Report

Definition of a Hostel

The Ideal Hostel

uktrail started this discussion 16 years 11 months ago

I am coming more and more across places which call themselves 'hostel' in their name, but which have more the character of a B&B/Guest House/Pension.

Hostels do of course vary over a wide range of standards from a simple country farmhouse with self-catering and 8-bed dorms only, through to facilities with dorms and private rooms with TV and en-suite and all meals available.

The British tourist bureaus have definitions which distinguish between 'Hostel', 'Bunkhouse' and 'Camping Barn' in terms of facilities and awarding stars. But I think we should agree on a definition of 'Hostel' with worldwide application. This forum seems a good place to determine such a definition.

Relevant points:
1) You might say: To be a hostel, there must be dorm beds. I would say: Not quite so. What is essential is: They don't charge more for an individual traveller than for one of a couple. I think indeed this is the crucial definition. So if a facility charges, say, £16 per person for a couple in a double room, and £16 for an individual and chooses to put him in a single room, they are eligible. But if they charge £18 for an individual traveller, they are NOT ELIGIBLE.

2) A common room. Some hostels fail on this -- there's one in Edinburgh that brings your breakfast to your bedroom and has no common area. Some are pretty poor, with a sofa and chair in the reception hall having to suffice. Some have a common room with chairs in a semicircle facing a TV, which is not very congenial. Some have a common room which is so placed that people don't bother to discover it.

3) A self-catering kitchen. I would like to make this an essential criterion, but unfortunately that would leave out many facilities, some of them excellent in other ways. In some countries this is not normal at all. Some have a limited kitchen, eg microwaves and 2 stools to sit at. Some are miserly with equpment -- 2 battered pans, no soup bowls, no dishwashing soap -- and I've seen kitchens with no equipment AT ALL!

It is quite common now for hostels to try to cater for different types of traveller from the backpacker to the family and business visitor, and the YHA does this. New facilities call themselves 'hotel and hostel' in the hope of attracting all types, but they haven't always grasped what a hostel really is. For example, they seem determined that everybody wants privacy.

The definition I use is:

A hostel must provide budget-price accommodation, including 1-night stays, must welcome individual travellers and must not charge them more than a member of a couple or group. A hostel must have a common room where guests can sit and chat, or eat communally.

Comments

Report

Goofys

15 years

From a solo backpacker's (not "flashpacker") perspective, when they are looking for a "hostel" they're typically looking for a shared dormitory.

That's it though - it's not only backpackers that use hostels - I've stayed in hostels as a family, I've stayed in hostels as a couple, I've stayed in hostels on school trips - you're defining what a Hostel is by one type of user, one market.

It isn't the bunk beds that defines the hostel -- it's the shared accommodation. Many hostel dorms don't have bunk beds.

The only thing that separates a hostel room like this from an "X-bed private room" is that it's shared accommodation:

In the UK, due the the strong association with the YHA, the term Hostel can have something of a stigma attached to it (think sandals, cardigans, beards, some remote part of the Dales) - not as cool as it's backpacker/surf lodge cousins. It was this article in the Guardian that made us more comfortable with the realisation that Goofys was a Hostel.

What still distinguishes the hostel from its bigger, more expensive brothers is that each retains some form of communal living; shared social spaces that bring travellers together, even if it's just a bar and kitchen.

Take away the dorm rooms, and you take away some of that communal living - but you also take away some of the negative aspects too - safety, security, privacy.

I stayed in a Hostel in Ireland once (meets your definition) on a rainy night in March - the girl behind the desk stuck around just long enough to check us in (barely made eye contact) - we were then left rattling around an empty building for the night - the place felt deserted. Stayed in a Hostel South Africa that was buzzing - can't remember if it had dorms, but it felt like a Hostel.

For me it's about the experience - Goofys is a Hostel because it feels like a Hostel, not because of the sleeping arrangements - and if our guests want to treat the place like a B&B, we're cool with that too.

