Andre

Hi all,

Need some current info on what is the better choice:
- "city view" room at Park Lane
- "superior" room at Warwick

Both are the same price (USD 160 in April).

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?

Looking forward to your feedback!
Andre

Andre

TTT

Frank

City View at the Park Lane is fine if you can get a high floor that clears the surrounding buildings. The "superior" 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.

Andre

Thanks, Frank!

TTT for more opinions

Andre

Scarlett

Hi Andre,
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
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.
Hope this is a help.

Andre

TTT now that the site is working again

Andre

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).

Anybody have recent first hand experience, especially at the Park Lane?

Thanks,
Andre