Well have you? It is one of my number one dreams to stay at a W hotel. I think they are chic and stylish....like myself. I don't care which I get to, I just want to stay at one, because unfortunately I live in a city that isn't even big enough for a W Hotel , so that sucks. I would have getaway weekends all the time!

Heven't stayed there, but went to eat at the Westwood (Los Angeles) one, and visited a friend who was at the San Francisco one.

They are pretty swanky, now that you mention it! I liked the restaurant, and it had a very nice atmosphere. Heavy Fung Shui investments!

NDRU said:

See I told ya!!!

Nope.

I doubt I could ever afford it.

CarrieMpls said:

save the money to go!!!!

missfee said:

eh, that's not my thing, though I find it very pretty. And if someone else were paying, I'd be all about it!

But if I've got that kind of money laying around, there are things I'd much rather spend it on. I've never been a fancy hotel kinda girl, 'cause when traveling what I don't spend on the hotel I get to spend on eating out and shopping and such.

The funny thing is, when I was a child my mother always told me I had champagne taste on a beer budget. I've just learned to pick and choose what I want to splurge on.

i stayed at one in Toronto a couple years back, though it wasn't that slick.

whilst staying there i was watching the Toronto news and they were reporting a stabbing in the kitchen at W hotel. Then they pan to a view of the hotel from the outside, IT WAS THE SAME HOTEL WE WERE STAYING IN!

Room Service

I've stayed in three -- the New Orleans one, the Times Square one in NYC and the Perimeter one in Atlanta.

They're overrated, sacrificing comfort and practicality for looks. They're probably great for a movie scene or music video shoot, but they're horrible to stay in.

The Times Square one -- in particular -- was unpleasant. And, the New Orleans one seemed like a vampire hotel. Just plain creepy.

ThreadBare said:

really???? how were the stays unpleasant specifically?

missfee said:

quite georgous...

missfee said:

Well, the showers, for instance. The concept of sleek steel and glass meeting rustic brickwork might sound like a great idea to a designer (a sort of clash of eras, if you will), but the execution wasn't so hot. The showers weren't comfortable. And, the lack of a sliding door or curtain meant that errant water would make a mess all over the bathroom floor.

And, one would hate to leave such a task for the housekeeping, because they didn't seem to pay much attention to the condition of the showers, as it was.

Just not cool. I prefer a really nice, comfortable Courtyard by Marriott, a brand that's been consistently superior, IMO, to the W brand.

Durn vampire hotels...

ThreadBare said:

those W hotels were semi trendy for a season.
Im sure they are run down used and abused like an 19 year old hooker.
I bet their rates are quite cheap now.

You should treat yourself to a stay at a W Hotel.

When I travel I usually sleep 4 hours and then I'm up and out. That is why I usually get a cheap ass hotel. Heehee!!! I can't justify it.

If I was rich, hell yeah.

magnificentsynthesizer said:

yikes!

Nah, just give me an old wooden beach hut and the sea at my front door.

I've stayed in the W Montreal. They have great sex showers - that look out onto the bedroom! There was a floor-to-ceiling wall of glass separating the bedroom and shower, so nothing was left to the imagination. Some hot times there.

I've stayed at the one in San Fran twice and the one in New York about 10 times for work. Until the last two years I had to travel alot, and actually, after a while, all of the design hotels start to look the same... I acn't tell the difference when I'm in a W, Rubell, or Ian Schrager hotel. I think I'm going through a phase where I'm digging quirkier hotels these days...like staying in a hotel that actually is a Buddhist sanctuary thingy or that trendy place that's an "igloo" . I swear I want to stay in the igloo hotel!