Worth staying in a classy hotel?

"Madonna" wrote in message
...
John W. wrote:

But... most locals wouldn't stay in some of the places I've stayed, so
I'm not sure if a shabby, run-down hostel in the backstreets of Seoul,
for example, count as experiencing local culture. I'd say if a
person's going to 'experience' a culture they'll do it regardless of
where they're staying.

If you stay in a 5-star hotel or resort, eat at their restaurant, take
organized tours, and shop around tourist traps the experience is more
about sightseeing than a cultural one.

Sure, but the part that makes it about sight-seeing is the staying in
resorts, takinng organized tours and shopping in tourist traps. I'm going
to guess that you've never stayed at a 5-star hotel. They are _local_.
They are just _upscale_. Believe it or not, that does not make the
experience less authentic than staying in a hostel. It merely makes it more
comfortable.



Besides, you can't really do that without
spending a good bit of time in a place; I know lots of people that
consider themselves 'learned' about a culture after only a week in
country.

That's true. For people with a fixed budget, staying in a less
expensive hotel means being able to stay a lot longer and have more time
to learn the culture. 1 week is just barely enough to get over the
culture shock and jet lag.

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
news
On 15 Jul 2004 06:48:33 -0700, the renowned
(Tchiowa) wrote:

Madonna wrote in message
m...
PTRAVEL wrote:

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. I've stayed in 5-star "local
hotels"
as well as the international chains, and there is nothing to
distinguish the
two except that one will give me frequent stay points.

That's what I mean. 5 star hotels isolate you from the country you're
in, it's like a bubble isolating you from the country you're in.

???? Where do you get that? Apparently you have never stayed in one.
There is no more insulation in a 5 star hotel than a backpacker flop
house. What you have is more "creature comforts".

Personally, I've noticed that I'm less motivated to get out on the
streets if I'm staying in a plush $200 hotel with CNN/ABC on a big TV
vs. a $5 hotel.

Why is that? I travel for the sake of travel. What's the point of staying
in the hotel when you've traveled to get there?


In a big hotel, services such as laundry are always very expensive
compared to what you can get outside, sometimes they are more
convenient or of higher quality, sometimes not. I often find their
pickup and delivery times for laundry to cause problems.

I've never had a problem with laundry, whether provided by the hotel or an
outside establishment. Yes, it's more expensive in the hotel, but so what?
For some of us, the extra money simply isn't a consideration. My travel
options are limited by time, not money -- I could travel a lot more if I
didn't have to work.


The big plus of a classy hotel is if there is a good concierge who can
help arrange transportation, suggest places to go if you have special
interests etc. You might get that in a small hotel, but you're more
likely to get it in some large hotels.

The concierege can also arrange tickets to sold-out events. I've been able
to get tickets to LaScala in Milan, the opening day of the bullfights in
Seville, admittance to prehistoric caves in northern Spain, all of which
were sold-out, and all of which were arranged for me by the concierege.
And, I met add, all of which gave me access to a hell of a lot more "local
flavor" as "Madonna" likes to say.

Depends on your interests, of
course- for example if you want decorator fabrics for upholstery it
might be hard to find an appropriate wholesale outlet.

Good point. The concierege at our hotel in Udaipur (which was occupied,
mostly, by Indians) arranged access to a huge furniture manufacturing
facility for us, where we were able to buy some nice pieces and arrange for
shipment back to the US. We got _better_ prices by buying directly from the
source, and only paid actual shipping costs.

OTOH, some
small places, such as the place I stayed in Cambodia will not only
give you advice about illegal drugs but also sell them to you.

This is a good thing?

Seriously, one of my cardinal rules when travelling is, "respect the local
laws." It is, of course, safer, but is also simple courtesy.

His
Thai wife also cooked some great food and he was an excellent source
of information for visitors, so I didn't much care.

