Reception Venue Travel - Would you Sideye?

southernbelle0915 · July 2014

lolo883 said:

If this is small town/rural where it takes 20 minutes to even get to the nearest grocery store, I wouldn't mind a 30-40 minute drive. Especially knowing how much this church means to you. But I have to agree if this is 45 minutes through potentially congested traffic and passing more churches and reception venues than Starbucks, I would get a little grumbly but still go.

CAVEAT - are you in an area where it could still be snowing in April? If I had to drive that far in the snow I might only go to the ceremony.

This. If this is just a normal town/city and it's obvious you just picked a church/reception venue really far away from each other, I'd be annoyed.

Do you have a lot of OOT guests? I'd be sure that your hotel block is right around the corner from at least one of your venues to cut down on drive time. Personally, I'd prefer closer to the reception venue.

photokitty · July 2014

Jen4948 said:

show previous quotes

photokitty said:

Maggie0829 said:

For those that say they would be annoyed if they drove by a few venues, why? I mean what if those venues were out of the couples price range? Or not available? There is a lot of factors that go into choosing a venue I don't think it is fair to get irritated because you are driving by others on your way to the chosen destination.

I could have saved a mint getting married in the city and then making everyone drive 45 mins out of town where catering and venues are cheaper.

IMHO, I think my guests' comfort and convince trumps me saving money. If the venue wasn't available, pick another date. These are all excuses for making your guests drive a far distance.

If cost is an issue then find a suitable ceremony venue close to the reception venue or hold the ceremony at the reception venue. Guests' time and gasoline are valuable.

eta- words are hard

It may not be a matter of saving money. If the only affordable, or even available, venue that doesn't cause you to go into debt is farther away than 30 minutes, I think it's pretty unfair of the guests to complain. The couple shouldn't have to go into debt to avoid inconveniencing the guests either.

It is usually cheaper to get married at the same location as the reception, than to get married elsewhere even if it is a church.

I think we all have to make choices. If a bride wants to have a 30 min drive for whatever reason, that's her choice. But I don't think it is unfair of guests to complain or side eye a choice that requires them to drive 30 or more mins. Sometimes it is unavoidable and I wouldn't side eye it, other times I do.

I would be annoyed with a 30-40 min drive. It might affect my decision on attending. I'm just answering the OP and the subsequent question. I am certainly not telling anyone to into debt for their guests' comfort.

QueerFemme · July 2014

I would be annoyed with a 30-40 minute drive. Personally, I think couples should look for venues no more than 15-20 minutes apart. If they legit don't exist, fine, I might give it a pass. But, I think unless you live in a rural part of the country, that is unlikely.

[Deleted User] · July 2014

Did I read correctly that the OP's FI wants to get married in a church, but any church will do? See, in my mind THAT gets more of a side-eye than a drive between venues. "I don't have a relationship with any particular church, but I want to get married in a church." As a guest, knowing the groom and that he doesn't attend a church on Sunday morning, and having to go to a church for his wedding because he's adamant about getting married inside of a church building, would get a giant eye-roll from me.

Though, if I misunderstood, and that they do have a home church but are not getting married in their home town, and this is the only church of that denomination in the area, and the reception will be taking place at the only reasonably priced and schedule available location nearby, that's fine.

delujm0 · July 2014

That's kind of a haul...will you have a lot of out of town guests? if so, where will the hotel block be? near the reception or near the church? Are you even having a hotel block? would it be possible for you to bus people between the two venues so that they don't have to worry about the drive? i wouldn't want to drive more than 30 minutes between events, but i've been to a wedding where the distance was about 45 minutes...they shuttled us from the hotel to the church, from the church to the reception, and from the reception back to the hotel. So because of that it wasn't so bad. i would have been pretty annoyed to have to drive all of those distances on my own.

Jen4948 · July 2014

photokitty said:

show previous quotes

Jen4948 said:

photokitty said:

Maggie0829 said:

For those that say they would be annoyed if they drove by a few venues, why? I mean what if those venues were out of the couples price range? Or not available? There is a lot of factors that go into choosing a venue I don't think it is fair to get irritated because you are driving by others on your way to the chosen destination.

I could have saved a mint getting married in the city and then making everyone drive 45 mins out of town where catering and venues are cheaper.

IMHO, I think my guests' comfort and convince trumps me saving money. If the venue wasn't available, pick another date. These are all excuses for making your guests drive a far distance.

