It depends on the trip. If it's just me, I'm fine with staying in a just okay place, given that it is at least clean. It also forces me to go outside. If I'm going to be with family or it's supposed to be a staycation, then I prioritize comfort and convenience a little more.

I have different priorities depending on where I'm going. I tend to avoid cheap hotel chains in the US, mostly because of the noise level, and to some extent, leeriness about the other guests. But in Europe, I'm perfectly happy in some small, cheap place. I've stayed in places where the bathroom was down the hall and shared, places that had been Marxist schools in Eastern Europe (and had not been renovated), and places where the shower was so small, it was impossible to bend over to pick up the soap~

For me, I like a nice and clean place. It does not have to be 5 star. But in the last few years, I have also been checking out Airbnb whenever we go on a trip.. Sometimes they have fun places. We once stayed in a tree hut, so much fun!

Usually, you have to pay a significant premium for location. If you are lucky to find where to stay from the places you will visit it is fine. Otherwise, I would prefer a more distant location near to transport means (ex metro) and save a budget that I can use it elsewhere!

Definitely a travel-style preference, I think. I'd rather pay extra to not have to schlepp in 30 minute on the metro in Paris or an hour in traffic in Los Angeles just to get to places of interest. For me the investment is worth any time wasted in transit. Especially at the end of the day when I'm tired and just want to crash, I don't want the added travel time.

For me it's more about during the day versus end of day.

If I'm out early likely with a jacket having a hotel central means I can drop it off. It means I don't need to carry every bit of camera gear I've brought just in case.

The same is true for me.