Why Times Square?
 

Have seen innumerable questions on this and other boards about hotels in New York and a huge number of tourists seem determined to stay in/right near Times Square. To a native New Yorker this is a real mystery! Times Square is one of the least pleasant areas of Manhattan and definity the least typical of the city overall. Why do so many tourists want to stay there?

I'll have to disagree with nytraveler's assessment of Times Square as "one of the least pleasant areas of Manhattan." It's what New York is all about--the excitement, the fast pace, the lights, the people. No, it's not my favorite parts of the city....but it's New York! And New York wouldn't be New York without Times Square.

I'll try to explain. We tourists aren't going to New York to live. We don't really care about a wonderful quiet residential area. Most of us live in those at home, so there is no reason to spend big bucks to travel to a city and then stay in a "neighborhood". On the other hand, none of us have anything at home even remotely like Times Square. We travel to find what we don't have at home. Sure it's touristy, it's noisy, it's bustling. That's why we love it!! And for those of us who are theatre freaks and see shows every night and two matinees a week, it sure is convenient. Much easier to take a subway to another area of the city during the day and explore, but at night be right where the shows are so we don't have to fight the crowds getting to them or struggling to get a taxi to get back to our more remote hotel.

I've done both, including renting an apartment for a month on the upper east side. I loved staying there -- but that was for a month. If flying into New York for a three or four day getaway, I wouldn't stay anywhere except in the Times Square area.

I don't think this is any different than people wanting a view of the Eiffel Tower from their hotel in Paris, or wanting to be within walking distance of Harrod's in London. Maybe not where a person would want to LIVE in those cities, but tourists go to cities to be tourists, like it or not.

So, nytraveler, can you at least understand where we are all "coming from"?

I agree with you, but I think the answer is, for the same reason tourists like to stay near the Eiffel Tower in Paris. For many, TS is what they think of when they think NYC. If you come for theater, it's certainly convenient. At least the area has been cleaned up a bit. Do you remember how awful it was 10+ years ago? I worked at 1515 Broadway for a while. I still remember walking out of the building on my first day of work there at 7pm. I thought I was in a Fellini movie. There was a man on the sidewalk selling whips (and cracking them on the pavement). A drunk walked into the side of a metal phonebooth & started bleeding, there was a 3 card monte game...ah, the good old days :)

We do think alike Patrick :)

Well, I can understand wanting to stay near the Eiffel Tower or Harrods. Those are in pleasant neighborhoods. In fact my favorite London hotel is only 3 blocks from Harrods. But staying in Times Square is the equivalent of staying in Leicester Square - or even Pigalle.

And I'm not suggesting people stay in the suburbs. But there are hotels in plenty of other bustling, fast-paced areas that are a lot less tacky.

Yes, the shows are wonderful but the plethora of cheapo chain restaurants, tatty t-shirt shops and eternally going out of business electronics stores is just ghastly. I guess I just have a much different view of what New York is about - Fifth Avenue? Lincoln Center? The Met?

I still don't get it.

Some look at the negatives. Some look at the positives. You see only cheap and tacky restaurants. I see Le Bernadin.

It is clear you don't like Times Square, that's your choice.

You're right. You don't get it. I love the Met too, but why would I be concerned about staying in a hotel next to it, when I'll visit it during the day. And yes, I always do something at Lincoln Center, but it's easy to get to, and not where I'd want to stay. Fifth Avenue has great shops and is a super street, but let's face it, it sort of closes up at night.

Maybe your real problem is that you seem to think we all settle into a hotel in Times Square and that's all we see. Most of us are out all day and maybe some evenings exploring all those things you rave about, but Times Square still makes a great central location to explore all that from. And of course, when we say "Times Square", most of us are really talking about a much larger area -- all of midtown West, essentially.

I miss the excitement of the old, seedy Times Square tha mclaurie describes. Now it's like a mall clogged with slow-moving tourists that you just want to plow through so you can get to your show in time. I don't get the attraction either. But for tourists, I guess it's something "different" that must be experienced. Though some may think of TS as "real New York," nothing can be further from the truth...it's the area of Manhattan with the smallest concentration of natives...we only go there if we have to!

Suzanne - a woman after my own heart! I appreciate (well really thank you for - I still don't appreciate) your answers. I guess this is just a permanent blind spot I have - and I'll keep trying to convince others to focus on the rest of the city.