If cost is an issue then find a suitable ceremony venue close to the reception venue or hold the ceremony at the reception venue. Guests' time and gasoline are valuable.

eta- words are hard

It may not be a matter of saving money. If the only affordable, or even available, venue that doesn't cause you to go into debt is farther away than 30 minutes, I think it's pretty unfair of the guests to complain. The couple shouldn't have to go into debt to avoid inconveniencing the guests either.

It is usually cheaper to get married at the same location as the reception, than to get married elsewhere even if it is a church.

I think we all have to make choices. If a bride wants to have a 30 min drive for whatever reason, that's her choice. But I don't think it is unfair of guests to complain or side eye a choice that requires them to drive 30 or more mins. Sometimes it is unavoidable and I wouldn't side eye it, other times I do.

I would be annoyed with a 30-40 min drive. It might affect my decision on attending. I'm just answering the OP and the subsequent question. I am certainly not telling anyone to into debt for their guests' comfort.

Closer churches and venues may have already been booked and are thus not available.

beachyone15 · July 2014

More than 30 minutes, I would probably be slightly annoyed. However, unlike some PP's have said, I wouldn't skip out if I have to drive an extra 10 minutes on top of that. I think it's really ridiculous to have this sort of ultimatum dictate whether or not you'd attend.

photokitty · July 2014

Jen4948 said:

show previous quotes

photokitty said:

Jen4948 said:

photokitty said:

Maggie0829 said:

For those that say they would be annoyed if they drove by a few venues, why? I mean what if those venues were out of the couples price range? Or not available? There is a lot of factors that go into choosing a venue I don't think it is fair to get irritated because you are driving by others on your way to the chosen destination.

I could have saved a mint getting married in the city and then making everyone drive 45 mins out of town where catering and venues are cheaper.

IMHO, I think my guests' comfort and convince trumps me saving money. If the venue wasn't available, pick another date. These are all excuses for making your guests drive a far distance.

If cost is an issue then find a suitable ceremony venue close to the reception venue or hold the ceremony at the reception venue. Guests' time and gasoline are valuable.

eta- words are hard

It may not be a matter of saving money. If the only affordable, or even available, venue that doesn't cause you to go into debt is farther away than 30 minutes, I think it's pretty unfair of the guests to complain. The couple shouldn't have to go into debt to avoid inconveniencing the guests either.

It is usually cheaper to get married at the same location as the reception, than to get married elsewhere even if it is a church.

I think we all have to make choices. If a bride wants to have a 30 min drive for whatever reason, that's her choice. But I don't think it is unfair of guests to complain or side eye a choice that requires them to drive 30 or more mins. Sometimes it is unavoidable and I wouldn't side eye it, other times I do.

I would be annoyed with a 30-40 min drive. It might affect my decision on attending. I'm just answering the OP and the subsequent question. I am certainly not telling anyone to into debt for their guests' comfort.

Closer churches and venues may have already been booked and are thus not available.

That's why I used the word choice. The bride could choose another date. If not, she might get a side eye. That's fine, we all make choices...guests are allowed to choose to side eye a long drive bc a bride wanted it at *this* place, on *that* day and not *any other* place in between.

It's a choice plan and simple. I would choose to put my guests' comfort first, but that's my choice...I don't like getting side eyed. You can choose what works for you.

lyndausvi · July 2014

It depends on where I live or hotel is located compared to where they ceremony compared to where the reception is located.

Meaning if ceremony is 30 minutes from where I live and the reception is another 40 minutes in the opposite direction I would be annoyed because I would be more than an hour from home. If they reception is 40 minutes back where I'm coming from, then no. I'm closer to home.

Now of course it's hard to determine that, but I'm talking about where most of your guests are coming from. The wedding I'm going to in the fall is OOT for me. It's only a few blocks from the bride's home and where a good percentage of where they guests are from. However the reception is 45 minutes away. I find that to be a little inconvenient. Good news is they are providing transportation, but the ride home is going to suck at the end of the night.

PrettyGirlLost · July 2014

loveislouder said:
Hey guys,

My FI has decided he wants to move our wedding from next October to next April, which is okay just a little stress inducing because I honestly haven't done much in the planning department. i guess it's time to get my butt in gear.

Anyway... my question: We want to get married in a church, but we found venue we like is about 30 - 40 minute highway drive away from each other. Would you, as a guest, be annoyed with this? My mom says no one will show up to the reception because it's too far away.

Thoughts?

