karie

just back from new york and wanted to post my recommendation for everyone for the hudson hotel on 58th street west. very funky and fun, great looking, excellent staff who were friendly and helpful. yes, the rooms are very small, but nicely appointed (300 thread count egyptian cotton/down comforters) and there is a feeling of spaciousness and airiness. good location on southwest corner of central park, close to broadway/fifth avenue and walking distance to theatres. good place for yuppies, singles, couples, professionals...maybe not a family place, though. also a plug for 'fosse'. we had front-row seats, and it was excellent.

Kay

Saw article in travel section of San Francisco Chronical that rates at the Hudson have been reduced due to low occupancy???
After kane's report sounds like a good deal.....

Annie

Not to contradict Karie--what she says is technically true. I was there earlier this month, and found the same beautifully appointed rooms, good linens, great location. But, really, the Hudson is TINY--and I've never been in a hotel that I've condemned as 'too small'. There's literally no place to lay out a suitcase, if you don't want to unpack, or to put your things if you do want to unpack. The closet is a 2 foot notch in the wall, and there are no drawers anywhere. Three lovely silver pegs and a pretty 3" silver bowl on the wall are the extent of the 'settling in' options. And the beautiful bathroom is sooooo small that I was bumping my knees on the wall (and I'm 5'3"--God help you if you're blessed with height). There's a bathmat, but not enough floor space to lay it down. Shower has clingy curtains on two sides. Had to wriggle sideways to maneuver around the bed. The desk is smaller than your average end table, and the only data port for a computer is across the room. Fortunately, 'across the room' is only four feet away! No newspaper, no robe.

It's a hugely chic place to see and be seen, but the staff was clearly hired to look good, and couldn't manage to retreive a Fed-Ex package. My rate was $205--good for NY, but not great.

Granted, I was there for a business trip, and might not have been quite as critical if it were purely leisure, but, then again, the thought of two people in that room makes me claustrophobic. The bed is 'full' which would be very cozy for those of us used to our queen or king beds.

For a fun weekend visit, it might not offend everyone, but I'll go back to the 'W' in midtown. For the same price, it's got equally fab appointments with significantly more 'elbow room'.

Just one more opinion, for what it's worth.

Cassie

I HAVE to chime in to agree with Annie. There's a reason occupancy is so low - the rooms are indescribably small and make for a miserable stay. I made the mistake of staying there with a friend - we managed to have a good time in NY, but that was in SPITE of the ridiculous room we were stuck with. You're literally bumping into each other at every turn. Only one person can move around at a time, the other person has to lay on the bed - which takes up the ENTIRE room (and it's not that big of a bed!) It truly has to be seen to be believed.

Oh, and the bathroom isn't any better - even the tub is half-size. There's next to no closet space, and not a SINGLE drawer to put your clothes in!... In a word, AWFUL.

If you want to take in the hotel's 'chic'lobby and bar, stop by for a drink. But god forbid, don't stay there!! (And yes, I'e stayed at dozens of NY hotels for work - I've never seen anything like the rooms at the Hudson.)

lisa

I defy anyone to show me a better hotel room for $95 a night in New York City than what you get at the Hudson. I really enjoyed it, and at that price, I honestly don't think it can be beat. The location is great, the bed is very comfortable, and the staff is friendly. Yes, the rooms are small, but I happened to be there by myself and didn't mind it a bit, especially because you're hardly in the room. I probably would not pay more than $150 for it, but my TOTAL bill, including dinner, breakfast, and tax, came to just under $150 -- can't beat that in New York.

cassie

Sure, if you're staying by yourself and you can actually get the elusive $95 rate, by all means, go for it! That $95 rate was nowhere to be found when we stayed there in early May. We paid $220 a night for 3 nights... After taxes that was $750 for an ill-equipped, claustrophobic room. NOT worth it.

mimi

We got the $95 rate when the hotel first opened and we both said that $120 would be the tops we would ever pay. We also never saw such a small room even as small as our riverboat room on the Yangste River in China. When I called back this year they quoted me$325. I started to laugh and asked if she had seen the room. What a joke!