Originally Posted by
corporate-wage-slave
I think at that level, which is essentially the finest 5% of London properties, they should all provide a luxurious and memorable stay. Trafalgar probably isn't in that 5%, but probably not too far off it. It has a great roof garden, so if the weather is kind that's a special feature of that establishment. It couldn't be more central, but as with the others the room sizes and make up vary quite a bit.
I agree completely with this and have been thinking about this a bit recently in the context of London.
In a way the SLH acquisition has made commenting in this thread more difficult. First because it has introduced a number of new 5* properties which it would be quite unlikely HH elites would have much experience of. Second because they are ultra luxury personalized service type properties which cannot really be directly compared with the two properties discussed a few days ago (Paddington vs Metropole) which most certainly can be directly compared with
each other. Plus many of us have stayed at both. Of course as time goes on this will change.
The price point of a top 5% London property can be way, way higher than a perfectly decent 4/5* full service Hilton/DT somewhere a bit further out. It can even be somewhat higher than some of the hotels reviewed extensively here which many commentators think are first class properties (I'm thinking Tower Bridge, Waldorf, Bankside, Canary Wharf, or the Conrad).
As a general observation central London hotel prices have inflated across the board. That's why looking a bit further out has become more of an option.