wizla

Yeah I assumed that too but he insisted on Hyde park and we spoke about it not having a lounge.......can't really comment too much as I've never stayed there but I have heard it get a slating on here.

chrism20

The Hilton Hyde Park doesn't have a lounge.

Was a bit of a shed when I was there a while back although according to the website it's had a refit.

http://www3.hilton.com/en/hotels/uni...PHN/index.html

wizla

Yeah, hence we spoke about it not having a lounge, otherwise I would have thought the same too........I guess he has a right to his opinion but the reports I've heard have not been too good

chrism20

They appear to have done that rather naughty thing that TripAdvisor allow you to do when you change names or have a seriously major refit - wipe all the old reports.

Currently there are only 134 reviews on there with over 60% scoring excellent or very good. Might have to give it another go at some point as it is a really nice old fashioned building, although not on the same scale as the Waldorf or the Trafalgar.

Back to the Waldorf though, glad to see you enjoyed it again. Is this your new "Go to" when in London?

wizla

To be honest the Waldorf is definitely my fav Hilton in the uk, however for convenience and price Canary Wharf still takes the crown.......CW is cheaper, my family and friends are in east London, I also don't have to pay congestion charge or negotiate the horrendous London traffic..... Oh and it's £49 to park at Waldorf and £20 at CW.
To answer your question, CW will remain my go to hotel but Waldorf will be for a treat

kt85

wrong thread

Simon Schus

[deleted - changed mind about posting]

GentleGiant

Looking to book this for our anniversary.

Although we are diamond are we better booking a junior suite if that is what I would like at this hotel?

Normally I just take a chance, but am concerned we will end up with something small with no view for the 3 nights.

Queen Superior is £246 or £190 in advance 'stay longer' rate
King Executive is £319 or £246 in advance 'stay longer' rate
Junior Suite is £367 or £284 in advance 'stay longer' rate
Astor Suite is £513 or £316 in advance 'stay longer' rate

Have no idea how good or bad any of the rooms are.....

To those who have stayed, what would you do?

Or.... A one bedroom suite at the conrad with lounge access for £354 under their third night free offer.

jzafar

In the past, I contacted the hotel ahead of time on a reward stay (standard room) and a manager was able to confirm a suite upgrade for about 90 GBP/night ahead of my stay. I did this a couple times. If you are paying, I'm sure they would do it.

GentleGiant

Thanks - Queen Superior is the most basic room available it seems, so is £94 cheaper so one might as well book it directly as a suite.

No basic rooms available all rooms showing as premium rooms for points.

wizla

I've never had a suite upgrade but I've heard they are very nice......as for the rooms due to the shape of the building they are all sorts of shapes and sizes, I always book basic room and request 215 , it's an executive room and sometimes receive it at check in......I don't know of any bad rooms except 104, it's next to the cleaners cupboard.
Of course it's your anniversary and by all means book a suite, I'm sure your lady will love the hotel, it's definitely my favourite.

esspeebee

Depends what you value in a hotel. The Queen Superior rooms are not large, and as wizla mentioned already they're all unique shapes and sizes due to the layout. For me that's part of the attraction; I don't need an enormous room as I generally spend most of my time in it asleep, and I get easily bored of modern cookie cutter hotel rooms, where I can't tell whether I'm in Manchester or Beijing. On that basis, this is one of my favourites in the UK, and possibly anywhere for that matter.

If you're planning on spending time in the room and value your space, then take one of the larger rooms or suites. Or the Conrad, if space and modern amenities take your fancy over old school character.

What are your plans while there? The Waldorf is a far better location if you plan on going out for shopping, food, or the theatre: five minutes' walk (if that) into Covent Garden market and all that that involves. The Conrad, on the other hand, is perfectly located for visiting Parliament.

whimsey21

Just back from London where I spent one night at the Waldorf. I had booked a queen room, and was upgraded to a "king executive" the day before check-in. My room was a reasonable size, and as the others have said, it was kind of an interesting shape. There was one window with a terrible view, but you get what you get... I had high expectations of the property given that it is Wizla's favorite-- overall I was pretty happy with my stay - the lounge was nice, though not exceptional, and the breakfast selection was great. My only real complaint is that I had requested a room away from the lifts (both in advance and when I checked in). This appeared to be the case, but I was awakened in the morning by the lift noises that drive me crazy, and discovered there was a service lift next to my room, hidden away behind an ordinary looking door. Given that I had specified my aversion to lift proximity at checkin, I was not happy in the morning.

I also stayed at the Conrad last summer. My thoughts on the comparison:

-Location: I prefer the location of the Waldorf. It was great to be right next to the theatre district and in the middle of lots of shops/restaurants, as well as a short walk from Covent Garden and Seven Dials. By contrast, as a visitor to the city, I did love the walk from the Conrad to Waterloo station in the mornings, taking me past Parliament and Big Ben and the like, but in the evenings there didn't appear to be much life in the vicinity of the hotel (I'm sure there is, but as a visitor, it isn't apparent).
-Rooms: The Conrad was more consistent on "luxury," with very nice amenities, thick towels and slippers, and great bedding. My Waldorf room was a weird mix- the towels were very nice, but the slippers were cut-rate, and the amenities were actually less nice than those I received at the Doubletree. That said, the Conrad room was more "cookie cutter" than the Waldorf; the latter did have a lot of character. The Conrad room was extremely well soundproofed, while the Waldorf room let in a noise from the lift next door. For whatever reason the Waldorf room also had a very musty smell when I walked in; I opened the window and aired it out, but it was a bit offputting. No such issue at the Conrad.
-I'd give the Waldorf the edge on the lounge. Both had a similar selection of alcohol and cheeses. When I was there, the Waldorf had 2 hot appetizers vs. several cold canapes at the Conrad. Neither had very good espresso, and neither was what I'd consider a "great" lounge offering. I liked the layout of the Waldorf lounge a bit better, as it seemed more convivial (though the Conrad lounge does have showers for early morning arrivals).
-Breakfast: I'd give the Waldorf the edge on this one also-- they had much more selection in their restaurant, and the quality seemed similar. Only advantage for the Conrad was the granola. Service at breakfast was somewhat better at the Conrad, but not bad at the Waldorf. Unfortunately both had terrible espresso (what is it with London Hilton properties and coffee?)

So the choice does come down to what you'll be doing while you're there, and how much you value the comfort of the room itself (Conrad) vs. the lounge/breakfast/location (Waldorf).

GentleGiant

Thanks. We will just be tourists for a couple of days, so as long as there is a tube station we will be fine.. I am sure whichever we opt for, we will enjoy the stay.

The train tickets are booked, just need the hotel.

​​​​​​

wizla

I mainly agree with what whimsey reports but don't forget the Waldorf has a great spa to relax in after wandering around London ....Conrad only has a small gym....just a thought.