If you take your definition to it's logical conclusion, a "true" Hostel only has dorm rooms and anything else is a compromise.

For me a Backpackers (all dorms) is at one end of the spectrum, and Goofys is at the other - you still get the social experience, just with a bit more comfort.

Report

Goofys

15 years

I don't see that having some beds in bunk format (ie up ladders) in itself makes you a hostel.

According to the National Standard, having self-catering facilities and a communal area makes you eligible - and having bunk beds means you'e not a Hotel, Guesthouse or B&B - that only really leaves Hostel.

But you give a range of prices for any given season and day -- what's the reason for the range?

We only have 7 rooms and a huge mortgage, so we try to encourage long stays, and maximise occupancy (also there's more of a buzz about the place when we're full)...

Supply & Demand - the higher the demand, the higher the price (weekends are more popular than midweek, summer is more popular than winter).

Ecconomics - the more people that share a room, and the longer they stay, the more it reduces our overheads, so the lower the rate.

For the current season midweek for example, if I came travelling solo, what price would I pay? And if I came with my wife, what price would we each pay?

For most of the year we operate a 2-night minimum stay (3/4 nights in summer), with a supplement for under-occupancy on advanced bookings. But if you came knocking on our door (and we still had space), we'd take one person for one night at the per person double room rate (i.e. no supplements).

Report

Josh Hostels

15 years

In the UK, due the the strong association with the YHA, the term Hostel can have something of a stigma attached to it (think sandals, cardigans, beards, some remote part of the Dales) - not as cool as it's backpacker/surf lodge cousins. It was this article in the Guardian that made us more comfortable with the realisation that Goofys was a Hostel.

If you haven't read it yet, see my interview on Tux in Backpack about the recent articles on boutique hostels:

More comments about the recent boutique hostel articles here:

Take away the dorm rooms, and you take away some of that communal living - but you also take away some of the negative aspects too - safety, security, privacy.

Many people see the shared rooms as an advantage. There are hostels with over 90% approval rating for security that don't have lockers in the dorms. I've never had anything stolen out of a shared dorm. I feel safer with my laptop in a locker in a shared dorm than to leave it unlocked in a hotel room.

There are bad hostels, but there are also bad hotels. Shared rooms aren't necessarily a negative thing. Bad hostels have problems with safety, security, and privacy (just like in bad hotels), but good hostels can address those things.

I stayed in a Hostel in Ireland once (meets your definition) on a rainy night in March - the girl behind the desk stuck around just long enough to check us in (barely made eye contact) - we were then left rattling around an empty building for the night - the place felt deserted. Stayed in a Hostel South Africa that was buzzing - can't remember if it had dorms, but it felt like a Hostel.

I don't think the word "hostel" refers to how fun or well-run a place is -- it just refers to a type of accommodation.

For me it's about the experience - Goofys is a Hostel because it feels like a Hostel, not because of the sleeping arrangements - and if our guests want to treat the place like a B&B, we're cool with that too.

I think the line between hotels/guesthouses and hostels has to be defined somewhere. Otherwise many hotels are going to jump on the trend of "hostels" and start marketing themselves as hostels. I think that would be bad for hostels.

Here is how Hostels.com is defining hostels:

[INDENT]"Today, many hostels are not unlike budget hotels where the only significant difference is the price." [source][/INDENT]

A hostel is now just a budget hotel that is a little bit cheaper than a budget hotel? :confused:

I see the line that separates hostels as being:

shared accommodation for individual travelers
budget-oriented
allows short stays
generally has common areas

If you take away the shared accommodation from the list above, there's no difference between a hotel or guesthouse and a hostel. A "sociable hotel" isn't a hostel.

If you take your definition to it's logical conclusion, a "true" Hostel only has dorm rooms and anything else is a compromise.

I think there are many kinds of accommodation:

hotels (many types)
guesthouses
backpacker hotels (caters to backpackers, but no shared dorms)
hostels (backpackers, flashpackers, etc.)
etc.

