Non-NonRev

Interesting article in todays Trib:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...i-business-hed

,

aa4ever

Good call in my opinion. Moving along with the times. I've always found many FS's too traditional (not as bad as RC) and with the MO moving into Chicago, this will definitely help FS maintain status as a premier hotel in Chicago.

DrivingRain

This is a step in the right direction IMO...although it will be hard to catch the Pen unless they find a way to re-design the FS' bathrooms (seperate tub / shower, more than 1 BR in suites), etc. But it sure doesnt hurt.

FS and RC can certainly hang with the Pen and MO when they build new hotels from the ground-up (RC G'town, FS Silicon, etc.), but it is tough to modernize up to the level of a brand new MO when your building is 30 years older.

luxury

The design sounds similar to the Washington D.C. Four Seasons reno...... but it certainly sounds nice!! Now if FS would actually move with the reno of the FS Vancouver....... the Shangri-La is at about 7-8 storey's tall now and outer glass is being installed on the lower floors.......

MegatopLover

I think I am, at 31, one of the GenXers described by this article. I've been a devotee of fine hotels for a long time. The importance of a nice place to stay was made clear to me at the dear age of 16 when a travel agent's selection of a positively bad hotel in Vienna ruined that city for me. My own devotion to nice places became basically inescapable when I found just the right place in Bangkok--and I've never looked back. Now, quite a number of my friends are coming round. Though some will still look for a bargain and think you never spend enough (waking) time in a hotel to justify a good one, others have had experiences like mine and now definitely favor the right places. One friend I'm thinking of, for example, spent his 32nd birthday at the Peninsula Chicago.

As a rule of thumb, the chintz-and-floral-print look isn't for us. Traditional decor is all well and good if it has modern or at least updated touches (e.g., the Windsor Court in New Orleans). Big bathrooms are important. And "boutique hotel" is generally regarded as code for tiny rooms with barely-nicer-than-IKEA uber-modern design justified by that "minimalist look" rubbish.

While Mr. Megatop and I are still generally among the younger guests at many places we stay, it is very interesting to see major old-line hotels like FS Chicago noticing the trend of more Gen X'er guests and factoring that into their product. Peninsula Chicago remains, however, at the top of my list for when Mr. Megatop and I finally get to experience that city.

jayson

I'm 32 and while I love the FS, Penn's and RC's. I find the W's in general are the ideal luxury hotel for me.

Don't flame me..the FS, RC, etc. are ideed nicer but for in comparing pricepoints versus luxury, I'd say the W's win hands down.

It isn't just me. All my friends (heggies, investment bankers types) love the W's.

Jayson

Kagehitokiri

itd be nice if they had higher end Ws.. most dont offer much in the way of options, although suite upgrades as plat certainly isnt a bad deal.

hopefully vegas and south beach will be good.

hairpeace

Since when are the W hotels considered luxury?

Uninhabitable, as far as I'm concerned.

Pickles

Yer friends must be just starting out, then, with their previous experience a double room at the dorm. When they've been 'heggies' (sounds like something you eat) or investment bankers for a few years, come back and tell us how they think again.

MegatopLover

Surprising tone there, Pickles. Don't recall you being snarky before.

That said, W isn't for me. I don't consider it luxury. I think of it as a tarted-up, over-hyped, over-priced, under-sized Hotel Ikea.

$400+ per night for 215 square feet on the back side of a hotel on Lexington Avenue to reach the lobby of which you need to slither through the swawms of fifteen-bucks-a-drinkers climbing out of rented Escalades? No thanks.

DrivingRain

I think the very best of W chain is better than the worst of the FS/RC/MO chain.

Examples...W Montreal > RC Montreal, W Seattle > FS Seattle (FS has now lost the service contract there), W San Diego is just plain good and better than FS Houston or RC Pentagon IMO. Further...I'll take any of these specifically mentioned W's over the MO Geneva.

Pickles

Sometimes, discipline is needed to disabuse the fresh-faced of wrongheaded, ill-formed, uninformed, naive, or plain incorrect views. It may come across as snark, but it springs from my deepest desire to enlighten and help those less fortunate in experiences and taste.

Non-NonRev

Having stayed in some of the above, I'm inclined to concur when considering physical plants and soft goods in the rooms. But can one really equate the smarmy insolence of the typical 'W' non-service-oriented manque with the (generally) well-trained, genuinely service-oriented employees found in most FS, RC and independent luxury properties?

luxury

There will be a brand new (new build) Four Seasons in Seattle opening in a couple years time......... I actually thought that the W Seattle stunk compared to the former FS Olympic Seattle..... chacun son gout as the french say!

Scott218

Is there a chain that really defines modern luxury for the Gen-Xers? Although I'm not one to spend all my hotel time in the likes of FS or RC, I find them very (shall we say) classic and I somewhat feel out of place as a 30 something.

I suppose my question should be split into different categories (for a standard room):
$300 US or under
$300 US to $600 US
$600 US or over