If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Advice re hotels in BKK please...
I know the one you mean, though I've never stayed there - yet!
"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message ... ash wrote: We still need the name of this hotel - PLEASE! I thought I already mentioned it, but it's the Grace Hotel on Sukhumvit soi 3. http://www.gracehotel.th.com/ miguel -- Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Advice re hotels in BKK please...
Miguel Cruz wrote in message ...
Tchiowa wrote: Miguel Cruz wrote: Tchiowa wrote: ???? Notice that he said Bangkok, not some smaller city. A fairly cheap tourist hotel in Bangkok is $50. Luxury hotels are over $100 a night in Bangkok. At the moment I'm staying in the Grace Hotel on Sukhimvit Soi 3 for 930 baht per night (about US$23). It's very clean and well-maintained, well located (5 minutes' walk to skytrain), probably what I'd call a 3-star. I cannot imagine what I could get for more money that would be worth the additional expense. I didn't say that the the additional expense would be worth it. For some people it is, for others it isn't. But your note said that anything over $25 a night is "serious luxury" and that makes no sense. The Nana is more than that and it's anything but "serious luxury". You won't get into anything that you could call "luxury" below $100/night. To elaborate, my 930 baht hotel room had a pool (ok, the pool wasn't in the room), concierge services, a TV with about 40 satellite and cable channels from Asia, the Middle East, and Europe, spotlessly-clean room, nice view of the city, one double bed and one twin, three chairs, a desk and a table, a spacious closet, modem port, and so on. All of which means nothing. A spotlessly clean room with tile floors, leaky walls, window air-conditioning, etc. is not a "luxurious" as a spotlessly clean room with plush carpeting, central air, good insulation between rooms, etc. To me that seems more than adequate for a "tourist" and really quite adequate for most other travelers as well unless they had particular special needs (I would have been happier with in-room broadband, for instance). "Adequate"? Maybe for some. (I've been to the Grace. Never stayed there but been inside. "Adequate would be the highest praise you could give it.) A week ago I was in a very high-calibre hotel (the MiCasa Suites in Phnom Penh) that cost substantially more. Aside from the provision of a full kitchen, though, everything else additionally provided there was luxury. You have a different definition of "luxury" than I do. And I suspect a different definition than "the average tourist" (whoever that might be). From a backpackers point of view, the Grace hotel is "adequate", as you describe. From the average tourist's point of view it is less than average. Even Motel 6 in the US offers much nicer facilities than the Grace. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Advice re hotels in BKK please...
"Sjoerd" wrote in message ...
"Tchiowa" schreef in bericht om... This may have been adequate for you and that's great. But please don't try to tell the group that you got the same type of hotel that you would pay $200 for in the US for $24 in Bangkok. That's almost exactly what I tell the group: the quality of the USD 190 hotel in NYC that I stayed in June 2003 was actually worse than the quality of the USD 24 hotel in BKK: smaller room in NYC, no breakfast included in NYC, everything else similar quality. I realize that's what you are telling the group. And it makes no sense. $200 in New York or 120 Euros in "most European Capitals" gets you a 5 star hotel. 980 baht will not get that for you in Bangkok. You labelled the hotel 3 star. Big difference between 3 star and 5 star. Very small difference actually, unless you care for fountains and marble in the lobby. Huge difference, actually. I stay in 5 star hotels all the time for work, and I have told my boss to book a 3 star hotel for me long ago (our travel department is not willing to do that), because the difference between 5 star and 3 star is almost non-existent as far as the important aspects of a hotel are concerned. The 980 baht room may have been fine for you and that's great. Do you mind naming the hotel? Yes, I do mind, because it is almost always fully booked and I don't want to advertise that hotel too much as I would like to stay there again. Also could it be that if you named the hotel people on this group might know it and be able to post all kinds of things to prove you're not correct in your description? I stay in hotels between 100-200 nights per year and have done so for over a decade. All around the world in maybe 40 countries. Bangkok is probably the most common place I stay. What you're saying about hotels absolutely defies everything I've experienced in thousands of nights in hotels. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Advice re hotels in BKK please...
Tchiowa wrote:
"Sjoerd" wrote in message ... "Tchiowa" schreef in bericht om... ???? Notice that he said Bangkok, not some smaller city. A fairly cheap tourist hotel in Bangkok is $50. Bull****. Last month, we stayed in a clean, nice twin-bed room, downtown Bangkok, certainly 3 star hotel, large bathroom with bathtub, TV, minibar, safe in the room, jacuzzi on the roof of the hotel, for 980 baht (EUR 20, USD 24) for the room per night, nice buffet breakfast included. Which is a "cheap tourist hotel". Other "cheap tourist hotels" like the Nana charge around 40, for example. These are lower end hotels. For a backpacker that's a reasonable hotel. For the typical tourist that's not. I don't agree about my hotel, it was absolutely perfect, clean, good large rooms and a good bathroom. It has minibar, a cable TV set. The hotel has a restaurant and a pool to swim in, what more to want? AC worked fine and the rooms were cool. I would say that this is EXACTLY what a typical tourist wants, and I don't see what more should be there. Why pay 2.500 THB when you can get same performance below 1.500? I also stayed one night in a dirty rats nest on Sukhumvit - because I let myself be fooled at the airport, that hotel was bottom crap, but at same price. /Anders -- Remove the obvious part before replying by mail please! |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Advice re hotels in BKK please...
