We are going to Las Vegas this coming weekend and are staying at the Venetian. Our reservations are for the "old" section of the hotel which I have heard is starting to look a little shabby. First of all, is this true, and second, if so, would it do any good to try the $20 bill idea at check-in? Would it get us into the new tower?

Thank you for any advice and/or information.

We were recently in the old part and had no complaints at all. Huge rooms, quiet, well equipped, courteous staff.

I've read some of those comments here about the rooms, but I've never heard complaints from anyone I know about it. I think you're fine, and I don't think a $20 would work anyway.

The hotel is only a couple of years old. It isn't like you will be staying in a room that hasn't seen new carpet since the Truman administration.

The Venetian standard rooms are very lux for a standard room. Huge rooms and beautiful marble bathrooms. I've been upgraded to suites in other hotels that aren't as nice as the Venetian standard. Ask for a room on an upper floor facing the strip.

**Venetian is almost 5 years old (4.5 yrs)
**Hotels in Las Vegas age at a much faster rate than in most other cities
**The "$20 trick" won't get you upgraded to the new tower unless you are a gambler of record at the hotel
**I've stayed there 3 times since it opened and the last 2 rooms I stayed in were getting worn. Not in such a way that it was bothersome, but noticeable nonetheless. Bellagio is in the same condition in many of its rooms.

Geez Ted, 4 1/2 years isn't old for a hotel. Kinda relative doncha think?

GoTravel, I think you're missing the point. Maybe 4.5 years isn't old for a hotel, but in Las Vegas the average stay is something like two days. With a near capacity turnover, that means about 800 different couples or groups have stayed in that room. Tell me it doesn't look worn if the carpet and bedspreads haven't been replaced!!!

I got the point Patrick. Not to sound obtuse but I've been in the hotel business for a long time and understand the workings of a hotel like The Venetian.

I was actually in the conference and convention side of things which is accounts for probably 70% of Las Vegas hotel room revenue. I don't have an exact figure on that but I'll find it and get back to you on this.

When hotels are furnished, from top to bottom, everything is industrial strength. What I'm saying is that the carpet, paint, furniture, fabric, fixtures etc are super durable because it gets beat up and used and has to last. Because everything is super durable, it is super expensive. It is easy to spend $50,000 renovating one hotel room. You cannot use regular furniture from the Ikea because it would get destroyed rather quickly.

I agree that Las Vegas turns a lot of hotel rooms but no differently than any other high tourism area.

My point is that The Venitian, after 4 1/2 years, should not be showing too much wear and tear. If it is, the hotel is not being maintained properly.

Does this explain my veiw any better? I hope this isn't coming across as flip because that is not my intention.

No, and I don't mean to be argumentative, but I think you actually answered the question yourself when you said "my point is The Venetian, after 4 and a half years should not be showing too much wear and tear. If it is, the hotel is not being maintained properly". I would suspect that was the original point. The hotel is showing wear and tear because it ISN'T BEING MAINTAINED PROPERLY.

I have been in hotel rooms less than a year old and have seen badly stained carpets, scraped up walls, worn and even torn bedspreads, broken drapery rods, and generally "worn" looking rooms. Obviously those rooms weren't being maintained properly. So it is not hard to believe that a 4 and a half year old hotel could have some "worn" rooms for whatever reason. I too have read reports of how worn the Venetian has become and I'm willing to believe it. Why would so many people make that up? I don't think the orginal post was concerned with the "why" it is shabby, but simply the fact that it might be.

This is the first time I have heard the Venetian was looking worn. That is why I was incredulous about the OPs question.

As far as demographics, the LVCVB site states that 14% of the visitors to Vegas are conventioneers. Given the unusually large amount of exhibit and meeting space the Venetian has, I'd still wager 70% of their business is group travel.

Why are you yelling at me?

The $20 trick worked for me a few months ago. I did not get a room in the new tower but did receive a room on the highest (28th) floor facing the strip. The room was not "worn" in any way. Alternatively, I also stayed in the new tower a few weeks ago and the $20 trick didn't work as the hotel was completely sold out and we arrived late. The new tower room was almost 50% smaller than the previous room which was disappointing. So, if you arrive early in the day I would tip the $20 but not if you arrive in the evening. But who knows....

Patrick was correctly interpreting the intent of my post (thanks for the telepathic interp, Patrick).
It's not my intent to bash Venetian, but some people go there expecting it to be on par with a very nice luxury hotel in Chicago or NYC. And on most levels Venetian succeeds in its mission to impress first time guests.
But for those who are quite picky about hotels (cleanliness, lack of stains/cigarette burns/broken marble/cracked basins etc) I think it's only fair to warn people that many (no, not all, perhaps not the majority) of Venetian's rooms are showing the effects of having had as many as 1500 different guests spend nights in each room since it opened.
Can you imagine your own bathrooms and living room if you'd rented out your home to over 1500 different overnight guests while away?
I don't envy those in charge of managing the budget for the guest room infrastructure of Las Vegas hotels. The wear factor is just obscene, due in large part to the rapid turnover (as Patrick pointed out) together with the fact that many LV visitors are there to re-live their college days.

