the metro is a significant timesaver,even when the hotel has a 'central' location.

Robespierre

I don't draw my points of interest from a hat, so I'm afraid Dave's method would't apply to me.

It is a matter of fact, not opinion, that it's <u>always</u> more economical to stay in accommodations away from the city center and commute to whatever area you want to visit. (Disregarding smokin' deals from priceline.com, naturally.) If you are willing to pay hundreds of dollars to avoid a ten-minute subway ride twice a day, this discussion doesn't apply to you.

If you want to maximize your sightseeing time, walking from place to place is sometimes the optimal choice. But only rarely. Figure out the bus system and you can save a few minutes here and a few minutes there, adding up to hours over a week's tour.

Not only that, but you simply <u>can't walk to everything</u>, so transit is going to enter the picture no matter where you sleep. Decide what's more important to you and make your choice.

It goes without saying that if you would rather walk, efficiency can't be debated.

RufusTFirefly

Dave--note that I did not exclude the use of public transportation in my scenario. Only that the starting point would be centrally located in my scenario.

Dave_in_Paris

Rufus,

We're veering toward agreement. Sometimes it's better to take a cab, bus or taxi, and sometimes it's better to walk. More broadly, I'm seeking to be a little provocative, and hoping to get folks thinking of Paris whole -- all 20 arrondissements of it. There are always tradeoffs in lodging; there is no perfect hotel. It's great to be centrally located, but it also can be great to have a wonderful room in a fine, upscale neighborhood that's a short Metro ride away from most major sights -- especially if the price is right. For example, I invite you to look at the following hotel, a three-minute walk from the Port Maillot, actually outside Paris -- just. We stayed there in November. (Why, since we live here? Believe it or not, because we wanted to watch CNN, which we don't have at home.) But more to the point, because their top-line suite, booked through Rates To Go, was a fabulous deal at 230 euros. Do take a look. And I rest my case, such as it is.

http://www.lavillamaillot.fr

Happy travels.

Dave

Travelnut

Ah, let 'em stay in the central area hotels, keeps the prices down for the rest of us

Dave_in_Paris

And Robespierre, your point is very-well-taken, too. The Hotel Cosmos, at 35 rue Jean-Pierre Timbaud in the 11th arrondissement, has top-price rooms with private baths at 55 euros a night. It's a fine, small, family-run hotel, often used by European tour groups, with an elevator to the 5th floor, in a lively neigboorhood with loads of restaurants nearby, including the classic, affordable Astier just across the street. Eight minutes to the Seine by Metro. It doesn't get much better, or more economical, than that!

Robespierre

No, thanks. I'd rather pay $250-$300 for something really classy - the sort of thing that costs $500 &quot;within walking distance of the major sights.&quot;