I still think I would only place properties with shared dorms in the "hostel" category. You have an interesting point about not being allowed to call yourself a B&B or guesthouse because you have "bunk beds for grownups". It seems like the regulations should distinguish between shared dorms and private rooms with bunk beds, because bunk beds aren't a defining characteristic of hostels. I've been to many hostels that have shared accommodation, but not bunk beds.

For me a Backpackers (all dorms) is at one end of the spectrum, and Goofys is at the other - you still get the social experience, just with a bit more comfort.

A property doesn't have to be a "hostel" to be sociable. There are places that cater to backpackers that aren't hostels. One example is Far Out Camping in Greece. The atmosphere is a lot like a hostel in many ways, but I wouldn't call it a hostel.

Just stating my perspective here, but open to new ideas. I'll include a link to this thread in the next newsletter and maybe more people will have thoughts on it :)

Report

Josh Hostels

15 years

According to the National Standard, having self-catering facilities and a communal area makes you eligible - and having bunk beds means you'e not a Hotel, Guesthouse or B&B - that only really leaves Hostel.

Whatever the definition, it looks like a great place :)
The Tripadvisor ratings are excellent (15 top ratings out of 17).

Report

Goofys

15 years

I think perceptions of a Hostel must be different depending which side of the Atlantic you are on (that'll be the YHA again).

The standards here in the UK are based on some form of research that says (in general) that people booking a B&B/Guesthouse or Hotel in the UK don't expect to sleep in bunk beds, that if they book a Hotel, they expect to get a Hotel and not a Guesthouse/B&B (or any other type of accommodation for that matter), and that if they book a Hostel, they expect budget, self-catering and somewhere to sit and eat or relax, and that they might find dorms or rooms with bunk beds.

Your definition seems to be centred around the expectations of travellers/backpackers - Goofys, the expectations of a UK domestic market.

I don't think either is wrong, just based on different perceptions/expectations.

Report

uktrail

15 years

According to the National Standard, having self-catering facilities and a communal area makes you eligible - and having bunk beds means you'e not a Hotel, Guesthouse or B&B - that only really leaves Hostel.

We only have 7 rooms and a huge mortgage, so we try to encourage long stays, and maximise occupancy (also there's more of a buzz about the place when we're full)...

Ecconomics - the more people that share a room, and the longer they stay, the more it reduces our overheads, so the lower the rate.

For most of the year we operate a 2-night minimum stay (3/4 nights in summer),

All guesthouses have these concerns. If they
market only complete rooms, as guesthouses do, they will therefore charge more per person for singles, and will discourage singles (by means of price) if they think that a couple or family will come along. I, as a solo traveller, see the price as being too high. I avoid staying there because of this.

You adopt this policy, but unlike most guest houses you have self-catering and common area. So when I am travelling with my wife, I would be very interested in your accommodation, seeing it as guest-house plus very useful extras. But as a solo traveller, I don't want to see this place called a hostel.

But imagine you were to change your policy to allow sharing of at least some rooms. You could fill those rooms with single travellers and make just as much income. If you chose this route, you will probably choose to have bunk beds, as they are most efficient for the purpose. I, as a solo traveller, see this place that charges me the same as others, and has the communal facilities, and I am willing to share, so I stay there. THAT is a hostel. (More precisely, a hostel and guest-house combined.)

That is why hostels tend to have bunk beds, but bunk beds are not part of the definition of a hostel, any more than their existence should stop a place being called a guesthouse.

I think the rule you quote is rather stupid, the result of managers who have never stayed in hostels who sit in offices and DECIDE what is a hostel and what isn't on the basis of majority characteristics. It's not easy to make sharp definitions: look at the amount of correspondence there has been on this forum on the subject. Some authorities insist that a hostel MUST have a TV. Many of us who have stayed in hostels know that the most highly-regarded hostels do NOT have a TV, at least in their main common area.