Currently I'm stuck in an airport and gave been for the last 3 hours waiting for flight #3 of the day to get to a wedding. . .so a 40 min drive is not only preferable but it's fucking nothing!

indianaalum · July 2014

Jen4948 said:

show previous quotes

photokitty said:

Jen4948 said:

photokitty said:

Maggie0829 said:

For those that say they would be annoyed if they drove by a few venues, why? I mean what if those venues were out of the couples price range? Or not available? There is a lot of factors that go into choosing a venue I don't think it is fair to get irritated because you are driving by others on your way to the chosen destination.

I could have saved a mint getting married in the city and then making everyone drive 45 mins out of town where catering and venues are cheaper.

IMHO, I think my guests' comfort and convince trumps me saving money. If the venue wasn't available, pick another date. These are all excuses for making your guests drive a far distance.

If cost is an issue then find a suitable ceremony venue close to the reception venue or hold the ceremony at the reception venue. Guests' time and gasoline are valuable.

eta- words are hard

It may not be a matter of saving money. If the only affordable, or even available, venue that doesn't cause you to go into debt is farther away than 30 minutes, I think it's pretty unfair of the guests to complain. The couple shouldn't have to go into debt to avoid inconveniencing the guests either.

It is usually cheaper to get married at the same location as the reception, than to get married elsewhere even if it is a church.

I think we all have to make choices. If a bride wants to have a 30 min drive for whatever reason, that's her choice. But I don't think it is unfair of guests to complain or side eye a choice that requires them to drive 30 or more mins. Sometimes it is unavoidable and I wouldn't side eye it, other times I do.

I would be annoyed with a 30-40 min drive. It might affect my decision on attending. I'm just answering the OP and the subsequent question. I am certainly not telling anyone to into debt for their guests' comfort.

Closer churches and venues may have already been booked and are thus not available.

Also, would you rather drive a little farther, or have the bride pick the closes place who had crappy service and crappy food for you to eat.

I don't just judge unless it is ridiculousl far or something. Otherwise, I assume there is a reason. Actually, I guess I never even think that too much, either.

I chose the church I am connected with, and the venue closest was booked. I would have loved to do it, but it was booked. I would hate if my guests judged me for driving father without knowing the circumstances.

to ME, church came first. I wasn't going to randomly switch churches to make it closer to a venue.

P.s. I also think people don't always understand "church rules" when they say "just have reception and ceremony at same place". That wasn't a choice for me. Catholicism will NOT let you get married by a priest anywhere besides a church. They will NOT marry you at a "venue". It is just not allowed. I also have never attended a "reception" at a catholic church so that probably wasn't an option either. I am not sure that even exists. I think that is a "smaller church" kinda thing. People need to understand that for some us, the religious aspect of a wedding is the most important and does lead to smoe challenges.

photokitty · July 2014

indianaalum said:
show previous quotes

Jen4948 said:

photokitty said:

Jen4948 said:

photokitty said:

Maggie0829 said:

For those that say they would be annoyed if they drove by a few venues, why? I mean what if those venues were out of the couples price range? Or not available? There is a lot of factors that go into choosing a venue I don't think it is fair to get irritated because you are driving by others on your way to the chosen destination.

I could have saved a mint getting married in the city and then making everyone drive 45 mins out of town where catering and venues are cheaper.

IMHO, I think my guests' comfort and convince trumps me saving money. If the venue wasn't available, pick another date. These are all excuses for making your guests drive a far distance.

If cost is an issue then find a suitable ceremony venue close to the reception venue or hold the ceremony at the reception venue. Guests' time and gasoline are valuable.

eta- words are hard

It may not be a matter of saving money. If the only affordable, or even available, venue that doesn't cause you to go into debt is farther away than 30 minutes, I think it's pretty unfair of the guests to complain. The couple shouldn't have to go into debt to avoid inconveniencing the guests either.

It is usually cheaper to get married at the same location as the reception, than to get married elsewhere even if it is a church.

I think we all have to make choices. If a bride wants to have a 30 min drive for whatever reason, that's her choice. But I don't think it is unfair of guests to complain or side eye a choice that requires them to drive 30 or more mins. Sometimes it is unavoidable and I wouldn't side eye it, other times I do.

I would be annoyed with a 30-40 min drive. It might affect my decision on attending. I'm just answering the OP and the subsequent question. I am certainly not telling anyone to into debt for their guests' comfort.

Closer churches and venues may have already been booked and are thus not available.

Also, would you rather drive a little farther, or have the bride pick the closes place who had crappy service and crappy food for you to eat.