To many "tourists" there is no question that Times Square is quintessential New York City.

To us, spending New Year's Eve in Times Square, to watch the ball drop, no matter what the weather (brrr...), crowds, lack of rest rooms, waiting and waiting...is one of those things you just have to do once in your lifetime. We did this while in college. For sure, we'd much rather enjoy same from our couch with the fireplace going and our kitchen and bathroom nearby. I'm guessing that you do not spend New Year's Eve in Times Square even though it could not be more convenient for you to do so.

My husband and myself spend long weekends in NYC 3-6 times/year, having resumed this in the mid-90's after not having gone there since the mid-70's.

We consider ourselves more visitors than "tourists" nowadays, having "done" all the major tourist sights and attractions many times over.

Over the last ten years, we've stayed in Midtown, the Upper East Side, the Upper West Side, Murray Hill, the Financial District. Oh, and the one time we though it would be ever so ecomical to stay in New Jersey and "commute" into the city every day and back every night.

Since we usually have tickets to at least two Broadway shows, we find Midtown West the most convenient place to stay. We've stayed at the Helmsley, Benjamin, Waldorf... as well, which we now consider "inconvenient" for the theaters and our favorite restaurants.

Our favorite place for staying is anywhere along/east of 6th Avenue.

As you, a native New Yorker, would most likely agree, there is nearly a world of difference between Times Square, 8th Ave, 7th Ave, 6th Ave, 5th Ave, Park Ave, and so forth.

Even if we had no Broadway show tickets for a particular visit, we wouldn't be able to resist a walk, or several, through Times Square, especially at night, for the "New York experience". We just love the lights, the digital news, watching the passing parade (from a window table in the Broadway Bar at the Marriott Marquis...).

No matter what the season, with show tickets, I've found it's just better to stay within a reasonable walk of the theaters. It's just easier to plan on walking to dinner before or after, and the show, from your hotel, along with leaving from same after you've been out and about all day and wish to freshen up before heading out for the evening.

While a native has learned the best way to get to their evening destinations all dressed up, the typical tourist/traveler does not.

For us, we prefer not to use the subway/buses all dressed up (or me walking in dressy shoes to/from/within subway station, and know better than to count on grabbing a taxi quickly at dinner/show time, or when it's hot/cold/raining/snowing.

No matter where you stay, you'll want to go all over during the day, whether it's your first visit or you've been many, many times. For sure, the public transportation/taxis could not be much more reasonaly priced, swift, or convenient, compared to most other destinations on the planet.

Then, there is the matter of getting "home" at night. I would guess that most tourists and visitors, like us, would prefer to be reasonably close to where we're staying at the end of the/late at night - in unfamiliar territory...

Here's reminding you that there's a HUGE difference between a "native New Yorker" and a visitor, tourist, especially a first-time tourist...

In addition to all of the above, the best hotel deals these days, by far, are with Priceline and Hotwire, and the very best bang for the buck are the Midtown/Times Square hotels.

My compliments, djbooks for a well-written posting that expresses so well the magic of New York.
TO nytraveler: Because one stays in and/or visits the Times Square area does not mean one ignores (or in your words, doesn't "focus on") ther parts of the city. After all these years of being a New Yorker, I still find joy in just walking through Times Square.

I will have to say that the Times Square is far from my favorite area of NYC, as a visitor. No, it doesn't have the charm of many of the "neighborhoods," and the food can be quite overpriced, and it is crowded. There are several arguments for the area, however. If you plan to attend many shows while in town, it certainly is nice to be able to take a nice, fairly safe stroll back to the hotel, making stops in a few late night shops along the way, without getting to sleep too late. It is also nice for a visitor to walk out in the morning early or late at night and feel the excitement of somewhere different from home. Besides all that, it really is a very central area for exploring much of Manhattan. If you want to go downtown or to Brooklyn or farther afield, you have access to many easily reached subway stops. I plan to eventually experience staying in other parts of Manhattan. My first trip was with a four-year old (what better area for her?), and my second was for a seminar across the street from the International Center of Photography (a no brainer there). If you have children, this is definitely a place where they can really experience the energy of NYC and see part of what makes it different from where most of us live. I see it as the equivalent of the time I went to Cancun, stayed downtown, and used it as a convenient base for exploring the whole Yucatan. Few go to NYC for charm - we go for excitement.

