elaine

duh?
Now there's a devastatingly clever reply.

I was responding, among other things to the following comments found above:


<"It is a matter of fact, not opinion, that it's always more economical to stay in accommodations away from the city center and commute to whatever area you want to visit... 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.">

<"Staying "in the middle of things" 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.>

Perhaps rather than 'duh', one can ask,
"Huh?"
I don't pay hundreds of dollars or euro to avoid a subway ride. I pay for the hotel I want to have, and what I want to have is central. If you do not care to be centrally-located that's fine. But central IS faster, at least with regard to the places I want to visit. If it weren't faster, it wouldn't be central.

But there's nothing like insulting someone in an otherwise reasonable debate to make some feel they must be right and that others must be wrong.

Robespierre

"I don't pay hundreds of dollars or euro to avoid a subway ride."

Central costs more. It doesn't matter whether you want it because you want it, or because you don't want to ride the subway. You pay the premium anyway.

Yeah, you're right, 40 <u>is</u> greater than 20. I surrender. Although I don't know anyone who suggested staying in Rungis.

mjs

I am going to put my vote in for staying in a central location when visiting a large city as a tourist. I do not always follow this rule when I travel on business but when I travel for pleasure I find a good location for your hotel or apartment makes the visit a whole lot better. I do agree that it can abit more costly but time is expensive for me as I am self employed and vacation time costs me overhead plus lost wages plus travel costs..
Now if you are the type of person who likes to travel by leaving your lodgings in the morning and return late in the evening after spending the whole day plus dinner touring than I agree that location of lodging may not be a big issue. I, like may others like to explore a city on foot and find the journey to be often times as interesting as the destination. If you draw a circle of 1 to 2 miles around a central lodging location you would be amazed as to how much territory this covers. We also like to pop back into our hotel sometimes during the day to refresh or drop off purchases. We almost always return before dinner. Generally we eat in our apartment or dine nearby as we are often too tired to make a commute somewhere else in the city to eat. We therefore like staying somewhere where there are alot of restaurants or other food possibilities as well as night life. Commuting in from a more distant location almost always takes at least 30 minutes or more in one direction which means your round trip is an hour. My experience suggests that it takes at least 10 to 15 minutes to walk to the subway, get to the platform and wait for the train. Add another say 15 minutes train time and 5 to 10 minutes to get from the subway stop to your destination and you will find this adds up to alot of time if you do it more than one round trip per day.
I also agree that this is part psychological but would like to point out that this psychology in my opinion also works at home. When I lived in cities I would often do simple things which were a 5 to 20 minute walk but there is a barrier of some sort when you start thinking about going by car, taxi, subway, bus etc. This is compounded when you have a group of people as there is always someone who would rather keep things simple and close to home. I find this psychological barrier to be true in the country as well for if it is a short drive its no problem but when you get to 30+ minutes it is a bigger deal. In short I find that I tend to spend alot of time nearby where I stay so I try to find my lodgings in a area I find interesting.

Travelnut

I agree for a first-time visitor that staying 'central' is more appealing and easier. Once a visitor has been a few times and seen all those 'must-sees', I think some might enjoy a different experience.

For us, the issue isn't convenience. We like staying at a small hotel that is not in the 'thick of things'. It feels more restful to have a 'true' neighborhood to explore, with a lower ratio of tourists to locals. The shops and restaurants are less weary and often surprised to see us. We are pressed to use French a bit more. I find the sight-seeing center to be quite hectic after enjoying it all day, and it is a relief and delight to go 'home' for the evening. We may return to the hotel once during the day but not always, and our ride from the nearest metro to St Germain is about 15 minutes, not a big deal to me.

I consider the very central hotels to be relatively more expensive yet still with their little flaws; I'm happy to pay less for those little flaws and most likely have a quieter night as well.