It brings home to a foreign land. Sacrificing the princely comfort
will
give you more of a local flavour,

Nonsense.

you may have to eat rice with chopsticks instead of steak with a fork,

You can eat rice with chopsticks in a 5-star hotel and you can eat
(what passes for) steak in a backpacker restaurant.

the waiter may not speak perfect english,

Which has what to do with anything?

If you want advice on the food it might make a difference.

the train ride will show more of the country than a plane over it...

Which has what to do with culture? And a train ride sitting in First
Class shows just as much of the country as a train ride sitting in
Third Class.

You meet different local people in first class vs. lower class vs.
flying. All are interesting. Why not try each way?

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers:
http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers:
http://www.speff.com

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote in message
news
On 15 Jul 2004 06:48:33 -0700, the renowned
(Tchiowa) wrote:

Madonna wrote in message
m...
PTRAVEL wrote:

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. I've stayed in 5-star "local
hotels"
as well as the international chains, and there is nothing to
distinguish the
two except that one will give me frequent stay points.

That's what I mean. 5 star hotels isolate you from the country you're
in, it's like a bubble isolating you from the country you're in.

???? Where do you get that? Apparently you have never stayed in one.
There is no more insulation in a 5 star hotel than a backpacker flop
house. What you have is more "creature comforts".

Personally, I've noticed that I'm less motivated to get out on the
streets if I'm staying in a plush $200 hotel with CNN/ABC on a big TV
vs. a $5 hotel.

Why is that? I travel for the sake of travel. What's the point of staying
in the hotel when you've traveled to get there?


In a big hotel, services such as laundry are always very expensive
compared to what you can get outside, sometimes they are more
convenient or of higher quality, sometimes not. I often find their
pickup and delivery times for laundry to cause problems.

I've never had a problem with laundry, whether provided by the hotel or an
outside establishment. Yes, it's more expensive in the hotel, but so what?
For some of us, the extra money simply isn't a consideration. My travel
options are limited by time, not money -- I could travel a lot more if I
didn't have to work.


The big plus of a classy hotel is if there is a good concierge who can
help arrange transportation, suggest places to go if you have special
interests etc. You might get that in a small hotel, but you're more
likely to get it in some large hotels.

The concierege can also arrange tickets to sold-out events. I've been able
to get tickets to LaScala in Milan, the opening day of the bullfights in
Seville, admittance to prehistoric caves in northern Spain, all of which
were sold-out, and all of which were arranged for me by the concierege.
And, I met add, all of which gave me access to a hell of a lot more "local
flavor" as "Madonna" likes to say.

Depends on your interests, of
course- for example if you want decorator fabrics for upholstery it
might be hard to find an appropriate wholesale outlet.

Good point. The concierege at our hotel in Udaipur (which was occupied,
mostly, by Indians) arranged access to a huge furniture manufacturing
facility for us, where we were able to buy some nice pieces and arrange for
shipment back to the US. We got _better_ prices by buying directly from the
source, and only paid actual shipping costs.

OTOH, some
small places, such as the place I stayed in Cambodia will not only
give you advice about illegal drugs but also sell them to you.

This is a good thing?

Seriously, one of my cardinal rules when travelling is, "respect the local
laws." It is, of course, safer, but is also simple courtesy.

His
Thai wife also cooked some great food and he was an excellent source
of information for visitors, so I didn't much care.

It brings home to a foreign land. Sacrificing the princely comfort
will
give you more of a local flavour,

Nonsense.

you may have to eat rice with chopsticks instead of steak with a fork,

You can eat rice with chopsticks in a 5-star hotel and you can eat
(what passes for) steak in a backpacker restaurant.

the waiter may not speak perfect english,

Which has what to do with anything?

If you want advice on the food it might make a difference.

the train ride will show more of the country than a plane over it...

Which has what to do with culture? And a train ride sitting in First
Class shows just as much of the country as a train ride sitting in
Third Class.

You meet different local people in first class vs. lower class vs.
flying. All are interesting. Why not try each way?