I don't necessarily think that tourists are 'determined' to stay in hotels close to or in Times Sq. - the truth is that the highest concentration of hotels happen to be in or near Times Sq. - for obvious reasons, it is relatively central. In addition, hotels like the mark or the carlyle, the regency and the stanhope are not in areas of new york that are easily identifiable as 'central' in terms of sites for most tourists. they are easily identifiable for us, because they happen to be located in residential areas - think back to when you yourself were just a tourist to new york and did not live in manhattan nytraveler - times sq. probably held some interest and well as a jumping off point for exploring the rest of the city.

Sorry - I'm a native New Yorker - have never been a tourist here. And Times Square has never really held any interest for me. When I was younger it was somewhere disgusting that you had to go near to go to the theater - now it is somewhere tacky/touristy (but at least no longer stuffed with hookers and 24-hour porno shows) you have to go near to go to the theater. And I'm not suggesting that everyone stay at the Stanhope - there are tons of hotels in all neighborhoods - including west midtown but not Times Square - that I would think give a much better experience. the only thing anyone has said here that resonates is cost - if this neighborhood is really that much cheaper I guess it makes sense. but you still couldn't pay me to stay there - or in the local equivalent in other cities.

I guess this is my blind spot and we'll just need to agree to disagree.

not a blind spot at all - I suppose I was merely trying to put things in the perspective of the tourist. I was born and raised in manhattan as well, so times sq. was never a place I went to - dangerous and seedy when I was young and forbidden for obvious reasons by my parents and now a tourist enclave that I never really find myself needing to visit for any reason.
frankly, I would imagine a first time visitor - and this is not at all a snide comment - does not exactly know any better. rather, they see location and price and jump on it. truthfully, I wouldn't know where to begin to book a room - in perhaps, chicago - so I would most likely try to find somewhere that was close to sites I wanted to see. I would imagein that would lamd me right in the heart of the tourist district.
I think its just convenience.
nice to meet a fellow native manhattan-ite - chances are we have crossed paths - when all is said and done it is a small town for those of us from there!

as an aside however - I often suggest to out of town friends to stay at the stanhope - which has been a favorite of mine since I was a child. our school would walk us to the Met once a month to force some culture into our vacant upper east side heads and we would go and sit at the outdoor cafe afterwards.
So for anyone watching this thread for hotel suggestions outside of times square - the stanhope is truly lovely!

I'm a tourist who would love to stay somewhere other than Times Square, but I've not had much luck finding a good budget option elsewhere. It's not that we all choose to stay there or that none of us know better.

The reason Time Sqare is great is because you are able to stay up late and feel safe walking back to your hotel after the theater and late dining. Please help me out. Is the Palace a safe walk from the Theater district at night?

Well, New York is probably the safest large city in the country. And I would have no hesitation in walking to the Palace after the theater at any reasonable time. If you're asking about 3 in the morning - frankly at that kind of time I would always take a taxi anywhere unless I were with a group.

As far as other budget options, I understand that there are reasonable rates at some of the hotels on the upper west side. Which also brings the advantage of a huge number of inexpensive and good dining options, walking to some of the major museums, and exellent subway service to all of Manhattan.

Why does it matter where visitors want to stay?

For the record, I am in Manhattan about once a month so I know the city well and like Patrick, have stayed on extended visits.

Thank you for your advice. I will be in NYC in April with my 15 year old daughter and would appreciate any advice about places to stay and interesting sights. I want to make this very special for her. Last year I stayed at the Michaleangelo. It was nice. She has not been to NYC since she was 8 years old. I noticed that Fodors eliminated its star next to The Palace.

Donna the Michelangelo is often raved about here. "Nice" doesn't sound like you were too impressed. Actually, people with teens always say the teens "love" staying in Times Square. The Michelangelo is one of those hotels that's in the area but not right in the "fray." The W in Union Square might be a fun location/place. Closer to downtown things like Soho, the village etc. but in a young vibrant area with shops, restaurants etc.

And yes, I agree the upper west side is a great option to TS for good, comfortable reasonable hotels -they include The Beacon, the Lucerne, the Excelsior, the Millburn, On the Avenue.

Since I'm planning a trip in April with a friend, I've been reading this post with interest. She's interested in jogging Central Park, I'm interested in Broadway shows. Have checked out all the hotels mentioned, specifically the ones mentioned by you, mclaurie, and the one that stands out (decor-wise) is On the Avenue and at a price we can afford. I've had trouble finding reviews for this hotel on the internet. Anyone have any thoughts about a stay there? Is it located well for both our interests? Thanks to all the New Yorkers and veteran visitors, Patrick, et al, for your input.

