My husband and I are planning a trip to San Francisco in July and we are wondering if the Sheraton at Fisherman's Wharf is nice. I know that this area is touristy, however, I keep reading that Union Square is overrun with homeless. Sheraton has a AAA 4 star rating. We would like a nice clean hotel with a good view preferrably quiet. Any help? Thanks Sandy

Hi Sandy,
The Sheraton @ the Wharf looks fine from the outside.
I personally always think Union Square is a better location. The Wharf is too touristy like you said. Union Square is more diverse, like places to eat, shop- both locals & tourists go there. I have to say homelessness is a problem for SF, but around Union Square, esp if you stay around or north of it, is fine. And most homeless people are harmless, if you're concerned about safety.

Sandy, Stayed at the Sher. F/W a few times. Nice location. Nice hotel.
Shouldn't be a problem.

Have you considered the Financial District? We got the Park Hyatt for $75/night thru Priceline a few weeks ago and on the weekends, that area is very quiet and not "touristy", but still within walking distance to major sites. Union Sq was about a short 10 min walk. You can catch a trolley about 2 blocks away and ride along the Embarcadero up to F/Wharf.
Good luck,
Kal

San Francisco may be the worst cities in America, but too many of its residents are lost in such a haze of self-righteous entitlement and aggrieved internecine warfare that they don't even seem to know it. And the things that are wrong with San Francisco were so many years, so many decades, in the making.

The local transportation system is a scandal. In Chicago one zooms around by car, "el" and cab. In San Francisco, one never zooms, anywhere, by any means. The city's bus and subway network, called Muni, is the thalidomide baby of transportation systems. As far as I can determine from the reporting on it, it's
been run by incompetents for more than 20 years. The fares are about the cheapest of any major city -- only a dollar. But any politician who suggested raising fares to help the system would get laughed out of town. If you talk about curbing peoples' antisocial behavior in San Francisco, you get tagged as a Giuliani. But it's actually a fundamental quality-of-life issue for the city's weakest and mostdefenseless people. Bus drivers are too busy snarling to attempt to enforce decent behavior on the buses. Those who try get
threatened and attacked. And when thugs are threatening other passengers, it drives all but the most desperate away.

Cabs aren't the answer because there hardly are any. In most of the city you can't depend on getting one before 9 p.m. on non-weekend nights. I'm always struck by the crowds of tourists lined up outside pricey hotels and restaurants, wanly waiting for a cab. They're probably so caught up in the romance of the city that they don't think about how pathetic it is that they have to spend an hour waiting for a ride back to their overpriced hotel.

The homeless are considered a mark of pride here that the city does not harass the homeless. The trouble with this is that the city does nothing to help them, either. The result is an ongoing human
tragedy of epic proportions. On Haight Street, on a given Saturday,you can see dozens of teenagers and those in their 20s, fried out of their skulls, systematically killing themselves and each other. A large portion of the other homeless you see on the street are
obviously victims of substance abuse of one form or another. San Franciscans view this as a laudable example of their tolerance. But for the addicted, this sort of tolerance is not so much freedom as a trap. Most San Franciscans like political positions that remove from
them the responsibility to actually do something about a particular issue. The city's homeless policies coincide nicely with this tendency.

In terms of the cultural scene, I could never quite figure out why San Francisco is considered a cultural center. The theater scene here, particularly the mainstream commercial fare, is undistinguished. (The one superior theater company is the Berkeley Repertory, across the bay.) The music scene, save for a few underground turntablists, is unnotable. The symphony and opera are considered only decent, the museums less so. The architecture is the visual equivalent of fingernails scraping across the blackboard of the horizon, a panorama of boxy columns and clumsy attempts at attention-getting. This, too, is an effect that took decades to accomplish.

'xyz'(uses other names too) -

You are one pathetic loser. Not only are you a malicious liar, but also a blatant plagiarizer.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/11/03/sf/index1.html

The beauty and uniqueness that is San Francisco is firmly footed on bedrock and would never flinch from the lashings of a wet noodle such as yourself.

It depends on what you what to do when you are in San Francisco. ... A friend and I took a quick 4-day trip to San Francisco in the fall of 2000. We also debated long and hard before the trip whether to stay around Union Square, Fisherman's Wharf or some other part of S.F. Eventually we decided on the Radisson at Fisherman's Wharf and were very happy with that decision. Yes, Fisherman's Wharf is very touristy and can be crowded and noisy. But if I remember correctly, the Sheraton is one block off the main drag and therefore quieter. But for convenience it was hard to beat for us because we didn't have a car and most of the tourist destinations are accessible from the wharf. The tour buses, the ferry across the bay and to Alcatraz - all leave from the Wharf area (although I'm sure the tours also pick up at the main hotels downtown). And if you want to go to Union Square you can catch a trolley downtown (we did twice). Regarding homeless, we saw homeless people both in Union Square and the Wharf.

xyz, I can't see where Sandy really asked your opinion on all matters San Francisco. She simply stated that she'd heard Union Sq was overrun with homeless, no doubt from one of your lengthy diatrabes.

Sandy,
To get back to your question about the Sheraton at Fisherman's Wharf, the hotel is fine in most respects. The main complaint that I had was with street noise. The first room that they gave me was on the ground floor, and I found the street noise to be a problem. At my request, I was moved to another room, I believe it was on the third floor, and although it was somewhat better, the street noise was still a problem until late in the evening when the automobile traffic died down. The windows definitely were not double glazed. If you decide to stay there, try asking for an interior room as far away from the street as possible.

Sandy,
To get back to your question about the Sheraton at Fisherman's Wharf, the hotel is fine in most respects. The main complaint that I had was with street noise. The first room that they gave me was on the ground floor, and I found the street noise to be a problem. At my request, I was moved to another room, I believe it was on the third floor, and although it was somewhat better, the street noise was still a problem until late in the evening when the automobile traffic died down. The windows definitely were not double glazed. If you decide to stay there, try asking for an interior room as far away from the street as possible. I'd also add that this hotels is only a few stories tall, so you won't get much of a view if that's important to you.

Sandy,
To get back to your question about the Sheraton at Fisherman's Wharf, the hotel is fine in most respects. The main complaint that I had was with street noise. The first room that they gave me was on the ground floor, and I found the street noise to be a problem. At my request, I was moved to another room, I believe it was on the third floor, and although it was somewhat better, the street noise was still a problem until late in the evening when the automobile traffic died down. The windows definitely were not double glazed. If you decide to stay there, try asking for an interior room as far away from the street as possible. I'd also add that this hotel is only a few stories tall, so you won't get much of a view if that's important to you.

I recommend using Pricelin.com to get the best deal on a San Francisco Hotel. I paid $45 a night for the Radisson at Fisherman's wharf. It was a great location across the street from the bay and Pier 39.

A friend of mine wanted to stay in Union Square, so she bid $65 and got the St. Francis. A truly fabulous deal!

Priceline beats a AAA discount.

as long as you have access to a car you could consider the sheraton.... and to that wonderful person ( not ) with the nasty comments about san francisco... do us all a favor and stay home the next time... believe me, we would prefer it!

The Sheraton is in a good location and is a nice hotel-nothing fancy, average size rooms.It does have a small outdoor swimming pool also.

My husband and I are staying at the Sheraton Fisherman's Wharf when we go to SF May 30. I'll let you know how it is when we return.