I just got back from S.F. and we stayed at the Carlton Hotel on Sutter Street. the hotel lobby is nice, the people who work there also nice, but we had several complaints. First of all, the neighborhood is pretty sketchy, just above the Tenderloin, so to walk home at night it's a little scary. put it this way, on the next block of sutter street is a salvation army and a pawn shop. Neither of which are hallmarks of a nice neighborhood. second, there is no AC and no Ceiling Fans, so our room got no fresh air or breeze. also, there wasn't a dresser in the room and it was pretty small so you have suitcases all over the place.

Went to a meeting in SF a couple years ago...asked the downtown shuttle bus driver to drop us off at our hotel, the Ritz-Carlton.
He dropped us off at the Carlton. No mistaking the two one for the other.

And the really scary thing about the hotel is I got it's name from the Conde Nast Traveler magazine's annual Gold List!

Edie, It's the same old thing-----if it sounds too good to be true, it is, particularly re: hotels in SF. You need to know the neighborhoods, but you probably were in no danger on Sutter Street. As to the airconditioning--many smaller hotels in the city don't have air conditioning. Just open the windows, although, most tourists object to the noise. I would wonder how much you spent for the room and what you thought you were getting for that price. SF is very expensive!

we did only pay 144 a night and relative to price the room and hotel in general was adequate, and i noticed that just down the hill from us were all the big business hotels, like renaissance park 55 and a hilton or hyatt type convention hotels, which i am sure would be more expensive and were also really close to strip clubs and peep shows. so i guess if i paid more to stay there and had to walk out to an area that looks like times square in the pre-guiliani days i would have been more irritated. i guess my advice to S.F. tourists is to stay in the wharf area unless you can afford the fairmont or the ritz carlton. ultimately i wasn't expecting S.F. to have such sketchy areas and to have hotels in them!usually in a big city hotels are in nicer areas. Also what is the deal with the ridiculous amount of homeless and people panhandling all over the place? maybe NY should loan SF our mayor for a while!

Well, too many homeless people, isn't that too bad.....there are homeless people and unfortunately they didn't know you were a tourist....Give me a break!!!! Next time stay home..This is what's wrong with American tourists...thus we are disliked, I bet you want everybody to speak english..in non english countries and demand it here....A Salvation Army and Pawn shop.....Thank God for people like the Salvation Army who take care of those nobody else wants to.

Puhleez, apparently Collector hasn't spent much time around the edges of the Tenderloin in San Francisco. I have. I have also lived in NYC, Washington, DC, Los Angeles and Chicago. Calling the folk who hang around some of these blocks "homeless" is being polite. We are talking about drunks and drug addicts, who quite clearly target tourists with varied panhandling tactics running from obnoxious to creative to just plain sad. Some blocks are pretty bad even in the middle of the afternoon. No one visiting a major city like SF or NY expects to find Main Street USA DisneyWorld. And most people like to avoid the worst the real world has to offer, and enjoy their hard-earned vacations. Take your guilt trip off to your own sanctimonious back yard.

At the risk of having people jump all over me, could I remind everyone that SF has one of the lowest crime rates of any major U.S. city and that our level of tolerance is higher than most cities as well. SF is famous for its liberal, tolerant attitude toward all types of people and if you are not comfortable with this, then perhaps you should choose another destination. I would agree that the Tenderloin is not pleasant, but please don't think that all the homeless are dangerous drunken drug pushers. It simply is not the case. And, the homeless are all over as they also are in Los Angeles, D.C. etc.

Yes, I am a flaming liberal...and I do see alot of poverty in places I go..but to be upset about the Salvation Army(one of the charities that I support) and a pawn shop in the area is obscene...There are homeless in the big city I live in and there are areas that I would think twice about walking about at night...but if that is your mind set of not wanting to see poverty and there are others out there like you unfortunately, y ou will miss a great deal of the world. Go to Disney..staying at the wharf is not real, it's tacky, but I guess that's what some people like.. By coincidence Frommer just wrote a piece about S.F. and mentioned a hotel that we visit on Post Street...charming, funky and to you it would be in the "wrong area"... Just be grateful that you are able to travel and there is a saying about many people being only one or two paychecks from poverty... If I sound angry, I am...sorry. Perhaps the next time you should stay at a Sheraton or Holiday Inn.