I don't just judge unless it is ridiculousl far or something. Otherwise, I assume there is a reason. Actually, I guess I never even think that too much, either.

I chose the church I am connected with, and the venue closest was booked. I would have loved to do it, but it was booked. I would hate if my guests judged me for driving father without knowing the circumstances.

to ME, church came first. I wasn't going to randomly switch churches to make it closer to a venue.

P.s. I also think people don't always understand "church rules" when they say "just have reception and ceremony at same place". That wasn't a choice for me. Catholicism will NOT let you get married by a priest anywhere besides a church. They will NOT marry you at a "venue". It is just not allowed. I also have never attended a "reception" at a catholic church so that probably wasn't an option either. I am not sure that even exists. I think that is a "smaller church" kinda thing. People need to understand that for some us, the religious aspect of a wedding is the most important and does lead to smoe challenges.

I am Catholic too. All the things you pointed out still constitute a choice. You could have selected another day. My main reason for responding is I have been to four different catholic weddings with the receptions held on the same grounds as the ceremony,which was in the Catholic church. If the church is the most important choice you can always select a different date when the convenient venue is available. You always have options.

Jen4948 · July 2014

photokitty said:

show previous quotes

Jen4948 said:

photokitty said:

Jen4948 said:

photokitty said:

Maggie0829 said:

For those that say they would be annoyed if they drove by a few venues, why? I mean what if those venues were out of the couples price range? Or not available? There is a lot of factors that go into choosing a venue I don't think it is fair to get irritated because you are driving by others on your way to the chosen destination.

I could have saved a mint getting married in the city and then making everyone drive 45 mins out of town where catering and venues are cheaper.

IMHO, I think my guests' comfort and convince trumps me saving money. If the venue wasn't available, pick another date. These are all excuses for making your guests drive a far distance.

If cost is an issue then find a suitable ceremony venue close to the reception venue or hold the ceremony at the reception venue. Guests' time and gasoline are valuable.

eta- words are hard

It may not be a matter of saving money. If the only affordable, or even available, venue that doesn't cause you to go into debt is farther away than 30 minutes, I think it's pretty unfair of the guests to complain. The couple shouldn't have to go into debt to avoid inconveniencing the guests either.

It is usually cheaper to get married at the same location as the reception, than to get married elsewhere even if it is a church.

I think we all have to make choices. If a bride wants to have a 30 min drive for whatever reason, that's her choice. But I don't think it is unfair of guests to complain or side eye a choice that requires them to drive 30 or more mins. Sometimes it is unavoidable and I wouldn't side eye it, other times I do.

I would be annoyed with a 30-40 min drive. It might affect my decision on attending. I'm just answering the OP and the subsequent question. I am certainly not telling anyone to into debt for their guests' comfort.

Closer churches and venues may have already been booked and are thus not available.

Also, would you rather drive a little farther, or have the bride pick the closes place who had crappy service and crappy food for you to eat.

I don't just judge unless it is ridiculousl far or something. Otherwise, I assume there is a reason. Actually, I guess I never even think that too much, either.

I chose the church I am connected with, and the venue closest was booked. I would have loved to do it, but it was booked. I would hate if my guests judged me for driving father without knowing the circumstances.

to ME, church came first. I wasn't going to randomly switch churches to make it closer to a venue.

P.s. I also think people don't always understand "church rules" when they say "just have reception and ceremony at same place". That wasn't a choice for me. Catholicism will NOT let you get married by a priest anywhere besides a church. They will NOT marry you at a "venue". It is just not allowed. I also have never attended a "reception" at a catholic church so that probably wasn't an option either. I am not sure that even exists. I think that is a "smaller church" kinda thing. People need to understand that for some us, the religious aspect of a wedding is the most important and does lead to smoe challenges.

I am Catholic too. All the things you pointed out still constitute a choice. You could have selected another day. My main reason for responding is I have been to four different catholic weddings with the receptions held on the same grounds as the ceremony,which was in the Catholic church. If the church is the most important choice you can always select a different date when the convenient venue is available. You always have options.

Your argument that having to drive an extra 15 minutes or so is such an inconvenience that one should choose the "option" of picking a place that's not available because weddings are not done there, is already booked, costs too much, or provides lousy food and/service is doesn't fly.