I've stayed myself in a hotel in Bangkok for 20$/night,
it was September so probably low-season rate, and I bargained a bit since I was staying a week. The room was equivalent to a north american "Days Inn". The staff were chinese and didn't speak too much english. I'd give the hotel 2 or 3 stars, it's not the Oriental hotel of course but for a tourist on a budget it's decent. I don't know the name (it's a chinese name) but from the "world trade centre" go north across the canal, go west on the next major road, and north on the 3rd or 5th soi. There's an electronics shopping center, a market, and a very tall (Bayoke II?) hotel nearby. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Advice re hotels in BKK please...
"Tchiowa" schreef in bericht om... "Sjoerd" wrote in message ... "Tchiowa" schreef in bericht om... This may have been adequate for you and that's great. But please don't try to tell the group that you got the same type of hotel that you would pay $200 for in the US for $24 in Bangkok. That's almost exactly what I tell the group: the quality of the USD 190 hotel in NYC that I stayed in June 2003 was actually worse than the quality of the USD 24 hotel in BKK: smaller room in NYC, no breakfast included in NYC, everything else similar quality. I realize that's what you are telling the group. And it makes no sense. Don't you realize that hotels in New York City are seriously expensive and a lot of money doesn't buy much in terms of hotel rooms in that city? What I wrote is true. $200 in New York or 120 Euros in "most European Capitals" gets you a 5 star hotel. 980 baht will not get that for you in Bangkok. You labelled the hotel 3 star. Big difference between 3 star and 5 star. Very small difference actually, unless you care for fountains and marble in the lobby. Huge difference, actually. Fountain and marble in the lobby is important for you? I stay in 5 star hotels all the time for work, and I have told my boss to book a 3 star hotel for me long ago (our travel department is not willing to do that), because the difference between 5 star and 3 star is almost non-existent as far as the important aspects of a hotel are concerned. The 980 baht room may have been fine for you and that's great. Do you mind naming the hotel? Yes, I do mind, because it is almost always fully booked and I don't want to advertise that hotel too much as I would like to stay there again. Also could it be that if you named the hotel people on this group might know it and be able to post all kinds of things to prove you're not correct in your description? I am not interested to discuss the quality of that hotel in this group. It is a great hotel at a low price, my friends who I have told about that hotel agree with me, and it is almost always fully booked. I stay in hotels between 100-200 nights per year and have done so for over a decade. All around the world in maybe 40 countries. Bangkok is probably the most common place I stay. What you're saying about hotels absolutely defies everything I've experienced in thousands of nights in hotels. Or it says that you value other things in hotels than I do, such as marble and fountains in lobbies and two guys opening the door for you when you enter. When I have a clean room, a comfortable bed, a TV, a nice bathroom, air conditioning in cities with hot climates such as Bangkok, and a decent breakfast I am totally happy. Sjoerd |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Advice re hotels in BKK please...
"Tchiowa" schreef in bericht om... Miguel Cruz wrote in message ... Tchiowa wrote: Miguel Cruz wrote: Tchiowa wrote: ???? Notice that he said Bangkok, not some smaller city. A fairly cheap tourist hotel in Bangkok is $50. Luxury hotels are over $100 a night in Bangkok. At the moment I'm staying in the Grace Hotel on Sukhimvit Soi 3 for 930 baht per night (about US$23). It's very clean and well-maintained, well located (5 minutes' walk to skytrain), probably what I'd call a 3-star. I cannot imagine what I could get for more money that would be worth the additional expense. I didn't say that the the additional expense would be worth it. For some people it is, for others it isn't. But your note said that anything over $25 a night is "serious luxury" and that makes no sense. The Nana is more than that and it's anything but "serious luxury". You won't get into anything that you could call "luxury" below $100/night. To elaborate, my 930 baht hotel room had a pool (ok, the pool wasn't in the room), concierge services, a TV with about 40 satellite and cable channels from Asia, the Middle East, and Europe, spotlessly-clean room, nice view of the city, one double bed and one twin, three chairs, a desk and a table, a spacious closet, modem port, and so on. All of which means nothing. A spotlessly clean room with tile floors, leaky walls, window air-conditioning, etc. is not a "luxurious" as a spotlessly clean room with plush carpeting, central air, good insulation between rooms, etc. To me that seems more than adequate for a "tourist" and really quite adequate for most other travelers as well unless they had particular special needs (I would have been happier with in-room broadband, for instance). "Adequate"? Maybe for some. (I've been to the Grace. Never stayed there but been inside. "Adequate would be the highest praise you could give it.) A week ago I was in a very high-calibre hotel (the MiCasa Suites in Phnom Penh) that cost substantially more. Aside from the provision of a full kitchen, though, everything else additionally provided there was luxury. You have a different definition of "luxury" than I do. And I suspect a different definition than "the average tourist" (whoever that might be). From a backpackers point of view, the Grace hotel is "adequate", as you describe. From the average tourist's point of view it is less than average. Even Motel 6 in the US offers much nicer facilities than the Grace. You have a very different definition of "average tourist" than I (and most "average tourists") have. Sjoerd |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Advice re hotels in BKK please...