Oh yes,...air conditioning is a sore point with people in S.F., they feel they don't need it...they have natural a/c, the fog..

144 a night is pretty darn cheap for san fran, that should have been a clue for you. i really like the hotel monaco, you should check that out next time. i think rooms are in the 265 range. san fran is an amazing city and like all cities it has touristy, sketchy, posh, business districts etc.. it's common to find nice neighborhoods bordering not so nice neighborhoods in cities. i would suggest folks avoid large cities if they can't deal with such a diverse environment. for my money, san fran is by far the the pretties city in the usa. i would vote vancouver as the prettiest in north america. it's great out here on the west coast.

regards,

mike

Hey Collector:
Get off the holier-than-thou liberal pulpit and grab a little perspective.
This is a travel forum.
It's purpose is to allow for exchange of travel information.

Edie was not out of line in her post because she was reporting her impression of a travel experience. She was trying to do the rest of the forum a service by reporting that she was not happy with her hotel because it was not what she was expecting.
HER POINT: be aware of the type of neighborhood this hotel is in. If the neighborhood doesn't bother you, fine...stay there.
Some individuals would be uncomfortable there: perhaps the elderly traveler, someone from a smaller town with less metro savvy, etc. Such people will benefit from this info.
Edie DID NOT, as you so piously presume, say anything about her opinion of homeless people in society or of the Salvation Army's relative value. All she said was she didn't want to vacation in those areas. And that makes her (and all American tourists) despicable? Gimme a break. That's the kind of reasoning that makes me disgusted with liberals like you...always twisting facts, taking pot shots, bending the truth to inflame those around you.
If you're such an earth hugging Mother Theresa wannabe why don't you live up to your rhetoric and spend your only 2 weeks of yearly vacation sleeping in a shelter in Gary, Indiana or East St. Louis or Compton, enjoying the days in the local parks, and the nights at the local bars? For many people, a vacation is a very special time during which one can recharge his/her batteries, relax, maybe even be pampered a little, see the best that this great country has to offer...a reward for hard work the rest of the year. Desiring an environment conducive to accomplishing these objectives for a few days a year should have absolutley nothing to do with social conscience. That's for your residential environment.
And if she wanted air conditioning, implying that she was uncomfortable, why is that a crime against society? When I travel in Europe, I pay extra for hotels with AC. Many Europeans are used to no AC. That's fine with me. But if AC makes my trip more enjoyable, that's for me to decide. And I want to know if it's available or not. Edie did not castigate the entire Bay Area because many homes and hotels there don't feel AC is necessary. Edie felt it was a problem FOR HER. She didn't say, "The Bay Area is mired in the Dark Ages because my hotel lacked AC". Why are you so defensive?
Again, this is a travel forum...Edie was describing a travel experience. YOU are the one that took it out of context.

BRAVO, "CH" and "Knockitoff!!!"

Yes, we do have more than our share of homeless folks and street people ( usually one in the same ). They are a fact of life. However I don't fault anyone for not wanting to stay in less desireable areas. Most folks want their vacations to be an enjoyable experience. This is a travel forum and not a political one.

Edie:

I fully understand your concerns. I don't wish to visit areas like the tenderloin myself and as such avoid them. I do disagree with one of your statements. All large cities have hotels in not too desireable areas. Of course the hotels are not very nice either. San Francisco has many very fine areas. In most large cities, tourists often don't see the seedier areas. However San Franciso is so compact that it is difficult not to traverse through some of them. Actually you will find some pretty reasonable hotels on Lombard which is a pretty decent area.

Collector:

I don't mean to disappoint you but we almost always stay at Hilton's, Marriott's or Embassy Suites ( now owned by Hilton ). If this bothers you than I am delighted. Not all folks like to spend their vacation sleeping on the street or in the park with the drug addicts and drunks.

