pianograd99 is articulate. I'm not half as literate, but he makes such a valid point.

The preference in nearly every city lodging question is always in this thread's same mode. He's the first who answered, IMHO, the exact aspect that irks me on Fodors.

People do have different reasons NOT to be downtown. And yet I do think there are some posters who actually do not have a clue to the difference, nor the commute time/car factors. But they are fewer and fewer here all the time.

And it can be difficult to tell the difference. Yet, I can definitely see the budget and time advantages to some city trip combos and lots of reasons NOT to stay prime downtown.

I'm one of the few that likes to be in a real residential neighborhood when I visit cities, usually in areas that would NOT be designated the downtown are. SF was one for sure.

Thanks pianograd99,for the time and expression of your answer.

So you thought The Palace was "amazing" and the staff "excellent". You got a king deluxe room there for $139 and you still wish you had stayed somewhere cheaper away from the city, expecting a larger nicer room?


See. That's why I didn't answer the original post -- I KNEW I couldn't relate!

I said that for this experience - it was great - because I dug all over the internet to find that deal. But to pay $100 more per night "just to be in the city" would have never been worth it to me. And the room was extremely small - felt like I was in a cell when we were in the room.

I was just saying that if I go back that I won't stay in downtown. When we go back, we'll explore more the areas around SF as well as downtown again. For that, I'll stay in the outlying areas.

By "amazing" I meant the hotel structure itself - definitely not the rooms. The restaurant area was beautiful - and the atmosphere wonderful.

However, I prefer to not step out of bed and end up in the bathroom when I'm paying for a hotel room.

Hasn't anyone else had a good experience at something and walked away saying, "That was great, but I don't think I would do it the same way next time."?

Sounds like somebody just wants to argue. To each his own, hmm?

That's what I'm trying to show - advantages to being in the city and advantages to being outside the city.

When one is convinced that staying in the city itself is "poor value" and is also convinced from the start that they won't like it, then it is not surprising that even with a great deal, he/she would still not be happy with the results.
As said above -- to each his own.

Staying away from downtown doesn't mean you have to leave the City. There are dozens of B&Bs in the Noe Valley - often proclaimed to be the best neighborhood in the Bay Area. You're just a 20 min J-Church Muni Metro ride away from the Palace Hotel (downtown). The Noe Valley as all the amenities you would want in a city - about 20 non-touristy restaurants, lots of cafes, interesting shops, quiet corners, parks, coffee shops, Victorian houses, groceries, etc. In most sections, parking is free - all you have to worry about is moving the car on the one day a week that they do street cleaning for a few hours. A few sections along Church St & Sanchez St near Ceasar Chavez St have stickered (restricted 2 hr) parking on week days.

Stu Dudley

I will have to remember that for a return visit - thanks for the insight!

Some of the rooms at the Warwick Regis are tiny; however, if you will be in a "suite," the location is excellent (though potentially noisy).

Staying outside of the city center is one thing -- lots of people do that. But one of your choices was <b>Walnut Creek</b> for Pete's sakes. Spending up to an hour each way just getting from the hotel into central SF makes that &quot;bargain&quot; rate look like a real deal to me- NOT. And for your honeymoon no less. There are a LOT of options in SF other than the few you singled out - some w/ bigger rooms, for less money

I saw your original post but opted not to post to it because I could see you really were fairly set on what you wanted, even if some of it didn't make a lot of sense.

We stayed at the Marriott you mentioned in your original post (although we got it for $200 a night) and found the room more than large enough, with a great view. The bathroom was decent sized although the tub itself was not large. We also liked the pool and hot tub.

I can understand your frustration with a tiny room. It can be hard to even open a suitcase in those situations.

Yet, I would not have liked commuting in, it would have eaten up too much of our short stay. Our values might change if we have the kids with us, and have to pay for parking downtown.

Who dug up this ancient post?

If you follow the posts, it was the OP.

I did just to close it out and to put a final post update of how the trip was.

Wasn't looking to start another run on it.