London hotel
 

Which hotel? Taking kids to London for a week in late March. I have great deals at both Hyatt Churchill (club level) or St. Pancras Renaissance (free breakfast)?Or someplace totally different?

The Hyatt has a much better location at marble arch, compared to st Pancras which is a bit out of the way for my taste.

True enough - though transport connections for the Renaissance are better than the Churchill. The transformation of the Renaissance is amazing and it is really a very special/unique property. I'd love to stay there but it is normally a bit above my pay grade :)

I'd stay at the St Pancras Renaissance if I had a 'great deal' . . .

To me - location is all in London. I want to be able to walk out the door and "be there" - not hop on a tube first.

>>I want to be able to walk out the door and "be there" - not hop on a tube first.<<

As you post over and over - London is huge and no location is close to more than a handful of sites. If one only went places w/i a reasonable walk of their hotel, it would be a pretty short list. So access to public transport is REALLY important.

Hi Lakeplace117,

Personally, I did not really enjoy staying in the Marble Arch area as much as other parts of London. I agree with Janisj “The transformation of the Renaissance is amazing and it is really a very special/unique property.” So much history there.

Enjoy…

If I had the opportunity to stay someplace special, like I'm sure the St. Pancras Renaissance is, I'd be thrilled, rather than stay close to some imagined center of the action. If it means a tube ride to the rest, then tube it is.

Not normally a fan of anything corporate or chainy, however high end, but that has been done really nicely imho. I wonder if you can borrow the little red number parked out front :-P

Completely lost on how Marble Arch would be the center of the action considering it's across town from the Tower and St Paul's and anything on SouthBank (e.g., Tate Modern, Globe Theatre) and St. Pancras is at worst roughly equidistant to Leicester Square and Westminster. Yeah, it's farther from South Kens than Marble Arch but for the intermittent or first-time London visitor, the St Pancras location is likely better considering both physical situs and transport links.

When London rearranges itself at the cost of 1,000,000,000,000 quid or so to centralize its tourist attractions around one acre of centrally located land, then transit options will be less important. Equally likely is the growth of wings on a pig. Thus, the numerous transit links at St Pancras makes it a superior option.

If you can grow an ear on a mouse, why not wings on a pig? I guess everything needs the occasional update, even metaphors.

TI'd chose the At P Renaissance. The area around Kings Cross/St Pancreas is undergoing quite a renaissance (coincidentally the hotel's name).

http://www.kingscross.co.uk/take-a-walking-tour

London is GREAT, constantly adding to itself, reinventing itself,yet treasuring tradition.
I love the many local areas of London, and don't prefer the area around Marble Arch to others. Hop on a bus and enjoy the ride!!!

Thank you all for your input- think I am switching gears to the Kensington area after more research. Rates are comparable. Your thoughts?.........

Whoa -- Where in Kensington? Kensington is not as central as the other two and doesn't have nearly as good transport connections as the Renaissance.

Or do you mean <u>South</u> Kensington - which is a different area.

Sorry- I meant S. Kensington. Not far from S. Kensington tube station.

Oh - That is fine. Very convenient and on the direct tube line from LHR.