M_kingdom2: Barcelona (Hotel Arts); Bilbao (Sheraton Hotel)
Jul 27th, 2004, 04:52 PM
#82
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SydneySteve: That has possibilities.Even though our kids are very well behaved some of our hotel choices have been a bit stuffy.We have been branching out to A Four seasons if the local has one because of the amenities.We have to get either 2 connecting rooms or a suite.
Jul 27th, 2004, 05:02 PM
#84
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Atlcity. My experience is that the Athenaeum rooms looking out over Green Park across Piccadilly are the best. Although the sound insulation is excellent it is better to ask for a room 4 to 5 levels above ground. From the bay windows you can look out over the Park and up and down Picadilly. The interior is tasteful and has high tech inclusions. The bathrooms, in marble and granite are among the best I have experienced. They pop champagne for guests in the foyer around 5pm creating the opportunity to mix with fellow travellers. Business hotels tend not to do that sort of thing of course. I have also had excellent value high standard pre-theatre dinners and great breakfasts at Bullochs Restaurant also. If you like pure malt scotches, their main bar has a famous and extensive collection.
Oh and their Irish concierge is outstanding and certainly better than the key man at Claridges IMHO.
Oh and their Irish concierge is outstanding and certainly better than the key man at Claridges IMHO.
Jul 27th, 2004, 05:18 PM
#85
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mar..oops, I mean atlcity: if SydneySteve is right, I said hello to Mk2 when I was at Claridge's just two and a half weeks ago! that's too funny! btw, my friend took me out to the Lanesborough for drinks on that same trip-I didn't know we were going there, as we decided at the last minute, so I was dressed very casual-my jeans and trademark flip-flops (I HAD been in a business suit all day, and wanted to relax!) Despite that, the staff were very cordial-they were not the least bit condescending to me-even though I was clearly underdressed and felt badly about it (Spygirl is almost never in that situation!). I think you should check out the Lanesborough-my friend is an ex-pat American, and he always goes there to talk and do business deals-the lobby bar area has plush couches done in various shades of red and chintz fabric,crystal chandeliers, marble floors-I found it a very comfortable place to have a few drinks and relax.
P.S. I don't think Mk2 approves of the interior furnishings of the Lanesborough.
P.S. I don't think Mk2 approves of the interior furnishings of the Lanesborough.
Jul 28th, 2004, 03:31 AM
#88
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How you amuse me.
The Lanesborough has a great bar under Salvatore Calabrese's leadership. His original martinis are fabulous. However, the hotel has no history - it used to be an hospital - and is on a very busy corner.
Claridge's is far from being a pure business property, it is heavily patronised by locals, and their bar is superb.
The Lanesborough has a great bar under Salvatore Calabrese's leadership. His original martinis are fabulous. However, the hotel has no history - it used to be an hospital - and is on a very busy corner.
Claridge's is far from being a pure business property, it is heavily patronised by locals, and their bar is superb.
Jul 28th, 2004, 04:00 AM
#89
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I rest my case! Now while we are on the subject of Barcelona, may I have some critique please of Restaurant El Drolma at the Majestic. Comments from those who have visited that Michelin-starred restaurant would be greatly appreciated ? Alternatively I am interested in advice on a consistantly great restaurant near to the Majestic. Thanks again.
Jul 28th, 2004, 04:01 AM
#90
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before we started travelling w/the kids all I wanted were the classic grand old hotels.travelling w/kids creates the need for compromise.Barcelona being a prime example,we stayed at the Ritz and were disappointed.Last summer we stayed at what we were told was the best hotel in Copenhagen the D'Angleterre and were not at all impressed.Mk i'm happy to provide you with some amusement.
Jul 28th, 2004, 05:17 AM
#91
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hotel D'Angleterre rests on its laurels, locals rarely bother with it. My Danish friend recommends the Radisson in Copenhagen - not only for its excellent service, but also the wondefully Danish interiors by Arne Jacobsen.
Jul 29th, 2004, 01:53 AM
#95
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"begrudgingly involved in a service industry environment with unsuitable personal characteristics for the role."
Moi?
Barcelona seemed too clean, too touristy, too bland, too arty for arts sake, too nouveau! The suburbs/outskirts i.e. the area where one walks to take the funicular to the summit of Mount Tibidabo, seemed much more pleasant, but too far for one to explore easily. Areas seemed to blend all too seamlessly, I'm fascinated how so many people here can feel such passion for this city. Comparing it to London - which I'm fond of, but by no means an enormous fan of - it is very underwhelming indeed.
