RufusTFirefly

We enjoy the smaller, family-run hotels, too. As long as they have air conditioning in the summer. And we don't usually stay in the midst of the tourist center in a big city--however, I do understand why someone might want to do so.

rex

On another thread, it was clear that Robespierre and I were engaged in an argument about whether centrally located hotels were a better fit for some "hypothetical" (first-time - - an assumption perhaps not shared between us) traveler to such major city destinations as Rome, Florence or Venice. The contrarian position was that the "commute time" for hotels located away from the centr was rarely a burden, and an overlooked cost-savings.

Have I summarized the difference in our positions accurately, R?

In my final posting on that thread, I concluded that were too many variables in "city X" - - not too mention too many different points on the spectrum of travelers who value money versus time/convenience - - and that further arguing could only be meaningful comparing spcifics: hotel X vx Y in city Z for a given traveler, with n number of days/nights, and a specific budget range as well as defined objectives.

Given all that, I would agree that walking access to "major sights" wouldn't be very important, in my book, in Paris specifically. In Florence or Salzburg or Brugge, it might.

Best wishes,

Rex

mamc

I think each traveler has a preference. There is not a "one size fits all" solution. We normally stay "within walking distance of the major sights". However, on a trip to Rome about 15 years ago, we stayed in a lovely hotel far from the city center. We were not happy with that trip to Rome and didn't know precisely why. And we didn't visit Rome on our next 2 trips to Italy. Three years ago, we returned and loved it and finally realized it was because we were staying in a very central area - near the Pantheon. I guess that means we prefer staying in the think of things. To each his own.

Christina

This is a common request, and often makes no sense in many cities. I live in Wash DC and often see posts on Fodors about people who want a hotel within walking distance of all the museums and the monuments. The fact that the distance between the Supreme Court building and the Lincoln Memorial may be close to two miles doesn't occur to them, nor do they bother to look it up. I think sometimes they really think it's like Disneyland or something -- that cities were just built to have nice little small areas with all the attractions right there in one place.

I think it's sort of like wanting to be sure you're in a central area, but more than that, as they are often specific about the being able to walk to things rather than saying that. I think sometimes it's because they are afraid that the public transportation system may be complicated or they won't be able to figure it out and they are concerned about that, and thus want to know they'll be able to walk to things without worrying about how to figure out how to ride an underground system, especially if signs etc are in foreign languages.

TravelsWithStDavid

I hate to jump into the middle of a private argument, but there are a few things everyone seems to be overlooking. Sometimes the weather is inclement and walking is not an option. Think Venice during the high water. I have walked across benches to enter St. Mark's, but was happy to return to my hotel to change shoes.
Sometimes you don't want to go to the same place as the person you are traveling with; a central location makes it easier to regroup.
Or, some of us, who are early risers, travel with those who like to sleep in. Once again, it is easier to meet up with them if your hotel is centrally located.

Intrepid1

Please let everyone know when the day arrives that you can get EVERYONE HERE TO AGREE on the definition of "within walking distance."

Until then I would tend to agree it is a euphemism for "not out in the boonies" and that's about all it is.

Robespierre

That depends on your definition of "out in the boonies."

<i>DC al fine</i>

Dave_in_Paris

&quot;Paris is full of wonders smaller than the Eiffel Tower and far off the guidebook path.&quot;

rex

&lt;&lt;I think sometimes it's because they are afraid that the public transportation system may be complicated or they won't be able to figure it out and they are concerned about that&gt;&gt;

There is still a widespread belief/perception (among Americans) that using public transportation is consideranly less appealing than what &quot;we&quot; know and use everyday: our cars and free places to park. For so much of where &quot;we&quot; live - - in rural, small town and suburban America, these notions are a mix of prejudice and just the plain truth: public transportation is slower, a hassle, and is generally much more &quot;class mixed&quot; than the world we encounter in our cars.

So, armed with the knowledge that moving around in cars, with free parking, won't work in so many vacation destinations, there is a desire to cling to the mode &quot;we&quot; know second best: walking. The fact that it is <i>slower, a hassle, and (just as) &quot;class mixed&quot;</i> (than public transportation) gets relatively dismissed, at least until we get there. Even then, &quot;we&quot; rationalize that walking is to be preferred for many routes - - to be able to see places up close and personal, especially on an impulse. And we figure it's a welcome change from a more sedentary, more rat-race-y lifestyle from which we are vacationing.

Judy

I have to agree with TravelsWithStDavid.

My husband and I enjoy walking, usually 4-5 miles a day at home, but also use public transportation without trauma. We don't necessarily like to do everything together and a centrally located hotel gives us a place to meet (and a place for me to drop off packages if I've been shopping.)

That convenience, for us, is worth a little more costly stay.

111op

I think that it's probably more important to pick the neighborhood you like, and I do think that a central neighborhood is quite crucial.

And I think that the cab becomes much more feasible if you stay in &quot;the center of town,&quot; however that's defined. You could stay in an arrondissement further out, but then cab costs would be more expensive, and your only option is the Metro.

