SanDiego1K

I've been predominantly a chain hotel person. I have status in a number of chains. I get upgraded and rarely face a small hotel room. Thus, I haven't paid much attention to sq meters or sq ft. Recently, though, as I book more luxury hotels, I've realized I need to be mindful about it. I've had some rooms under 20 sq meters. If my husband is with me, it's a totally unacceptable size. We're bumping against each other trying to get thru the room.

I'm still trying to decide what the minimum is for me. Hotel websites give a dimension that includes the bathroom space. Thus, a number can feel very different in one hotel versus another depending on the split between the bathroom and the bedroom. And the number can feel very different depending on how well the hotel lays out the furniture. So, this number is very soft. I've decided 25 sq meters is the minimum that I want, and I'll be happier at 30 sq meters and above.

This really matters when I stay at luxury hotels. I need to book the room in which I will be happy to stay. Yes, there are sometimes Virtuoso upgrades and the like, but I don't count on them. It's frustrating when a hotel website does a very poor job of explaining the various room categories and their sizes.

What about you? Do you think about room size when you book? If so, what size do you seek?

Kagehitokiri

you are definitely not alone here - the topic of small rooms comes up here regularly, especially with new construction and renovations, where its a matter of current decision making. (and questioning that decision making.) also things like combination showers and no tubs in bathrooms. also as you mentioned, design in terms of shape/walls, as well as furniture placement. someone just recently brought furniture placement up, and i posted that i recall Groombridge discussing this in several of his reports, and that it also came up in one of the feltrinelli threads. ah, i think it was in one of the recent vegas threads, the larger MO vs FS report, where they compared the rooms including in these terms.

that is also primary position here. in some cases there are confirmed upgrades via virtuoso and amex centurion FHR, and possibly LHW unlimited, for example. but the latter two are expensive, and ive not seen any of the (i believe few) LHW unlimited members here say they have always received a confirmed upgrade. and there may be real limitations on hotel brand and location based on which program.

i agree - the disparity between room and bathroom can be huge, as well as which is emphasized. re size, while some care very little about room, and others care very little about bathroom, clearly (luxury) hotels need a minimum amount of balance between the two. variations, including sizes, within categories can be problematic, especially if variation is quite dramatic. and having little to no information on website can be a hassle in terms of time. (bad sites is another topic here.)

sometimes other factors "may" help offset size >
hotel offerings including number of rooms
location, in terms of physical site
(both being value/price factors)

gegarrenton

For me, I would say 35sm is the minimum for two people to move around comfortably, but you really have to take room layout into account, and that varies wildly, especially dealing with luxury properties that are in older cities and dealing with historic buildings and codes.

BENLEE

I find the room size published on hotel websites to be rather inaccurate, ie one hotel's 50sqm can be much bigger than the other. The perceived room size and how spacious it is to me will be influenced by number of furniture, how bulky they are and very critically, how much free space ( walkable space ) is in the room. One really has to see the room to be sure. Personally, I am kind of claustrophobic so anything less than 40sqm will not do and 50 - 60sqm is the norm. Preferably the room comes with high ceiling as well.

RichardInSF

I guess I am at about 400sqft minimum which is 40sqmt, although slightly smaller can work if the room is not jammed full of furniture. Even 400 sqft can fail if large wardrobes or strange massive pieces of furniture (think Andaz in NYC if you have ever been to any of them) fill the room and rob space.

I am seriously tired of room clerks and assistant managers who chuckle patronizingly at me and say, "You Americans are always wanting large rooms, but we here in Europe are all used to smaller rooms," sometimes still adding (I kid you not!), "because of the war."

DownUnderFlyer

I am not sure whether I have a specific size in mind but I do know that the Hudson Hotel in NY is below whatever size one might think of.

SeamasterLux

Excellent question that often comes to mind, especially when you're talking about Luxury boutique hotels. It's very important to stress that how the bedroom is arranged is also of crucial importance. I stayed at the Munchen Palace in a single room over the week-end. Size was 18 sqm but layout was well thought out with a lot of storage space in the walls which made the room look more spacious and overall it was more than enough.

(For some pictures, you can check my review on TripAdvisor): http://www.tripadvisor.fr/ShowUserRe...ECK_RATES_CONT

But I was alone and the room was cute.

Normally I wouldn't go for something below 25sqm and just like you with 30 sqm, I'm starting to be happy, especially when I'm staying with my girlfriend. 35-40 sqm is an ideal size. Over this, it's more extra space but it's not really needed I would say.

offerendum

I normally only book Suites, so I expect a big room. What´s acceptable depends on the layout. I had 30 sqm rooms which seemed more spacious than 45 sqm room. In general I think a suite with less than 60 sqm is a little bit small. Less than 40 sqm is (normally) inacceptable. A suite with 25sqm is a joke.

MikeFromTokyo

For a short stay the minimum room size I can tolerate is around 30~square meters, assuming the room is well laid out, the bathroom is spacious, and there is adequate closet space. Whenever possible, I always want at least a premier room or junior suite of at least 50 square meters. I like suites to be of at least 70 square meters.

The most important thing is that rooms and suites must be intelligently designed and user friendly in order to feel spacious and comfortable.

The_Daddy

Travelling alone, for business, any size works for one night sleep but in a luxury property I expect that not to be under 25/30 sqm.
For longer business stay, always alone, 35/40 minimum are required.

For holiday alone and/or with family make it "LARGERRRRR"....

5khours

King size bed, shower, toilet, and I'm fine. Quality is a lot more important to me than room size.

offerendum

True, but a room with 20 sqm can´t be proper in my eyes, even with perfect service and great furniture.

5khours

Thought we were talking minimum acceptable. If we're talking desirable, then we're looking well north of 50sqm.

Raffles

I feel happy when I see 40 sq m, but as that is tricky to get in cities I can settle at 30 sq m.

Once had a 12 sq m room in Stockholm (The Grand) ....

Pierre&Cédric

For a room less than 25sqm is not acceptable.
I am usually happy with something around 50sqm.
But lay out is more important than size only.

Depending on the occasion I prefer to have a suite with two separate rooms (as Pierre usually wakes up later than me). For a suite less than 70sqm is probably too small.

For city hotels one of the best lay-out I have in mind is Deluxe Suite in Bvlgari London (no powder room so no lost space but double access to the unique one from bathroom side and foyer side + narrow but long bathroom with lots of natural light and superb bathtub).