It does seem unlikely that under $100 and high speed/wireless internet connection in every room will go together. But that's just my Boston/Cambridge experience.

My feeling is that for the absolute max cost of a hotel room (especially with the amenities that are being requested) to stay under $100, we'd need to be looking at places like, I don't know, San Jose or Atascadero.

I like Vortex's idea. And if a $89 a night hotel (probably without the amenities) is close in proximity to a $119 a night hotel, people that aren't sticklers for a wireless connection in their room could stay there.

Does any of that make sense? I need coffee.

I like Vortex's idea. And if a $89 a night hotel (probably without the amenities) is close in proximity to a $119 a night hotel, people that aren't sticklers for a wireless connection in their room could stay there.

Or, if those are our choices, we can discuss and determine what takes priority. I'm still strongly in favor of letting the pimps pimp what they think are the best options based on the host of requirements, and seeing where that takes us.

If they're in close proximity (as was the case in LA, I think), that works as a unified option, I think.

It does seem unlikely that under $100 and high speed/wireless internet connection in every room will go together. But that's just my Boston/Cambridge experience.

Same for Minneapolis.

I'm happy to wait and see what the pimps pimp, but yeah.

I think that $100 a night in a major city is a farfetched expectation given all of the amenities that we want.

I think Vortex is right. $100 is a reasonable goal, but I think really we should be ecstatic to get anything under $125 with the amenities we want.

I think that $100 a night in a major city is a farfetched expectation given all of the amenities that we want.

It would be a challenge to find such a hotel here too.

I'm still strongly in favor of letting the pimps pimp what they think are the best options based on the host of requirements, and seeing where that takes us.

Yes, this.

I agree that under a $100 a night is pretty unrealistic in any major city. You might get cheaper rates in the suburbs or near the airport, but that leaves you with the problem of limited places to go if you don't have a car and limited hospitality suite and prom options. I guess I was thinking of that figure as a guideline, not a requirement.

I agree that under a $100 a night is pretty unrealistic in any major city. You might get cheaper rates in the suburbs or near the airport, but that leaves you with the problem of limited places to go if you don't have a car and limited hospitality suite and prom options. I guess I was thinking of that figure as a guideline, not a requirement.

Just as a reminder, we managed that in Chicago, didn't we? We stayed outside of the city, but in a suburb with its own amenities and public transit access to the more touristy things. I don't want to make it a firm requirement, but let's not just assume it can't be done, either. I think we're getting ahead of ourselves.

Just as a reminder, we managed that in Chicago, didn't we?

Chicago was 2002, though, which means the hotel price may have been artificially low because tourism was in a slump that year. Plus, there's been some inflation since then -- according to the inflation calculator, $99 in 2002 equals $105.68 now.