Also, if I'm going to stay out late at night, the Metro will stop running at a certain point. If I'm in a central location I can walk home or take a cab. I don't want to be out until 2 in the morning and worry if I can make it back to my hotel easily.

I don't think that a couple of Metro stops can be ignored so easily -- there's a certain psychological effect, and the central location has a certain cachet.

Take NYC, where I live, for example. For a very long time, Brooklyn and Queens always seem far. But that's changing because the prices in the city have reached such stratospheric levels. Though Willamsburg (in Brooklyn, for example) is only one stop from the E. Village on the L train, it's only become hip within the past ten years. And, if you live in Willamsburg, cabs are scare and you must use car service or rely on the L train.

So, in NYC, where the subway system pretty much gets you wherever you want to go, location is still everything, not just for tourists but also for the people who actually live here. The same argument can be applied to a city like Paris (which admittedly, I don't know as well) or London.

Robespierre

That's nothing new. The cabs downtown have always been scare.

Let me tell you sometime about a cab ride from LaGuardia to JFK the afternoon the Mets won the pennant.

hopingtotravel

Well, I'm one of 'those'. Having been raised on the west coast, I'm afraid I have a 'thing' about subways. I will (and have) take(en) taxis. However, they are expensive. I do take buses occasionally, but they aren't always much fun. There's also some truth to the 'can't figure out the system'. I will have really limited time in Paris and I just don't want to spend it that way. I have friends who say that fears of terrorism cause them to avoid public transit in foreign countries. So, to each his own.

cigalechanta

This reminds me of the post wwhen someone said, not seriously, maybe wistfully, that too bad all the paintings and statues the poster wanted to see in the Louvre were not in one room.

Robespierre

&quot;There's also some truth to the 'can't figure out the system'.&quot;

In my experience, that's a really strange statement to make. I've never noticed anything about public transport systems that needed any &quot;figuring out.&quot;

One determines which stop or station one wants to go to, and gets on the bus or train that goes there.

To me, bus and subway systems don't require any more &quot;figuring out&quot; than airline schedules. You buy a ticket for your destination and go to the correct gate.

This is not rocket science.

111op

Well, ok, Robespierre -- but that special day is not representative.

I do grant you that in a place like NYC, it can be difficult to get a cab during rush hour. But then this underlines the argument even more -- if they're not an option, one can still walk or take the subway. But if you're further out, your only option is the subway. If you live in Williamsburg, and your only train option is the L, and it's not running for some reason, you're screwed. You either have to use the J/M/Z or take a bus and switch.

And that's technically one stop away from Manhattan.

So location is everything.

Patrick

There are a whole lot of valid points above, and I don't think there is one reason that applies to all.

I have one major problem with a hotel that is &quot;out in the suburbs&quot; where you need to take public transportation. When I stay in the 5th or 6th, I can walk to D'Orsay in the morning. Maybe at noon I'll head back to the hotel or apt. and change clothes -- that long sleeve shirt is not too heavy for the afternoon, or I'll change to shorts and go jogging in Luxembourg Gardens. Then afterwards, I'll want to take a shower, so head back to the hotel and change again. Maybe I want to rest awhile before heading out in the afternoon. Maybe I'd like to do casual drinks in the late afternoon, before returning to the hotel to change for dinner as that night we're going to a very dressy place. When dinner is over, it's nicer to take a pleasant stroll back to the hotel instead of getting on a brightly lit metro car.

I don't like having to make &quot;a day trip&quot; into the city. I want to be able to hop back and forth to my hotel or apartment at leisure. I like feeling I'm in the midst of things.

And as someone above said, &quot;I like staying in the midst of what I came there to see.&quot;

111op

Exactly, Patrick. I'll use NYC as an example again. A friend lives in Inwood, which is not &quot;the suburbs,&quot; but it's basically the last stop on the A train. It'd take forty minutes for him to get in, and he always says that once he's out he'll have to be out the whole day.

Granted, the Paris distances are shorter but the same reasoning applies.

Robespierre

When you &quot;head back to the hotel,&quot; you can either do it on foot or on wheels.

On foot, you can go a mile in 15 minutes. Further than that, walking is a waste of time.

On bus or subway, you can go 10 miles in 15 minutes. It still takes a half-hour to do the round-trip to change your shirt or whatever.

Staying &quot;in the middle of things&quot; is a laudable goal, I suppose, but unless you restrict your activities to the block your hotel is in, you're kidding yourself that it's faster.

111op

Well, there's also the psychological feeling, as I mentioned.

Honestly, I wish that more people thought like you, Robespierre. If so, then you wouldn't have Rupert Murdoch buying a 45 million dollar apartment on 5th Avenue (granted, that's now been topped by another tycoon in the Hamptons) or prices topping $1000/sq foot in Manhattan these days (with the average price of an apartment now over a million). If prices in the city crashed, I could actually afford the stratospheric prices.

After all, I could just tell all these poeple -- why stay in Manhattan, because you can just take the train in? It's really just as close. And don't you know that crosstown traffice between the East and West sides of town can take 40 minutes? You could commute to Yonkers in that time. I think you shouldn't bother with Manhattan.

Did I say location is everything?