Hi,

Just curious. I've seen this questions more than once on the Europe forum:

"What is the difference between a single and double room"?

And so I'm wondering - does this mean that there are no hotel/motel/etc rooms in the USA specifically meant to be occupied by one person, or do you just have a different term for them?

Cheers and all the best for 2009.

I'm not familiar with any hotels that are made for one guest/room in the US. Maybe there are some that exist...but I haven't ever seen them. Even if it is just one guest, you get a "normal" sized room.

I certainly have never encountered such a room in regular US hotels; I would expect to find them only in the very lowest tier of one-star hotels. After all, a room with a double bed costs virtually the same to build and maintain, and has much more earning potential.

>>I certainly have never encountered such a room in regular US hotels; I would expect to find them only in the very lowest tier of one-star hotels. <<

Agreed and even then I suspect they'd be few and far between. Under the OP's category of etc, you might possibly find a single bedded room in an inn or B&B.

Hope that answers the "just curious" question. It might also explain why some Americans gripe about single supplements added to the price of a single occupying a room that accommodates more than one person. (that's probably mostly related to tours these days?)

Here is good news for you if your are planning a trip to the US with a companion--the rate for two people in a room is usually the same as for one person!

Notable exception: Motel 6.

Your hunch is bang on, afterall - in the US most rooms are able to accommodate two people.

Very few hotels in the US have such a thing as a single room. Generally the smallest you will get is a queen size bed. And, outside of a few larger cities, most hotel rooms are enormous and have 2 double beds - and children (18 and under) are usually free.

As mentioned, the bare-bones Motel 6 (an Accor chain) charges slightly more if two people occupy a room - it's the same room with at least a queen-sized bed, in an instance I looked at it was $39.99 vs. $45.99, so hardly worth worrying about.

But overall - in answer to OP's question - no, "single room" is not a US-American concept, it is a European concept.

Because in the USA, rooms are described by the size and number of beds, not the number of people.

And virtually no rooms have a "single" i.e. "twin" sized bed.

So it is confusing as to whether a
"double" is a room for two people with two twin beds, or a room with one double-sized bed, which may be used by one or two people.

The only places in the US that we've encountered that had rooms with only one or two twin beds were B&B's with small or odd-shaped rooms that just couldn't accommodate a larger bed. Only a tiny percentage of "double" rooms would have two single beds rathe rathan a double (or larger) bed.

I've seen a few "bargain" hotels n NYC that have twin beds, but not just one bed for a single person's use. One friend stayed at a hotel where her family of 17 had a group of rooms, each room with three twin beds. A true single is very limiting for the hotel. Plus few hotels in the U.S. are buildings that were built for another purpose and retrofitted to serve as a hotel.

I have traveler mostly in USA (actually 48 states) and have found "single" rooms in B&Bs--These specified "single' bed which was size of a twin bed...One I really liked was in Boston at John Jeffries House...Sounds small but had, twin bed, little table with one chair,small refrig. and "real" stove & microwave. TV sat on chest of drawers and had full bathroom. One window looked out toward river. It was quite comfortable.
Usually I stay in 3 star hotel or 4 star, if I use Priceline. Have never had a room with anything smaller that a double bed

I had a friend who got a really inexpensive "single" hotel room at the HudsonHotel in New York when he came into the city for a couple nights. The Hudson is not a "flea bag" or considered a budget hotel, really. He called and said we HAD to see this room. We did. It was like a cabin on the smallest boat. You could lay on the single bed and touch both side walls at the same time. There was about a foot between the foot of the bed and the other wall. It was claustrophobic for one, would be incredibly crowded for two (in a single bed only). But it was nicely decorated!

I had a single room at the Algonquin hotel once. It had a 3/4 size bed (larger than a twin but smaller than a double). According to their website, they have 12 of these and call them "twins."
http://www.algonquinhotel.com/nav_accommodations.html

I would agree with the overall assessment though that most hotels/motels in the USA do NOT have twin rooms for 1 person. You tend to find them in older buildings (like the Algonquin) with some very small spaces.

I was once told the reason they sometimes have those incredibly small rooms in some older hotels is that they were originally built for valets or maids traveling with guests. Makes sense to me.

But no hotel corporation today would build a hotel and include single rooms. It just limits their possibilities for use.

Yes, as you surmise, such a category, generally, does not exist in typical American hotels. Virtually all rooms are meant to be occupied by 2 and the price, generally, is the same whether the room is used by 1 person or by 2.

(Sorry if this is a duplicate of other answers, I did not read the thread.)

There are not "single rooms" but there are "single room rates".

There are not "single rooms" but there are "single room rates".

Actually, for the most part (I gather Motel 6 is different), the price for one or two people is the same.

The 5 hotels in the "Apple Core" group in Manhattan charge $15 per night for the second person.

I stayed in a really nice hotel in Berlin and had a good laugh when I saw a 'double' bed with what looked like a crib sheet, tiny blanket and one pillow. The fitted sheet was a double obviously.
There was one bath towel in the bathroom.
Silly, IMO.
Nice hotel but that sheet/blanket situation looked so ridiculous I had to laugh.