I think this thread clearly shows there are two camps; just like there are planners and wingers

Jocelyn_P

I don't think it's that black and white as to say there are two camps. I do it both ways, depending on where we're going and what we'd like to get out of that particular visit. There are clearly advantages and disadvantages to both, and I like to mix it up. For me, when I'm staying central, I feel like a tourist, and when I stay further out in the suburbs, I feel like a wanna-be resident. I enjoy both experiences.

Keren

Travelnut, I feel the same about Paris.
I've already stayed in the 9th, 11th, 12th and 13th (loved all locations except the 11th, was too close to R&eacute;publique, which I'm not crazy about. Next time I'll try to go further into the 11th ) and will stay in the 17th in April. I like the feeling of staying in a residential area rather than a touristy one and like to pay less for accommodation.
Dave in Paris - you're absolutely right, there's so much more to Paris than the 5th-7th arrondissements. I've had lovely walks in almost all arrondissements and I like staying in a different part of town each time. I always use the M&eacute;tro, because I like the experience and because I can't really walk from Gobelins to Canal St Martin to Belleville, for example. I walk all day exploring these areas, I love using the M&eacute;tro to get to all of them.

Robespierre

Just doing the math here -

&quot;If you draw a circle of 1 to 2 miles around a central lodging location you would be amazed as to how much territory this covers.&quot;

The average walking pace is 4mph. Therefore it takes an hour to walk to the periphery of your 2-mile circle and back, and the <i>average</i> journey is 1/2 hour.

&quot;...it takes at least 10 to 15 minutes to walk to the subway...&quot;

If your hotel is a mile from the nearest station, you didn't do your homework.

&quot;...and 5 to 10 minutes to get from the subway stop to your destination...&quot;

Well, actually no. It takes that long only if you insist on walking, which I don't (in the typical case).

It's one thing to prefer the center of town for its own sake, and quite another to make up preposterous numbers to show that it's somehow more efficient.

hopingtotravel

There is validity to the comment from the person who likes to &quot;mix it up&quot;. In 2001 we spent 3 days in the tourist heart of Dublin--being tourists. At the end of our 2 week driving trip, we were stranded in Ireland for a week because of 9/11. We stayed much more cheaply in a neighborhood a bus ride from the center of town and enjoyed walking around to the small pubs, grocery stores, parks, etc, talking to locals and feeling part of the neighborhood.

WillTravel

I would be interested to know how much cheaper out-of-center accommodation is. For example, in most popular cities in continental Europe, it's possible to find an adequate single room with breakfast for 40-60 Euros, in the center. How much cheaper can you get an adequate single room outside the center for? In general, I don't think there's much to save, if you're at the low end of the budget scale.

Dave_in_Paris

Well, for example, you can get an &quot;adequate&quot; room in the Hotel Cosmos, on rue Jean Pierre Timbaud, for 55 euros per night. It's a perfectly respectable, family-run hotel, with in the lodging bathrooms, clean and friendly, and with elevator, that often is booked by small European tour groups. It also is in a lively area with loads of resturant choices.

Dave_in_Paris

Also meant to say, the Hotel Cosmos is in the 11th arrondissement. Keren, I'm a partisan of the 11th, and I'm sorry you had a bad time around Place de la Republic. What was it, particularly that you didn't like?

Travelnut

Agree about 'singles' pricing, not that much to gain... but 'twins' are what we prefer and often they are marked up over a 'double'. Also, we like to have a minibar, not so much for its contents but for some cold storage.

rex

Although I don't entirely buy the central premise of robespierre's argument, it's beside the point to say &quot;well, here's a low-priced, centrally located hotel, and it seems to compare favorably to x or y or z less centrally located hotel&quot;.

Looking at the big picture of ALL hotels centrally located and not, it does seem to be unarguably true: centrally located hotels can and will charge more, as a class, than &quot;identical&quot; hotels (as if any two hotels can be called identical in this argument) that are less centrally located. For all the reasons being debated here, their real estate commands a higher purchase price - - <i><b>in general</b></i> than their less centrally located counterparts. It's to be expected that higher rates will be found in the more central locations.

