Originally Posted by
umustbjokim
Planning a week in London in December, hoping for some degree of normalcy by then. Looking at Hyde Park Hilton (52k/night) versus Park Lane Hilton (80k/night). SInce stay is a week, the points difference is 168k - not insignificant but not so much that it's a no-brainer. A couple of questions:
It strikes me as a resonable differential. Park Lane is a big hotel right on the edge of Mayfair, not far from the former US Embassy. Hyde Park is much smaller and slightly out of the centre of things (but I guess it's close to the current Russian Embassy!). So the comparison would be Upper East Side versus perhaps the less fashionable bits of Chelsea. Both hotels have reviews elsewhere in this forum. They both have their merits, Hyde Park has more restaurants and cafés nearby, Park Lane has Oxford Street and Piccadilly within walking distance. They both have the park at the door, which is more enjoyable in summer than winter. The room sizes are small by US standards, but probably about average for London. Apart from the Lounge, the other key thing missing in the Hyde Park hotel is no gym, plus they have outsourced their restaurant to Aubade (which has pluses as well as minuses). Both have good public transport in terms of the tube nearby, the Park Lane is also well located for a lot of bus services.
Overall I thnk someone would legitimately choose Hyde Park to save money / points, it's still central, and if you are primarily going to be out and about every day then it will do the job. Park Lane is essentially location, location, location, plus of course a good view from the upper floors. In terms of a festive feeling, probably Park Lane is better due to Oxford Stree and the more chi-chi shops of Mayfair.