As a first time visitor to NY City, I want it to be scpecial and pleasent. I can use some opinion on all or any of the above mentiones hotels!

Thanks

First, location.

Times Square is far from pleasant, so I'd strongly suggest another area of Manhattan, such as midtown east or Central Park South.

(When tourists complain that NYC is dirty/loud/crowded, invariably they stayed in Times Square.)

Regarding the individual hotels, there are dozens if not hundreds of threads on this site about all of them -- do a search and you'll learn plenty.

Good Luck!

I have been inside the Marriott although I never got to check out their rooms. Seemed like a nice hotel. However, I will say this: There was a convention in the area during the blackout and a lot of the attendees were staying there. According to my bosses who attended, they basically had people sleeping on the sidewalks, because they did not want anyone in the hotel for "security reasons"! This was televised on the news and left a bitter taste in our mouths for the Marriott Marquis.

We stayed at the Millenium Broadway Hotel at Times Square last weekend. Got it on Priceline for $110/night. Definitely worth the price I payed. We were on 44th St., about a half block from Times Square. We didn't have a problem with the location. Actually, it worked out very nicely for us. We walked to the theater Saturday evening, and were within a reasonable walk to Central Park, Grand Central Station, shopping on 5th and Madison Aves., and the ESB. Also, subway station was not far away either. Lots of restaurants close by, too. Yes, it is a touristy area, but it was convenient for our weekend trip.

When we go to NY, it's for a theater weekend, so we think Times Square is the perfect location.

We've stayed at the Renaissance, and it's beautiful. Our favorite is the Doubletree Suites. There's something special about having a suite.

I've stayed at the Marriott many times and with the exception of the crowds you often have to put up with in the lobbies and the elevators, it is a good hotel. The thing I like best is that they are some of the largest standard rooms in New York -- well furnished and practical. And the rooms have a wall of glass, wall to wall, floor to ceiling. We normally turn the sofa to face out, draw open the draperies and have a giant screen looking right up the bright lights of Times Square and Broadway. That to me IS New York. I always request and always get a north facing room for the best views.

My second choice would be the Renaissance.

I would strongly disagree that Times Square is "far from pleasant". If you're planning on one or more Broadway shows during your visit, hotels in the area could not be more conveniently located. Contrary to popular concensus, catching a taxi to the theaters or any restaurant in the area at theater/dinnertime could likely be impossible, especially if the weather is less than perfect.

Times Square is exhilarating and exciting and a definite NYC experience.

All of the hotels you've mentioned are just fine. Top of my list would be the Renaissance.

All in all, you'll probably want the NYC "experience", and though Times Square may be crowded and loud, you need only wander half a block away where it's NOT - for seeing and doing, dining, shopping, etc.

PS - We've stayed at the Marriott many times as well. We always request a room looking WEST at check-in. The rooms are quieter and closer to the elevators with terrific views.

At any Times Square hotel, if you wander west, as opposed to east, it's another world entirely. Even if you wander east, you're out of the congestion within 1/2 block or so.

Patrick, Just a question. We stayed at Marriott in Apr and had a room on 12th floor that looked into GMA studios. In fact I could see (with binoculars) Diane reading her script and getting her hair worked on. Weren't we facing south? Thought that I was overlooking Times Square. Was I wrong. Anyway, we also figured out the elevators in a hurry and really never had a problem. Was there again (not to stay) in June and looks like they are really changing the 8th floor.

While Times Square must be one of the most frenetic places on earth, if you get a room on a high floor on one of these hotels, it can be surprisingly quiet. Missjanna should not be mad at Marriott for their decisions during the summer blackout--they didn't want guests on the higher floors simply bcs there was not enough light in hallways and stairways to evacuate safely, should there have been any emergency during the night. I would agree the Renaissance is very good; Millenium has the benefit of not actually being smack-bang in the middle of the Square; Marriott has quite nice rooms, and a shuttle bus to Javits Convention Center; the Crowne Plaza is also fine, if you are up high. The Westin probably has lovely rooms, but I don't care for the site, right across the street from Port Authority bus terminal, backing on slightly trashy 42nd Street with the entrance carefully positioned on a dumpy stretch of 43rd St. Don't confuse this with the W Hotel, corner of 47th. If your idea of "special and pleasant" can include the excitement of being amid mobs of people at all times, choose a Times Sq. hotel. Otherwise, consider something like the new Sofitel, 44th bet. 5th & 6th, which is still within an easy walk of theaters, or the wonderful Michelangelo on 7th Ave.

