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.

I don't want to make it a firm requirement, but let's not just assume it can't be done, either.

which is why I was saying that at least one hotel in each city should be under $100/night. That gives us the opportunity to compare the hotels and decide that any amenity (or lack thereof) is worth it or not.

So if you can't find a hotel that meets requirements under $100, the city's out?

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.

This strikes me as wise.

In this case, I'm very concerned about the rights of the minority, even at the expense of a bit of the will of the majority, since it is the difference between someone being able to attend or not vs. shininess of accomidations.

Abi, rights don't come into it. It's economic reality, financial physics.

The bottom line is, if you're looking at a major metropolitan area in the United States, you're looking at certain economic realities. In 2002, less than a year after 911, airlines were still scrabbling for passengers and the Bellagio was sending us "special deals! $89 a night!" offers. That $89 a night is now $169 a night.

This group has specific requirements, and they aren't negotiable. Which is fine, because that's one of the upsides to staying in a major urban area: the flow of tourism is likely to be more sophisticated, and the hotels are more likely to cater to those requirements.

So, I can find you probably seven or eight motor inns on Lombard Street, for between $69 and $89 a night. Big comfortable rooms. But you won't get a hospitality suite. There will be nowhere nearby for your prom. And you sure as hell won't have internet in every room.

That's the tradeoff. At the high end, you can stay at the Fairmont or the Pan-Pacific or the Mark Hopkins and have everything non-negotiable on the list, and hot and cold running cabana boys or girls from every bathroom tap - but we'd need to win the lottery first.

This is one reason I've been stressing the intangibles in the city choices. An area with a lot of locals who have house room for those guests for whom that extra ten or twenty a night is a strain means there are that many more guests who can take that extra money and use it to actually get there in the first place. A city with people who have cars and a willingness to drive, or a really wide-ranging public transport system, means another $30 bucks saved on having to buy a local transit pass, or whatever an individual city's cost might be for a weekend pass. And not everyone is going to want to do everything in a group. People are going to want to wander around and see things on their own, rather than be strictly dependent on other people ferrying them from the wilds of suburbia to wherever they want to go.

These are the intangibles. But I know that, in my own pimp, I'd point out that we can happily house - and chauffeuse, and feed - three people who otherwise couldn't afford the hotels.

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.

Agree with this. $100 as a goal, or target, or guideline is fine, but I'm uncomfortable with having it set as a make-or-break ceiling, particularly given that there are hosts in Seattle and SF, at least, and that would certainly play into people's ability to attend if hotel costs were prohibitive.

So if you can't find a hotel that meets requirements under $100, the city's out?

I certainly hope that's not the case.

So if you can't find a hotel that meets requirements under $100, the city's out?

I certainly hope that's not the case.

So do I. Because I'm damned if I'd personally be willing to spend airfare and hotel money to stay at an airport motel in East Nowhere, just to save ten bucks a night on lodging.