NYC HOTELS - Warwick or Helmsley Park Lane??
 

Hi all,<BR><BR>Need some current info on what is the better choice:<BR>- &quot;city view&quot; room at Park Lane<BR>- &quot;superior&quot; room at Warwick<BR><BR>Both are the same price (USD 160 in April).<BR><BR>Stayed at the Warwick a few years ago and liked it, but prefer the location of the Park Lane (closer to the Columbus Circle subway stop which I use quite often). No personal experience at the Park Lane though and reviews are quite mixed on this site (and others)... What would you do?<BR><BR>Looking forward to your feedback!<BR>Andre

TTT

City View at the Park Lane is fine if you can get a high floor that clears the surrounding buildings. The &quot;superior&quot; label often doesn't mean much, but that differs from hotel to hotel. In general the Park Lane is a better hotel in a better location, but since the Warwick is a known commodity to you that you previously enjoyed, you may want to eliminate the unexpected and go with it. On the otherhand, if you like a different experience in a different location, you probably can't go wrong with the Parklane at the rate you quoted. You might even get a park view upgrade if you get lucky.

Thanks, Frank!<BR><BR>TTT for more opinions<BR><BR>Andre

Hi Andre,<BR>We stayed at the Park Lane, thanks to a friend of the manager;) and had a room on a high floor with a great view. The room was quite large and the furnishings were lovely. Of course, I had to get sick from bad restaurant food, so I can say that the bathroom is also large and clean:)<BR>Friends from London have stayed at the Warwick and liked it, but would have liked to be in another location, so I think the Park Lane wins out due to that.<BR>Hope this is a help.

TTT now that the site is working again<BR><BR>Andre

OK - I still haven't made up my mind... Rates are now down to $136 (Warwick superior room) and $149 (Park Lane city view).<BR><BR>Anybody have recent first hand experience, especially at the Park Lane?<BR><BR>Thanks,<BR>Andre