Rome, where should I stay?
Aug 15th 2003, 8:19 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Rome, where should I stay?
Hello,
I'm currently planning to spend three night's in Rome as part of a month in
Europe and i'm not sure where in Rome would be best for me to book a hotel.
I'm a 40 year old Australian male. (traveling alone)
I dont want to stay in a wild or dangerous part of town, yet I want to be
close enough to some nightlife and daytime interesting places too.
I'm hoping for a hotel for around 50-60 Euro a night single.
I'm finding it hard so far, because I dont know anyone who can advise.
Thanks if you can.
Mark K.
I'm currently planning to spend three night's in Rome as part of a month in
Europe and i'm not sure where in Rome would be best for me to book a hotel.
I'm a 40 year old Australian male. (traveling alone)
I dont want to stay in a wild or dangerous part of town, yet I want to be
close enough to some nightlife and daytime interesting places too.
I'm hoping for a hotel for around 50-60 Euro a night single.
I'm finding it hard so far, because I dont know anyone who can advise.
Thanks if you can.
Mark K.
Aug 15th 2003, 9:10 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Rome, where should I stay?
"Mark Kelepouris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello,
> I'm currently planning to spend three night's in Rome as part of a month
in
> Europe and i'm not sure where in Rome would be best for me to book a
hotel.
> I'm a 40 year old Australian male. (traveling alone)
> I dont want to stay in a wild or dangerous part of town, yet I want to be
> close enough to some nightlife and daytime interesting places too.
> I'm hoping for a hotel for around 50-60 Euro a night single.
> I'm finding it hard so far, because I dont know anyone who can advise.
By the way, you might want to rethink an itinerary that stays a mere three
nights in the major European cities. London, Paris, Berlin, etc. all
deserve at least week, so you might want to travel less, visit fewer cities,
and see much more as a direct result. The biggest problem I see with first
time travelers to Europe is the overwhelming, yet completely misguided
desire to pack as much travel into the shortest amount of time imaginable.
A month will fly by quickly, so I'd suggest that you give yourself the time
to enjoy what you do see. There's enough to see in any of the major cities
and their surrounds to spend months in any one of them without running out
of interesting things to see and do nearby.
Based on what you've posted so far, you might double or triple the number of
days per location and limit yourself to a smaller geographic region that's
interlinked by high-speed rail. The rest will still be there for a future
trip. This will also probably save you money, because travel is expensive
on a per day basis, and spreading the travel days further apart can
significantly lower the average daily cost of the trip, besides the greater
efficiency of spending more time seeing things instead of traveling between
sites.
news:[email protected]...
> Hello,
> I'm currently planning to spend three night's in Rome as part of a month
in
> Europe and i'm not sure where in Rome would be best for me to book a
hotel.
> I'm a 40 year old Australian male. (traveling alone)
> I dont want to stay in a wild or dangerous part of town, yet I want to be
> close enough to some nightlife and daytime interesting places too.
> I'm hoping for a hotel for around 50-60 Euro a night single.
> I'm finding it hard so far, because I dont know anyone who can advise.
By the way, you might want to rethink an itinerary that stays a mere three
nights in the major European cities. London, Paris, Berlin, etc. all
deserve at least week, so you might want to travel less, visit fewer cities,
and see much more as a direct result. The biggest problem I see with first
time travelers to Europe is the overwhelming, yet completely misguided
desire to pack as much travel into the shortest amount of time imaginable.
A month will fly by quickly, so I'd suggest that you give yourself the time
to enjoy what you do see. There's enough to see in any of the major cities
and their surrounds to spend months in any one of them without running out
of interesting things to see and do nearby.
Based on what you've posted so far, you might double or triple the number of
days per location and limit yourself to a smaller geographic region that's
interlinked by high-speed rail. The rest will still be there for a future
trip. This will also probably save you money, because travel is expensive
on a per day basis, and spreading the travel days further apart can
significantly lower the average daily cost of the trip, besides the greater
efficiency of spending more time seeing things instead of traveling between
sites.
Aug 15th 2003, 9:45 pm
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Rome, where should I stay?
Hi, J Quick,
I really appreciate your reply and understand what you are saying in terms
of my intended time in these countries. I cannot be in Europe for more than
a month though.
I'm lucky to be going there at all.
My company is paying for a 8 day stay in Switzerland because we are buying a
new printing press.
I thought I should take the opportunity to see more of Europe while i'm
there, especially Greece, since i'm half Greek.
So it's certainly not really a holiday thats well planned, just trying to
make the most of it in case I never do it again.
I am thankful my company gave me the OK to spend another 3 weeks as it is.
Thanks again.
Mark K.
----- Original Message -----
From: "J Quick" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: Rome, where should I stay?
> "Mark Kelepouris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hello,
> > I'm currently planning to spend three night's in Rome as part of a
month
> in
> > Europe and i'm not sure where in Rome would be best for me to book a
> hotel.
> > I'm a 40 year old Australian male. (traveling alone)
> > I dont want to stay in a wild or dangerous part of town, yet I want to
be
> > close enough to some nightlife and daytime interesting places too.
> > I'm hoping for a hotel for around 50-60 Euro a night single.
> > I'm finding it hard so far, because I dont know anyone who can advise.
> By the way, you might want to rethink an itinerary that stays a mere three
> nights in the major European cities. London, Paris, Berlin, etc. all
> deserve at least week, so you might want to travel less, visit fewer
cities,
> and see much more as a direct result. The biggest problem I see with
first
> time travelers to Europe is the overwhelming, yet completely misguided
> desire to pack as much travel into the shortest amount of time imaginable.
> A month will fly by quickly, so I'd suggest that you give yourself the
time
> to enjoy what you do see. There's enough to see in any of the major
cities
> and their surrounds to spend months in any one of them without running out
> of interesting things to see and do nearby.
