Fairmont President's Club - In which Canadian cities do you avoid Fairmont Properties?

I'm a Fairmont Platinum member and I enjoy the great service and hotels that Fairmont has to offer

However, I've become less accepting of some properties where I think some extreme renovations are needed:

Montreal: Queen E
Toronto: Royal York
Calgary: Palliser
Vancouver: The Fairmont Vancouver

What other Canadian properties do you feel are currently in unacceptable condition?

YWG - the rooms need a major upgrade - the staff are amazing though.
Agree with your other selections too.

I don't go out of my way to stay at Fairmonts unless I feel that they are the best option in that city...

I've stayed in some rooms in the Chateau Laurier a couple of times this year that had peeling paint and a horrible bathroom. I think the tap set I have on my laundry sink at home is nicer than what I've found there. However, I stay there every time I'm in town because I love the location and the charm of the place, and many of the public spaces in the building are nice. I just find it hit and miss with the guest rooms--sometimes I get a good one, but lately, not so much--it might just be my bad luck or bad timing.

Fairmont Toronto - avoid this hotel if you can. Small, dark rooms, very dated, and service is the worst I've seen in Fairmont system.

It really is too bad, this year more of my business has been going to Starwood, especially in Montreal and Vancouver

I would not stay in a Fairmont in any city if there is a Hyatt or Mandarin Oriental in the same city, unless I want to use up my Fairmont free night certs.:D

I think most would agree that most "old" Fairmont city hotels have some issues: too big, many rooms that are dated, are too small/dark etc. What makes some of these hotels nonetheless is the great location.

Vancouver: nothing wrong about it IMO, but I much prefer the Pacific Rim or even the Waterfront

Calgary: fully agree - I avoid that hotel, too; even the suites are pretty tired, and I generally don´t like Calgary perticularly :p

Toronto: have only stayed there once (this year), but had a fantastic stay (very nicely decorated suite, great service, nice cocktail lounge, excellent breakfast buffet)

I would not stay in a Fairmont in any city if there is a Hyatt or Mandarin Oriental in the same city, unless I want to use up my Fairmont free night certs.:D

Fairmont Pacific Rim is far nicer than the Hyatt in Vancouver !

Palliser. Fitness in the dungeon is not appealing.

Fairmont Pacific Rim is far nicer than the Hyatt in Vancouver !

I have not stayed at neither of these. But to satisfy my curiosity, I would give the Fairmont Pacific Rim a try next time when I'm in YVR.

Before they opened, I would stay at the FS or Shangri-La in Vancouver.

I generally don´t like Calgary perticularly :p


Completely agree. ;)

Another vote for Fairmont Winnipeg which feels like a early 80's time warp and is IMHO past due for am upgrade to this millennium.

I would not stay in a Fairmont in any city if there is a Hyatt or Mandarin Oriental in the same city, unless I want to use up my Fairmont free night certs.:D

A Hyatt? MO I can understand, but you meant a regular old Hyatt? Like Hyatt in Toronto or Montreal?

A Hyatt? MO I can understand, but you meant a regular old Hyatt? Like Hyatt in Toronto or Montreal?

Yes. Hyatt's customer service is usually way better than Fairmont's. But I misread the OP (didn't see the word Canadian:o). There is no MO and very few Hyatts in Canada.

So my comments only apply in Asia/Europe where there are MOs and PHs to compete with Fairmonts.

Hotel Macdonald - Edmonton

Vancouver: nothing wrong about it IMO, but I much prefer the Pacific Rim or even the Waterfront)

All comes down to personal preferences I guess. I've stayed in all of them and the Hotel Vancouver is my favourite. Waterfront I'd stay in again, but not the Pacific Rim. Last time at the HV we had an excellent room, I couldn't fault it in any way.

