To ask what you would compromise on

[sweeneytoddsrazor]

Not an aibu at all really but wondering what everyone else thinks.

DH and I both like cathedrals, churches, castles etc and a few times a year book a city break to go off for a few days, visiting somewhere. As with most things we do have to budget and this is where we sometimes disagree. We go self catering as we like the freedom that offers, but I would rather have a slightly more basic apartment in the thick of things, whereas he would prefer to spend the same amount of money on somewhere a bit more luxurious but further out. So vote is yes for in the middle of things or no further away

I hate self catering but would pick a hotel with less travelling as we spend very little time at the accommodation bar night times.

I quite like both - depending on where I am, what I'm doing, how much of a 'rest' I am wanting or how much downtime there will be when not exploring to appreciate somewhere a nicer.

Could you perhaps alternate? So something a bit more luxurious and further out one time, then more basic and central the next?

I would want a really luxurious apartment in the thick of things. Is that not an option? Wouldn't matter about the kichen because we wouldn't cook but always want a nice living room and especially bedroom/bathroom.

Honestly I'm with him. I imagine the distance wouldn't be huge and it's depressing coming back on holiday to a basic box.

On holiday I want to sleep in a place that's a teeny bit nicer than my own home.

It'd be different if I was 21 and interrailing and dossing in hostels but at this hour of my life I want a really nice room!

I agree @ElspethFlashman, even if you are out all day it's nice to come back to some comfortable furniture and a luxury bathroom/bedroom at least.
I've dismissed holiday lets because i didn't like the look of the sofas.

For a city break where you may want to do lots of sightseeing, im with you. I'd want to make the most of my time and wouldn't want to spend my time travelling.

For less intense break eg maybe a City you've been to before and are less set on seeing the sights, id be happy to stay somewhere more luxurious but further away.

Me too, @Sparklingbrook; a skanky throw hiding God knows what on a manky sofa - yeuk!

If you go a few times a year then why not alternate? Both views are reasonable as I’m assuming that the places you pick are clean and just a bit basic rather than grotty and I’m assuming that the places he’s picking are closer to the edges of the city rather than an hours journey from the city centre. You pick the accommodation this time, he picks it the next time.

@SturminsterNewton

Me too, *@Sparklingbrook*; a skanky throw hiding God knows what on a manky sofa - yeuk!

Yep, nothing with a throw would be acceptable. Or cane furniture.

If you have somewhere nicer further out and have to drive into the city every day or faff about with public transport then I’d say get the place in the centre.

If your plan is to do trips out to surrounding areas so would be driving anyway then somewhere further out is fine.

Depends how far out you are talking. And I’m confused by your yes/no vote and which is which! But I’m with your DH on this one

Personally I'd be on your side. It makes such a difference if you've been shlepping around on your feet all day to just stumble back to your place quickly rather than navigate public transport or traffic. Also if you need a break in the middle of the day.

HOW basic and HOW far out are quite important though. I don't require luxurious comfort in a holiday apartment I won't be in much but if it's self-catering a decently-appointed kitchen is a must. And obviously basics like wifi and shower need to work properly. I'd definitely check past reviews and choose based on that.

If I'm on a city break I absolutely don't want to stay in the middle of nowhere, no matter how luxurious. I'd want to stay in a lively area with bars and restaurants immediately around it.

In fact on city breaks I usually gravitate towards an apartment in the hipster neighbourhood rather than the centre per se. Around Europe have always found one that I'm happy with for very affordable prices.

Honestly, it depends on my mood, and how flush I am at the time!

I go down to London quite often (live about an hour away on the train), to go to the theatre (my one true love!)
Sometimes it's a quick "in and out" visit, so I'll pick something like a Premier Inn, and sometimes I want to make it more of an event, and I'll pick somewhere 4-5* and bathe in luxury!

Perhaps you and DP could agree to alternate your tastes? Cheap and cheerful one trip, then more splurgy the next.

I think city breaks work best if you are in a central location. How basic is basic?
Alternating is a good idea.
Personally I love a city break staying in a central hotel with a spa. I enjoy the yummy breakfast , having different types of lunches out depending where we are that day, museum cafe, street food, pub lunch etc and then dinner out somewhere different night or the option to have it in the hotel if we’d had a 20,000 step day.

Location wins for sure, for me.
digs are just somewhere to sleep & dig. As long as I can get a good night's sleep, I'd go for more basic.

sleep & cook, oops

Neither option is it the far end of the spectrum, we set aside an amount we want to spend on accommodation and work within that. I wouldn't go anywhere with a skanky sofa dont worry, but it wouldn't bother me if it was just a shower room not a big bathroom for example. This time in particular we are travelling quite a long way, everything is city centre based so it makes sense to make the most of the time we have without unnecessary travelling.

@sweeneytoddsrazor

Neither option is it the far end of the spectrum, we set aside an amount we want to spend on accommodation and work within that. I wouldn't go anywhere with a skanky sofa dont worry, but it wouldn't bother me if it was just a shower room not a big bathroom for example. This time in particular we are travelling quite a long way, everything is city centre based so it makes sense to make the most of the time we have without unnecessary travelling.

Even more on your side.

Personally what I find luxurious and relaxing is being able to take it easy in the morning without thinking "if we don't leave now it'll be nearly midday by the time we get in and we'll have wasted the morning..." - and also to have a leisurely dinner out and maybe a nightcap afterwards without thinking "...how will we get back, are the buses running, does Uber work here".

Based on your update, I’d go for central.

Im not bothered about a luxury venue but location is important to me. Last time I travelled (Venice) abroad I chose a hotel right by the Rialto bridge and it could not have been more convenient for local transport, sightseeing, restaurants and small supermarket for self catering. I did the same last time I went to Dubai and other city breaks. The hotel is only a base from which to see the city so I am not bothered so long as its clean and quiet. Have happily stayed in a 3 star before today (London).

However there is something to be said for both sets of arguments depending on what you want to do with your time.

I prefer central, so if we’ve been out sightseeing all day, I’ve got time to nip back to the hotel, have a soak, drop off bags and get changed before heading out again for dinner. If I’ve got to travel for miles to do that, I’m not going to want to go back out again and would just want to eat at the hotel, so you miss out on finding somewhere really interesting to go, so I’d definitely agree with you on that. I don’t care if something is basic, just as long as it’s spotlessly clean.

But just for the yes/no voting options, YABU.

It depends on so many things - the size of the city and what its public transport is like, for instance. Also what the weather is likely to be like, is there a nice walking route if it's not likely to be to hot/cold/rainy.