I've been researching on hotels for over a month for our 5 city European tour. I like to be in a central location. Paris and Rome were quite easy - 1st, 7th, 6th or 8th arrondisement for Paris and near the Pantheon for Rome to be as central as one can get.

I am having problems though with London given that I also prefer quite new hotels - i.e. not dated and tattered. Which exactly is the most central neighborhood I should be looking at? So far I quite like the looks of Victoria Park Plaza and the Cumberland. Which of the 2 is more central? I am quite worried about the Cumberland given that the negative reviews on tripadvisor are really quite bad. Victoria is rated quite highly but apart from the tube stop being near, it doesn't sound quite central.

It all depends on what you call "central" I mean, London is really big..you cannot be near of everything !
Marble Arch is near Oxford Street..if you are not into shopping, is not very interesting but again, it's very good for buses and the tube to going everywhere. Victoria has even better communications and the zone, at least for me is more appealing. For what I think you call "central" probably Victoria is better
Anyway, my favourite is Covent Garden !! But hotels tend to be expensive that zone.

Have you looked at the Hilton(Mayfair neighborhood)? Very near the Green Park tube stop and walking distance to Buckingham Palace. It's a nice, quiet upscale part of town. If you want to stay near the action(Picadilly,etc.) you'll get crowds and noise.

This sounds like nuts and bolts time..

Central to what?

If you are using public transport then your hotel should be near a tube or bus stop which means you could choose from many...but do you also like to walk to places nearby?

Do you have a particular budget in mind?

It would be helpful to know these additional particulars IMO.

Just as an example, some people like Mayfair (including myself) but that certainly isn't "central" to places such as the Tower and some of the museums and if it is theatre you are interested in you can get even more central than that by staying in Covent Garden.

help us help you....

I stay in a flat, so not much help with hotels, but my choice for "central" would be somewhere like Thistle Charing Cross, or something else near Trafalgar Square. Great area to walk to much of what you'll probably do from there.

Forget this stuff about "new" hotels.

The date a hotel was first built is absolutely no guide to how tatty it is inside. The Thistle Charing Cross for example, recommended by Neopolitan, is excellently maintained for all that its 150th birthday is due in 2013. But a huge proprtion of London's post-1970 hotels are tatty, filthy and quietly falling apart.

If you have some kind of fetish about new - as opposed to properly looked after - buildings though, you really ought to think again about travelling to London Paris and Rome.

Thanks for all the replies.

"Central" as in walking distance to a lot of attractions. I know London is a big city but there are places where there are more points of interest nearby.

From my hours of reading this forum, it does sound like the areas of Trafalgar Square or Covent Garden sound good. Any hotel recommendations here would be appreciated. I've already decided to overlook Thistle Trafalgar/Charing Cross and Royal Horseguards due to bad tripadvisor reviews - anything else?

If nothing else comes up, I'm leaning towards Victoria Park Plaza. Is the area safe at night though?

If you can afford it, the Covent Garden Hotel (I'm very, VERY biased in favor of it) or perhaps the Renaissance Chancery Court.

You seem to be a TripAdvisor "follower". I always take TA w/ a grain of salt. For instance Royal Horseguards is a really good hotel - well located, well cared for, and good value. Same w/ Thistle Charing Cross. But since you want to rely on some anonymous posters on TA you won't consider them.

No single location will be walking distance to more than a handful of the many sites in London. But that is not a problem because transport is fast, cheap and easy.

And we REALLY do need to know your price range. It won't do any good to recommend some lovely place in Covent Garden - and then find out you are budgeting $150.

""Central" as in walking distance to a lot of attraction"

Marriot County Hall fits the bill - right by London Eye, Big Ben, Parliament, Whitehall, Trafalgar Sqaure, National Gallery...

Oh and the Tube from Westminster gets you to the museums at South Kensington, St Pauls, Tate Modern, Globe, Tower of London, Tower Bridge...

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/buses/pdfdocs/centlond.pdf

zizz, unlike many European cities, London really doesn't have a classic 'center'. It has the Westminster area and the City area, which are both very old, but are somewhat separated from each other. They each have attractions, but many of London's most popular attractions are not in either area. I'd recommend looking at a map of Central London that contains the attractions - here's one that's online:
http://travellondon.com/templates/attractions/map.html
Then decide what you want to be near the most.

We stayed in Mayfair, and I will stay there again. It is more expensive than some areas, however. We walked to shopping on Bond St. and Oxford St. and walked home from the theatre. Hyde Park, Green Park, St. James Park, Westminster, Picadilly Circus are all walkable from there as well. But we also rode the tube a lot, and took buses, to get to the Tower, the British Library, the V&A, Portobello Market, the Imperial War Museum, Greenwich, etc.

I think that others have given you good advice. There are 2 areas which I tend to avoid that to a neophyte tourist might be considered "central". One is "the city". It is the business district and empties out at night so doesn't have much charm or residential feel. The other is the area near Picadilly Sq. A lot of tourist hotels, a lot of McDonalds with little local feel. I am also not a big fan of the area near Euston St. but that is just me I think.

Can anyone have input on Marriott Grosvenor House (not to confuse the more expensive Grosvenor Square) ?

I believe it was Le Meridian before. Currently it is under renovation till Mid 2007 and because of that it is a Cat 6 hotel instead of Cat 7 like the Marriot County Hall or the Ren ... (so we can afford it - not enough pts for Cat 7 for 3 nights)

Thanks.

The Grosvenor House is a great old London hotel and if I had my choice I'd be totally happy in either Grosvenor House or Grosvenor Square.

Both are well over my pay grade - but I've eaten, attended functions and/or had afternoon tea in both.

If your points will get you into Grosvenor House I'm sure you will enjoy it.

Thanks for the input.

I know the only reason Grosvenor House is a Cat 6 like the Marriott Marble Arch is because many of its rooms are not renovated yet, and some travellers reported back that those rooms are quite "run down" ... When the renovation is finished in Mid 2007 I am sure it would be a Cat 7.

Yeah, our pts cover exactly 3 nights at Grosvenor House - I was lucky to check a few nights ago when MR release the room for a standard award - It was not available before unless at 50% higher pt level for StayAnytime award. I was thrilled when it showed up as a standard award.