As for "class distinction", Hotel Arts lacked any class, no distinctions were necessary. The property needs a small shake-up, such as putting dresscodes (albeit loose ones) in place, and also a live pianist or some form of live entertainment in the evenings - always naff, but it helps to create some atmosphere.
Incidentally, I visited what was recommended to me by the concierge as "the best bar in the city", Dry Martini, what an awful place. I enjoyed the art of Miro and Picasso, but I didn't need to be in Barcelona per se to see them. The city itself was all spread over far to large an area to enable one to walk around it easily - London has distinct areas which one can easily cover on foot, as does Athens, Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid (although I've been there too many times), etcetera..
Moi?
Barcelona seemed too clean, too touristy, too bland, too arty for arts sake, too nouveau! The suburbs/outskirts i.e. the area where one walks to take the funicular to the summit of Mount Tibidabo, seemed much more pleasant, but too far for one to explore easily. Areas seemed to blend all too seamlessly, I'm fascinated how so many people here can feel such passion for this city. Comparing it to London - which I'm fond of, but by no means an enormous fan of - it is very underwhelming indeed.
As for "class distinction", Hotel Arts lacked any class, no distinctions were necessary. The property needs a small shake-up, such as putting dresscodes (albeit loose ones) in place, and also a live pianist or some form of live entertainment in the evenings - always naff, but it helps to create some atmosphere.
Incidentally, I visited what was recommended to me by the concierge as "the best bar in the city", Dry Martini, what an awful place. I enjoyed the art of Miro and Picasso, but I didn't need to be in Barcelona per se to see them. The city itself was all spread over far to large an area to enable one to walk around it easily - London has distinct areas which one can easily cover on foot, as does Athens, Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels, Madrid (although I've been there too many times), etcetera..
Jul 29th, 2004, 04:57 AM
#96
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think I know as much about m_kingdom2 as I might have learned about Barcelona from this report. I hasten to say I appreciate the time put in on this report and the information about restaurants and hotels. The discussion was entertaining and enlightening, and part of what's wonderful about this forum.
However, at least with food and lodging, one has a frame of reference - other hotels and restaurants - and can more or less gauge whether one (sorry about all the "one's"
might agree with m_k2.
But reviewing the art and architecture of Barcelona as if it were a meal was both a little off-putting and potentially misleading. Yes, art and architecture are a certainly matter of taste, too, but if one/you had never seen any modernista or Gaudi works, this sort of review might lead you to miss something that many people other than m_k2 find wonderful. If a holiday is "to discover culture," there is a kind of arrogance to pronouncing the culture you've discovered, "disappointing." If someone went to Barcelona and saw only the Picasso Museum and not La Padrera, following m_k2's tastes, something important about Barcelona would not have been "discovered."
As for "sincerity" in service? I do weary of the "ma-plezhur" and "have a good one" chirpiness in the States. But I suspect that the only truly sincere people in service jobs are those whose attitude ranges from bored to tired to impatient to outright hostile. I don't imagine for a minute that a bellhop, server, maid, or even concierge are in fact pleased, honored, or grateful to serve me, just as a joy of life. If it weren't their job, with income involved, even the most sophisticated, "Euro-upper" form of subdued cordiality would be gone. As for subtlety, "have a nice day" can be seethingly sarcastic but undetectably so by some species of self-important travelers.
However, at least with food and lodging, one has a frame of reference - other hotels and restaurants - and can more or less gauge whether one (sorry about all the "one's"
might agree with m_k2. But reviewing the art and architecture of Barcelona as if it were a meal was both a little off-putting and potentially misleading. Yes, art and architecture are a certainly matter of taste, too, but if one/you had never seen any modernista or Gaudi works, this sort of review might lead you to miss something that many people other than m_k2 find wonderful. If a holiday is "to discover culture," there is a kind of arrogance to pronouncing the culture you've discovered, "disappointing." If someone went to Barcelona and saw only the Picasso Museum and not La Padrera, following m_k2's tastes, something important about Barcelona would not have been "discovered."