(How many bunk beds do you have? Is it just one or two that are above double beds or in family rooms? I suspect these could be quite common in motels and some hotels.)

Report

Goofys

15 years

The Tux in Backpack: Do you think hostels are for backpackers only or for other kind of travellers too?

HostelManagement.com (Josh): There are different types of hostels for different types of guests. A hostel might cater to traditional backpackers, school groups, working travelers, flashpackers, older travelers, partiers, conference attendees, long-stay guests, outdoorsy types, or other kinds of travelers. A hostel like Hostelling International’s “J. Ira and Nicki Harris Family Hostel” in Chicago attracts a vastly different crowd than a place like the “Rising Cock Hostel” in Portugal.

I think it’s a good thing to have many kinds of people using hostels. Different hostels can fill different niches.

What this site defines (in my opinion) is a Backpackers/Travellers Hostel - catering for the needs of a solo traveller.

School Groups, Families & Couples are by definition not solo travellers - if I cater to these niches, I probably have no need for a shared dorm - but to meet this site's definition of a Hostel I would have to have one, even if that room were better utilised as a social space - say a games room.

In their FAQ, Hostelling International describes a Youth Hostel (a Hostel catering predominately for the youth market) as: -

What is a Youth Hostel? A Youth Hostel is good quality budget accommodation that offers a comfortable night's sleep in friendly surroundings at an affordable price. Youth Hostels provide the perfect way to get to know a country at low cost and meet with many other people who share your attitude towards travelling.

They go on to say: -

Will I have to sleep in a big dormitory? Big dormitories are becoming increasingly rare in the Hostelling International network. Many hostels now offer single, twin and four-bedded rooms - please check when booking.

To me, the HI definition is inclusive, and this site's definition is exclusive

(How many bunk beds do you have? Is it just one or two that are above double beds or in family rooms? I suspect these could be quite common in motels and some hotels.)

The majority of our rooms are flexible so they can be configured to suit families or couples, or split into singles to suit groups of friends travelling together.

But imagine you were to change your policy to allow sharing of at least some rooms. You could fill those rooms with single travellers and make just as much income.

We're actually looking at doing the opposite - reducing beds, and increasing the amount of shared social space we have - our guests tend to want to spend time with each other out of their rooms - they get the best of both worlds, a good night's sleep and social interaction.

I find it quite odd that Hostellers/Hosteliers who are renowned for being so open and welcoming, would set about creating a definition that is so closed and exclusive. Maybe I have misunderstood what it means to be a Hostel - I like my interpretation.

Report

uktrail

15 years

Inclusive v Exclusive

What this site defines (in my opinion) is a Backpackers/Travellers Hostel - catering for the needs of a solo traveller.

School Groups, Families & Couples are by definition not solo travellers - if I cater to these niches, I probably have no need for a shared dorm - but to meet this site's definition of a Hostel I would have to have one, even if that room were better utilised as a social space - say a games room.

Traditional hostels (old YHA) catered directly for the individual or small group. Families and couples had to fit in to the format (eg couples had to sleep in separate dorms). You could call this semi-exclusive.

Your concept in the second para above, with no shared dorm, is for a place that caters directly for groups, families and couples. Solo travellers have to fit in to that format, by having to pay a lot more. I would call that also semi-exclusive.

Many establishments now are fully inclusive of all these mentioned categories, eg modern YHAs.

This site favours a definition of Hostels as places that definitely include the solo traveller, but may or may not directly include families and couples.

I support that definition for the following reason: There are many, many many establishments that cater directly for families etc (most hotels, guest houses, motels, b&bs etc.). There are relatively few that cater directly for individual travellers. That is why I personally want to reserve the term Hostel for this relatively few.

Report

Josh Hostels

15 years

What this site defines (in my opinion) is a Backpackers/Travellers Hostel - catering for the needs of a solo traveller.

