San Francisco Hotels - Can't Decide
Dec 4th, 2002, 02:27 PM
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
San Francisco Hotels - Can't Decide
We are going to SF for special occassion. Considering Fairmont, Hotel Prescott and Vintage Court. I know this has been asked before but looking for recent experiences and please don't "bash SF", we like it and are aware of downtown/Union Square issues that keep getting mentioned on this board.
Dec 4th, 2002, 05:55 PM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
David,
What does the Four Seasons have to do with Wondering's question? He/she was not asking about the Four Seasons. Yes, there are some nice hotels in the union Square area, but they were built before the area became run down. In fact, there was a report on the NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw tonight which was referring to the horrendous homeless problem and the dirty streets in SF. They mentioned how the nice hotels in Union Square/Downtown were very upset with how ugly the downtown area has become. As a result the hotels have been losing business.
What does the Four Seasons have to do with Wondering's question? He/she was not asking about the Four Seasons. Yes, there are some nice hotels in the union Square area, but they were built before the area became run down. In fact, there was a report on the NBC Nightly News with Tom Brokaw tonight which was referring to the horrendous homeless problem and the dirty streets in SF. They mentioned how the nice hotels in Union Square/Downtown were very upset with how ugly the downtown area has become. As a result the hotels have been losing business.
Dec 4th, 2002, 06:17 PM
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Here is tonight's story from the NBC Nightly News:
San Francisco has also attracted increasing numbers of homeless people in recent years — by some estimates now more than 12,000 — drawn in part by welfare payments that some here now consider far too generous.
“Our reputation is being tarnished by the conditions on the street,” says Hutar of the San francisco Hotel Council.
Letters pour into the offices of tourism officials. One says, “It appears you have degenerated into a city of bums.”
Even activists for the homeless admit that some people use their monthly payments to buy drugs and alcohol, making the city’s homeless problem worse.
The tourism industry demanded change. So, Supervisor Gavin Newsom launched Proposition N, and on Election Day this historically compassionate city voted to cut cash payments to the homeless from $395 to $59 a month, effective next July.
“We spend over a quarter of a billion dollars a year, more per capita than any city in the United States of America,” Newsom says. “The fact is, in San Francisco people from all walks of life were fed up.”
Even activists for the homeless admit that some people who get those generous monthly payments use at least a portion of the money to buy drugs and alcohol, making the problem of homelessness here even worse. But there are undoubtedly others who use the money to survive.
After decades of drug use, Mel Rodriguez is clean and sober now — but unemployable because of seizures. He says he’s terrified of having his monthly payment slashed.
“I’d be forced to look at sleeping in an abandoned car again or in a box or in a doorway, and frankly I thought I’d given that lifestyle up a long time ago,” Rodriguez says.
Father John Hardin, an advocate for the homeless, says there are many more like Rodriguez. “So what is that gonna do if there’s nowhere for these folks to go?” Hardin asks.
The city’s plan is to spend less on cash payments and more on housing and homeless services.
The frustrated people of this city are concluding that giving large of amounts of cash to the homeless has only made the problem worse.
San Francisco has also attracted increasing numbers of homeless people in recent years — by some estimates now more than 12,000 — drawn in part by welfare payments that some here now consider far too generous.
“Our reputation is being tarnished by the conditions on the street,” says Hutar of the San francisco Hotel Council.
Letters pour into the offices of tourism officials. One says, “It appears you have degenerated into a city of bums.”
Even activists for the homeless admit that some people use their monthly payments to buy drugs and alcohol, making the city’s homeless problem worse.
The tourism industry demanded change. So, Supervisor Gavin Newsom launched Proposition N, and on Election Day this historically compassionate city voted to cut cash payments to the homeless from $395 to $59 a month, effective next July.
“We spend over a quarter of a billion dollars a year, more per capita than any city in the United States of America,” Newsom says. “The fact is, in San Francisco people from all walks of life were fed up.”