However, I've become less accepting of some properties where I think some extreme renovations are needed:

Montreal: Queen E
The QE is the only Fairmont hotel which is my first choice in any city. I agree it's not the best but I've always liked staying there. Maybe it's the name or something...
Calgary: fully agree - I avoid that hotel, too; even the suites are pretty tired
Other than the location (which actually isn't that great) the Palliser is pretty bad. The Hyatt nearby is so much better and right by the LRT tracks for an easy way to get across downtown.
I would not stay in a Fairmont in any city if there is a Hyatt or Mandarin Oriental in the same city, unless I want to use up my Fairmont free night certs.:D
Fairmonts are not even in the same league as MOs imo.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9700; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.461 Mobile Safari/534.8+)

However, I've become less accepting of some properties where I think some extreme renovations are needed:

Montreal: Queen E
The QE is the only Fairmont hotel which is my first choice in any city. I agree it's not the best but I've always liked staying there. Maybe it's the name or something...
Calgary: fully agree - I avoid that hotel, too; even the suites are pretty tired
Other than the location (which actually isn't that great) the Palliser is pretty bad. The Hyatt nearby is so much better and right by the LRT tracks for an easy way to get across downtown.
I would not stay in a Fairmont in any city if there is a Hyatt or Mandarin Oriental in the same city, unless I want to use up my Fairmont free night certs.:D
Fairmonts are not even in the same league as MOs imo.

At my firm MO, Four Seasons and Ritz require CFO pre-approval

I'll stick with Fairmont & Starwood

[
At my firm MO, Four Seasons and Ritz require CFO pre-approval


Thats pretty moronic in the Canadian marketplace.... YVR and YYZ FS can be lower than Fairmont easily.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9700; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.461 Mobile Safari/534.8+)

[
At my firm MO, Four Seasons and Ritz require CFO pre-approval


Thats pretty moronic in the Canadian marketplace.... YVR and YYZ FS can be lower than Fairmont easily.

It's a global rule. Plus we have very competitive corp rates with Fairmont

Hotel Macdonald - Edmonton

I like the Mac.. do you live in Edmonton?..

We only visit the Palliser, and never stay there.. only because we live in Calgary, and would be redundant to actually overnight there..

Hotel Macdonald - Edmonton

do you live in Edmonton?..

Judging by fly-yul's handle and referenced location, which is YUL, I would doubt it. ;)

Judging by fly-yul's handle and referenced location, which is YUL, I would doubt it. ;)

Thanks.. I wonder why fly-yul avoids the Mac..

I guess they went through some renos last year, as the dining room flooded.. but the hotel is much prefered in my view than the Calgary hotel, simply because of the river views..

I wonder why fly-yul avoids the Mac..


http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/15951237-post19.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/15951237-post19.html

I remember the post by fly-yul

As I posted, the flood happened last year, but should be fixed now.. So that shouldn't be the reason why he's avoiding the Mac for now..

Suppose I guess, fly-yul can weigh in..

I remember the post by fly-yul

As I posted, the flood happened last year, but should be fixed now.. So that shouldn't be the reason why he's avoiding the Mac for now..

Suppose I guess, fly-yul can weigh in..

Indeed and only they can answer the question but if they didn't like the service then that could be a reason to stay away now.

Banff. Rooms in rough condition and subpar service.

Maybe my perception is skewed as I always hit Lake Louise first and have a phenomenal experience?

Indeed and only they can answer the question but if they didn't like the service then that could be a reason to stay away now.

Service has never been top notch at the Hotel Mac, except at Empire Brunch, or breakfast buffet..

The property is beautiful, and historical.. we stayed there on our wedding night.. and probably been back there 12 to 15 times since..

At my firm MO, Four Seasons and Ritz require CFO pre-approval

I'll stick with Fairmont & Starwood
I would probably get laughed at if I tried to expense a FS or MO. Hiltons in NA and Sheratons/ICs in Asia are usually as good as it gets for me... I do like Fairmont Beijing though despite its gaudy exterior.

