mclaurie

The debate about Times Square will rage on. It's truly a matter of personal taste. What's not often discussed and almost needs to be experienced to understand, is the fine difference among locations within the Times Square area. You can stay:

1) in one of the Times Square hotels that opens right onto all the hubbub (ie Marriott Marquis, Doubletree Guest Suites, Renaissance)

2) one of the hotels a block or three away but not right on Broadway (ie Westin, Hampton Inn Times Square, Hilton Garden Inn Times Square, Belvedere, Radio City apartments

3) one of the many hotels that are NEAR Times Square so it's easy to walk, but a bit further. These include that Courtyard on Fifth & 40th st. mentioned above, the Roosevelt, the Algonquin...

Since it sounds like you'd like or need 3 beds, that, imo, should drive your decision. If you're coming for 2 nights and going to the theater once, you could really stay anywhere. But if you're planning on trying to get discount tickets from the TKTS booth, it might be a good idea to stay near one of the 2 booths. One's in Times square (at the Marriott Marquis) and the other's downtown across from the South ST. Seaport. There's a good Hampton Inn Seaport there, but not with 3 beds.

Apart from the Doubletree Times Square where you could get 2 beds and a sofabed, the other good option is the Blakely hotel in a 1 bedroom suite which has a daybed in the living room.

The Courtyard Midtown East has some rooms with 2 queen beds and sofabed and is a longer walk or a bus ride to TS. The Affinia Dumont is another with 3 beds to a studio or 1 bedroom suite.

Jill2

Wow!

Excellent advice - thanks so much! Walking a little is OK, but I am taking chemo and it makes me a bit tired, so I think we will look at those hotels closer to Times Square.

I noted everything all of you said and am hitting the internet right now. Cost is usually a driving factor for us, but I'm willing to splurge since I know NY is expensive. I can't wait to go!
Thanks again - Jill

TC

Jill2, You will find that hotel rooms in NY with 2 beds are nearly always more expensive than rooms with one King bed. I run into this problem every Spring when we do our Girls Go To NY and the ladies need to share rooms. However, over the years I have had several hotels match pricing -- giving us two beds for the same price as a king. To get this I've sent an email to the hotel's General Manager and explained our budget and simply asked for the price match. In most cases they agreed.

Hotels on either 44th or 43rd for the shortest walk for you are; Mariott Marquis, Westin NY, Mildord Plaza, Millennium, Casablanca, Royalton, Algonquin, City Club, Iroquis, Mansfield and the Sofitel.

Check www.quikbook.com for deals on hotel rooms.

nytraveler

I disagree with the concept of the Strip in Las Vegas being the same as Times Square in NYC. Times Square is a VERY small prt of the city and there are actually very few attractions there - except for the theater. Most everything you want to see and do is elsewhere in Manhattan - or the city. I know NeoPatrick loves the theater - so it makes sense for him to say there. And the same may be true of the OP.

But for people who are coming for a general visit - I would no more reco stayng in Times Square than I would in Picadilly Circus.

In Las Vegas, most of what you want to see/do is ON the Strip - so it makes snese to stay there - no matter how awul it is. (Just one of the reasons I can;t imagine spending more than a day or two there.)

NeoPatrick

Maybe we should all stop using the term Times Square, is that the problem? Practically no one insists that people need to stay right in Times Square. The bulk of the comments and suggestions regard a more general term -- midtown --midtown west -- the theatre district -- Rockefeller Center area -- call it what you will. And like it or not, if you check most posts about tourists' first trips to NYC, the bulk of the things they want to see and do WILL be in Midtown. Certainly a far greater abundance of them than any other single location within the city. Sure people can take a subway and a ferry to see the Statue of Liberty and one the other way to go up to the Met, or one to go walk across the Brooklyn Bridge, all in different directions. But most would find that far more convenient than staying somewhere where they have to take transportation every day -- several times a day to do the bulk of what they are doing -- particularly as in the OP's scenario here -- probably both nights they are in NYC before and after the theatre!

But my main comparison between Las Vegas and New York City was why would anyone suggest to others to avoid "noisy, crowded, traffic congested, brightly lit, neon areas filled with tourists"? That is exactly what most people going to Las Vegas are going there for -- and frankly, like it or not, it IS what many tourists going to New York City are looking for as well.

nytraveler you mention that unlike LV, NYC has many attractions all over the city. Very true, but can you name a location other than midtown that is totally convenient (easy walking distance) to more than one or two of them that the first time tourist is likely to want to do? And meanwhile midtown is central for going in all directions to those other scattered things to do, with the greatest variety of lines and ways to get to those other areas. There's a reason so many bus and subway lines cross to meet in midtown!