Even activists for the homeless admit that some people who get those generous monthly payments use at least a portion of the money to buy drugs and alcohol, making the problem of homelessness here even worse. But there are undoubtedly others who use the money to survive.
After decades of drug use, Mel Rodriguez is clean and sober now — but unemployable because of seizures. He says he’s terrified of having his monthly payment slashed.
“I’d be forced to look at sleeping in an abandoned car again or in a box or in a doorway, and frankly I thought I’d given that lifestyle up a long time ago,” Rodriguez says.
Father John Hardin, an advocate for the homeless, says there are many more like Rodriguez. “So what is that gonna do if there’s nowhere for these folks to go?” Hardin asks.
The city’s plan is to spend less on cash payments and more on housing and homeless services.
The frustrated people of this city are concluding that giving large of amounts of cash to the homeless has only made the problem worse.
Dec 4th, 2002, 06:29 PM
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sigh. Can any of the rest of you remember when you could log onto Fodor's and ask a question and get an answer, not be subjected to a bunch of hogwash? Even though Wondering mentions that he or she isn't interested in hearing about the crap about Union Square -- the idiots insist on telling us anyway.
By the way, I'm glad I didn't read these posts before my visit to San Francisco and my stay at the Hyatt at Union Square for five nights this summer. I didn't know any of this was happening and I wanderedaround Union Square night and day. Other than a couple of panhandlers, I thought it was a clean, nice, and certainly safe area (although there was a lot of construction going on) -- guess everybody's tearing their buildings down and abandoning them since the area has gone to the dogs according to these idiots. Silly me, it looked like new construction which would signify that things were good, not horrible.
By the way, I'm glad I didn't read these posts before my visit to San Francisco and my stay at the Hyatt at Union Square for five nights this summer. I didn't know any of this was happening and I wanderedaround Union Square night and day. Other than a couple of panhandlers, I thought it was a clean, nice, and certainly safe area (although there was a lot of construction going on) -- guess everybody's tearing their buildings down and abandoning them since the area has gone to the dogs according to these idiots. Silly me, it looked like new construction which would signify that things were good, not horrible.
Dec 4th, 2002, 07:19 PM
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Kelly, the Four Seasons is only a year old.
It's essentially brand new.
Do you think the FS corporation completely ignored the status of local conditions in Union Sq area before decdiding to build there?
Not.
Of course this has nothing to do with Wondering's question about hotels in particular.
It has to do with YOUR comment about Union Square, you nitwit. You can't just summarily dismiss the entire Union Sq area as one dimensional and a waste of space. And your quoted story makes no mention of any particular area in SF. As you may know, the neighborhoods in SF change quickly and dramatically from block to block in some cases.
It's essentially brand new.
Do you think the FS corporation completely ignored the status of local conditions in Union Sq area before decdiding to build there?
Not.
Of course this has nothing to do with Wondering's question about hotels in particular.
It has to do with YOUR comment about Union Square, you nitwit. You can't just summarily dismiss the entire Union Sq area as one dimensional and a waste of space. And your quoted story makes no mention of any particular area in SF. As you may know, the neighborhoods in SF change quickly and dramatically from block to block in some cases.
Dec 4th, 2002, 08:13 PM
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
David,
I was not specifically eferring to the Four Seasons, but to many of the hotels that were built back when Union Square was actually a nice place. Obviously Four Seasons was aware of the condition of the Union Square area before they built and probably assumed that SF was going to clean up the area. Unfortunately they were wrong, hence the report on NBC News that interviewed a representative from the San Francisco Hotel Council. I can assure you that the Representative was also speaking for the Four Seasons Hotel, along with a number of other businesses in the area.
Also David, even though the NBC News story does not specifically refer to Union Square/Downtown, you as well as I know that is exactly what the story is about. Why else would they have interviewed a representative form the SF Hotel Council? Where are most of SF's hotels located? Answer: Union Square.
xxx, So what you are saying is that the NBC News story is all made up. And I guess that pigs fly.