As for "sincerity" in service? I do weary of the "ma-plezhur" and "have a good one" chirpiness in the States. But I suspect that the only truly sincere people in service jobs are those whose attitude ranges from bored to tired to impatient to outright hostile. I don't imagine for a minute that a bellhop, server, maid, or even concierge are in fact pleased, honored, or grateful to serve me, just as a joy of life. If it weren't their job, with income involved, even the most sophisticated, "Euro-upper" form of subdued cordiality would be gone. As for subtlety, "have a nice day" can be seethingly sarcastic but undetectably so by some species of self-important travelers.
Jul 29th, 2004, 06:26 AM
#97
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for your balanced comments.
I feel I can only review a city from my opinion, if I remove my personal views it becomes guidebook prose. As for Gaudi - an architect should be able to combine, form, function, art and design in a successful blend. His work is far too much of an experiment in the art nouveau, which quite frankly, doesn't work successfully. The buildings look absolutely ridiculous - I won't go as far as saying that had they not been by Gaudi they would've been demolished and replaced with something more suitable - but it is interesting to see an experiment, which hasn't quite worked. On another note, I'm a great fan of Miro, and indeed own one or two pieces by him, but his canvases in white with a squiggle depicting prisoner's behind bars lacked depth, and thought - very disappointing. Also, I'd like to think that people don't like something because they're told it's wonderful - Sagrada Familia remains unfinished and is a nightmare of a place from virtually every angle. In my personal experience (and it is only my personal experience) I left Barcelona thinking to myself that "if the art galleries were removed, what is there to appeal to me in this city?" The answer I fear is "not an awful lot!".
By contrast, Athens, San Sebastian, Bilbao, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, etcetera all have warmth, and genuine interest without there having to be any attractions as such - simply walking the streets is a pleasure. In Barcelona I felt as if I was merely using the streets to get from one attraction to the other with little of interest in between. I hope that I am in the minority, and most traveller's are impressed with the city, I left (as I have said before) feeling distinctly underwhelmed, and after all the great things I'd heard, disappointed. It certainly wasn't an holiday disaster, the hotel was pleasant enough, and I have experienced another city, that's what travel is about. Also, travel helps one discover one's own tastes, reinforcing the fact that I detest modern cities, be it Milton Keynes, Manchester, or Barcelona (what a lineup - a bit like mentioning Frank Sinatra and Des O'Connor in the same breath).
I feel I can only review a city from my opinion, if I remove my personal views it becomes guidebook prose. As for Gaudi - an architect should be able to combine, form, function, art and design in a successful blend. His work is far too much of an experiment in the art nouveau, which quite frankly, doesn't work successfully. The buildings look absolutely ridiculous - I won't go as far as saying that had they not been by Gaudi they would've been demolished and replaced with something more suitable - but it is interesting to see an experiment, which hasn't quite worked. On another note, I'm a great fan of Miro, and indeed own one or two pieces by him, but his canvases in white with a squiggle depicting prisoner's behind bars lacked depth, and thought - very disappointing. Also, I'd like to think that people don't like something because they're told it's wonderful - Sagrada Familia remains unfinished and is a nightmare of a place from virtually every angle. In my personal experience (and it is only my personal experience) I left Barcelona thinking to myself that "if the art galleries were removed, what is there to appeal to me in this city?" The answer I fear is "not an awful lot!".
By contrast, Athens, San Sebastian, Bilbao, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, etcetera all have warmth, and genuine interest without there having to be any attractions as such - simply walking the streets is a pleasure. In Barcelona I felt as if I was merely using the streets to get from one attraction to the other with little of interest in between. I hope that I am in the minority, and most traveller's are impressed with the city, I left (as I have said before) feeling distinctly underwhelmed, and after all the great things I'd heard, disappointed. It certainly wasn't an holiday disaster, the hotel was pleasant enough, and I have experienced another city, that's what travel is about. Also, travel helps one discover one's own tastes, reinforcing the fact that I detest modern cities, be it Milton Keynes, Manchester, or Barcelona (what a lineup - a bit like mentioning Frank Sinatra and Des O'Connor in the same breath).
Jul 29th, 2004, 07:08 AM
#98
Guest
Posts: n/a
Absolutely fair to say travel helps discover one's tastes. I discovered that I loved Barcelona for the melding of old and new (from antiquity through Gothic to contemporary), for the glorious situation by the Mediterranean, for the cosmopolitanism less obvious in Madrid, and for certain quirkinesses arising out of the juxtapositions.
