The Fairmont v The Ritz Carlton
 

I know that the Fairmont is a great deal older but is there really THAT much difference between them.

Miranda, it would be impossible to answer your question unless you told us which Fairmont and which Ritz Carlton you're talking about!

Many apologies Howard, San Francisco. <BR>

Miranda: See my response under "Sorry Howard." <BR>And, thanks for the publicity!

Go with the Ritz -- especially for the FOOD!

Miranda, I've had the pleasure of staying at both the Ritz-Carlton and the Fairmont in San Francisco. Both are five-star properties. The Ritz-Carlton, while the newer name, is actually created from an old building, and retains the charm of that earlier struture while housing a thoroughly modern hotel. <BR> <BR>My lone problem with the Fairmont is that it is two buildings; the very graceful low structure where the rooms have high ceilings, interesting shapes, and an old-world ambience; and a tower addition with basic boxes for rooms (the tradeoff is that all rooms have great views of the city). While I don't know the exact division, I believe more than 75% of the Fairmont's rooms are in the tower section. <BR> <BR>Both are wonderful hotels; I suspect you'll be happy with either one you choose. <BR>

I can't imagine a better-managed hotel than the Ritz-Carlton San Francisco! Having stayed there many times--in various rooms--have never had a disappointing stay. Would definitely advise going for the Club Level rooms. My husband, who has stayed at the Fairmont, says it has better views but is much more dated. Guess it depends on what you want from your "hotel experience".

Once again, I would select the Ritz, not only for the overall ambience, service, etc., but for the absolutely DELECTABLE food, which the Fairmont could NEVER gastronomically match in a million years!