Rethinking New York Hotel/Area after reading your posts
 

I had been doing some research on the net over the last week for a short stay in Manhattan in October. Friends here(who may not know better:) all suggested staying in Times Square.

I've read many of your incredibly helpful posts and after continually seeing comments advising not staying there, but never reading anything specific as to an explanation. So...

...my questions become;

1)specifically, why not Times Square?

2)which area is better for a 1st time, short visit with a wife and 9 y.o. daughter in tow and why?

Since I read your posts, I have looked elsewhere just in case and have noted one place that captures my attention because of the ambiance and reasonable price: The Intercontinental Barcley. Keeping with that same theme, I was initially very close to booking the Michelangelo. I wanted something that wasn't too expenseive, but still said New York, rather than some non-descript chain like Crowne Plaza or Doubletree on 7th and W. 47th.

If you convince me to book something elsewhere like the Inter-Barc., what other hotels would have that NY charm to choose from?

Keep in mind, we want the convience of seeing Times Square, Central Park, as well as the EPB and the Statue of Liberty AND decent restaurants. And as much as the convience and hotel ambiance, it'd be nice to have the immediate area surrounding hotel to be charming as possible(if that is possible).

Thanks in advance folks!

Personally, I see no reason not to stay in Times Square. New Yorkers and regular visitors might find the commotion taxing, but it's the essence of tourist New York and need not be avoided. It's an exciting place to be!

We liked the Michelangleo's service and room very much, but we also liked the location, as it isn't IN Times Square, but a block or so away, at a (relatively--it's still midtown!) quiet intersection. So you can walk to Rock Center, 5th Ave, Times Square, theaters, the park and many restaurants. Have not stayed in any of the others you mentioned, but I'm positive you would like the Michelangelo.

I think most tourists like to and enjoying staying in Timesq Square, especially for a 1st time visitor. I live here and personally find Times Sq a bit crowded and noisy for my tastes, but as a tourists I do like to be in the middle of things. There are many nice neighborhoods to stay in but no one in the middle of all sites. The distance from central park south to battery park is about 4 miles. As long as you're near some subway lines, you are only minutes from most areas.

I think with a 9 yo daughter, Times Sq is a good choice. She should love it.

Staying "near" Times Sq. can be as far away as maybe 4-5 blocks, with all of the benefits but not so noisy and congested. Staying "IN" Times Sq. can mean a lot of noise and congestion and a "scene" at night that you might find exciting or you might find a bit much.

Look at a map and notice that what Times Sq. is: It is the junction of Broadway, 42nd st. and 7th Ave. Note that Broadway is going to be the most "bustling" and commercial of thoroughfares in that area, and note also that one of the major subway lines runs under 7th Avenue. And 42nd is a major east-west axis. That explains why it's so central; also most of the theatres are arrayed around B'way in that area.

So you can go a few blocks west of 7th and/or north (or south) of 42nd street and reduce the congestion, while remaining pretty central to what you might want to do. In general, the more toward either river you go to the east or west, the more residential things will get but the further from a subway stop you'll be.

I recently posted a trip report including my review of the Belvedere (so if you "search" on Belvedere, you'll find it). I mention it partly because you might like the hotel (not a chain, although part of the "Empire Hotel group" for booking purposes http://www.newyorkhotel.com/flashmain.htm), but also because it's a good example of hotels _near_ to Times Sq. but far enough from it to be in a pleasant yet central location. The Belvedere is 1-2 blocks from the 50th St. stop on the A-C-E (8th ave) line and another long block to stops on the 1-2-3 and the N-R-W lines, respectively. There are many many other neighborhood hotels in the same area.

Can't say I'm familiar with the Michelangelo but if you want to "shop" a bit more, try http://www.citysearch.com/nb/newyork and perhaps narrow your search for hotels to "midtown/hell's kitchen" (there isn't much left of hell's kitchen). This is not a booking service, just a survey that will give you maps and reviews of a number of places.

soled, we faced the same dilemma in making our choice for a visit this year. Spouse and I had previously visited NYC staying near Rockefeller Center, wanting to avoid the busy Times Square area. This time we initially booked a king deluxe at the Barclay for the same reason, although we are traveling with our 9 year old.

After a bit more research, we decided to book the Doubletree Suites in Times Square for a few dollars more. The Barclay appeals to us but the rooms are small, about 220 sq ft (not unusual in NY). The Doubletree is 440 sq ft with a separate bedroom, so we are giving up some ambience for more space in a busier area.

I don't think you can go wrong staying in Times Square or more mid-town on a first visit as both areas are convenient for visitors, just consider what's important to you.

There is a W hotel in Times Square that your daughter might like. It's very trendy.

The Michaelangelo is also a good choice.

I've been in the W times Sq. the lobby is small, dark and loud. Trendy maybe for a 19 yr old but not a 9 yr old. Recently a visitor of ours stayed at the Doubletree SUites. It seemed very nice. There's also a refridgerator, microwave, & coffee pot which could come in handy.

Let me preface this by saying that whenever I travel I always choose the hotel location thats right in the thick of things. I like to be be close to all the action. With that said, let me say that there's "right in the thick of things" and then there's Times Square, which drives me nuts.