As to Gaudi, I'm quite fond of him -- can "defend" him in the same kind of art-history theoretical terms others employ to express criticism: The curvilinearity that is a relief from the stultifying orthogonality of much modern European polygonal architecture; the color that both adds whimsy and elaborates pattern in an orchestrated rhythm reminiscent of eastern uses of mosaic; the organic quality that gives static aedifices enlivening movement -- all of this and more is why he appeals to me. I agree that Sagrada Familia is ridiculous in certain ways, some of which I find charming while you do not. Somewhat less than charming is the fact that this is supposedly a monument in faith but functions quite far from that: I made a point of photographing the Coke machine in the cavernous nave, adorned with a massive photo of the cathedral surrounding the slots and doors for money and drinks.
Also, I actually prefer some other expressions of moderniste in Barcelona, notably the Palau de la Musica. Meanwhile, I find the assertive simplicity of Miro studied and lacking grace. Having been fortunate enough to have studied quite a bit of art history, I can appreciate Miro's achievement, but obviously, I look for grace in art before I look for intellectual statement, which is why I prefer artists of the late 19th and early 20th century to the extreme cerebralism of later work.
All that is, I freely admit, a lot of "yadda yadda yadda" that just shows one's taste is informed -- but it remains just that: taste.
I'm sorry Barcelona didn't engage you, but fair enough. I have yet to get to Bilbao and look forward to it -- will take your comments with me along with others. Just out of curiosity, have you seen any of Gehry's work in the US?
As to Gaudi, I'm quite fond of him -- can "defend" him in the same kind of art-history theoretical terms others employ to express criticism: The curvilinearity that is a relief from the stultifying orthogonality of much modern European polygonal architecture; the color that both adds whimsy and elaborates pattern in an orchestrated rhythm reminiscent of eastern uses of mosaic; the organic quality that gives static aedifices enlivening movement -- all of this and more is why he appeals to me. I agree that Sagrada Familia is ridiculous in certain ways, some of which I find charming while you do not. Somewhat less than charming is the fact that this is supposedly a monument in faith but functions quite far from that: I made a point of photographing the Coke machine in the cavernous nave, adorned with a massive photo of the cathedral surrounding the slots and doors for money and drinks.
Also, I actually prefer some other expressions of moderniste in Barcelona, notably the Palau de la Musica. Meanwhile, I find the assertive simplicity of Miro studied and lacking grace. Having been fortunate enough to have studied quite a bit of art history, I can appreciate Miro's achievement, but obviously, I look for grace in art before I look for intellectual statement, which is why I prefer artists of the late 19th and early 20th century to the extreme cerebralism of later work.
All that is, I freely admit, a lot of "yadda yadda yadda" that just shows one's taste is informed -- but it remains just that: taste.
I'm sorry Barcelona didn't engage you, but fair enough. I have yet to get to Bilbao and look forward to it -- will take your comments with me along with others. Just out of curiosity, have you seen any of Gehry's work in the US?
Jul 29th, 2004, 09:19 AM
#99
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only work of his I have seen in person is the Guggenheim, and his fish sculpture which dominated the view from my room at Hotel Arts. However, the fish is best viewed at a distance, a glance backwards when walking along the beach. It glimmers in the sun, seagulls sit on top of it, no great meaning, but it has humour. The Guggenheim, is a fabulously sculptural building, sadly it is not lit at night which is absolutely disgusting as this is one building that would benefit from an elaborate lighting scheme, nor is the interior anything special. Inside, it felt decidedly corporate, not minimalist, not stylish, just bland.
Miro's work has fabulous movement, expression, and if you look closely in certain works most definite sexual and sensual undertones that interact with the spectator. Picasso's work is even more intellectual. For me Rothko (who was exhibited at the Guggenheim hence my reference to him) canvases daubed in black, greys and brown lack intellectual quality - his early work displays much more emotion and passion.
Miro's work has fabulous movement, expression, and if you look closely in certain works most definite sexual and sensual undertones that interact with the spectator. Picasso's work is even more intellectual. For me Rothko (who was exhibited at the Guggenheim hence my reference to him) canvases daubed in black, greys and brown lack intellectual quality - his early work displays much more emotion and passion.