Having to drive 45 minutes is not the world's biggest inconvenience, and if everything closer is already booked, not available, nonexistent, or the quality of service at any closer locations is terrible, this does not mean I made a choice to inconvenience anyone else. The assumption that it is meant to screw everyone else over is bullshit.

mrs4everhart · July 2014

The only time any type of distance to a reception bothers me is if it's somewhere that's not near a hotel or had safe/affordable cab or light rail access. A 30 or 40 minute drive wouldn't phase me at all, so long as I personally didn't have to drive back the same night. 30 to 40 minutes could mean just the other side of the city for us so I wouldn't consider that rude or anything, but I would need to know Uber car serviced the area! Then it would be game on. If you're more rural and don't have lodging or transportation options you may want to keep things closer to where your guests can get home safely. This was a big consideration at my first wedding. There was a gorgeous private home outside of Boulder, CO I was in love with but it required a half hour drive out of town then another 10 minutes up a steep, windy dirt road up the side of a pretty big foothill. I was bummed but opted against it.

loveislouder · July 2014

We hAve zero OOT guests, so no hotel needed

photokitty · July 2014

Jen4948 said:
show previous quotes

photokitty said:

indianaalum said:

Jen4948 said:

photokitty said:

Jen4948 said:

photokitty said:

Maggie0829 said:

For those that say they would be annoyed if they drove by a few venues, why? I mean what if those venues were out of the couples price range? Or not available? There is a lot of factors that go into choosing a venue I don't think it is fair to get irritated because you are driving by others on your way to the chosen destination.

I could have saved a mint getting married in the city and then making everyone drive 45 mins out of town where catering and venues are cheaper.

IMHO, I think my guests' comfort and convince trumps me saving money. If the venue wasn't available, pick another date. These are all excuses for making your guests drive a far distance.

If cost is an issue then find a suitable ceremony venue close to the reception venue or hold the ceremony at the reception venue. Guests' time and gasoline are valuable.

eta- words are hard

It may not be a matter of saving money. If the only affordable, or even available, venue that doesn't cause you to go into debt is farther away than 30 minutes, I think it's pretty unfair of the guests to complain. The couple shouldn't have to go into debt to avoid inconveniencing the guests either.

It is usually cheaper to get married at the same location as the reception, than to get married elsewhere even if it is a church.

I think we all have to make choices. If a bride wants to have a 30 min drive for whatever reason, that's her choice. But I don't think it is unfair of guests to complain or side eye a choice that requires them to drive 30 or more mins. Sometimes it is unavoidable and I wouldn't side eye it, other times I do.

I would be annoyed with a 30-40 min drive. It might affect my decision on attending. I'm just answering the OP and the subsequent question. I am certainly not telling anyone to into debt for their guests' comfort.

Closer churches and venues may have already been booked and are thus not available.

Also, would you rather drive a little farther, or have the bride pick the closes place who had crappy service and crappy food for you to eat.

I don't just judge unless it is ridiculousl far or something. Otherwise, I assume there is a reason. Actually, I guess I never even think that too much, either.

I chose the church I am connected with, and the venue closest was booked. I would have loved to do it, but it was booked. I would hate if my guests judged me for driving father without knowing the circumstances.

to ME, church came first. I wasn't going to randomly switch churches to make it closer to a venue.

P.s. I also think people don't always understand "church rules" when they say "just have reception and ceremony at same place". That wasn't a choice for me. Catholicism will NOT let you get married by a priest anywhere besides a church. They will NOT marry you at a "venue". It is just not allowed. I also have never attended a "reception" at a catholic church so that probably wasn't an option either. I am not sure that even exists. I think that is a "smaller church" kinda thing. People need to understand that for some us, the religious aspect of a wedding is the most important and does lead to smoe challenges.

I am Catholic too. All the things you pointed out still constitute a choice. You could have selected another day. My main reason for responding is I have been to four different catholic weddings with the receptions held on the same grounds as the ceremony,which was in the Catholic church. If the church is the most important choice you can always select a different date when the convenient venue is available. You always have options.

Your argument that having to drive an extra 15 minutes or so is such an inconvenience that one should choose the "option" of picking a place that's not available because weddings are not done there, is already booked, costs too much, or provides lousy food and/service is doesn't fly.

Having to drive 45 minutes is not the world's biggest inconvenience, and if everything closer is already booked, not available, nonexistent, or the quality of service at any closer locations is terrible, this does not mean I made a choice to inconvenience anyone else. The assumption that it is meant to screw everyone else over is bullshit.

*************************** preemptive assumption quote box did not work again* **********************

@jen4948 chill the truck out! You fixate on the most insane things sometimes and I, unlike some others, am usually very tolerant and passive about it.

