flyerbjorn

The regular buffet breakfast is all the cold items, including bagels and salmon (yum!). The upgrade is for the hot items: pancakes, waffles, eggs, etc.

Btw, this is roughly the same breakfast deal as the Park Central. The W has an a la carte menu. The platinum breakfast only covers $15, or roughly the cheapest food item, plus coffee and juice.

Both at the Park Central and the Palace, the staff often waives the upgrade fee when I'm by myself.

lcpteck

I only like the Breakfast at this hotel, not the rooms though. Yeah you can always check the Platinum Breakfast thread.

dblue

Planning a trip to SFO with the GF and never been. Am Marriott/SPG Gold and trying to compare The Palace, Marriott Union Square and Marriott Fisherman's Wharf on similar rates. Any idea how this would compare and any idea what sort of benefits I would expect as a Gold at The Palace (usually stay in Marriotts).

764toHI

Go with the Marriott Union Sq - SPG Gold does not get you much.

flyerbjorn

A nicer room if you're lucky. Be aware that this hotel tends to be pretty full.

EuropeanPete

I had a pleasant stay here after trying out the St Regis a couple of weeks ago. The St Regis is the better hotel, but probably not at 2x the cost of the Palace which is occasionally what the difference is.

I leaned on my Ambassador for a favor for this stay and was upgraded to a Palace Suite, one level below the Presidential Suite. The suite was huge with a modern four poster bed as its star feature. The quality of the furnishings of the living room, the bedroom and the bathroom can stand up to almost any luxury hotel of the world and reminded me style-wise of a tasteful Peninsula. The building itself is spectacular and classifies as "historic" in a US context.

Service in and to the room was excellent, with perfect execution of the little things - like room service which was setup on a table already in the room with the detail and precision of a restaurant, right down to a flower in a vase.

The downside is that the building itself is a cornerstone of the center of San Francisco and has to deal with a lot of non hotel guests as a resort. It feels a bit like a train station at times and as a resort the staff don't have the time to treat people as personally as in more conventional luxury hotels. While you get benefits from this in the beautiful breakfast buffet in the Garden Lounge ($7 Platinum upcharge gets you a $39 breakfast), there are also downsides - it was impossible to get a seat at the Pied Piper bar and I was told there was no space for me when I asked the concierge whether I could join for brunch. I understand that sometimes happens in 3* restaurants, but having your main F&B venue unavailable for higher end hotel guests is disappointing. The common area rest rooms appear to be locked with a combination code which I've never seen anywhere I wasn't scared of being shot, but I can imagine the staff have challenges - as I was leaving the hotel I passed an apparently homeless man in a dress who seemed to be pretty high in the corridor.

Similar to my experience at the St Regis, I was also disappointed at the cleanliness of the pool which was otherwise a really beautiful feature. If you're going to allow F&B service at a pool you need to clean it like an F&B location. You don't want mushy bread under your feet when you're walking around barefoot.

Overall, at least some of the rooms are beautifully done and as long as you're in your room the service is going to be flawless. Downstairs is a bit of a zoo and you just don't have the staff: guest ratio of a true luxury hotel, but I'd certainly rate it higher than the mood music on here so far.

bhrubin

The refurbished suite decor looks good, but I’m not sure I’d characterize it as reminiscent of a Peninsula! A bit too much color and not quite as clean for a Peninsula IMO.

I also find the majority of suites here to be unusually small. Especially when compared with the StR or W.

You’ve nailed it here. This always has been and continues to be my biggest issue with this property—though when rates are lower, I think this can be a great deal for most. The lobby here ironically reminds me why I wasn’t too fond of the FS or Pen in Hong Kong—just too many people, too many tourists, too much noise and crowding, mitigating any sense of luxury.

That was me.

^^^

EuropeanPete

Suite size for the Palace Suite was definitely not a problem. The website says it's 900 sq ft, but it actually felt much larger. I think it might be the tall ceilings which always create an impression of space.

The design for me was halfway between the Peninsula Bangkok and Chicago, but with less reliance on oversized furniture and marble. I've attached a photo I took of the Palace and also a stock photo of the Peninsula Chicago for comparison. The Peninsula is the one with the oversized picture of blue & white flowers.

bhrubin

Actually, I stand corrected: those do look alike! I suppose the Palace suites I saw happened to be more colorful. Thanks for sharing!

Cardboard55

This may seem like a silly question, but please indulge me.

From reading several pages of this thread (going back a number of years), the most commonly recurring point of praise is the breakfast. I don't like breakfast, don't care about breakfast amenities, and will probably at most have a cup of coffee and a bagel or muffin. Given that I put zero value on a fancy breakfast, do people still feel that this is a good place to stay in SF? It seems odd to me that people would choose a hotel because of the breakfast, but it really does seem to be the overarching theme in this thread.

I'm also considering the St. Regis. It's quite a bit more expensive, but I tend to be skeptical of "historic" hotels.

spellbound2

I forgot to post these pictures awhile ago, but we enjoyed the room, location, breakfast, and friendly people at the Palace Hotel. We'll definitely be staying here again!

flyerbjorn

I've never stayed at the St Regis, but I really like The Palace, which is my favorite hotel in SF. The location is great: It's easy to get around SF by foot, or from the Muni station next door. After the recent renovation, the rooms have a really high end feel to them. More like a high-end Japanese hotel that a US hotel. And very comfortable beds. Great staff too.

While the breakfast is really nice, I'm in the same boat. I don't really eat large breakfast buffets anymore, but The Palace do have bagels with cream cheese, salmon, etc . That's what I have in the morning.

CLEguy

In this case, "historic" is not code for "run down." It's truly a beautiful property. I don't think you would regret staying here, or at the St. Regis.

kennychenhk

Some background: I am a Marriott(and SPG) platinum member and I am planning to have a 3 days weekend trip to SF for sightseeing, I plan not to drive in SF
I am looking into booking a room at Palace Hotel or JW Marriott Union Square for a weekend stay in May.
It costs $1360 total for 3 nights at Palace hotel under Luxury Privilege rate which gives the perks of $100 credit and daily full breakfast while it costs $1260 for a rate including breakfast at the JW.
It seems easier to get upgraded in the JW and it has a lounge which is a plus
However Palace seems to be a upper scale hotel with a much better breakfast then the JW.
Anyone stayed in the two properties before or can give some recommendations for me?
Thanks!

Kacee

The JW closes its lounge on weekends. Most reports on the property in general are underwhelming (I haven't been there since it was converted from Pan Pacific). https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/marr...ancisco-5.html

In general, I think the SPG options are better than Marriott's in SF. The Palace has a good transit-central location. I'd say the location is better than the JW, which is on the edge of the tenderloin and quite a bit farther to Bart and the Muni Metro lines.