Originally Posted by
LAXGUY
Unless the Cataratas has been renovated in the last 12 months (unlikely), there is no comparison. I stayed at both properties in July 2006. Rooms, amenities, food, location, views all are better at the Sheraton. Some of the rooms at the Cataratas are larger, but that is small consolation IMO. Overall the Cataratas is showing its age.
By all means you should visit both sides of the falls but there is no need to stay at the Catratas to do so.
I would agree with the above. Last summer after having spent one night "in town" and the next at the Sheraton--we were on a tight budget--I definitely would have splurged and spent both nights at the Sheraton. The Cataratas is okay, but the Sheraton is in the park. You walk to the deck, or your balcony if you're lucky, and the falls are right there. This is a "one in a lifetime kind" of trip, and if you can possibly afford the Sheraton I'd go for it.
The hotel renovations were almost completed when we were there and I thought it was quite nice. The included breakfast was good. The second cup of coffee with a view of the falls was wonderful. It still is not a hotel that I would put in the luxury category by any means, but it is nicer than the Cataratas. The reason for the high prices is that it's the only hotel in the park and they charge accordingly. Starwood Gold members seemed to get a few perks. Both hotels are on the Argentine side.