gabgab

operating a luxury hotel is not very technically challenging, but requires smooth and detailed personal service that can only come from years of integrating the operation with workers and facilities, therefore no matter how hard they try, a newish hotel will always be missing out on something.

anyone else think the same?

livefromtuscany

depends really - if the newly opened property is clearly superior to all alternatives (like FS Budapest when it opened), I am very likely to stay there despite possible service flaws.

another thing to consider: new properties tend to have opening specials at very favorable rates for the first months of operation. under such circumstances i am also prepared to live with (minor) service issues.

and finally, i really like to check out new properties - that's why i am always curious about new openings :-)

vuittonsofstyle

Totally depends upon who is managing the hotel/resort and who owns it!

Amankila after 3 weeks was extraordinary. Aman Sveti Stefan - also extraordinary. Wolgan Valley after 1 year - amazing, and so on and so on.

FS George V after 1 month was a disaster, but after 1 year was a sensation. There are no hard and fast rules, but generally, discovering something new and exciting is worth the risk, as long as someone trustworthy is managing it.

zigzag

Unlike you I rush to a new hotel if I know the general manager or have stayed with the hotel group before. I also consider the culture of hospitality in the country were the hotel will be located and if the hotel spends time training employees at other properties it already runs.

kevinsac

"Newness" of a property usually is not an issue of concern for me.

stimpy

You have to be careful. In Asia, IME it takes a bit longer for them to get it right and everything nailed down. But once they have it, they can be great.

In Europe, especially in places like London and Paris, they usually are good from day one. I recently toured the "about to reopen" FS London and I feel quite safe in staying there the first week.

BENLEE

Statiscally speaking, luxury hotel that have opened for some time should have more polish service and things should run "smoother" compared to newly open ones. But there are also exceptions. Being newly open, it is also likely that staff and management will be more keen to impress first time guest ( and to win them as repeating guest ) and go the extra mile in service.

mstraveler

If you are only interested in the bottom line, then a new hotel (anywhere, but some have posted, some places more likely than others), is risky. Completely understandable. If you are willing to take the incentive (they are usually priced accordingly -- at least in the beginning) and have any interest in process, evolution, how any complex process gets put together etc., then they can hold some interest and some reasonable trade off.

I am usually most interested in the "hard wired" part of the hotel that generally boot at start up, i.e. the rooms and the grounds. My concierge needs are not great . And am interested in what does not work about most anything (occupational hazard) so I can be more interested than annoyed (at my best ).

Service, even at the basics, can sometimes not be up to par. If you are most interested a well integrated housekeeping, restaurant and concierge staff then new hotels are not a good bet. I think the bottom line is that you should pick a well established property if its smooth and superior functioning is either essential or desirable for you. With few exceptions there are usually choices.

Kagehitokiri

in this economy, dont forget that things may be cut later.

(assuming not soft opening where things can vary on not being completed.)