It's not that a hostel has to cater only to solo travelers, but to fit in the definition it can't be setup in a way that does not cater to solo travelers (by not offering shared dorm accommodation).

School Groups, Families & Couples are by definition not solo travellers - if I cater to these niches, I probably have no need for a shared dorm - but to meet this site's definition of a Hostel I would have to have one, even if that room were better utilised as a social space - say a games room.

A property doesn't need to be a hostel to cater to those niches or to have social spaces.

In their FAQ, Hostelling International describes a Youth Hostel (a Hostel catering predominately for the youth market) as:...

With respect to HI, which runs many great hostels and does a lot to promote hostelling, the term "Youth hostel" is outdated and should be dropped from use. They have already changed from the "International Youth Hostel Federation" (IYHF) to "Hostelling International", so why use the word "youth"?

HI calls backpackers "dodgy":
[INDENT]"Unlike bland motels, impersonal hotels or dodgy backpackers, HI Youth Hostels are fun, lively meeting places, full of like-minded people."[/INDENT]
Yet at the same time, many HI hostels are "backpackers":
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahihostels.com+backpackers&num=100

I don't think their definitions are as well-defined as they could be.

To me, the HI definition is inclusive, and this site's definition is exclusive

I don't think it's exclusive. The way I see this site's definition is that it defines hostels in a way that protects the hostel industry from being flooded by hotels that call themselves hostels. See my interview on Tux on Backpack (mentioned above) for the background on hotels being marketed as hostels.

I find it quite odd that Hostellers/Hosteliers who are renowned for being so open and welcoming, would set about creating a definition that is so closed and exclusive. Maybe I have misunderstood what it means to be a Hostel - I like my interpretation.

This website is open to anyone who is interested in the hostel industry, so I don't think it's exclusive. Not everyone who posts here regularly runs a "hostel" that fits into the site's definition.

The line between hostels and hotels has to be placed somewhere, or I think it will be bad for hostels in the long run as hotels begin to market themselves as hostels. The word "hostel" would become meaningless and booking engines would increase their efforts to get traffic for "hostel" keywords in Google and then upsell to hotels for a larger commission.

This site's definition of hostel is open to change, but I still would expect a "hostel" to offer me a shared dorm if I showed up (whether I were alone or with others). I don't know how it is in the UK with those regulations you mentioned. To me "bunk beds" aren't a defining characteristic of a hostel. I want to do a tour of the UK sometime and see what it's like there.

Report

Goofys

15 years

The line between hostels and hotels has to be placed somewhere, or I think it will be bad for hostels in the long run as hotels begin to market themselves as hostels. The word "hostel" would become meaningless and booking engines would increase their efforts to get traffic for "hostel" keywords in Google and then upsell to hotels for a larger commission.

People are able to make up their own minds - if someone is looking for a USD $10 a night dorm room, they're not going to book a USD $500 a night 5* Hotel by accident.

the term "Youth hostel" is outdated and should be dropped from use

Perhaps your definition is becoming dated, and doesn't take into account changing perceptions towards Hostels. To me, being a Hostel isn't about the sleeping arrangements - it's all the other stuff, it's the ethos that makes a Hostel what it is. There's still a place for "old school" Backpackers, but there's a place for Boutique Hostels as well - your definition doesn't take account of the progression & development of Hostels to meet changing expectations.

Search form

Report 'Definition of a Hostel'?

Report 'Re: Definition of a Hostel'?

Report 'Re: Definition of a Hostel'?

Report 'Re: Definition of a Hostel'?

Report 'Re: Definition of a Hostel'?

Report 'Re: Definition of a Hostel'?

Report 'Re: Definition of a Hostel'?

Report 'Re: Definition of a Hostel'?

Report 'Re: Definition of a Hostel'?

Report 'Re: Definition of a Hostel'?

Report 'Re: Definition of a Hostel'?

Pages

Join the world's largest community of hostel professionals.

Check Your Email