Donna & Maggie...I am planning a trip to NY with my 14 yo niece in Feb. We have reservations at the Comfort Inn Midtown...it's on 46th between 6th & 7th. I read about it here, then in several guidebooks. I got rooms for Presidents Day weekend for $109/night, then called about the AAA discount, so net will be around $100/night. Very convenient to the theaters and lots of other things. I'm excited about it..seems like everything else I looked at either wasn't as nice, as well-located, or as cheap! www.applecorehotel.com

Anne

These anti-Times Square posts are just as silly as the ones against Union Square in San Francisco. Times Square is the center of Manhattan, like it or not. Anyone wanting to be in the center of activity is right to want to stay there. It would be sad if they never left that area to explore the rest of Manhattan, but it is the ideal area to stay.

I did love the Michaelangelo. I just think my daughter would not appreciate it as much as I did. Thank you for the suggestions. The price for the Comfort Inn on Broadway plus the location is very inviting.

I actually love Times Square. Okay, I wouldn'y want to live there, but as a tourist to The City several times per year, I just like walking through Times Square, especially at night with all the lights. The area is quite clean, although very crowded. But crowds are what The City is all about. Times Square is also very convenient to many of the different sites in Manhattan which is another reason why people like to stay there.

Maggi, there appear to be about 40 mostly decent reviews of On the Avenue Hotel on tripadvisor.com

http://www.tripadvisor.com/Search-g6..._New_York.html

One review says it's a $6 cab ride to Times Square or 20 minute walk. I'd guess it's a 10 minute walk to Central Park.

The Mayflower Hotel is a better <i>location</i> for you both-right across from the park &amp; about 15 blocks closer to TS than On the Avenue. But last time I looked, the reviews weren't very good (I could be wrong).

On the Avenue is on Broadway which makes it 3 blocks - or about 3/4 minutes from Central Park and 5/6 minutes from the Museum of Natural History. About a 10 minute walk to Lincoln Center. It is also 2 blocks from the Subway station at 79th street. By subway to Times Square is about 6/7 minutes - another 3 minutes to Macy's at 34th St. If you prefer, the bus down Broadway will take a few miutes longer except at rush hour.

Thanks McLaurie. The Mayflower is a good suggestion, and I did check it out, but the decor of On the Avenue is hard for me to resist. Where I sleep really matters to me, it's part of my vacation experience, and while I don't want to spend a fortune on accomodations, I like to find those small special, yet affordable boutique hotels that appeal to the imagination. We don't have to make up our minds for awhile, so I will keep checking and keep these two in mind. NY Traveler, those travel times from OTA don't sound bad at all. Thanks for the input.

The first 15 or so responses on this thread may constitute the most erudite exchange of opinions on Fodors in years. I'm impressed!

Let me offer my own thoughts as a former New Yorker and still-frequent visitor:

1) If you've never been to New York, the allure of Times Square is overwhelming. It's what you see on New Year's Eve; it looks like the center of the world, and there definitely isn't anyplace like it back home, where ever &quot;home&quot; is. It's also a &quot;known&quot; destination and, as several posters point out, there are (now) lots of places to stay that are &quot;name brands.&quot;

2) I would think that anyone who stayed in Times Square would be disappointed. The traffic noise alone would rule it out as far as I'm concerned. But half a dozen posters say it is the only place in the city they would stay, which shows it takes all kinds.

3) I've stayed all over Manhattan while both on business and pleasure and, to me, location is relatively unimportant; I'm much more interested in getting a good room than what is immediately outside the hotel. The things to do and see in Manhattan are spread out over - what- eight or nine square miles, so the fact that a hotel is adjacent to one particular point of interest is really meaningless.

4) I think most visitors - until they get the hang of the city - can't grasp that most people walk from point 'a' to point 'b', and that it's OK to be on the streets of Manhattan at 9 p.m. Until they make that connection, they assume they need to stay within sight of where they expect to spend time, because that's the way it's done when you visit Atlanta, Denver, etc.

Anyway, that's my take on the subject.

Well-said, Neal! It's very true, what you say about location being unimportant. Manhattan is very easy to navigate...all you need are comfy shoes and a Metrocard or some cab fare and you can get just about anywhere.