Is still a choice. I NEVER said it was an intentional choice to "screw" over your guests. FFS. Get a grip. If it's 45mins to the only decent joint in town, then of course, book it. Will that stop people from grumbling behind your back- probably not. That's life, you make choices and deal with it.

Lots of people don't like to drive for more than 30mins. If that's what needs to be done then they have a choice~ stay home, bitch and moan on the drive, or make the most of it. It's not the end of the world to make your guests drive, BUT IT IS FREAKING CHOICE!!

I'm done bickering with you over this bc you don't seem to get my point...choice. make a choice, OWN the choice and deal with the consequences. And proceed with life.

Jen4948 · July 2014

@photokitty‌ , you chill the truck out and get a grip.

The couple didn't make that choice to deliberately make you drive a long way. And yes, they may well "own the consequences" of not going into debt to pay for a closer place. Or they may well "own the consequences" of there NOT BEING A CLOSER PLACE that provides decent quality food and service or is even available. Believe it or not, those are positive consequences and valid reasons for making the choice they did. They are not required to go into debt or choose a place with bad service, food, or drinks to make you comfortable with your drive.

The fact is, if you choose to accept an invitation to a wedding where the ceremony venue and reception venue are 45 minutes apart, you chose to accept the invitation. If the distance is so uncomfortable for you to drive, decline the invitation and own your own consequences instead of accusing the couple of bad planning.

chasseuse · July 2014

scribe95 said:

Every Catholic wedding I have been to the reception is held in the rectory right next to the church. Well except for one. That couple had theirs at the fancy country club and had a huge gap!!!

That's really interesting. I'm from a very Catholic area and I've never heard of having the reception at the rectory. Did they bring in caterers? I've been in several rectories and I can't see them being good venues for a reception!

misshart00 · July 2014

scribe95 said:
Every Catholic wedding I have been to the reception is held in the rectory right next to the church. Well except for one. That couple had theirs at the fancy country club and had a huge gap!!!

Same here. And it still included alcohol and dancing.

getaclue44 · July 2014

scribe95 said:

Every Catholic wedding I have been to the reception is held in the rectory right next to the church. Well except for one. That couple had theirs at the fancy country club and had a huge gap!!!

*********
I have been to at least a dozen Catholic weddings and have never seen or heard of a reception held on the grounds of the church. They have all been at hotels or some other venue. Of course, the only one without a gap was mine.

saacjw · July 2014

I'm in the "it depends on the situation" camp. I was just at a wedding where the bride and groom got married in the church they attend every week. The reception halls were all at least 30 minutes away via public transportation, which all of their local friends used OR not quite as long via car, assuming no traffic, which, given the city, is never a good assumption. They could have chosen a church nearer where the reception areas are, but why should they, since they had a church that they belong to? I didn't side eye that (I side eyed the hell out of their 3 hour gap). I would 100% side eye someone who got married in say, my hometown and then drove to the nearest city for the reception. It's about 30-40 minutes away and my hometown and the surrounding area are big enough that there's a bunch of hotels, country clubs, and venues specifically for events.

FiancB · July 2014

I've done it and it was irritating. In this case though the ceremony was at a church in the city they had no particular affiliation with and then the reception was in a suburb 45 minutes away that was just a hotel. I'm still scratching my head as to why they did things this way, as they had lots of time to plan and had a pretty large budget. This was in conjunction with many other etiquette no-nos, so I was already grumpy.

I would keep looking. I know how easy it is to fall in love with a venue, but if there's anything I learned after feeling like I "settled" on a venue that was in our budget and close and convenient, it just doesn't matter. Pick something that is convenient for your guests.

I would go, but I would be annoyed, unless like others said there are just no other options and it's normal to drive 10+ miles to get to the grocery store (in which case I'd be getting hitched in a nearby field or something).

indianaalum · July 2014

chasseuse said:

show previous quotes

scribe95 said:

Every Catholic wedding I have been to the reception is held in the rectory right next to the church. Well except for one. That couple had theirs at the fancy country club and had a huge gap!!!

That's really interesting. I'm from a very Catholic area and I've never heard of having the reception at the rectory. Did they bring in caterers? I've been in several rectories and I can't see them being good venues for a reception!

I wonder if this is a location thing. In Chicago, I have been to a ton of catholic wedding sand not one single one was held in the rectory.