Stayed at the Marriott in August. If you don't mind waiting forever for an elevator, it's fine. We were on the 11th floor and most times when the elevator finally arrived, it was full and we'd have to keep waiting.

aimimgr, to clear up the directional confusion, the Marriott is in the middle of Times Square, spanning the block between 45th and 46th Streets. So, depending on your room, you could have a view of Times Square in either a northern or southern direction. The GMA studio is in Times Square, which runs from 42nd to 47th Streets

FBDII, I guess it depends what experience you're looking for. In my opinion as a New Yorker, Times Square is far from "special and pleasant."

Natives avoid it like the plague for numerous reasons -- primarily because it's not representative of Manhattan in the least. After the "wow" factor has worn off (about 2 minutes for adults), you're left with the worst New York City has to offer.

And please don't be swayed by the whole close-to-theaters thing. New York has the best public transportation in the world, not to mention a zillion taxis, so you're never more than 15 minutes from the theaters. And unless you plan to spend every minute in the theater, Times Square is not particularly convenient to Museum Mile, which is only served by the 4-5-6 Lexington Avenue subways (which run through midtown east).

Beware, strong opinion follows:

Which the exception of Broadway-holics or specific theater weekends, Times Square is for suckers. Did a little deeper and enjoy the real New York.



And now be prepared for the barrage of responses from peopel a)who've never stayed elsewhere or b)are mesmerized by bright lights (and probably like Vegas too) or c)just have an attraction to all that is Times Square.

Relax and take a deep breath, Gekko!
Times Square is not the hellhole that he paints it to be. Yes, it's touristy and crowded...but it's also New York! And, to come to NYC and not experience the area by at least walking through it is ludicrous!
Not all of us natives ignore it like the plague!
And for visitors, it is a convenient location--within walking distance of the Empire State Building, Fifth Avenue, Rockefeller Center, the theater district, major department stores, Grand Central Station, etc., etc., etc. And when you can't walk to your destination, you have a major subway station right at your fingertips.

Thank you Howard. I had an elderly lady with me and walking to see Gypsy was doable and of course seeing Millie right in the hotel was great for her. We did the taxi thing and I must admit for a midwesterner I did not like standing out in the street to try and get one to stop. She could not do subways, but I wish we would've tried the bus.

Anyone wanna take bets on when the last time Gekko went to the theatre in New York? He certainly didn't take a taxi home if so, or he'd know it is just about impossible to get one.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I loved staying in an apartment for a month on the upper east side, but if I only have a few days in the city and if theatre is a big part of what I'm doing, then I'll stay in the Times Square area every time. We don't have that back home -- and that's why I travel -- to get what I can't find at home!!!

Why don't you take a guess, Patrick? Go ahead and place your bet. Then I'll tell you about opening night of Phantom 20 years ago, Lane & Broderick in Producers, Broderick in How to Succeed in Business . . . (my personal favorite.) Go ahead. Guess.

I walk one block east to Sixth and catch cabs, or I walk home to the UES if the weather permits.

And, uh, pardon me HowardR. I never called Times Sq a "hellhole," nor did I suggest tourists shouldn't visit Times Square -- they should. Just don't stay there, that's my point. Take it or leave it.

"Hellhole" was my word, Gekko, but it was the one that came to mind after reading your comments.
(PS: And, pray tell, what version of Phantom of the Opera did you see 20 years ago? Certainly not the current one which opened less than 16 years ago.)

Good for you, Gekko. But I've seen over 25 Broadway productions in the past year (eighteen in one month)and I do know this. I've stood at Sixth (after The Producers in fact) for over half an hour trying to get a taxi for an older friend with a bad ankle. Supposedly it is easier to get a taxi there, but we had no better luck. We were headed uptown for late dinner. After half an hour we started walking -- and trying to get one all the way. We never could. To try to indicate that normally when the shows get out one can just grab a taxi in the theatre district is pure ignorance, or just a hapenstance of one-time luck. Sorry, I may not live in New York, but I sure know what the traffic and taxi situation in Times Square is like a whole lot better. If you weren't so busy avoiding it, you'd know too.

And don't try to impress me with your theatrical experience. I've been seeing Broadway since the days of Ethel Merman and Helen Hayes. But I do know this, Phantom of the Opera was not playing in New York 20 years ago.

Hmm. Guess we were posting at the same time, Howard. Glad to know there's at least one New Yorker with some common sense and intelligence.