At $150-180 a night Venetian is a relatively good bargain compared to what that money buys in many large cities in the US. But at $300 and up (and Venetian's rates usually end up in this range during busy weekends) the value factor begins to tarnish. Especially using the Four Seasons at the south end of the strip as the gold standard for room maintenance.
Just my .02.

GoTravel,please don't accuse me of yelling at you. There was no such intention. While I agree that putting an entire post in caps is considered yelling, I never knew it was not acceptable to capitalize a phrase for emphasis. That was my intention, not to yell!

I knew and it was sort of a half assed attempt at humor.

I think it's my turn to "come out of the closet" and admit that I am also in the hotel business and have been for several years, working at various 4 and 5 star properties in NYC.

I avidly follow the LV posts on this thread, as my husband and I go there once or twice a year and I do get a lot out of the insights that are shared. What I don't understand, and this is probably due to my being in the "business", is why it is so important to stay in Las Vegas' version of a luxury property. I have never cared where I stay, as long as it is clean & convenient. I have stayed at more than my fair share of luxury properties around the world. While I suppose the Venetian, Bellagio, and Four Seasons are considered luxurious, I do not understand how they are worth an average of 2-3 times the rate of other clean and well-maintained properties on the Strip. I think it is quite possible that many people feel that it is important to stay at a "prestigious" property to impress others. I have never subscribed to that.

Bottom line is that after 4 1/2 years, ANY high-trafficked hotel is going to show signs of wear & tear. It does not matter whether they spent $50,000 or $500,000 per room. Guests abuse hotel rooms. The highest end product will show abuse. I spent a night at the Borgata a few weeks ago, and the room I occupied that was 3 months old had a large stain on the (industrial) carpet that looked indelible.

Sorry for rambling, take it for what it's worth, as it is a "professional" opinion.

Thank you.

I appreciate "Leona's" opinion as a 'professional'. As for why anyone would spend anything more than EconoLodge dollars on a hotel, it depends, I suspect, on several things.
For me, if I'm only overnighting on my way out of town, a clean Courtyard or similar is fine. But for pleasure trips and longer business trips, a nice hotel can add quite a bit to the enjoyment factor for me. My (fortunate) circumstances are such that I'm given a 5 figure professional travel budget each year, and what I don't spend disappears (no carryover).
So why not stay at nice places?
If I were making $25,000 a year, no way would I spend $150 a night on any hotel, unless it were a once a decade type of trip. Also, if you have a nice home, it doesn't make vacations feel very special to stay at a resort which is a step down from your everyday.
Those are my reasons.
For other LV frequent visitors I know, staying at a nice hotel is just part of the 'live it up while in Vegas' attitude which draws many people to LV in the first place. For people who have stressful lives I think pleasure vacations are all about stepping out of one's routine and into a different environment in order to gain complete separation from all the entanglements of daily routine. A humdrum economy hotel just doesn't do much to enhance that effect.

I have another theory why people want the real "luxury" properties in Las Vegas. If the Bellagio were in New York, we'd expect to pay at least $500 a night for even a standard room there. And for the Venetian or even Mirage at least $300 or $400 per night. So when going to Las Vegas, it is an opportunity for those who would never consider spending that kind of money on a hotel, to experience that level of luxury at a fraction of what it would cost anywhere else. Where else could you get the luxury of a Bellagio hotel for a special price of $119 a night as I did last time I was there? Sure I could have stayed in an average place for even less, but it was a nice way to get some real luxury without having to pay through the nose to get it.

Again, Patrick, "luxury" is in the eye of the beholder.

And, Ted, I think we can safely assume that the majority of travellers don't have a 5 figure travel budget paid for by their company. It's easy to be a big spender on someone else's money.

Leona, funny you mention that you don't really care where you stay as long as it is in a good location and clean.

I am exactly the same way. I've stayed in some of the nicest hotels anywhere and my favorites are some small mom & pops I've stumbled across.

My all time favorite would probably be the Las Flamingos motel in Acapulco, Mexico. $50 per night for a motel in peak season that sits on a 500 foot cliff with unobstructed views of the Pacific Ocean. There is no price tag you can put on that view.

As far as the cost of hotel furnishings, my point is that hotels pay so much more for durability and they should last a long time and hide regular wear and tear.

Well, technically it is the company's money, but it's my company so I guess it depends on how you look at it
I'm just taking advantage of the tax situation to combine my love of travel with business. Would I still spend the same $$ without the writeoffs? Probably the same per trip, but fewer trips.