I go out of my way to stay at Fairmont properties because the concierge usually provides superior service prior to my arrival with my dog. I prefer the older properties because the walls are thicker and have better sound insulation :p As long as the room is clean, I'm okay with it being dated. Peeling wallpaper, dirty bathrooms (hair all over the shower walls) and a prior guest's underwear under the bed are pet hazards and just plain gross. Luckily the room is usually double checked (I request it in my profile) and I get a decent room.

However, when I am not traveling with my pet, I stay at whatever is the most convenient to the group I am traveling with & hopefully something that is part of an award program I'm in.

Banff. Rooms in rough condition and subpar service.

Maybe my perception is skewed as I always hit Lake Louise first and have a phenomenal experience?

Banff is resting on its laurels, in my view, and is highly dependent upon the tour bus and conference crowd (as is Lake Louise, to some extent).

I've been told that some of the Lake Louise rooms (in particular, those for the masses) are tiny, with no air conditioning, and not particularly memorable except for their deficiencies (I've never stayed in those rooms, so I can't confirm the statement). The gold floor at Lake Louise is quite nice though, with a better breakfast selection than I've experienced on other gold floor properties.

In Banff, I have yet to stay in a higgly-piggly room that did not appear to be at least 15 years out-of-date, with a lumpy and too-soft mattress, and of shoe-box proportions. I have, however, always been given a room with a very nice view of the falls and valley. That being said, I only stay at Banff on the Escape to Willow Stream Spa package, and only in the off-season. Otherwise, it is just too expensive for what you get: not good value for the money at all.

Banff is resting on its laurels, in my view, and is highly dependent upon the tour bus and conference crowd (as is Lake Louise, to some extent).

I've been told that some of the Lake Louise rooms (in particular, those for the masses) are tiny, with no air conditioning, and not particularly memorable except for their deficiencies (I've never stayed in those rooms, so I can't confirm the statement). The gold floor at Lake Louise is quite nice though, with a better breakfast selection than I've experienced on other gold floor properties.

In Banff, I have yet to stay in a higgly-piggly room that did not appear to be at least 15 years out-of-date, with a lumpy and too-soft mattress, and of shoe-box proportions. I have, however, always been given a room with a very nice view of the falls and valley. That being said, I only stay at Banff on the Escape to Willow Stream Spa package, and only in the off-season. Otherwise, it is just too expensive for what you get: not good value for the money at all.

CLL and BSH Fairmont Rooms are the same size per advertised specs..

As for the quality of mattress.. we've never had an issue with the mattress and bedding quality, except for our request for hypoallergenic pillows and duvets.. which sometimes are forgotten equally accross different Fairmonts equally..

CLL and BSH Fairmont Rooms are the same size per advertised specs..


Not quite. Fiarmont rooms at Lake Louise are 165sq.ft., just a bit bigger than a shoebox, must be the smallest room in any Fairmont hotel. Unless you plan to spend the entire day out and about, I´d recommend not to book that room category.

Fairmont rooms at the Banff Springs start at 250sq.ft, while not large, they don´t feel as claustophic and 250sq.ft.-300sq.ft. si the norm for a standard room..

Not quite. Fiarmont rooms at Lake Louise are 165sq.ft., just a bit bigger than a shoebox, must be the smallest room in any Fairmont hotel. Unless you plan to spend the entire day out and about, I´d recommend not to book that room category.

Fairmont rooms at the Banff Springs start at 250sq.ft, while not large, they don´t feel as claustophic and 250sq.ft.-300sq.ft. si the norm for a standard room..

Over the years, BSH Fairmont Rooms have been marketed as 165 sq ft, and recently been remarketed to being larger..

As a commercial property owner, AFAIK BSH has recently applied a measurement method called BOMA that includes hallways, common areas.. to communicate (gross up) more square feet to the consumer for the exact same room marketed. We've stayed in one BSH Fairmont Room, before becoming FPC elite back in 03.. I can assure you, it was a shoe box, with Valley View, marketed at 165 sq ft..