I was not specifically eferring to the Four Seasons, but to many of the hotels that were built back when Union Square was actually a nice place. Obviously Four Seasons was aware of the condition of the Union Square area before they built and probably assumed that SF was going to clean up the area. Unfortunately they were wrong, hence the report on NBC News that interviewed a representative from the San Francisco Hotel Council. I can assure you that the Representative was also speaking for the Four Seasons Hotel, along with a number of other businesses in the area.
Also David, even though the NBC News story does not specifically refer to Union Square/Downtown, you as well as I know that is exactly what the story is about. Why else would they have interviewed a representative form the SF Hotel Council? Where are most of SF's hotels located? Answer: Union Square.
xxx, So what you are saying is that the NBC News story is all made up. And I guess that pigs fly.
Dec 4th, 2002, 08:13 PM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
David,
I was not specifically referring to the Four Seasons, but to many of the hotels that were built back when Union Square was actually a nice place. Obviously Four Seasons was aware of the condition of the Union Square area before they built and probably assumed that SF was going to clean up the area. Unfortunately they were wrong, hence the report on NBC News that interviewed a representative from the San Francisco Hotel Council. I can assure you that the Representative was also speaking for the Four Seasons Hotel, along with a number of other businesses in the area.
Also David, even though the NBC News story does not specifically refer to Union Square/Downtown, you as well as I know that is exactly what the story is about. Why else would they have interviewed a representative form the SF Hotel Council? Where are most of SF's hotels located? Answer: Union Square.
xxx, So what you are saying is that the NBC News story is all made up. And I guess that pigs fly.
I was not specifically referring to the Four Seasons, but to many of the hotels that were built back when Union Square was actually a nice place. Obviously Four Seasons was aware of the condition of the Union Square area before they built and probably assumed that SF was going to clean up the area. Unfortunately they were wrong, hence the report on NBC News that interviewed a representative from the San Francisco Hotel Council. I can assure you that the Representative was also speaking for the Four Seasons Hotel, along with a number of other businesses in the area.
Also David, even though the NBC News story does not specifically refer to Union Square/Downtown, you as well as I know that is exactly what the story is about. Why else would they have interviewed a representative form the SF Hotel Council? Where are most of SF's hotels located? Answer: Union Square.
xxx, So what you are saying is that the NBC News story is all made up. And I guess that pigs fly.
Dec 4th, 2002, 08:17 PM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
I will only give you my report on the Fairmont, where I stayed several months ago; it's been several years since I've stayed in the Union Square area.
The Fairmont's lobby area is gorgeous and luxurious, the bar area looked inviting (thoug we went somewhere else for drinks), and the rooms were very nice, though not luxurious. The biggest down side, however, was the Fairmont's location on top of Nob Hill. When making reservations, I guess we didn't think about how much we walk when visiting cities, and the last couple of steep blocks to the hotel were a killer. We decided most people who stay at the hotel must take cabs everywhere, so the steep hill isn't a problem for them.
The Fairmont's lobby area is gorgeous and luxurious, the bar area looked inviting (thoug we went somewhere else for drinks), and the rooms were very nice, though not luxurious. The biggest down side, however, was the Fairmont's location on top of Nob Hill. When making reservations, I guess we didn't think about how much we walk when visiting cities, and the last couple of steep blocks to the hotel were a killer. We decided most people who stay at the hotel must take cabs everywhere, so the steep hill isn't a problem for them.
Dec 5th, 2002, 04:30 AM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
We were just in San Francisco about 2 weeks ago. We did not notice any thing so bad at Union Square or other parts. If any thing, we noticed fewer homeless and fewer beggars than on previous trips. We stayed at Stanford Court hotel on Nob Hill. Great place, would suggest that. Overall, great trip, found city to be as pleasing as always, and Union Square was just fine. Walked all around it, shopped, etc, no problems. Walked all over North Beach area as well, ate dinner there several times, again no problems. I think that some of these reports are overblown.