What is being argued, as I read it, is whether the cost difference gets evaluated <i>objectively</i> - - or does it get dismissed by &quot;us&quot; (who favor central locations) as &quot;inconsequential, in light of the &quot;convenience factor&quot;.

The argument serves this forum well, even if you think one side is clearly more right or wrong.

Dave_in_Paris

Hope I did not mislead people in my last couple of posts, the Hotel Cosmos is not in central Paris. Does anyone know of a 55 euro a night hotel in central Paris -- that they would stay in?

111op

Since I was the one who brought up Hotel Tiquetonne, I feel compeled to address this comment that rex made:

&lt;&lt;It's to be expected that higher rates will be found in the more central locations.&gt;&gt;

Sure, that's true. But basically, as I mentioned, there're so many parameters that go into trip planning (think of my allocation of a budget into categories analogy). There're so many moving parameters that, in a way, I find the arguments meaningless.

And honestly, if I could find one hotel that violates some central argument that some person is attempting to make, the argument does fall apart -- for me anyway.

And, by the way, Dave, that hotel charges 50 euros for a double and is perfectly reasonable. Do a search for it on the web and you'll find lots of nice comments (and I was happy with it).

So, why would this be irrelevant? I think that it's actually quite relevant because here's a hotel, cheaply priced, within five minutes walking distance of Les Halles.

People need to understand that travel decisions are personal and leave it at that. Just because someone wants to do this another way doesn't mean the other person is stupid or irrational.

WillTravel

111op recently posted about the budget hotel Tiquetonne, but there have been numerous other budget possibilities mentioned as well.

If I were to go back to Paris, I'm not really sure where I'd fall in this argument.

There's a whole other issue too. If you were happy with the area you stayed in on your last trip, do you like to repeat your success and stay there again, or do you prefer to try something else?

111op

WillTravel, you ask an interesting question. Personally I think that it's a function of how much time I've. If I don't have time to plan, I almost certainly check places I've stayed first unless I was unhappy with them. But granted, I really don't go to most European cities sufficiently often for this to be an issue.

111op

By the way, there was an article in the Times a few weeks ago in which a couple of scientists were asked to comment on something they believe to be true but can't prove. One person said that in complex decisions (such as job decisions, etc.), the decision is ultimately not thought through carefully because it's too complex. So ultimately it's decided on some sort of whim.

I find that quite interesting. Maybe you can put trip planning in this category.

While not quite like marriage, how many of you, when you married or dated, actually did an objective calculation as to whether your mate was &quot;worth it&quot; to you? Wouldn't trip planning be like this?

I simply don't think that you can produce a strategy that uniformly dominates another. It depends on many things.

WillTravel

I can't say that I've had lots of experience with repeat trips either, except for London. And so far every area I've stayed in had some unique merit, although two of them were not common tourist areas at all.

I was mostly thinking about this issue of &quot;repeating&quot; when it comes to Italy. I liked everywhere I stayed on my recent trip, and all were good values and convenient. But maybe staying somewhere else would provide more novelty and interest - but then again, I hardly explored the area in detail the first time through, so how could I say? And staying anywhere new means assuming some risk that the new place isn't up to the standards of the previous place.

111op

Possibly.

Actually you bring up an interesting point. There's a behavioral economics theory that illustrates this issue, I think. Maybe I'm butchering the theory. But Kahneman won a Nobel Prize for this a few years ago.

You can think about this as loss aversion. For example, you start off with $X, and you've an equal chance of gaining or losing $Y. People are supposedly more averse to the possibility of losing $Y than to gaining $Y though the net amount is the same.

So the fear of exploring something else (that it may not be as good as what you had) can be attributed to this.

2002 Econ Nobel citation:

http://nobelprize.org/economics/laur...002/index.html