Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
London hotels rated as worst in Europe
Hotel booking site Trivago.co.uk just released some interesting statistics on European hotels. The site compiled the results based off 2.7 million hotel reviews. Their final conclusion is pretty damning for hotels in London - using a ranking system from 0 to 100, London scored a miserable 69.89. The best European hotels can be found in Dresden. Dresden managed to score an impressive 81.39. Other good hotel cities include Bruges, Bologna and Salzburg .
The bottom of the barrel is not a big surprise - Birmingham, Copenhagen and Amsterdam all scored poorly. My favorite city of poor hotels, Paris, came in 7 spots from the bottom, which should come as no surprise to anyone who has stayed in the French capital.
To ensure they publish honest reviews, Trivago combines their own data with reviews from Tripadvisor, Holidaycheck and Booking.com. The full results are published after the jump.
Filed under: Europe, Hotels and Accommodations
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
DJ Nov 11th 2009 12:58AM
Give me American hotels ANY DAY. A European 5 star is an American 3 star.
I have seldom had a decent experience in a European hotel and, although I have not stayed in most of these cities, I have to say my experience with London hotels warrants the low ranking.
Fran Nov 12th 2009 8:08AM
London has 839 Hotels? Where?
Fran Nov 12th 2009 8:11AM
London has 839 Hotels? Where?
Fran Nov 12th 2009 8:14AM
Bring your own face cloth as well,! (They don't supply them)
Randy Nov 12th 2009 8:39AM
My brother's comment when we were in London was "The British don't do plumbing" (neither do the French, for that matter). Never have I seen such weird contraptions called plumbing, with the hot side not looking like the cold and the sink not looking like the shower and the shower often looking like something out of the 19th century. I once took a bath in the bathroom at the end of the hall in a "hotel" in Chelsea - I turned blue because there was no hot water on the fourth floor. And weird motels included American chains like Best Western - built with the local touch.
We did stay at one chain that was gutting old hotels to make them 5 stars. They had about five when we were there in 1998 (stayed half-price for a introductory offer). Don't recall the name of the chain off hand, but the Oliver Hotel on Cromwell was part of the chain (although it had not been converted when I stayed there in 1992 - it was very much 1950s weird British interior design then). The Amsterdam wasn't too bad, either, but it also had some weird layouts.
Mimi Nov 12th 2009 8:52AM
No one who has stayed in London hotels should be surprised. They're the worst! Overpriced, dimly lit, poorly serviced, surly staff, bad plumbing and inadequate climate control... and these are just the newer and better ones!
I remember checking into a 150 room London 4* hotel only to discover scaffolding and tarps everywhere in the halls and public rooms, the breakfast room was closed [ even though breakfast was included in our room rate... we were given vouchers to eat at another property 2 blocks away !!] and our cramped "superior" room was in the basement, which had no discernible heat and damp mildewed walls. For this, we were charged almost $280. The hotel should not even have been open for business. We checked out after our 1 pre-paid non-refundable night and found a more comfortable 6 room B&B nearby for considerably less money and much higher comfort. It may not have have been fancy, but it was clean, roomy and friendly.
If you are willing to pay over $400 a night, you may, just may, find a good room in one of the larger hotels in London, Paris or Rome. But if you're looking for a good value, forget it.
Barbara Nov 12th 2009 8:50AM
BOLOGNA? Bologna does not have outstanding hotels! The best of London tower over the best of Bologna.
Lorraine Nov 12th 2009 9:36AM
My family went to Europe for the first time in the summer of 2009 and loved our hotels: Sofitel London St. James, Sofitel Champs Elysees and the Washbourne Court (Cotswolds). Yes, they are expensive but definately not outrageously priced and not only were all of them luxurious and well maintained but the service was quite good. The only thing that keeps me from going back to England is the food, not the hotels.
Anne Nov 12th 2009 9:29AM
We stayed near Earls court in London. The city is lovely and busy but our room was the pits. I have never seen a hotel so small in my life. There was room for two people as long as you did not have luggage, shoes and need a bathroom. It bordered on primative. And you had to sit sideways on the john, its only for people under five feet tall. The shower was also for a short person. My poor guy is 6'5'' and he almost had to sit down in shower to soap up and rinse. And the towels were dingy .
none Nov 12th 2009 10:21AM
Amen to the rating for London! Stayed in one for 2 nights with my hubby. Bed only big enough for 1.5 people, no place to put anything, room no bigger than a decent-size bathroom. Paris not a lot better but they did have a nice lounge and great breakfast.
Andy Nov 12th 2009 1:09PM
Never had a problem in London or anywhere in Germany, but Athens, Barcelona, Amsterdam - all terrible. Athens has some of the rudest people working in their hotels.
Karin Nov 12th 2009 12:40PM
Another vote for the utter pitiful state of London hotels. I've heard good things about the 5-star hotels, but I stayed in a 4-star hotel in 2005 and it was pathetic. It was considered a good neighborhood and a good hotel, in a nice neighborhood in the fashion district, next to the very nice media district where I went on business. There were no washcloths, even upon request, and my so-called non-smoking room reeked of smoke due to the maid smoking in there. They insisted she hadn't but I kept finding cigarette butts on the window sill. The concierge was useless and most of the staff grumpy. Glad my company paid the absurd approx. $350 a night. No diss to London - I love London, this was my 4th there and I like the people and food (other people complain about it but it's sophisticated and there is lots of choice) and culture, but the hotels just suck. Happily I made friends on this trip and will stay with them next time.
wanda Nov 12th 2009 7:42PM
Not only are the hotels second and third rate, but the British can be snooty and patronizing. On one particular hotel visit, I called to the front desk that my remote for my television was not working. There was a brief pause and then I was asked "could madame not get out of bed and turn the channels?" I quickly replied that no madame could not.
Karin Nov 12th 2009 1:27PM
Addendum to my London comments below - on the same trip to London, I went to Prague for a few days and stayed in a 4-star hotel there. That was 1/4 the price of the London hotel and far, far, nicer, with beautiful art nouveau furniture, cathedral ceilings, washcloths and a truly smoke-free environment. Glad to see Prague is far higher on the list than London - they deserve it. Seems silly that a great city like London can't have better hotels than Prague, a city that was an Eastern-bloc city a mere 20 years ago.Interestingly, Paris scored almost as low as London. That surprised me, 2 of the 3 Paris hotels I stayed in were really good experiences, with friendly, helpful staff and great continental breakfasts.
mike Nov 12th 2009 1:43PM
Stayed at the hilton Park lane, very large well appointed room, lovely staff , excellant resturants , but very pricey but what isnt in London, when the pound was 1.68 to the US dollar.