Tierra Patagonia, Chile - really nice but not a fit
#17
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,334
After receiving a PM from the FTer that suffered the epic fail in question (along with the gory details), I am no longer considering a stay at Awasi Iguazu. I guess it's back to going with the property that has long been the default choice in the area.... Belmond? Or is there any place else worth considering?
That would be the Belmond, in the park on the Brazilian side. It's four star, not luxury, and the standard rooms seem small. In the Argentinian side, there was the Sheraton in the park, but IIRC it's closed for renovations and reflagging.
#18
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1,642
According to TripAdvisor reviews, the Sheraton is now the Melia and remains open while renovations are completed. I stayed there for four nights when it was a Sheraton and also went to the Belmond before it was acquired by that group. The Melia is a modern structure which probably would not be built today. However, it is not a high-rise. We loved staying there -- the views are superb and there is direct access to the park. We travelled there independently but there were several tour groups. That didn't seem to impair the overall experience.
The falls from the Argentina side are quite different from the Brazilian side so people should try and see both. You get seriously close and wet in Argentina and get vast panoramas from Brazil. The Belmond is a colonial era place with stunning gardens. It was quite run down when I was there (before the Belmond takeover). If I were going back I would definitely stay at both again.
The falls from the Argentina side are quite different from the Brazilian side so people should try and see both. You get seriously close and wet in Argentina and get vast panoramas from Brazil. The Belmond is a colonial era place with stunning gardens. It was quite run down when I was there (before the Belmond takeover). If I were going back I would definitely stay at both again.
Last edited by Pausanias; May 18, 2018 at 4:01 am
#19
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,334
When I went, the Belmond wasn't at all run down but the rooms seemed a bit basic for even a four star hotel. Service wasn't nearly at the level of its sister property, the Copacabana Palace in Rio. OTOH, my FHR bookings gave me a one category upgrade at the Belmond Park and an upgrade to a corner ocean view small one bedroom suite at the Copacabana Palace, so these stays were very different experiences at very different prices. [I had one of the one bedroom suites with the huge terrace for monkeys on a C + P booking using SPG SNAs at the Sheraton.]
#20
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Enroute to ? & likely flying in ' A ':)
Programs: TPPS, UA, EK ...; Marriott BONVOY , HH, GP, GC..
Posts: 4,211
.. and also went to the Belmond before it was acquired by that group. The Melia is a modern structure which probably would not be built today. However, it is not a high-rise. We loved staying there -- the views are superb and there is direct access to the park. We travelled there independently but there were several tour groups. That didn't seem to impair the overall experience.
The falls from the Argentina side are quite different from the Brazilian side so people should try and see both. You get seriously close and wet in Argentina and get vast panoramas from Brazil. The Belmond is a colonial era place with stunning gardens. It was quite run down when I was there (before the Belmond takeover). If I were going back I would definitely stay at both again.
The falls from the Argentina side are quite different from the Brazilian side so people should try and see both. You get seriously close and wet in Argentina and get vast panoramas from Brazil. The Belmond is a colonial era place with stunning gardens. It was quite run down when I was there (before the Belmond takeover). If I were going back I would definitely stay at both again.
When I went, the Belmond wasn't at all run down but the rooms seemed a bit basic for even a four star hotel. Service wasn't nearly at the level of its sister property, the Copacabana Palace in Rio. OTOH, my FHR bookings gave me a one category upgrade at the Belmond Park and an upgrade to a corner ocean view small one bedroom suite at the Copacabana Palace, so these stays were very different experiences at very different prices. [I had one of the one bedroom suites with the huge terrace for monkeys on a C + P booking using SPG SNAs at the Sheraton.]
Appreciated being able to stroll down to view the falls whenever we felt like it when on the hotel grounds . And without having to jostle with the masses - most times .
It certainly was not run down , perhaps it was the colonial style which makes it seem so .
The main restaurant was always busy - due to the holidays ?
Sorry , just realised that this may not belong on this thread . May have to do a mini TR as it is the only way I can post photos . On another thread as this is Chile & we were only in a hotel in Santiago not Tierra Pantagonia!
Last edited by FlyerEC; May 18, 2018 at 7:58 am
#21
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1,642
Can I just confirm that the Hotel des Cataratas was a bit run down when I went there in 2007, the year when (I think) before Belmond acquired it. Renovations began in 2008 or 2009. Clearly my previous post was not written with my usual crystalline clarity!
#22
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Enroute to ? & likely flying in ' A ':)
Programs: TPPS, UA, EK ...; Marriott BONVOY , HH, GP, GC..
Posts: 4,211
You should try return and do a comparison .