Thank you to CH and Knockitoff! Had I found out about the hotel through a budget travel guide, the location wouldn't have been such a surprise. However, like I said it was in Conde Nast, and the hotel totally promotes that, with free copies of the mag in your room and a framed copy in the lobby. I've stayed at very nice hotels in Boston (The Park Plaza) which is also an expensive city for less than $150, so the price wasn't the warning sign it clearly should have been. And yes the Wharf area is "disney-ish", that's why I was trying to see a different side of the city. But on my honeymoon I didn't really want to be faced with a major cities social problems. I did want to see the charming and captivating side of SF. And maybe the bay area is too tolerant. If you were less tolerant of the indigent wandering your streets, they would be in shelters and moving through the system to a self-sustaining lifestyle which would be more satisfying to them and others, both visitors and SF natives. Maybe the crime level is low, but if visitors don't feel safe, that statistic is meaningless. And by the way collector, I happen to think that people who live in the US, work here, enjoy the benefits of citizenship and/or legal residence here should speak english. And to the person who stated that DC has a lot of homeless, I know that's true b/c i went to college there and our campus was in one of the worst areas of the district. BUT the Mall and Georgetown areas where most visitors go are very clean and nice. It's not Disney mentality to keep the tourist areas of your city clean, it's good business.

Stayed at the Mark Hopkins on Nob Hill for $179 a night in August. I think you could have done a whole lot better for a little bit more money. If you booked through a travel agent, I'd book with someone else next time.

In front of me I have a brochure from the Andrews which is in a "questionable" area of Post Street...the prices go from $92.00 to $142.00....that is where we will be returning in 5 weeks.. BTW I know the Park Plaza very well in Boston, one block away you would have been in the Combat Zone (filled with sleezy bars, etc.), another block away is the South End where although it's safe during the day I would hesitate to walk alone evenings..and of course unfortunately alot of homeless people on the Commons, Boylston Street and right around the corner from the hotel. A shelter called Pine Street is available for them, in Boston we also have outreach programs with vans traveling the city during the cold season. My only comment to you is if you found the area uncomfortable, you should have as every one else should do....change hotels...

The release of mentally disabled people from hospitals to roam the streets of this country without alternative housing is a problem no matter where you live..

First, as a travel forum I think this one can't be beat and I've received much helpful information and have tried to help others. It wasn't meant to beat you over the head. I take the "travel experts" with a grain of salt, they are usually reporting information from somebody else. In all h onesty travelers on this site are much more up to date and more helpful...

When in London I was shocked at the homeless sitting and begging outside the subways or on the stairs going down to the tube, especially mothers and chlldren. We were told not to give them money as there were places for them....does that sound familiar. One man who we have seen sitting on the street with his protective dog really bothered us...and rather than give in...we would bring the dog food....his owner was too far gone... To the rest of you please don't knock me for doing that...

This is the last time you will hear from me....May you have many years of a happy life together...and good health and fortune..

I have never been inside the Carlton but I walk past it on a daily basis at all hours of day and night on my way to work about a block away.I am not a particularly intimiditating apperaring middle aged woman.I showed this posting to coworkers,several of whom also live close enough to walk,all know the area.There was general amazement at the description. Are we more correct or inured?Is Edie wrong?I think this is an example of how postings and responses,both here and elsewhere on the internet, need to be taken with a grain of salt,at times rather large.You have no idea of someone else's expectations, judgement ,taste or lack there of, whether they are tourist or traveller.Personally I think Edie's reaction and suggestion to stay only near the wharf are terribly overblown,but I have no doubt the Carlton and it sounds SF itself did not live up to her expectations.I'm not sure that any real conclusion can be drawn from any of this , except on a personal basis. Happy Trails.

Thank you Gail for your post. Edie, You have your opion and when Collector made his remarks, he had his opion also. Personally, I have visited San Francisco many times and remember taying on Post or Sutter Street at a similar sounding hotel. I never felt in danger and was "street wise" not to go out alone or down two blocks into the area called Tenderloin. I persoanally felt somewhat offended with your comment regarding the salvation army and a pawn shop not being hallmarks of a "nice" neighborhood. If I remember correctly, it is a Salvation Army store (not a homeless shelter). I wonder why you did not just check out of that hotel and into another. You sounded pretty unhappy what with the neighborhood and no AC. Just go to another hotel that is more to your liking. You are intitled to your opion, but just remember,... honey your not in Kansas anymore! Welcome to the real world and life in a big city. San Francisco is wonderful and I can not wait to return. Your "warning" sounds more like sour grapes to me. (but then that's my opion which I too am intitled to). No one said anything is wrong with Disney World, enjoy!