> Based on what you've posted so far, you might double or triple the number
of
> days per location and limit yourself to a smaller geographic region that's
> interlinked by high-speed rail. The rest will still be there for a future
> trip. This will also probably save you money, because travel is expensive
> on a per day basis, and spreading the travel days further apart can
> significantly lower the average daily cost of the trip, besides the
greater
> efficiency of spending more time seeing things instead of traveling
between
> sites.
"J Quick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Jxm%[email protected]...
> "Mark Kelepouris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hello,
> > I'm currently planning to spend three night's in Rome as part of a
month
> in
> > Europe and i'm not sure where in Rome would be best for me to book a
> hotel.
> > I'm a 40 year old Australian male. (traveling alone)
> > I dont want to stay in a wild or dangerous part of town, yet I want to
be
> > close enough to some nightlife and daytime interesting places too.
> > I'm hoping for a hotel for around 50-60 Euro a night single.
> > I'm finding it hard so far, because I dont know anyone who can advise.
> By the way, you might want to rethink an itinerary that stays a mere three
> nights in the major European cities. London, Paris, Berlin, etc. all
> deserve at least week, so you might want to travel less, visit fewer
cities,
> and see much more as a direct result. The biggest problem I see with
first
> time travelers to Europe is the overwhelming, yet completely misguided
> desire to pack as much travel into the shortest amount of time imaginable.
> A month will fly by quickly, so I'd suggest that you give yourself the
time
> to enjoy what you do see. There's enough to see in any of the major
cities
> and their surrounds to spend months in any one of them without running out
> of interesting things to see and do nearby.
> Based on what you've posted so far, you might double or triple the number
of
> days per location and limit yourself to a smaller geographic region that's
> interlinked by high-speed rail. The rest will still be there for a future
> trip. This will also probably save you money, because travel is expensive
> on a per day basis, and spreading the travel days further apart can
> significantly lower the average daily cost of the trip, besides the
greater
> efficiency of spending more time seeing things instead of traveling
between
> sites.
I really appreciate your reply and understand what you are saying in terms
of my intended time in these countries. I cannot be in Europe for more than
a month though.
I'm lucky to be going there at all.
My company is paying for a 8 day stay in Switzerland because we are buying a
new printing press.
I thought I should take the opportunity to see more of Europe while i'm
there, especially Greece, since i'm half Greek.
So it's certainly not really a holiday thats well planned, just trying to
make the most of it in case I never do it again.
I am thankful my company gave me the OK to spend another 3 weeks as it is.
Thanks again.
Mark K.
----- Original Message -----
From: "J Quick" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2003 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: Rome, where should I stay?
> "Mark Kelepouris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hello,
> > I'm currently planning to spend three night's in Rome as part of a
month
> in
> > Europe and i'm not sure where in Rome would be best for me to book a
> hotel.
> > I'm a 40 year old Australian male. (traveling alone)
> > I dont want to stay in a wild or dangerous part of town, yet I want to
be
> > close enough to some nightlife and daytime interesting places too.
> > I'm hoping for a hotel for around 50-60 Euro a night single.
> > I'm finding it hard so far, because I dont know anyone who can advise.
> By the way, you might want to rethink an itinerary that stays a mere three
> nights in the major European cities. London, Paris, Berlin, etc. all
> deserve at least week, so you might want to travel less, visit fewer
cities,
> and see much more as a direct result. The biggest problem I see with
first
> time travelers to Europe is the overwhelming, yet completely misguided
> desire to pack as much travel into the shortest amount of time imaginable.
> A month will fly by quickly, so I'd suggest that you give yourself the
time
> to enjoy what you do see. There's enough to see in any of the major
cities
> and their surrounds to spend months in any one of them without running out
> of interesting things to see and do nearby.
> Based on what you've posted so far, you might double or triple the number
of
> days per location and limit yourself to a smaller geographic region that's
> interlinked by high-speed rail. The rest will still be there for a future
> trip. This will also probably save you money, because travel is expensive
> on a per day basis, and spreading the travel days further apart can
> significantly lower the average daily cost of the trip, besides the
greater
> efficiency of spending more time seeing things instead of traveling
between
> sites.
"J Quick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:Jxm%[email protected]...
> "Mark Kelepouris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Hello,
> > I'm currently planning to spend three night's in Rome as part of a
month
> in
> > Europe and i'm not sure where in Rome would be best for me to book a
> hotel.
> > I'm a 40 year old Australian male. (traveling alone)
> > I dont want to stay in a wild or dangerous part of town, yet I want to
be
> > close enough to some nightlife and daytime interesting places too.
> > I'm hoping for a hotel for around 50-60 Euro a night single.
> > I'm finding it hard so far, because I dont know anyone who can advise.
> By the way, you might want to rethink an itinerary that stays a mere three
> nights in the major European cities. London, Paris, Berlin, etc. all
> deserve at least week, so you might want to travel less, visit fewer
cities,
> and see much more as a direct result. The biggest problem I see with
first
> time travelers to Europe is the overwhelming, yet completely misguided
> desire to pack as much travel into the shortest amount of time imaginable.
> A month will fly by quickly, so I'd suggest that you give yourself the
time
> to enjoy what you do see. There's enough to see in any of the major
cities
> and their surrounds to spend months in any one of them without running out
> of interesting things to see and do nearby.
> Based on what you've posted so far, you might double or triple the number
of
> days per location and limit yourself to a smaller geographic region that's
> interlinked by high-speed rail. The rest will still be there for a future
> trip. This will also probably save you money, because travel is expensive
> on a per day basis, and spreading the travel days further apart can
> significantly lower the average daily cost of the trip, besides the
greater
> efficiency of spending more time seeing things instead of traveling
between
> sites.