The room is only big enough for the king size bed.. and the bathroom was pretty small..

Over the years, BSH Fairmont Rooms have been marketed as 165 sq ft, and recently been remarketed to being larger..

As a commercial property owner, AFAIK BSH has recently applied a measurement method called BOMA that includes hallways, common areas.. to communicate (gross up) more square feet to the consumer for the exact same room marketed. We've stayed in one BSH Fairmont Room, before becoming FPC elite back in 03.. I can assure you, it was a shoe box, with Valley View, marketed at 165 sq ft..

The room is only big enough for the king size bed.. and the bathroom was pretty small..

If your assumption is correct, this is quite ridiculous. Taking common areas and hallways into consideration when calculating the size of a room? I can see the point to a certain degree with commercial/residential buildings where there are communal areas, but hotel rooms?

165sq.ft. is TINY, basically it´s the minimum size you need to include:

- an inwards opening door (10sq.ft.)
- a bathrrom with a bathtub (min. 45sq.ft.)
- a Kind bed with a narrow walking path around it (90sq.ft.)
- a closet (5sq.ft.)
- minibar/TV (5sq.ft.)

Add a window sill, desk or even a waste paper basket, and you can add a sq.ft. each.

I know these mediocre rooms exist at Lake Louise, but fortunately haven´t seen them at the Banff Springs.

If your assumption is correct, this is quite ridiculous. Taking common areas and hallways into consideration when calculating the size of a room? I can see the point to a certain degree with commercial/residential buildings where there are communal areas, but hotel rooms?

165sq.ft. is TINY, basically it´s the minimum size you need to include:

- an inwards opening door (10sq.ft.)
- a bathrrom with a bathtub (min. 45sq.ft.)
- a Kind bed with a narrow walking path around it (90sq.ft.)
- a closet (5sq.ft.)
- minibar/TV (5sq.ft.)

Add a window sill, desk or even a waste paper basket, and you can add a sq.ft. each.

I know these mediocre rooms exist at Lake Louise, but fortunately haven´t seen them at the Banff Springs.

Office Buildings and buildings in general around the world subscribe to the BOMA method.. and yes I've stayed in a Fairmont Room in BSH when they were advertising it as 165 sq ft.

Funny, case law upholds BOMA.. and I've talked to numerous leasing consultations of my tenants over the years, and they have no problem with BOMA because of its universally accepted practice internationally,.

PLUS, Fairmont rooms still exist at BSH, and they haven't done a renovation where BSH change the size of rooms as long as I've been FPC.. Its been 8 years as a frequent guest at BSH..

and yes, the way you describe the room is exactly what the Fairmont room was.. no room to walk and navigate..

Edit: http://www.nationalparkreservations.com/banff_lake_louise_banff_springs_hotel.php

Old measurement of the Fairmont Room at 185 sq ft.. I'll see if I can dig up some more old measurements..

Edit 2: http://www.nationalparktravel.com/banff_springs_hotel.htm

"Fairmont Room
Fairmont rooms are well appointed, cozy guestrooms equipped with all standard amenities. Located throughout the resort, they are comfortable for two occupants.

Bed Type: one King, one Queen, or two Twins
Size: approximately 162 sq. ft.
View: Fairmont rooms are located on the mountain side of the resort."

Bingo.. Proof that the Fairmont room used to be 165 sq ft.. I guess less with this source..

