I will be traveling to Tokyo in Dec with wife and 2yo child. Having a difficult time choosing MOT or PHT. Any advice would be appreciated.

Surely this would depend on which area is most convenient for your plans in Tokyo.

Tokyo is huge and these hotels are located in completely different parts of the city.

Without knowing how long you'll be staying, what you intend to do there and how you propose getting around I can't see how you could get a meaningful response here.

Do you have any opinions on the hotels' locations?

On which criteria would you like to base your preference?

There are photos of both properties taken by actual guests in this thread:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=732787

The MO is in post #2 (Tokyo Station Area)

The PH is in post #5 (Shinjuku Station Area)

I personally trust these photos much more than those published in official websites promoting the hotels.

We are staying in Tokyo for 4 days. Looking to stay at the best property for location and convenience. I also read that Grande Hyatt is in a very good location but isn't as luxe as MOT or PHT. Which 5* property would you stay if this is your first visit to Tokyo. Thanks.

Welcome to FT.

I suggest that you use the search function - You will find several thorough reviews of both properties in this forum and the luxury hotels forum.

Last time I looked at the comments, the MO got high marks for the facilities but quite a lot of criticism for making people feel they were getting four-star service in a five-star hotel. PHT appears to have the edge there.

As LapLap points out, though, the two hotels are on opposite sides of Tokyo. So your choice may depend more on the things you plan to do than on the difference in quality.

Not to mention FS Maronouchi, or the Conrad in Shiodome.......and one can't forget the board favorites such as the "New Otani" and Shinagawa Prince.......

!!!!Sarcasm alert!!!!

Seriously now - you say you want the best hotel for location and convenience. It really does depend on you which hotel is the best - both are well located and convenient... but for different things. As I said before, without knowing what you intend to do in Tokyo and what your priorities there are, I still think it is impossible to advise you.

For many people, Shinjuku is the most important area, many others prefer Tokyo station. I'm sure you'd find people here could argue for either area extremely convincingly, and they'd all be right.

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. My natural question for someone with an infant is - have you considered getting a (Japanese) suite at a very slightly lower end property?

Really...seems lots of folks on here love those 2 hotels...........humf ! Shouldn't you be transfering planes in Fiumucino or Malpensa........

For the OP, there are many other luxury hotels that would want your business in Tokyo. The Four Seasons Marunouchi is very central, Grand Hyatt in Roppongi, Conrad in Shiodome etc. The Park Hyatt as you know is in Shinjuku..........

Here are few threads from the luxury forum:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...ighlight=tokyo

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...ighlight=tokyo

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...ighlight=tokyo

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...ighlight=tokyo

You know, on a touristic visit, I'd be strongly tempted to recommend trying the brand new Peninsula hotel, even though I haven't seen it yet (I've only visited the pre-opening office and visited with the GM who, as most of us here know, is the same person who brought the Park Hyatt Tokyo to its iconic status).

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!!!

'Experience' is relative, my answer was based around my perceptions of two hotels - neither of which would I - without status and in ordinary rooms - choose to stay at considering the competition (even on an expense account).

Staying at either hotel in an ordinary standard room I wouldn't expect much from either - PH, old and freyed - MO very small and a little 'stuffy'.

Best advice I think you can get is through photos by people who stayed at the locations as even service standards can be perceived and valued differently (and these are almost universally excellent in Tokyo, although truly superlative staff in this country can crop up anywhere and aren't limited to 5 star hotels)

With this in mind, and to help others decide for themselves I made up this thread
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=732787
I personally have had no surprises whatsoever having first evaluated hotels using the Japanese photo blogs I've included - better than FT opinions (including mine) or tripadvisor, the photos are clear, upfront and honest.

'Underwhelmed' just means that after paying a huge premium for your room you arrive and wonder if it really is significantly better than what you get at a decent 4 star - a small room, old & worn furnishings or a lackluster view are classic contributors to a feeling of 'underwhelment'.

Don't forget that an awful lot of people do set store by 'experience' - the fact that the PH was the setting for Lost in Translation actually means a lot to a lot of people (although not to me, didn't like the film much... I think the word I need is 'underwhelment' due to its sallow shallowness)

I take it you speak from 'experience'. No room at the PHT is old and frayed, and no room at the MO is small or stuffy. Period.

Although the MO got a well-deserved bum rap early on, later reports have been very positive. A colleague of mine has stayed regularly at the MO, Pen, and the Conrad, and he thought the MO was the best of all three. I have found the service at the F&B outlets at the MO better than the PHT in the last few times I've been there. This may have to do with the fact that the PHT continues to draw the crowds in 14 years after opening, and thus the customer/staff ratio may be not be as good as that at the MO. There may be something there about the PHT being iconic, perhaps.

But personally, I'd take the PHT. The pool/spa/gym area and the NY Bar are timeless. But if location as a first-time sightseer is important to you, the MO may be a better choice. Although the first time I went to Tokyo, quite a long long time ago, I stayed at what was then the Keio Plaza Intercontinental in Shinjuku. The area was fairly new then, and it left a permanent impression on what the future was going to look like.

'Experience' is relative, my answer was based around my perceptions of two hotels - neither of which would I - without status and in ordinary rooms - choose to stay at considering the competition (even on an expense account).

---
No direct experience of the MO, but I did visit a friend at the PH
Her room was pretty much exactly like this one (but a little smaller):
http://sheepcote.jp/rum/bbs/diary/di...de=view&no=183
http://sheepcote.jp/rum/bbs/diary/di...de=view&no=184

Furniture had definitely seen better days, even though it was well maintained. Not somewhere I'd choose to stay myself. I'm sure it's better in the premium rooms or if you are upgraded.

I stand corrected re the MO - I had the impression the rooms were well under 40sqm, but I was wrong (50m2).

The PH has had recent furniture and electronic replacements/upgrades. Incidentally, the room photos you provide don't show worn furniture and I've never seen worn furniture in this hotel.

Still -- and I am speaking as a long time PHT guest who will continue to stay and enjoy this hotel on every trip I make to Tokyo -- I have the sense that the "continuous improvement" work ethic so characteristic of Japan's best companies is not as agressively followed at the PH as it was, say, 5 years ago. This is not a major problem now but may be in another 5 years.

Interesting observation. Perhaps the Michelin grandees that deigned it a "4 star" hotel instead of 5 may be serving as canaries in the mine? Or maybe it will give them a goal to shoot for and get off their laurels.

Instead of a 4 or 5 star western style hotel, I'd try to find a nice ryokan and have the traditional Japanese experience... ^

Where did you wind up?