I would agree totally. As a tourist I have no interest in paying an extra
1000B a night to have gold taps and a marble floor. (Mind, I did get that in Chiang Mai for 1150B inc breakfast). In Thailand generally I have found very little correlation between the price paid and the quality received wrt hotel standards. .. When I have a clean room, a comfortable bed, a TV, a nice bathroom, air conditioning in cities with hot climates such as Bangkok, and a decent breakfast I am totally happy. Sjoerd .. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Advice re hotels in BKK please...
Tchiowa wrote:
Miguel Cruz wrote: To elaborate, my 930 baht hotel room had a pool (ok, the pool wasn't in the room), concierge services, a TV with about 40 satellite and cable channels from Asia, the Middle East, and Europe, spotlessly-clean room, nice view of the city, one double bed and one twin, three chairs, a desk and a table, a spacious closet, modem port, and so on. All of which means nothing. A spotlessly clean room with tile floors, leaky walls, window air-conditioning, etc. is not a "luxurious" as a spotlessly clean room with plush carpeting, central air, good insulation between rooms, etc. To elaborate further, my 930 baht hotel room had central air, immaculate carpet, and sufficient soundproofing that I never heard anyone in the other rooms - and I'm reasonably sensitive to noise. To me that seems more than adequate for a "tourist" and really quite adequate for most other travelers as well unless they had particular special needs (I would have been happier with in-room broadband, for instance). "Adequate"? Maybe for some. (I've been to the Grace. Never stayed there but been inside. "Adequate would be the highest praise you could give it.) A week ago I was in a very high-calibre hotel (the MiCasa Suites in Phnom Penh) that cost substantially more. Aside from the provision of a full kitchen, though, everything else additionally provided there was luxury. You have a different definition of "luxury" than I do. And I suspect a different definition than "the average tourist" (whoever that might be). Look around at who's visiting Thailand. Look up the word "average". From a backpackers point of view, the Grace hotel is "adequate", as you describe. From the average tourist's point of view it is less than average. Even Motel 6 in the US offers much nicer facilities than the Grace. Here we've reached another impasse. I've stayed at plenty of Motel 6's, and I've stayed at the Grace. I don't know whether you've stayed at Motel 6 (you admit you haven't stayed at the Grace), but in my experience your claim above is about as false as false can be. miguel -- Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Advice re hotels in BKK please...
Miguel Cruz wrote in message ...
Tchiowa wrote: Miguel Cruz wrote: To elaborate, my 930 baht hotel room had a pool (ok, the pool wasn't in the room), concierge services, a TV with about 40 satellite and cable channels from Asia, the Middle East, and Europe, spotlessly-clean room, nice view of the city, one double bed and one twin, three chairs, a desk and a table, a spacious closet, modem port, and so on. All of which means nothing. A spotlessly clean room with tile floors, leaky walls, window air-conditioning, etc. is not a "luxurious" as a spotlessly clean room with plush carpeting, central air, good insulation between rooms, etc. To elaborate further, my 930 baht hotel room had central air, immaculate carpet, and sufficient soundproofing that I never heard anyone in the other rooms - and I'm reasonably sensitive to noise. To me that seems more than adequate for a "tourist" and really quite adequate for most other travelers as well unless they had particular special needs (I would have been happier with in-room broadband, for instance). "Adequate"? Maybe for some. (I've been to the Grace. Never stayed there but been inside. "Adequate would be the highest praise you could give it.) A week ago I was in a very high-calibre hotel (the MiCasa Suites in Phnom Penh) that cost substantially more. Aside from the provision of a full kitchen, though, everything else additionally provided there was luxury. You have a different definition of "luxury" than I do. And I suspect a different definition than "the average tourist" (whoever that might be). Look around at who's visiting Thailand. Look up the word "average". I have. Backpackers are *not* the "average tourist" in Thailand. From a backpackers point of view, the Grace hotel is "adequate", as you describe. From the average tourist's point of view it is less than average. Even Motel 6 in the US offers much nicer facilities than the Grace. Here we've reached another impasse. I've stayed at plenty of Motel 6's, and I've stayed at the Grace. I don't know whether you've stayed at Motel 6 (you admit you haven't stayed at the Grace), but in my experience your claim above is about as false as false can be. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
China - The Internet Travel Guide (FAQ) (part 1/3) | http://www.pmgeiser.ch, Peter M. Geiser | Asia | 1 | April 2nd, 2005 05:37 PM |
Advice on Hotels in Luxor | Nicola Earl | Africa | 8 | May 14th, 2004 08:55 AM |
Advice on Hotels in Luxor | Nicola Earl | Air travel | 8 | May 14th, 2004 08:55 AM |
American traveller seeks advice | Kim | Africa | 0 | April 4th, 2004 06:12 AM |
Advice on Mongolian hotels | H Heinonen | Asia | 1 | December 16th, 2003 03:23 AM |