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers:
http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers:
http://www.speff.com

Tchiowa wrote:
Which has what to do with culture? And a train ride sitting in First
Class shows just as much of the country as a train ride sitting in
Third Class.

Balderdash. In first class you will be so happy and comfortable you will
fall asleep and miss everything. In second class unreserved on the 36-hour
train from Calcutta to Madras you will be so wide awake from the leaking
bathroom odors and bugs crawling over you and people stepping on your feet
as you shrink against the wall in your spot on the floor that you will
literally hang out the door in an attempt to escape, thereby immersing
yourself in the countryside (though it will be whizzing by at the train's
skull-rattling top speed of up to 15mph).

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

Tchiowa wrote:
Which has what to do with culture? And a train ride sitting in First
Class shows just as much of the country as a train ride sitting in
Third Class.

Balderdash. In first class you will be so happy and comfortable you will
fall asleep and miss everything. In second class unreserved on the 36-hour
train from Calcutta to Madras you will be so wide awake from the leaking
bathroom odors and bugs crawling over you and people stepping on your feet
as you shrink against the wall in your spot on the floor that you will
literally hang out the door in an attempt to escape, thereby immersing
yourself in the countryside (though it will be whizzing by at the train's
skull-rattling top speed of up to 15mph).

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu

PTRAVEL wrote:

I'm sorry, but you're completely and totally wrong. The 5-star hotels
I've described ARE hotels of the country in which they're in -- they
are run by nationals, staffed by nationals, decorated by nationals,
and stayed in by nationals. They are NOT Americanized. The
restaurant at the JW Marriott in Hong Kong, which is acknowledged as
one of the best in that city, serves their meals with chop sticks, not
knives and forks (as does room service). If you want western
utensils, you'll have to ask for them.

Allright I concede I haven't been to Marriott's so they may be a
different kind of hotel than the rest of the chains.

Either you're one of those people who subscribe to the mistaken idea
that, unless you're eating food from street vendors, you're not
getting local flavor, or you simply have no idea what a world-class
5-star hotel is like (I suspect probably both).
There are lots of restaurants in a category between the one in a 5 star
hotel and street vendors.

I've travelled at both ends of the economic spectrum. You get no
more "local flavor" at a 2-star hotel than at a 5-star.
If the hotel you're staying at doesn't have 3 restaurants, you'll
probably eat out more often, see more of the place.

You just get a lower level of service, smaller room, less sumptuous
bathroom (if a private bathroom at all), a harder bed,
Depending on the category of the hotel you're staying at. The main
difference between 5-star and 3-star is usually the services available
in the hotel: restaurants, bars, swimming pool, massage, marble lobby
with leather seats, ...

and no air conditioning.
Even the cheapest hotels give you the choice between air-con and ceiling
fan rooms.

Markku Grönroos wrote in message ...
Spehro Pefhany kirjoitti:


In a big hotel, services such as laundry are always very expensive
compared to what you can get outside, sometimes they are more
convenient or of higher quality, sometimes not. I often find their
pickup and delivery times for laundry to cause problems.



This pretty trivial. There are lots of services you partially or fully
pay for regardless of whether you actually do use those services or not.
In public laundry you wash 3 kg by 150 bahts. At fancy hotels laundry
cost 1000 bahts.

I get laundry free (4 pieces per day) at JW Marriott.

Manfred Aigner wrote in message . at...
Tchiowa wrote:

[..]

Nonsense. If you stay in a guest house and hang out with backpackers
and spend your days hunting for ectasy then your experience is more of
a ....., well, it's not really an experience, is it?

Did you ever try it? I guess not ...

About 15 years ago I spent 3 weeks touring England on a bicycle going
from Youth Hostel to Youth Hostel.

So you were wrong.

You're right about "organized tours, but it's a wild misconception
that people who stay in nice hotels go on "organized tours".[..]

But is completely clear to you that people living in inexpensive
homestays are only interested in drugs and living on the cheap ...

