"Within walking distance of the major sights"
Feb 1st, 2005, 06:55 AM
#41
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Further than that, walking is a waste of time."
To some of us, there is no point arguing with an attitude like that. To me walking is THE best use of time I have in all of Europe. Whether it's simply looking at the architecture, the people, the store windows, or absorbing the language as you read signs and notices. I have often walked from Odeon to Arch di Triomphe or to Bastille or even to Republique, sometimes taking the better part of the day, and for me it IS NOT a waste of my time over taking the metro. Fortunately when I spend a week in Paris, I do not worry about "time saving". And I sometimes feel sorry for those who go there and have to figure out how to save the most time. Very sad.
To some of us, there is no point arguing with an attitude like that. To me walking is THE best use of time I have in all of Europe. Whether it's simply looking at the architecture, the people, the store windows, or absorbing the language as you read signs and notices. I have often walked from Odeon to Arch di Triomphe or to Bastille or even to Republique, sometimes taking the better part of the day, and for me it IS NOT a waste of my time over taking the metro. Fortunately when I spend a week in Paris, I do not worry about "time saving". And I sometimes feel sorry for those who go there and have to figure out how to save the most time. Very sad.
Feb 1st, 2005, 06:57 AM
#42
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<And I sometimes feel sorry for those who go there and have to figure out how to save the most time. Very sad.>>
Oops -- well, I do that all the time because my time is so limited. I guess I can't take the multi-month vacations you can, unfortunately.
I guess this thread, like a lot of others, just goes to show that people have very different tastes.
Oops -- well, I do that all the time because my time is so limited. I guess I can't take the multi-month vacations you can, unfortunately.
I guess this thread, like a lot of others, just goes to show that people have very different tastes.
Feb 1st, 2005, 07:23 AM
#44
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no issue with the psychological dimension that staying in the city center provides. It's fun.
I only wish to point out something that many seem to overlook - that there's a monetary cost associated with that experience. It's not for me to say whether or not it's worth it to you.
The idea that it's more convenient is demonstrably false. Saving time is not a valid rationale for staying near the center.
Also, using your time efficiently is not a question of rushing around at a breakneck pace - it's a matter of getting value from one's investment in time and money. The less time you consume getting from one place to another, the more time you have to sit and feed the birds in Holland Park or have a second <i>pression</i> at that little bistro.
I only wish to point out something that many seem to overlook - that there's a monetary cost associated with that experience. It's not for me to say whether or not it's worth it to you.
The idea that it's more convenient is demonstrably false. Saving time is not a valid rationale for staying near the center.
Also, using your time efficiently is not a question of rushing around at a breakneck pace - it's a matter of getting value from one's investment in time and money. The less time you consume getting from one place to another, the more time you have to sit and feed the birds in Holland Park or have a second <i>pression</i> at that little bistro.
Feb 1st, 2005, 07:30 AM
#46
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Saving time is not a valid rationale for staying near the center.>>
I think that this is such a strong statement that one is forced to disagree.
It'd be interesting to do an A/B comparison of this, I think. Perhaps we can convince Fodors to sponsor some trips for us. I volunteer to stay in the city center. You can stay outside the center. We'll have Fodors give us an itinerary that we'll need to get through.
There've been studies of a similar nature published in the Times before (best way to travel between Boston and NYC -- plane or train or ...; crosstown bus vs. walking, etc.).
If people's minds are made up then the only way is to do a (limited) scientific study, and I'm willing to fly to Paris for an important undertaking of this nature.
Fodors? And by the way I don't need to be put up at the Crillon -- Hotel Tiquetonne is fine, thanks, and it's probably cheaper than a hotel you can find in the suburbs anyway.
I think that this is such a strong statement that one is forced to disagree.
It'd be interesting to do an A/B comparison of this, I think. Perhaps we can convince Fodors to sponsor some trips for us. I volunteer to stay in the city center. You can stay outside the center. We'll have Fodors give us an itinerary that we'll need to get through.
There've been studies of a similar nature published in the Times before (best way to travel between Boston and NYC -- plane or train or ...; crosstown bus vs. walking, etc.).
