The Financial District is pretty deserted at night, and there are relatively few restaurants downtown. It's also far from the places most tourists want to visit. So it's really a question of whether you want to stay in the thick of things or if you want to stay in a quieter area and take the subway to go everywhere. A lot of people don't want to do that. For myself, I'd stay downtown if I could save a lot of money but not if it were about the same price as staying in a more central area. If you want to walk and take short cab rides, then a more central location is better. If you don't mind spending 30 minutes on the subway to get everywhere, then stay downtown.

Doug gives great advice and I agree.

If you want to get off the tourist track and have easier access to the Village, WTC Memorial, the ferry, Brooklyn Bridge, etc. stay in the Financial District. There are 'centrally located' hotels that aren't in Times Square. Don't stay in Times Square.

Which hotel near Wall Street?

Agree I would stay in the Financial District only if the hotel was a great deal. If they're the same price is the one downtown a much better hotel?

If not I would stay elsewhere (but NOT Times Square).

If you tell us which hotels people may have more info.

I agree, ELSEWHERE, but not in Times Square. Look at Chelsea or Upper West side. mid-town East.

As someone who does not LIVE in NYC, I find the Times Square area convenient and have no hesitation about staying there.

~Liz

Depends on what you want to do. I often stay in a hotel that fronts on Times Square because it is within walking distance to most theatres. Those people who actually go to Times Square are not going to crowd into your hotel room and yes there is a good reason why a LOT of people go there.

And it is a very easy place to get OUT of, too.

I love the TS area and it is my first choice

I wouldn't stay in the financial district. Just too quiet at night.

While it isn't my favorite area, Times Square is much more convenient and can offer decent value. I would not trade Times Square for the Upper West Side or Midtown East.

I've stayed in many areas of Manhattan - Upper West Side, mid-town east, Times Square. The one area I wouldn't choose is the financial district -- too "business". Any of the others, so long as convenient to a subway, would be fine (all different, but each fine -- UWS being more residential, TS being a mad crush once you're outside, but in the center of everything, mid-town East being more commercial (office buildings and hotels).

Most hotels that say "TS area" are NOT in the craziness of TS itself. Even just a 1/2 block away makes a big difference (example, The Muse). It's the perfect location for Broadway and centrally located for a lot of what visitors want to do. You can just walk a few blocks instead of taking the subway,bus or taxi. I've stayed in a variety of areas but TS is still my favorite.

Agree with starrs, but I have also stayed in a couple of hotels that are absolutely in the "craziness of TS itself" and it STILL doesn't matter once you're inside the doors (have stayed at the Renaissance, the Marriott Marquis, the Doubletree Suites and others.

I have also stayed in a couple of hotels that are absolutely in the "craziness of TS itself" and it STILL doesn't matter once you're inside the doors

Agreed. I've stayed at the Westin (over New Year's Eve, no less) and the "craziness" stops at the front door. It is actually kind of cool to experience the juxtaposition.

Oh, I forgot I've also stayed at the Westin and the Hilton.

I understand people who LIVE in New York saying not to stay in Times Square. If I LIVED in NYC, Times Square would not be my choice either. But since I live in "small town America" half the reason I go to NYC in the first place is because it's big, it's busy, it's noisy, and it's bright lights and fun. If you live somewhere similar to Times Square (whatever that might be) then by all means stay somewhere else. But if you come from a quieter place, why try to duplicate the quiet atmosphere of home when you're going to the liveliest city in the country? Somehow that just seems counterproductive.

We stay in TS when we go . . Ususlly the Doubletree. As Patrick said, it's nice to walk out the hotel door and be right in the middle of the hustle and bustle that is Times Square and NYC.

When I lived in London, I always reccomended visitors stay in the Oxford/Picadilly/Trafalgar area . . I would never stay there myself, because I lived there, but it is a great way to get the flavor of a big city when you only have a few days to do so

Most other areas of NYC are not "quiet" - they are just busy versus frantic.

And much of Times Square is just plain tacky - IMHO - don't know why anyone over the age of 12 want that.

There are many other areas of the city that are completely different from the places most people live. Most people don't live in areas packed with multi-million dollars co-ops and multi-million dollar mansions - interspersed with restaurants of every possible ethnicity. And I would think a lot of people would prefer that to M&M stores and flashing neon lights.