Dec 5th, 2002, 06:17 AM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wondering, I'm unclear if you want to stay near Union Square or not?
I stayed at The Orchard in Sept. and found it to be a very nice boutique hotel 1-2 blocks up from Union Sq. on Powell and Bush-across from the Vintage Court.
Agree with Lexma90 on Fairmont's location. But you can work in a cable car ride up and down Powell on your travels to/from UnSq.
We also like to stay at The Harbor Court on Steuart. Backs up to the Embarcadero. Was going for around $80/90 per night on Hotwire.com. It was the "B"=Boutique hotel.
Good luck and while there still is a homeless prob. in SF, but not as bad as some suggest, it's still one of our favorite cities.
Kal
I stayed at The Orchard in Sept. and found it to be a very nice boutique hotel 1-2 blocks up from Union Sq. on Powell and Bush-across from the Vintage Court.
Agree with Lexma90 on Fairmont's location. But you can work in a cable car ride up and down Powell on your travels to/from UnSq.
We also like to stay at The Harbor Court on Steuart. Backs up to the Embarcadero. Was going for around $80/90 per night on Hotwire.com. It was the "B"=Boutique hotel.
Good luck and while there still is a homeless prob. in SF, but not as bad as some suggest, it's still one of our favorite cities.
Kal
Dec 5th, 2002, 02:32 PM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
William, Please tell us what kind of blinders you were wearing while in SF.
"We did not notice any thing so bad at Union Square or other parts. If any thing, we noticed fewer homeless and fewer beggars than on previous trips."
I walk through Union Square every day on my way to work and I have never seen the homeless problem so bad and the streets so dirty.
"We did not notice any thing so bad at Union Square or other parts. If any thing, we noticed fewer homeless and fewer beggars than on previous trips."
I walk through Union Square every day on my way to work and I have never seen the homeless problem so bad and the streets so dirty.
Dec 5th, 2002, 04:19 PM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wondering,
If you can get a deal at the Prescott, that's where I'd stay. I live in S.F. so I can't tell you first-hand what it's like, but the business associates that I've sent there have been pleased with it. Mostly, they've praised its small size, its service person to guest ratio, and its general warm atmosphere.
As for the Union Square issues that have been done to death here, if you have any city-savvy awareness and safety skills at all, you will be just fine. Whatever your special occasion is, I hope it's a wonderful time for you!
If you can get a deal at the Prescott, that's where I'd stay. I live in S.F. so I can't tell you first-hand what it's like, but the business associates that I've sent there have been pleased with it. Mostly, they've praised its small size, its service person to guest ratio, and its general warm atmosphere.
As for the Union Square issues that have been done to death here, if you have any city-savvy awareness and safety skills at all, you will be just fine. Whatever your special occasion is, I hope it's a wonderful time for you!
Dec 6th, 2002, 04:35 AM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Don't know about the other two, but stayed at the Fairmont last year, and it was great. I like the Nob Hill location - convenient, beautiful area, and knockout views. I wouldn't be turned off by the fact that it's on a steep hill - even if your hotel is on level ground, to do anything you have to walk on the hilly streets, or take taxis or cable car. (Cable car runs right by the Fairmont.) I would stay in the newer tower rather than the original building; the rooms are much nicer.
Dec 6th, 2002, 06:42 AM
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Don't know if you have considered an inn type of experience but when we stayed in SF in '95 or '96, we LOVED Le Petite Auberge. Sure, it didn't have a gym or a pool or any of that big hotel stuff. But it had a comfortable room with a fireplace and the cost of the room included a tasty b'fast. You could chose to be as social or reclusive as you wanted in the dining room. Union Square is 4 blocks away.
Thread
Original Poster
Forum
Replies
Last Post
laurenjones1919
United States
40
Jan 28th, 2015 07:24 PM