Jen4948 · July 2014

FiancB said:

I've done it and it was irritating. In this case though the ceremony was at a church in the city they had no particular affiliation with and then the reception was in a suburb 45 minutes away that was just a hotel. I'm still scratching my head as to why they did things this way, as they had lots of time to plan and had a pretty large budget. This was in conjunction with many other etiquette no-nos, so I was already grumpy.

I would keep looking. I know how easy it is to fall in love with a venue, but if there's anything I learned after feeling like I "settled" on a venue that was in our budget and close and convenient, it just doesn't matter. Pick something that is convenient for your guests.

I would go, but I would be annoyed, unless like others said there are just no other options and it's normal to drive 10+ miles to get to the grocery store (in which case I'd be getting hitched in a nearby field or something).

"Convenient for your guests" may include such things as ramps or electronic doors for guests with mobility issues, availability of food for people with dietary issues, seating, and a variety of other aspects beyond distance from the ceremony venue. If the couple need to take those aspects into account, and there are no venues within 30 minutes or closer that can provide the necessary amenities, then "convenient for your guests" will have to be someplace somewhat further away.

lyndausvi · July 2014

chasseuse said:

show previous quotes

scribe95 said:

Every Catholic wedding I have been to the reception is held in the rectory right next to the church. Well except for one. That couple had theirs at the fancy country club and had a huge gap!!!

That's really interesting. I'm from a very Catholic area and I've never heard of having the reception at the rectory. Did they bring in caterers? I've been in several rectories and I can't see them being good venues for a reception!

Rectory or hall? I've never heard of a reception in a rectory. That would be weird. Rectories as I know them are buildings with offices that also house the priests and sometimes the nuns.

However, a lot of Catholic churches have halls or basements used for social events. I've been to many receptions in church halls. Some on property, sometimes they choose a different church's hall.

All of our weddings have alcohol. All of the church halls I've been to have built in bars.

kmmssg · July 2014

I consider 30 minute acceptable and 45 really pushing the limit. Of course, that is all relative to the drive from my house. If I have to drive an hour to get to the ceremony (I live in a small town, drive almost an hour to work everyday) and another 45minutes farther from my house to attend the reception I am going to have to think about whether or not I want to make an hour and 45 minute drive home.

I am not going to automatically side-eye a couple who didn't choose the venue closest to their ceremony. There are so many reasons they may not have chosen it that I wouldn't be aware of. If it ends up being to far of a drive from our starting point, we would just decline and send a gift.

lyndausvi · July 2014

scribe95 said:

I guess it could be called a hall - not a rectory. But all were separate buildings on the same grounds. They have large kitchens and there were caterers. Then a gym-like area for the dancing/reception. These were all in Ohio.

That would be a hall.

photokitty · July 2014

Jen4948 said:

@photokitty‌ , you chill the truck out and get a grip.

The couple didn't make that choice to deliberately make you drive a long way. And yes, they may well "own the consequences" of not going into debt to pay for a closer place. Or they may well "own the consequences" of there NOT BEING A CLOSER PLACE that provides decent quality food and service or is even available. Believe it or not, those are positive consequences and valid reasons for making the choice they did. They are not required to go into debt or choose a place with bad service, food, or drinks to make you comfortable with your drive.

The fact is, if you choose to accept an invitation to a wedding where the ceremony venue and reception venue are 45 minutes apart, you chose to accept the invitation. If the distance is so uncomfortable for you to drive, decline the invitation and own your own consequences instead of accusing the couple of bad planning.

Gee whiz, I never suggested the guests had choices they could make too...oh, wait I did- multiple times. You keep fixating on the cost, when I clearly said if it is closest affordable or decent place, then you have to do what you have to do. Some people are still going to side eye a 45 min drive, it doesn't matter how valid the reason is...true story.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. If you're thinking planning a 45 min drive for what ever efffing reason (because I couldn't care less) then own it and suck it up when be talk about you behind your back. It's going to happen - someone is going to not lie your dress, or the food or the weather or whatever - you can't please everyone all the time. If you made the best possible choice for you AND your guests, then you shouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Plenty of people have said they would side eye a 45 min drive - not just me.

Jen4948 · July 2014

photokitty said:

show previous quotes

Jen4948 said:

@photokitty‌ , you chill the truck out and get a grip.

The couple didn't make that choice to deliberately make you drive a long way. And yes, they may well "own the consequences" of not going into debt to pay for a closer place. Or they may well "own the consequences" of there NOT BEING A CLOSER PLACE that provides decent quality food and service or is even available. Believe it or not, those are positive consequences and valid reasons for making the choice they did. They are not required to go into debt or choose a place with bad service, food, or drinks to make you comfortable with your drive.

