SF Hotel - 4Seasons vs W vs ?
May 24th, 2007, 08:16 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SF Hotel - 4Seasons vs W vs ?
You guys were incredibly helpful in my "hip" hotel thread. So, its down to concrete decision time. Weekend in July. Shopping, eating, drinking, sleeping, walking. Mid-40's, love luxury, hate Ritz-style stuffiness, enjoyed the Standard in LA, found the Gansevoort in NY way too pretentiously hip (or maybe we're just old). Money not an issue but value/bang for buck matters. Choices include:
4Seasons - premier - $400
W - "fabulous" (just below suite) $300
Vitale - pano suite - $650
Vitale - dlx waterfront- $330
Palomar - lux king - $330
What do you guys think?
4Seasons - premier - $400
W - "fabulous" (just below suite) $300
Vitale - pano suite - $650
Vitale - dlx waterfront- $330
Palomar - lux king - $330
What do you guys think?
May 24th, 2007, 08:53 AM
#2
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 2 cents: In terms of location I would say the Vitale on the Embarcadero. I admit I'm prejudiced in favor of the Embarcadero, I think the City has done a good job of updating the area without turning it into tourist central. In other words, we locals like it and hang out there. The Palomar and W are both right by the convention center, not a bad location but not as interesting as the Embarcadero and definately lots of business travelers. The 4 seasons is on Market Street, which is busy during the day, but somewhat dead at night. Great hotel, but not my idea of a great SF location.
May 24th, 2007, 09:02 AM
#3
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,854
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2nd SAB for the Vitale, get a water-facing room on the upper floors, the location is the best in SF, the hotel is not LA hip but lots of charming guests younger than mid-40s. Don't get the suite if value for the buck matters.
Jun 10th, 2007, 06:27 PM
#5
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just stayed at Vitale.... it was absolutely wonderful. Great walking, restaurants, and hotel.... not much for night life although the restaurant/lounge in the hotel was quite lively daily for a couple hours everyday after work.
Jun 10th, 2007, 06:30 PM
#6
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, forgot about "shopping and sleeping". Upscale eats and shopping across the street at the ferry building and 1 block away at embarcadero center. 15 min. walk to Union square for all the high end stores. Stayed for over a week at Vitale and slept great every night.
Jun 13th, 2007, 07:59 PM
#7
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yay! I'm glad I'm not alone for my enthusiasm for The Embarcadero area. It's so close to easy transportation to get anywhere and the view of the Bay Bridge is really nice.
I have always thought that Union Square is to downtown-ish and we all know what lurks at Fisherman's Wharf.
I like the fact that The Embarcadero is away from the hustle and bustle - but close enough so you can get to the hustle and bustle if you so choose.
I have always thought that Union Square is to downtown-ish and we all know what lurks at Fisherman's Wharf.
I like the fact that The Embarcadero is away from the hustle and bustle - but close enough so you can get to the hustle and bustle if you so choose.