Again, I know this debate will never end. I'm not trying to convince people who hate bright lights and traffic and neon that they should stay near it if they don't want to. Nor would I ever under any circumstances suggest to someone who wants to get the real feel of living in New York to stay at the Marriott Marquis. But I am trying to explain why many tourists WOULD want to stay near it. There is a reason that the VAST majority of NYC hotel rooms are located in midtown. That's where MOST tourists are looking for accomodations, and no, it isn't because they just don't know better. The vast majority of them HAVE been there before and it's where they LIKE to stay for all the reasons described.

TC

I have to agree with NeoPatrick on this one. When others say that Times Square doesn't represent the true NY, I ask -- next to the Statue of Liberty, what is the second most photographed area of NY? I venture it is the bright lights and neon signs of Times Square. They are iconic. From a tourist's standpoint, NY is forever linked with Broadway theater, celebrities, movies, (New York, New York!) and that Broadway glamour is almost always represented by an image of Times Square. When other areas of the city close, the West Side is always humming with activity -- well representing "the city that never sleeps".

nytraveler

Yes, the upper west side is adjacent to Central Park, has the Museum of Natural History and the New York Historical Society and is directly across the park - a 15 minute walk - from the Met and Museum Mile.

It's true other areas of midtown have sights - but while they're busy, they also don't have the same tacky, frenetic atmosphere of Times Square.

NeoPatrick

I stand corrected. I forgot that 99% of all first time tourists put the New York Historical Society at the top of their must do list. And I also forgot that most people staying in the upper west side (that handful that can stay at the tiny selection of hotel rooms there) walk to the Met.

Repeat, since it seems to have been overlooked:

"Maybe we should all stop using the term Times Square, is that the problem? Practically no one insists that people need to stay right in Times Square. The bulk of the comments and suggestions regard a more general term -- midtown --midtown west -- the theatre district -- Rockefeller Center area -- call it what you will."

Using Priceline as an example, there are about 35 hotels in Times Square/Midtown West. But there are only two hotels on Upper West Side only three hotels on the Upper East Side, the highest rating being only 2.5 stars.

Rhea58

Let's be specific to Jill2's needs
folks & not the on-going saga re hotels in or out of Times Sq.:

1) She is undergoing chemo...I've been there. She WILL require a hotel near theatre as she will be
tired. This means Times Square area!!
2) She is traveling w/2 teenagers
who no doubtedly would enjoy the
Times Square scene...unlike where they reside.

nytraveler

Priceline has a very limited selection of hotels - so I really don't care what they list or don't.

If people want to stay in midtown that's fine. I just don;t think they should stay right in the Times Square area - which many do.

And how is walking the few minutes across the Park to the Met any different than walking the same few minutes/blocks to see something in midtown. It's not like all sights are in the same place. MoMa, Top of the Rock, St Pat.s and Times Square are all a short walk from each other - just as the places I named are. (Never mind other places such as Empire State Building, Grand Central etc).

And, when tourists say Times Square- they usually DO mean Times Square - not midtown west. I don;t see anything wrong with pointing out it's disadvantages as a place to stay.

And I'm not suggesting everyone stay on the upper west side. There's also central park south, midtown east and other neighborhoods that are handy for specific sights.

andrew8

Jill,
Best of luck with your treatment. Hope you feel better.

doug_stallings

Given Jill2's issues with walking, I'll change my recommendation. The better priced hotels are usually the Hilton or Westin unless you want to stay in one of the chains on 8th Avenue. Frankly, as un-sexy as they are, the string of chain hotels on 8th Avenue might be the best choice since most rooms have 2 beds and they're closer to 9th Avenue, where you'll find good, cheaper restaurants. They're equidistant to most of the theaters. As long as you are between 42nd and 55th, you'll be within pretty easy walking distance and close to subways for other excursions.

And to Neopatrick ... it's funny you mentioned the Strip in Las Vegas, because I've actually stopped staying there. I prefer to be off-strip and just go in when I want to do something. I stayed far away in Red Rock Resort last year, and it was my best trip to LV yet.