If people's minds are made up then the only way is to do a (limited) scientific study, and I'm willing to fly to Paris for an important undertaking of this nature.
Fodors? And by the way I don't need to be put up at the Crillon -- Hotel Tiquetonne is fine, thanks, and it's probably cheaper than a hotel you can find in the suburbs anyway.
Feb 1st, 2005, 08:43 AM
#47
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do the math.
Let X = the price of the downtown accommodation.
Let Y = the price of the less central hotel.
Let Z = the number of nights you will be staying.
Then W = (X - Y) * Z
If you think W is a good price to pay for being closer to The Action, then knock yourself out. Maybe it's $50, or it could be $1000. Your call.
In a city like London, your sightseeing travel will take the same length of time (within a very small margin) whether you stay in Bayswater, Kensington, or Lambeth.
Let X = the price of the downtown accommodation.
Let Y = the price of the less central hotel.
Let Z = the number of nights you will be staying.
Then W = (X - Y) * Z
If you think W is a good price to pay for being closer to The Action, then knock yourself out. Maybe it's $50, or it could be $1000. Your call.
In a city like London, your sightseeing travel will take the same length of time (within a very small margin) whether you stay in Bayswater, Kensington, or Lambeth.
Feb 1st, 2005, 08:53 AM
#48
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, let's take Hotel Tiquetonne as an example. I'm perfectly comfortable with it, and it's 50 Euros a night for a double.
Of course I cheated by comparing apples with oranges -- Tiquetonne either has one star or no star. Still, it's not a bad hotel and perfectly reasonable. What would you be able to get for that price in an outer arrondissement? Would it be at the Crillon level? If not, does it really matter?
And what about the use of Priceline for London (not that I've used it myself)?
You're presenting an argument as if your way is the <i> only </i> way, which I find really unpalatable.
A fairer comparision would be something like this -- given a budget of W, how would one allocate the W in terms of accommodation, food, sightseeing, shopping, cab costs, and other intangibles (like convenience, time, etc.).
You're presenting the issue as if it's truly black and white, and it's not.
Two people can allocate W into A, B, C, D, E in many different ways, and each person can be perfectly happy.
I'm just telling you that I happen to prefer the city center, and I've given you the reasons why, and I'm not sure if you've convinced me as to why I'm irrational or stupid.
Of course I cheated by comparing apples with oranges -- Tiquetonne either has one star or no star. Still, it's not a bad hotel and perfectly reasonable. What would you be able to get for that price in an outer arrondissement? Would it be at the Crillon level? If not, does it really matter?
And what about the use of Priceline for London (not that I've used it myself)?
You're presenting an argument as if your way is the <i> only </i> way, which I find really unpalatable.
A fairer comparision would be something like this -- given a budget of W, how would one allocate the W in terms of accommodation, food, sightseeing, shopping, cab costs, and other intangibles (like convenience, time, etc.).
You're presenting the issue as if it's truly black and white, and it's not.
Two people can allocate W into A, B, C, D, E in many different ways, and each person can be perfectly happy.
I'm just telling you that I happen to prefer the city center, and I've given you the reasons why, and I'm not sure if you've convinced me as to why I'm irrational or stupid.
Feb 1st, 2005, 08:56 AM
#49
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know, never mind. You did say it's my call. I should have deleted the previous message.
But ok, if my sole objective for my trip is to see Beaubourg, then Tiquetonne would still be the perfect choice. It beats taking the Metro.
But ok, if my sole objective for my trip is to see Beaubourg, then Tiquetonne would still be the perfect choice. It beats taking the Metro.
Feb 1st, 2005, 09:31 AM
#50
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To veer away from the logistical dispute for just a moment, could it be "remotely" possible that there are unique and wonderful things to see and do in the "boondocks" of Paris that repeat visitors to the 5th and 6th are missing?
Feb 1st, 2005, 09:41 AM
#51
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,749
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point, Dave, but as a repeat visitor, I'd still prefer staying central and visiting a different "boondock" each day, which I often do, rather than stay in one "boondock" for the whole trip. I like the idea of staying central and maybe taking the metro out to one of those areas and walking there to experience it and see what's what, but that doesn't mean that's where I'd like to stay for a week.
