michaelcrane

I have reservations at both hotels for an upcoming weekend and it's either one or the other. Four Seasons is $80 more per night. Is it worth it? Any thoughts on the pool at the Four Seasons--looks kind of small from the web pix. Also the Intercontinental appears to be in a more central location for going out. Thanks for the feedback.

Austin

I've not stayed in either one. Both are considered the best in Austin. As for location, maybe a slight advantage to Stephen F. You can walk to 6th St., the Capitol and the Warehouse district from the Stephen F. It will be quite a walk from the FS, except to 6th St.

The only plus I can think of for the Four Seasons is that you are right there on Town Lake and have perfect viewing for the nightly bat watching. Also a wonderful restaurant at the Hotel.

Austin

Meant to add, I'd save the $80 and go with Stephen F....

Austin

Tripadvisor.com discussions..

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Rev...tin_Texas.html

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Rev...tin_Texas.html

michaelcrane

Thanks--trip advisor has some very bad reviews of the Stephen F. Austin!

BTilke

We spent a few days at the FS. The hotel was very comfortable, good service, and as noted above, great for the bat watching. It wasn't right in the heart of the action, though.

P_M

I would probably go w/Four Seasons because I would like being near the river, and as mentioned before, there's the bat-watching. It's not as close to 6th Street and the Capitol, but it's not very far and there are many busses running that direction. Welcome to our city!!