Edit 3: http://www.banffvacations.net/banff.html

"Fairmont Room: Located in the Main and Manor wings, Fairmont rooms are comfortable for two occupants.
Bed Type: one King, one Queen, two Twins, or one Queen bed plus one Twin bed
Size: 162 sq. ft.
View: Woodlands and Mountains

Fairmont View Room: Fairmont View rooms are well-appointed guest rooms equipped with all standard amenities. These cozy rooms offer a variety of beautiful valley side views. Best suited for two occupants, they have a chair and table. Available on non-smoking floors only.
Bed Type: one King, one Queen or two Single beds
Size: 162 sq. ft.
View: Valley Side"

Another Source demonstrating 162 sq ft for Fairmont Room

Edit 4:http://www.travimp.com/hotel.php?msg=yycfbs

"Fairmont, Distinctly furnished and cozy in character, the charming Fairmont rooms are designed with the two of you in mind. In these rooms you will find all of the traditional services and amenities for a comfortable stay. Conveniently located throughout the resort, Fairmont rooms offer value and comfort, and feature a variety of majestic mountain vistas. Rooms are 162 square feet.

• Fairmont rooms are located on the mountain side of the resort. Bedding: 1 king bed or 1 queen bed or 2 twin beds."

I'm noticing now multiple sources exist on the old measurement of 162 sq ft.. But I think there's enough proof here to establish that Fairmont Rooms used to be marketed 162 sq ft..

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9700; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.461 Mobile Safari/534.8+)

Well after all this, it turns out that next week I'll be staying a night at each of the:
Fairmont Vancouver
Edmonton
Winnipeg
And possibly Calgary

I'm noticing now multiple sources exist on the old measurement of 162 sq ft.. But I think there's enough proof here to establish that Fairmont Rooms used to be marketed 162 sq ft..

Thanks for digging up those links. Interesting, but equally irritating, especially when the size of the same room suddenly is advertised as 50% larger. I don't mind variations of 10%, but >50% is more than irritating.

My impression is some of these properties have better/renovated rooms, and much less desirable rooms.

I stayed at the Palliser a few years ago over the winter. Booked a standard Fairmont room, no FPC status. I got a spacious room with high ceilings, everything was in excellent condition.

Lake Louise: First time booked a Fairmont room, no FPC status and got upgraded to a 300-400sqft room (no idea which type). Second time booked a shoebox and received one (not complaining...). LL is a property you would have to be nuts to book the lowest category room, unless your staying for a very short time.

Queen Elizabeth: Very small rooms, but everything was in reasonable condition.

Fairmont Vancouver: Booked a Gold room, everything was very nice. Room was still rather small though.

Chateau Laurier: Rather unimpressive, small rooms.

I love the history of all of these hotels, if the price was fairly reasonable I would still stay at them. If there newer competition is significantly cheaper I wouldn't have an issue jumping ship though.

Having been on several cruises in cabins under 250 square feet gotta say this view of the Fairmont Room at BSH looks like it's 250 sq. ft to me:

http://mediaserver.vrxstudios.com/flash/app/flashviewer.htm?id=18151.60796&template=131&width=572&height=680#

Could it be the former sizing, which I noted wasn't from Fairmont itself, exluded the bathroom in calculating room square footage? Otherwise I can't see Fairmont suddenly making up new room dimensions on a whim. That is, of course, MHO only.

Having been on several cruises in cabins under 250 square feet gotta say this view of the Fairmont Room at BSH looks like it's 250 sq. ft to me:

http://mediaserver.vrxstudios.com/flash/app/flashviewer.htm?id=18151.60796&template=131&width=572&height=680#

Could it be the former sizing, which I noted wasn't from Fairmont itself, exluded the bathroom in calculating room square footage? Otherwise I can't see Fairmont suddenly making up new room dimensions on a whim. That is, of course, MHO only.

Renovations in terms of movement of walls hasn't been performed at the property.. Rooms have been updated, but structural room size changes no.. so the next category down would be moderate view, and simply doesn't exist.. There was too many Fairmont rooms to all of a sudden dissappear overnight..