Feb 1st, 2005, 09:57 AM
#52
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reflecting on my too short experience in Paris, I'm glad we stayed in a central location and mostly walked. Because, for us, getting to the sight/site was half the fun. I didn't see many sidewalk cafes and patisseries along the way the few times we took the Metro.
Feb 1st, 2005, 09:58 AM
#53
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Patrick,
How did the lyrics of that song of several decades ago -- "Out in the Boondocks - go? As you know, or suspect,I've been hunkered down in the "beasts on the edge of the map" part of Paris approximately forever., and for me, it's the best. But it takes all kinds of visitors with all kinds of time frames and all kinds of tastes to help raise up Paris and love it properly, if that's possible -- just like it takes all 20 arrondissements to make it the great city that it is! A chaqu'un son gout! And above all, enjoy.
How did the lyrics of that song of several decades ago -- "Out in the Boondocks - go? As you know, or suspect,I've been hunkered down in the "beasts on the edge of the map" part of Paris approximately forever., and for me, it's the best. But it takes all kinds of visitors with all kinds of time frames and all kinds of tastes to help raise up Paris and love it properly, if that's possible -- just like it takes all 20 arrondissements to make it the great city that it is! A chaqu'un son gout! And above all, enjoy.
Feb 1st, 2005, 10:06 AM
#54
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, beachbum, to be fair - there are plenty of patisserie and tabac opportunities between the Métro stations and your destinations. How many can you stand, after all?
Not only that, but on the bus, you get exposed to a lot more possibilities even than when walking, with the added benefit of not having that "forced march" feeling after a few days.
Not only that, but on the bus, you get exposed to a lot more possibilities even than when walking, with the added benefit of not having that "forced march" feeling after a few days.
Feb 1st, 2005, 10:32 AM
#55
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a fact that 'central' means central. If a hotel is central (the single-digit arrondissements for example), then it is by definition closer to the central sites.
(or sights)
If I can reach the Louvre by foot, metro, or bus in 20-40 minutes then I am closer to it by definition of distance or time or time-space continuum than I would be if the trip from the 'boondocks' takes 40-60 minutes.
Now, whether or not having a shorter travel time is something to be sought after, that's something else again. For me, when my time is limited (as it always has been), I do want central.
What I don't expect is that 'central' means being in comfortable or time-sensitive walking distance to <u>everything.</u>
(or sights)
If I can reach the Louvre by foot, metro, or bus in 20-40 minutes then I am closer to it by definition of distance or time or time-space continuum than I would be if the trip from the 'boondocks' takes 40-60 minutes.
Now, whether or not having a shorter travel time is something to be sought after, that's something else again. For me, when my time is limited (as it always has been), I do want central.
What I don't expect is that 'central' means being in comfortable or time-sensitive walking distance to <u>everything.</u>
Feb 1st, 2005, 10:39 AM
#56
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 19,000
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If I can reach the Louvre by foot, metro, or bus in 20-40 minutes then I am closer to it by definition of distance or time or time-space continuum than I would be if the trip from the 'boondocks' takes 40-60 minutes."
Well, duh.
Well, duh.
Feb 1st, 2005, 10:40 AM
#57
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Robespierre,
I should have been less specific. As it turned out, we learned we could "stand" quite a number of cafes, patisseries, galleries, fromageries, boulangeries, and whatever else might have diverted our attention along the way. And as a result, I believe we had more the Paris experience we were seeking than had we taken the Metro or ridden a bus.
I should have been less specific. As it turned out, we learned we could "stand" quite a number of cafes, patisseries, galleries, fromageries, boulangeries, and whatever else might have diverted our attention along the way. And as a result, I believe we had more the Paris experience we were seeking than had we taken the Metro or ridden a bus.
Feb 1st, 2005, 10:51 AM
#58
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We typically stay at the 'edge' of things but try to stay close to transportation. In Paris, we typically stay in the Bastille area & love it there. Conversely, in Munich, we have a lovely Hotel that we stay in right by the main train station. It is best explained as usually a mix between cost, location & the availability of transportation.
