Post # 1
When my Fiance and I lised our priorities for our reception they were as follows:
- everything in one place
- amazing food and drinks
- beautiful location
We’ve found two places in our budget that fit these criteria but have two major differences.
Venue 1 – 2941 Restuarant
- Incredible food
- Gorgeous Landscaping and Outdoor area for cocktails (koi pond, waterfall, floor to ceiling windows, etc.)
- Shuttle will be provided to a nice but inexpensive hotel 5 minutes away
- Location is not in the city, 10 miles from airport
Venue 2 – Hotel Palomar, Dupont Circle
- Food is good, probably not on par with venue 1
- Hotel is chic, and modern, but ceremony/venue space will be your basic ballroom
- More expensive to stay in that hotel
- Location is in DC, and blocks away from an area with great nightlife, 6 miles from airport, and connected by metro
Now my argument is Venue 1 hits everything that is most important to us, and that when people travel for a wedding they’re not really expecting to do a ton of sight seeing. I know that we’ve been to plenty of weddings in the middle of nowhere and we just hang out with other guests until the wedding and then fly our after the brunch the next day. Even if the weddings are in cool areas there isn’t a ton of time during a wedding weekend to do a lot.
He argues that venue 2 hits our needs well enough (if not the best) and that people will be able to go out and enjoy themselves pre- and post-wedding if they want and that is important.
As a guest who would have to travel into a city for a wedding (and as brides planning their own wedding) which sounds better? Amazing food/beautful location even if there’s no nightlife/activities within walking distance. Or Good food/nice location, but in the middle of it all?
Post # 3
I would much rather be connected by metro. However, if I was flying in for a wedding, I always stay 3-4 days and make it a mini-vacation so being close to stuff may be more important to me then those who are just coming in for one day. Plus I’m a hotel snob, and depending on what you mean by “inexpensive” I might not stay there anyway.
Post # 4
I wouldn’t mind being only 10 minutes out, but I would definitely appreciate the cost savings of the first venue (as long as its a considerable amount, not like $10 a night cheaper). You can always carpool with other guests if you’re wanting to go into the city a night…
Post # 5
@lisaelanna: The savings would be substantial–before room blocks regular rooms at Venue 1 are like $100 if purchased in advance. Regular rooms at Venue 2 are like $300. Hotel at venue 1 is a marriot with good reviews. I think the price difference is because it’s not in the city.
@mwitter80: If you took extra time in the city though would you be more likely took book outside the blocked hotel anyways? And would you be upset that you had to travel from your vacation hotel to the wedding, or you accept that as part of the choice you made to take extra days?
Post # 6
@Taylor4: I try to always stay in the hotel block, assuming that the bride and groom need me to in order to get a free suite or something.
Post # 7
I’d vote for venue 1. It sounds lovely and like it’s still close enough for guests to manage, not to mention more ambience and price 🙂
Post # 8
I agree that people do not sightsee during weddings. And Dupont might be kind of overwhelming for out of town guests that don’t live in big cities. Hotel prices in downtown DC are sooo much… as a guest, I’d far rather stay somewhere less expensive. Wedding weekends are busy enough, people will not have trouble finding stuff to do!
Post # 9
Venue 1 sounds nicer. Those that wish to go out and visit the capital can still do so if they plan for it.
Is there still places for people to eat and such near their hotel (venue 1)? As long as they’re comfortable, I think that’s what I’d prefer. The big city can be confusing for many.
Post # 10
I’m going to go with Venue 1. As a guest I would appreciate the better food and the the significant savings. If I wanted to go out I could always hire a cab (with all the money saved on the room rental 🙂 ).
Post # 11
I say venue 1…. i attended a wedding in Wine country Ca and they blocked out rooms at a few hotels and we stayed in one that really wasnt near much at all! But we did take extar days for a mini vacation and we had no problem traveling a little from the hotel to do some sightseeing… to me its fun to drive through places and sight see as well so traveling to do things during the wedding weekend was no problem for us… I say go with the venue YOU like and your guests will most likely not think twice about it… if they care enough to travel out of town for your wedding then they wont be that petty about the hotel location… also i think they will appreciate the aving much more than being near nightlife!
Post # 12
I feel like your job as the host if to provide a great party, hopefully with accomodations and transportation figured out. That is the priority, and I think venue 1 would do that better than venue 2. It’s not your job to set up your guests for the best sightseeing experience or in close proximity to night life — they are there for your wedding. Do you know what I mean?
Post # 13
@Lt.Columbo: Yeah that’s kind of my position too. I can understand his point of view, but I was like–we’re not here to set up a vacation for them. If they want to do that obviously they have the option to do that on their own. But it’s not a party-in-the-city weekend for them, it’s our wedding!
Post # 14
@Taylor4: Oh and I meant to add, as a guest that has traveled in from out of town, I’d rather go to the more awesome wedding. Esp because you said it has awesome food
Post # 15
- Wedding: October 2011 - Bed & Breakfast
Though I <3 DuPont, I still voted for #1. like PPs, I travel to a wedding to see the bride & groom, not for sightseeing time.
Post # 16
I would chose Hotel Palomar. I live in DC and thought of gettting married up here (actually, we considered having the reception there, so I may be a little biased). When I was looking, I was assuming guests who traveled would want to see at least some of the sights (mainly the monuments). I think Falls Church is a little far for that.
Also, as a guest I would prefer to stay at the hotel where the reception is. I think waiting for a shuttle to get back to the hotel is a bit of a hassle.