The fact is, if you choose to accept an invitation to a wedding where the ceremony venue and reception venue are 45 minutes apart, you chose to accept the invitation. If the distance is so uncomfortable for you to drive, decline the invitation and own your own consequences instead of accusing the couple of bad planning.

Gee whiz, I never suggested the guests had choices they could make too...oh, wait I did- multiple times. You keep fixating on the cost, when I clearly said if it is closest affordable or decent place, then you have to do what you have to do. Some people are still going to side eye a 45 min drive, it doesn't matter how valid the reason is...true story.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. If you're thinking planning a 45 min drive for what ever efffing reason (because I couldn't care less) then own it and suck it up when be talk about you behind your back. It's going to happen - someone is going to not lie your dress, or the food or the weather or whatever - you can't please everyone all the time. If you made the best possible choice for you AND your guests, then you shouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Plenty of people have said they would side eye a 45 min drive - not just me.

Lose the "own it" and "the lady doth protest too much" crap already and do the "owning" yourself. I'm sick of your snark.

As noted above, REPEATEDLY, there are plenty of reasons why a couple might feel it necessary to hold the reception farther away from the ceremony venue than 40 minutes, that don't constitute "bad planning." If there is no place closer that can accommodate guests with mobility issues, dietary issues, provides decent quality food and beverages, has enough seating, has decent restrooms, provides decent service by the staff, is affordable, or is even available to the couple when their scheduling allows them to get married, they don't owe you an apology for not picking a closer place.

You don't have to attend the reception if you don't want to travel longer than 30 minutes. But "own the decision" yourself and accept that there are all kinds of aspects that go into planning a wedding, and the decision to have it further away then you want to drive does not constitute deliberate bad planning or rudeness to you or anyone else. It's your own problem if you don't want to drive that far.

photokitty · July 2014

Jen4948 said:

show previous quotes

photokitty said:

Jen4948 said:

@photokitty‌ , you chill the truck out and get a grip.

The couple didn't make that choice to deliberately make you drive a long way. And yes, they may well "own the consequences" of not going into debt to pay for a closer place. Or they may well "own the consequences" of there NOT BEING A CLOSER PLACE that provides decent quality food and service or is even available. Believe it or not, those are positive consequences and valid reasons for making the choice they did. They are not required to go into debt or choose a place with bad service, food, or drinks to make you comfortable with your drive.

The fact is, if you choose to accept an invitation to a wedding where the ceremony venue and reception venue are 45 minutes apart, you chose to accept the invitation. If the distance is so uncomfortable for you to drive, decline the invitation and own your own consequences instead of accusing the couple of bad planning.

Gee whiz, I never suggested the guests had choices they could make too...oh, wait I did- multiple times. You keep fixating on the cost, when I clearly said if it is closest affordable or decent place, then you have to do what you have to do. Some people are still going to side eye a 45 min drive, it doesn't matter how valid the reason is...true story.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks. If you're thinking planning a 45 min drive for what ever efffing reason (because I couldn't care less) then own it and suck it up when be talk about you behind your back. It's going to happen - someone is going to not lie your dress, or the food or the weather or whatever - you can't please everyone all the time. If you made the best possible choice for you AND your guests, then you shouldn't lose any sleep over it.

Plenty of people have said they would side eye a 45 min drive - not just me.

Lose the "own it" and "the lady doth protest too much" crap already and do the "owning" yourself. I'm sick of your snark.

As noted above, REPEATEDLY, there are plenty of reasons why a couple might feel it necessary to hold the reception farther away from the ceremony venue than 40 minutes, that don't constitute "bad planning." If there is no place closer that can accommodate guests with mobility issues, dietary issues, provides decent quality food and beverages, has enough seating, has decent restrooms, provides decent service by the staff, is affordable, or is even available to the couple when their scheduling allows them to get married, they don't owe you an apology for not picking a closer place.

You don't have to attend the reception if you don't want to travel longer than 30 minutes. But "own the decision" yourself and accept that there are all kinds of aspects that go into planning a wedding, and the decision to have it further away then you want to drive does not constitute deliberate bad planning or rudeness to you or anyone else. It's your own problem if you don't want to drive that far.

yawn

and just bc

Reception Venue Travel - Would you Sideye?

Re: Reception Venue Travel - Would you Sideye?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards