I’ll admit that I tend to overanalyze things. I don’t view it as a positive or negative, more of just a part of who I am. Having that personality trait, I ask questions of others that force them to ponder the same dilemmas that I face when traveling.
One of my favorite questions to ask frequent travelers is, “What’s more important, the hotel or the destination?”
Of course, there’s more to the question than that. I’m trying to find out if they’ll visit a location just for an amazing hotel if there’s not much else there, or would they rather stay at a boring yet sufficient hotel at a fantastic place.
Some more seasoned travelers may reply with a question like, “Why do you have to choose? Why not go to an amazing hotel at an awesome location?”
Sure, that’s an option for some. But what if the location you want to visit doesn’t have any luxury hotels? Or what if an amazing hotel is not close to anything else you’d like to see?
Others may respond they’d stay in a hut if the surrounding location was stunning. I tend to agree. I’m way more about the place than the accommodation.
We’ve admittedly never stayed at a hut, but we’ve stayed at some basic accommodations. When we visited Carlsbad Caverns, there were no luxury accommodations in the surrounding area.
We stayed at an average chain hotel, so average I can’t even remember if it was an IHG or Marriott property. I wasn’t there for the hotel (Note from Sharon: it wasn’t a hotel, it was a motel, my love. Here’s how you can tell the difference between the two ;-). BTW, it was a Days Inn. So it was Wyndham).
Another place where the hotel was outdated was our stay at the Thunderbird Lodge at Grand Canyon.
Not the lap of luxury. It was a room and it was clean. More important to us was the view just outside our room.
That tends to be the case at many National Parks. Great views, average hotels. There are exceptions to that rule, like the Ahwahnee Hotel in Yosemite, but those hotels are grand but not luxurious.
Don’t get me wrong. If we’re traveling and have the opportunity to stay at a nicer hotel, I’ll take advantage of the opportunity. It’s just never the REASON that I’ll go somewhere.
It’s the same as why we’re not the resort hotel type. I don’t want to stay at my hotel for the entire trip, even if they have a fantastic pool or fabulous restaurants. I travel to see places, not to see hotels.
What’s your opinion? Location, hotel, or only somewhere with both?
Want to comment on this post? Great! Read this first to help ensure it gets approved.
Like this post? Please share it! We have plenty more just like it and would love it if you decided to hang around and sign up to get emailed notifications of when we post.
Whether you’ve read our articles before or this is the first time you’re stopping by, we’re really glad you’re here and hope you come back to visit again!
This post first appeared on Your Mileage May Vary