Originally Posted by
LapLap
I'll give it a go - you can decide for yourself if the advice is useful
The Park Hyatt is one of the most iconic hotels in the world and for years set the benchmark standard for high end hotels in Tokyo (whereas the MO never did and got eclipsed almost immediately... I know tripadvisor puts it at number one, but that isn't what I see reflected elsewhere). The PH may not be the shining starlet it once was, but it's still a queen, has cult status, so out of the two, this is where I'd pick as an 'experience'.
However.... if you're early to bed and early riser types who like sedate high end shopping then Nishi-Shinjuku might not be the best location for you. If Shinjuku doesn't already draw you through its reputation you're probably better off near Tokyo station.
My concern is that you might feel a bit short changed by your experience at the MO. The over-riding feeling I've got from the people who stay and then report here is one of 'underwhelment'. On FT, the Four Seasons Marunouchi seems to be much preferred.
Well now I'm worried. I'm arriving at the MO in 2 days, a decision reached after after days of excruciating research. I looked at the PH, but in the end decided against it since this is my first true leisure trip to Tokyo and I wanted a more convenient location.
Tripadvisor ratings are generally pretty balanced, and it jives with all of my experiences, and there is nothing less than a 5/5 review out of 60 reviews! Are the guests who experienced poor service are not reporting it? By comparison, the PH had 8 reviews under 4/5 out of 80. Obviously, all these reviews are to be taken cautiously, as everybody has different backgrounds and biases, but a perfect rating (other than several complaints of service at times, and the lack of a pool) isn't easy to get.
Some other thoughts:
- Adjectives like "underwhelming" are extremely subjective. What does that mean? I've stayed in the best hotels in the world, from Pens to FS to MOs, so I should know what makes a great hotel. The context matters too much to being over/underwhelmed that it's inadequate to generalize. But someone else may see things differently and their perception would still be valid.
- Cult status and being "iconic" mean nothing to me if the service isn't the best. There are many iconic hotels that are awful.
- I've also read several comments here about the relative quality of the bath amenities, something which means almost nothing to me because they represent such a small % of the rate. Service, location, and facilities are the most important to me.
- One FTer wrote in another thread that the PH is able to maintain the highest average room rates and the MO cannot. Interesting, though I'd like to know more about the source of that info and how the numbers work out. Is it because the PH has more suites, are there other factors, etc? Stats like that mean nothing without some explanation.
- I read back all the reviews on FT, and some of them are pretty old, some back when the hotel just opened. As everyone here ought to know, hotels are living, breathing entities and they change all the time, hence the need for the most up-to-date reviews.
Anyway, sorry for the lengthy post, but I sometimes wonder about the neutrality of hotel reviews here on FT (no offense to anyone here). Please don't interpret this post as an attack on anyone in particular, because I truly value your experiences and expertise (two things I lack in regards to Japan). I'd love to hear your thoughts, and feel free to tell me if I'm wrong.
Obviously, I'm a little worried now that I may have made the wrong choice, but we'll find out soon enough!!!