Or blocks lined with sidewalk cafes and and trendy one-of-a kind boutiques.

NYC is way more than just noise and thousands of light bulbs.

nytraveler, like Rich, I'm really sorry you just don't "get it" and never will. You sound like someone who would go to New Orleans and avoid the French Quarter, or stay clear of The Strip in Las Vegas, or even avoid the Eiffel Tower area in Paris. And surely you wouldn't stay anywhere near Picadilly Circus or Harrod's in London -- there are so many better areas of London which aren't so busy and "tacky". And surely if you go to Miami, you wouldn't think to stay at South Beach which is certainly the most touristy area of the entire city. There are lovely residential areas away from there. All of those cities are much more than those landmarks, but still it's WHY most people go to those places. Sure New York is much more than bustling Times Square, but it is the MOST different thing from anything most of us have at home -- not to mention if we go for theatre it is the absolute center of theatre in the US.

As I said, I understand why people who LIVE in New York wouldn't want to stay in Times Square. It's really too bad you can't understand why those who DON'T live in New York might want to stay there.

By the way, I've spent quite a lot of travel time staying in New York (add it all up and I'm sure it's closer to two years than one year total). And much of it has been spent staying in other neighborhoods. But for a short stay in the city I'll go back to the general Times Square/theatre area any time -- unless for a particular stay I really want to avoid that area. For someone who is going to New York for a rare treat and is going because of the glitz of the city, it just makes perfect sense, even if you can't understand that.

Or blocks lined with sidewalk cafes and and trendy one-of-a kind boutiques.

The problem, though, is that the neighborhoods with a density of lodging are not typically in those neighborhoods with compelling street-life. Certainly, the Upper West Side or Midtown East are no more trendy or unique than Times Square.

Now, if I were given the choice between Soho and Times Square, I would choose Soho. But the reality is that staying in Soho is almost invariably more expensive than staying in Times Square. Going by the contrast between the financial district and Times Square, I have to assume that the OP is getting the sort of bargain that simply doesn't exist in the areas that would be more desirable for a tourist.

What you get in Times Square is a central location with a lot of hotel options, sometimes at a decent value. For New York, that makes it a pretty good option.

No I would not stay in Picadilly Circus - madness. But yes, I would stay near Harrods - a much more pleasant neighborhood.

Nor would I stay near Pigalle in Paris.

And since The Strip is really all there is to LV (awful as it is) yes I have stayed there. But won't be going back voluntarily.

As for Paris of course I have seen the Eiffel Tower. but I'm not going to Mme Tussaud's in London - or other equivalents of the giant M&M store. There's a difference between a crowded but iconic sight and a tourist trap.

and yes, there are quite a few hotels in areas of NY away from Times Square.

And upper east/west sides - plus village, SoHo, Chelsea and east village are much more trendy than Times Square. And also much more pleasant.

I understand staying there if you are going primarily for theater. Or - perhaps - if you have never seen a big, busy city center like this - but otherwise - don't get it. and yes, these areas have a bunch of hotels.

And perhaps many of the hotels in Times Square offer such bargains because they need to.

Perhaps it's simply that I am a native - and a city person - so I want the nice parts of any city - not the tacky ones.

No I would not stay in Picadilly Circus - madness

Your loss. We have stayed all over London and prefer staying near Leicester Square. Just much more convenient.

And upper east/west sides - plus village, SoHo, Chelsea and east village are much more trendy than Times Square.

You didn't just put UES, UWS and "trendy" in the same sentence did you? Maybe compared to Greenwich, but that is about it.

Trendy in comparison to Times Square - which is the least trendy place you can possibly find.

And of course in the overall scheme of things they aren't trendy compared to a couple of the downtown areas. But anything is more trendy than an M&Ms store - or a Hard Rock Cafe.

Thanks for all of the enthusiastic posts. I have decided for the one in Midtown, a few blocks away from Times Square. I have been to NY before but my mom and sister haven't, so convenience and budget has won over. We will be seeing a bunch of shows in the evening and it will be nice not having to travel far at the end of the night. And it turns out the Midtown option was the better deal. But I really love the feel of Chelsea/Meatpacking district and The Village. Next time will look into place around there for a different experience.