Burbank or Santa Monica???

[eliz603]

We are coming to Southern California in July for a 10 day stay, and this involves multiple cities and hotels. Our first four days will be in the Los Angeles area (not Disneyland - that's the last part of the trip!). We have two hotel rooms booked but need to give one of them up. One is in Santa Monica off the beach, and the other is in Burbank. We are a family of five, so both are suites. We don't care about views or that kind of stuff for this stay (we have a very nice resort booked for San Diego). We just need a good area that's safe and close to what we want to do in LA (both seem to fit that bill).

However, the Burbank hotel is going to be about $250 cheaper over the course of several nights. I *think* I like the Burbank one better than Santa Monica. But for the sake of this question, just assume both hotels are equal.

Sooooo...... given all that, would you stay in Santa Monica or Burbank?

 

[StageTek]

Given your stated criteria (don't care about view, good area, safe and close to what you
want to do) I'd say Burbank. Saving money is (to me) important. However you don't say
what you want to do. If spending most days at the beach is what you want to do Santa
Monica is closer. If the usual "tourist" things like Universal, the movie studios, Hollywood
Blvd. is what you want to do then Burbank is closer.

I would stay in Santa Monica.

 

[eliz603]

We aren't going to the beach in LA. We are doing that in San Diego. We are basically planning stuff like Griffith Park, hiking, Malibu, The Grove, Aquarium of the Pacific, winging it a lot of the time. Two of my kids are too young for the movie studios, and we aren't doing Universal or Six Flags.

 

[Carstairs38]

It sounds to me like Burbank is more centrally located to what you plan to do.

 

[KCmike]

Are you doing Hollywood Blvd stuff? If you are and have never been you might be quite disappointed. What are things are you planning to do in LA? I'm also curious as to which hotel you picked in San Diego if I may ask?