NeoPatrick

Doug, I think that's great about LV. And it's nice to see someone who "practices what he preaches" so to speak. As I sort of hinted at above, New Yorkers understandably would want to avoid the "glitz and noise" of Times Square since they live so near it. But I assumed (and maybe wrongly so) that MOST New Yorkers would still seek out that atmosphere when it is "indicative" of their destination. It's like when I started looking at Hawaii. I honestly didn't care about hotels being on the beach -- heck, I have that at home -- so I was seeking something different from what I have -- maybe rainforest and mountains, not beach and sunshine.

And nytraveler, surely you realized that my Priceline comment was only used to indicate how many more hotels there are in midtown than in those other areas -- it had NOTHING to do with using Priceline. Care to guess how many thousand percent MORE hotel rooms there are in midtown than in the entire rest of Manhattan put together? There's a reason big hotels spend millions more to constantly build huge new hotels in midtown instead of on the UES or UWS or Chelsea or Murray Hill. It's because there aren't that many people looking for hotel rooms in those other areas!

And I honestly hear more people say "stay near the theatres" or "stay near Times Square" -- rarely, almost never do I hear people say "I want to stay right on Times Square. Read trip reports. Over and over again you'll hear people say "we stayed near Times Square at the Sheraton, or at the Helmsley Palace, or at the New York Hilton. None of those are that close to Times Square, but because Times Square is the MOST recognized landmark of New York, people really stretch that point. I laugh every time I walk by that big Times Square Church (the beautiful old Mark Hellinger Theatre). Times Square? It's on 51st Street. But lots of things are indentified as being Times Square when they are up to 10 blocks away in nearly any direction. If landmarks use it to denote anything in midtown, why wouldn't tourists?

Look above, even when Times Square was first mentioned in the thread, bethke14 clearly said "Times Square/theatre district" -- so I'm not sure why anyone started the "don't stay in Times Square argument. No one was specifically suggesting that they do.

luvtravl

Took my teen nieces (16 & 18) to NYC last October for a "theatre" weekend. We stayed at the Marriott Marquis. The girls loved being in the middle of all the action!

agulha

I agree, staying in Times Sq is the best and most exciting. Marriott Marquis is a good place and also has the "tickets" booth for cheaper prices for the shows. The view rest. circles the hotel so it gives you a great "view" of the area at sunset. Any other ?'s email me.

wyostiv

If you're only there a couple of nights and Times Square and Broadway are your only focus, then I agree it's best to stay in that area.

But if you're going to be in NYC several days and want to see/do a lot of things, the sights are so spread out all over the city, than there's really no reason to stay in one area over another as you're going to end up using the subway system anyway.

We took a last minute, 5-day trip to the city a couple of months ago, and ended up staying in Queens. It worked out great--had a big, clean room at the La Quinata in Queens. $135 a night with breakfast included. Two blocks from the subway stop: we were at Times Square in 15 minutes.

Several good, inexpensive, ethnic and "American" dining options within a few blocks of the hotel--including a new, 24-hour diner and a wonderful little place that served mainly (but not exclusively) Korean and southeast Asian noodle dishes.

We bought the 7-day public transport pass, and got our money's worth out of it in 3 days.

widespreadpanic

If you have time prior to your visit, check trsvel zoo. They have great specials on theatre tickets AND NYC/Times Square hotels. I booked the Warwick for $200/nt/king, $230/nt/dbl for late August, and they often offer tickets at 1/3-1/2 off.

jacknyoc

we have been to NYC for several trips and have always stayed very near to but not right in TS. it's got great mass transit access/options and is a good base from which to operate...and for your purposes, would be a good option. having had a similar situaiton...traveling with two children/young adults, and not wanting to spend a lot to get a decent hotel room, we have used Radio City Apartments (49th St. between 6th & 7th Ave) and The Wellington (7th Ave around 55th). Radio City actual has one bedroom and studio arrangements. The Wellington has a large studio and suite options.

NeoPatrick

Thanks, jacknoyac and widespreadpanic, for confirming what I had just been saying.

The Warwick and The Wellington can't even begin to really be called Times Square hotels -- they're both some distance away, and even Radio City Apts is a few blocks away.

But that's my point. Tourists often call anything midtown West as "Times Square" hotels and the vast majority of us know what that usually means. People are wrong to think that when a tourist says "we stayed in a Times Square Hotel" that that means they literally walked out their door into the "mayhem".

phyllismb

I highly recommend the Edison Hotel, a 1930's Art Deco Hotel located at 47th and between Broadway and 8th AVE. Lovely old hotel, refurbished with a nice cafe and easy access to the TKTS booth, the shows, shopping and the subway. However, you are away from the noise of Broadway.
Phyllis