I live in NY so I'm used to noise and crowds and getting bumped and jostled regularly but Times Square is more than I can stand.

It's so choked with people you have to walk in the gutter half the time. If I'm with my husband or a friend you can't even walk together. And with a child, forget about it. I was there last year with my friend and her son, it was sometimes hair-raising keeping track of him since you can guess how 10-yr-old boys feel about holding hands.

Anyway, that's what I don't like about Times Square. Mind you, it's not like it's always that way and the lights at night really are a sight to see but I prefer it in small doses.

I'm one of the New Yorkers who despises Times Square (for tourists). Invariably, when visitors complain that NYC is loud/dirty/crowded/dangerous/disgusting, they stayed in Times Square. It is *not* a representative area of Manhattan, much less New York City. The restaurants are lousy and/or overpriced and it's the only part of Manhattan where I worry about my wallet.

For new visitors, I suggest Midtown East or Central Park South. Once you have a feel for the city, those so inclined often enjoy staying further downtown (SoHo Grand, Hudson, etc.).

I find the Park Central to be a good compromise. It's your standard NY hotel, about 5 blocks from Times Square (you can see the square from right in front of the hotel), a few blocks south of Central Park, across the street from Carnegie Hall and close to the theater district, Rockafeller center, etc. Also, it's right near two subway lines. You can get a very good rate on Travelocity.com.

Staying immediately in Times Square (e.g. the Hilton on 42nd between 7th and 8th or the Marriot Marquis on Broadway) can be taxing simply in the sense that at times the sidwalks are literally thronging with people and it's a bit time consuming to walk through. It's fun to walk through TS when it's like that (which is much of the time) but I wouldn't want to deal with it every time I came and went from the hotel if I was staying for a few days.

Staying a block or two east of Times Square and anywhere heading north from about 43rd up to the low 50's is (to my way of thinking) an ideal llocation in terms of convenience. The subway system is soo good and frequent that you can certainly stay elsewhere with a minimum of extra hassle but it's nice being close to things. I haven't stayed at the Intercontinental Barclay but have stayed at the park Central and wasn't wowed. I've stayed at the Novotel, the Clarioj and the East Side Marriott and found all of them to have rooms a bit nicer than the one I stayed in at Park Central. It's not bad but it's not "all that and a bag of chips".

I'm one of those NYC fans that will avoid staying in Times Square at all costs. Gekko's assessment is right on-target. The anti-NYC contingency seems to have Times Square in mind, specifically as it was 10 years ago. But it's still a bit TOO touristy for me. As an alternative place to stay, Midtown East is ideal, as far as I'm concerned. But look carefully, especially if you need larger rooms....

You've been given some great advice. You can stay near Times Square without staying in it and be there in a two minute walk.

Great hotels; Michelangelo, Le Parker Meridian, The Salisbury, and The Hudson (small rooms).

All are very close to what you mentioned you wanted to see except the Statue of Liberty.

You folks are being great with your replies, especially the Times Square vs. elswhere debate. So please, keep them coming.

But, I'm also hoping for more replies on comparable hotels to the Barclay. I like the 'feel' of it on the net, anyway, lol. And preferably in the areas some of you have mentioned; midtown east and Central Park south. That doesn't mean I've decided to stay at one of those two locations, only that if there's a hotel in real nice setting there, it would help me in the Times Square vs. elswhere debate because I've already narrowed down the hotels in Times Square that interest me.

We're by no means wealthy, so the price range we're looking for should be no more than $270 and even with that, I'm hoping to get a lower firefighters or government rate if possible. I've already noticed some have govt rates on their websites and some don't.

One thing is for sure, New York looks more incredible, the more I see it on the net. Can't wait to get there.

Thanks again for your replies, you all are very helpful people.

If you want to find a good deal on hotels, the best places to start is Quikbook.com and Travelzoo. I know Travelzoo had a special on some New York hotels. Not sure which ones, but you can check it out.
I live here, and therefore don't stay in the hotels here. I can agree though that you are better off being a bit away from Times Square. It's fine to be at but not to stay at.
I have seen some very nice hotels in the midtown east area. A lot are being renovated as well. Any place you pick will be within walking distance from a subway, so do not fret about getting around.

I've stayed at the Inter-Continental Barclay, and I absolutely love the location. I love the ambience. It has an unmistakable New York feel to it, a big-city hustle and bustle, and it's gorgeous inside. The rooms are quite small, which is indeed a New York hallmark. I felt cramped by myself-- the queen-sized bed seemed to take up the entire floor in the room. I can't imagine that room with one other person, let alone two (even if it's a child). I would hope they'd set you up in a larger room, if available. But I can say it's a wonderful hotel, one of my favorites. And it's a great location, close to everything!

Stayed at the Michaelangelo for New Year's. 51st Street and 7th Avenue, Perfect location, just off Times Square, near Rockefeller Center and Central Parkand across from Carnegie Deli. Very large rooms.

If you opt for Midtown East, check out the Marriott Eastside. If you do a search here, you'll see many Fodorites (myself included) have given it excellent reviews. The hotel often runs rate specials, especially on the Marriott web site.