But its smart of Fairmont to remeasure and market the rooms at the maximum square feet they can.. I would do that too.. and have done so for our commercial and office buildings accross the board.. Simply, increased NOI means higher property values.. In the hotel business, perception is everything.. If a customer feels

I should clarify BOMA and the standards of measuring.. Not only common area can come into play, but also measuring to the exterior walls (instead of the inside wall) will add square footage as well.. BSH is over a hundred years old.. We all would have noticed a major renovation like this going on.. there are alot of guts behind those walls..

In the hotel business, perception is everything.. If a customer feels

That may be.

However, if a hotel is marketing and claiming that the square footage of a room is 250, and doesn't state that the calculation includes completely unusable space (such as that included in exterior walls and covered up by drywall) and/or common area space (such as hallways, which hardly can be considered to be part of one's "room"), and a guest brings a tape measure and does some calculating and finds out that his room is really only around 165 square feet, what do you think that the guest is going to "perceive"?

Can anyone say "class action lawsuit"?

I would do that too.. and have done so for our commercial and office buildings accross the board.. Simply, increased NOI means higher property values.. In the hotel business, perception is everything.. If a customer feels

I should clarify BOMA and the standards of measuring.. Not only common area can come into play, but also measuring to the exterior walls (instead of the inside wall) will add square footage as well..

That is ridiculous. But I can't say I am surprised...businesses seem to not be able to pass up newer and better ways of lying, cheating and stealing.

That is ridiculous. But I can't say I am surprised...businesses seem to not be able to pass up newer and better ways of lying, cheating and stealing.

In a legal manner as well.;)

Caselaw on BOMA is irrefutable.. challenge it in court, and those in the industry will wonder what you are doing..

because 10 out 10 times you'll lose.. and the court usually sides with the tenant..

Industry standards.. this method of measurement is above board.. even though the optics look less than honest..

In a legal manner as well.;)

Caselaw on BOMA is irrefutable.. challenge it in court, and those in the industry will wonder what you are doing..

From my limited research on the topic, it seems that BOMA applies only to measuring office space.

In fact, a law firm info-page (from New Hampshire, but still) states:

The BOMA Standard is intended to apply only to office space, and has no application to industrial, retail, or residential space.

Cite: http://www.jk9.com/boma_standard.htm

Accordingly, I'm not sure that any "BOMA is industry standard" defense would have any real application in a suit where the claimaint is arguing that the square footage of a hotel room has been deceptively or inaccurately advertised or calculated.

From my limited research on the topic, it seems that BOMA applies only to measuring office space.

In fact, a law firm info-page (from New Hampshire, but still) states:



Cite: http://www.jk9.com/boma_standard.htm

Accordingly, I'm not sure that any "BOMA is industry standard" defense would have any real application in a suit where the claimaint is arguing that the square footage of a hotel room has been deceptively or inaccurately advertised or calculated.

I concede that my experience is from an office and commercial perspective.. I emphasize commercial space, because it is not office.. and is fully subscribed method of measurement by Measure Masters in Calgary and surrounding areas..

What is commercial space.. Anything that is main floor shopping strip centres, or if a shopping mall such as West Edmonton Mall, Calgary's Chinook Centre and Bankers' Hall.. including shopping centres with second floor office..

My experience stems from talking with many leasing consultants who negotiate on behalf of clients who are tenants at our centres.. a few of these leasing consultants conduct seminars on leasing and BOMA around the world..

Edit: BOMA for Commercial

http://www.boma.org/MeasurementStandards/Pages/RetailStandard.aspx

BOMA for Industrial

http://www.buildingareameasurement.com/bomasior.htm

BOMA for Hotel Condos

http://www.xmeasures.com/xmForumDiscussion.php?tID=77

So there is a forum for Hotel Condos standard of measuring.. and AFAIK hotels may fall into the commercial category of BOMA international standards as well..

Surfing the net.. its quite evident that BOMA isn't a standard that serves just office, but as demonstrated by a few links here, it serves office, commercial, industrial and hotel condos in specialty related standards..