If you'll bother to read, you'll see that I've said repeatedly that
most people of all classes or economic backgrounds are good and decent
people. But it is undoubtedly true that the backpacker crowd has a
higher percentage of people with less than desirable behavior than the
middle class tourists.

Markku Grönroos wrote in message ...
Manfred Aigner kirjoitti:

Tchiowa wrote:

[..]


Nonsense. If you stay in a guest house and hang out with backpackers
and spend your days hunting for ectasy then your experience is more of
a ....., well, it's not really an experience, is it?


Did you ever try it? I guess not ...

You're right about "organized tours, but it's a wild misconception
that people who stay in nice hotels go on "organized tours".[..]


But is completely clear to you that people living in inexpensive
homestays are only interested in drugs and living on the cheap ...

He is famous about describing patterns of behaviour and practices of
tourists. His true home is in s.c.thai, however. When I was young in
1980's and did train travelling a lot in Europe, I typically had a
budget of FIM 4000-4500 ~ 700 euros for 30 days. Once I met a gang of
Spanish youth who were riding like me by a budget of 300-350 euros each
for 30 days. I felt rich at that moment. My desicions on choosing
accommodation, restaurants and so on was much dictated by the
limitations of my thin wallet. Who gives a **** where you straighten
your legs for a night's rest during your holiday. I understand this
being meaningful when one is very young or very old or very sick or
anyhow weak.

Given the openly racist posts you've made here, I'd say you are a
perfect example of what's wrong with budget tourists.

Spehro Pefhany wrote in message . ..
On 15 Jul 2004 06:48:33 -0700, the renowned
(Tchiowa) wrote:

Madonna wrote in message m...
PTRAVEL wrote:

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. I've stayed in 5-star "local hotels"
as well as the international chains, and there is nothing to distinguish the
two except that one will give me frequent stay points.

That's what I mean. 5 star hotels isolate you from the country you're
in, it's like a bubble isolating you from the country you're in.

???? Where do you get that? Apparently you have never stayed in one.
There is no more insulation in a 5 star hotel than a backpacker flop
house. What you have is more "creature comforts".

Personally, I've noticed that I'm less motivated to get out on the
streets if I'm staying in a plush $200 hotel with CNN/ABC on a big TV
vs. a $5 hotel.

Well, that may be true. But if you need to live in an uncomfortable or
unhygenic place in order to be motivated to go outside then I'd
question why you were travelling in the first place.

In a big hotel, services such as laundry are always very expensive
compared to what you can get outside, sometimes they are more
convenient or of higher quality, sometimes not. I often find their
pickup and delivery times for laundry to cause problems.

The big plus of a classy hotel is if there is a good concierge who can
help arrange transportation, suggest places to go if you have special
interests etc. You might get that in a small hotel, but you're more
likely to get it in some large hotels. Depends on your interests, of
course- for example if you want decorator fabrics for upholstery it
might be hard to find an appropriate wholesale outlet. OTOH, some
small places, such as the place I stayed in Cambodia will not only
give you advice about illegal drugs but also sell them to you.

Gee. Just what I wanted in a hotel.

His
Thai wife also cooked some great food and he was an excellent source
of information for visitors, so I didn't much care.

It brings home to a foreign land. Sacrificing the princely comfort will
give you more of a local flavour,

Nonsense.

you may have to eat rice with chopsticks instead of steak with a fork,

You can eat rice with chopsticks in a 5-star hotel and you can eat
(what passes for) steak in a backpacker restaurant.

the waiter may not speak perfect english,

Which has what to do with anything?

If you want advice on the food it might make a difference.

But that wasn't the issue, was it?

the train ride will show more of the country than a plane over it...

Which has what to do with culture? And a train ride sitting in First
Class shows just as much of the country as a train ride sitting in
Third Class.

You meet different local people in first class vs. lower class vs.
flying. All are interesting. Why not try each way?

I agree. Why not? But the point is that the claim that travelling poor
somehow helps you understand the culture better is nonsense. Do you
agree?