Congress Hotel Chicago, Chicago, Price

OpinionWell's Blog

Home » United States » Illinois » Chicago Destinations » Chicago Hotels » Congress Hotel Chicago

OpinionWell
Rank

91st

Out of 415

Congress Hotel Chicago	Average Price: $173 Check Rates

Hotel Class:

520 South Michigan Avenue

Chicago, 60605 View map

2-Star Hotel Rank: 13 of 49
Average review rating: 2.59

OpinionWell Value Index: 5

Traveler reviews analyzed: BedBugRegistry (3) , Expedia (72) , MyTravelGuide (87) , Travelocity (42) , TripAdvisor (595) , YahooTravel (98)

SAFE TO BOOK ? (3/5 issues found)

Is this hotel safe to book? See the trends in negative comments below to find out the real deal before you commit:

Construction:	There are recent comments about Construction, Remodeling, Renovation.
Noise:	Recent comments complained about noise.
Room Smell:	Recent comments complained about room smell.
Parking Fees:	No recent comments about parking fees were found.
Bed Bugs:	No recent comments about bed bugs were found.

Search reviews for other problems

Keyword Cloud

The hotel review keyword cloud displays the words commonly used to describe the features and services of this hotel. Select a word and explore.

All Positive Negative

Keyword Search

amenity (18) bar (49) bath (19) bathroom (172) bed (151) breakfast (64) charge (22) check in (82) check out (17) closet (29) concierge (20) cost (31) deal (25) decor (23) dinner (14) downtown (63) food (52) front desk (99) hotel (1196) housekeeping (29) lake (124) lakefront (12) lobby (90) location (318) manager (43) money (55) parking (47) pillow (22) price (146) rate (25) recommend (69) refund (22) restaurant (67) room (1101) room service (30) service (98) sheets (28) shower (80) staff (231) street (53) suite (28) to park (12) towel (39) tub (31) valet (20) value (27) view (187) walk (90) water pressure (23) wireless (22)

Price

Appears in 146 comments.

85% wrote positive comments about price

The following words were used in comments with Price:
best (5) better (9) cheaper (4) clean (5) downtown (14) expectation (6) good (39) great (16) hotel (61) location (46) need (5) reasonable (10) reviews (5)

Users can vote for helpful comments, which are saved in the Most helpful section.

Sort by:

See all

1. The hotel is not luxurious by any means but we found it to be an acceptable choice for the price.

"Decent hotels stay " Read full review on TripAdvisor 5/7/2012 Vote

2. All in all we found the hotel average; we would have preferred to stay closer to the river/Miracle Mile and we also prefer a more upscale area and hotel; but for the price, the Hotel Congress was adequate.

"Decent hotels stay " Read full review on TripAdvisor 5/7/2012 Vote

3. Location is outstanding and the price was great for Chicago standards.

"Fine old hotel " Read full review on TripAdvisor 4/13/2012 Vote

4. The price is very good for the location.

"Great value and location, but truly haunted. " Read full review on TripAdvisor 4/11/2012 Vote

5. We never had any hopes on this hotel, but to our surprise and price it was good.

"ok .... " Read full review on TripAdvisor 4/11/2012 Vote

6. The location is fantastic especially for the price.

"Funky, good value, but no climate control " Read full review on TripAdvisor 4/7/2012 Vote

7. What they do offer in price, location, and a clean place to sleep is worth 3 stars, however.

"Not as bad as some of the reviews make it sound. " Read full review on TripAdvisor 3/20/2012 Vote

8. The location and price are the best parts about the hotel.

"Great Location, Budget Friendly " Read full review on TripAdvisor 3/20/2012 Vote

9. I agree with previous raters in that the moulding needed work, the carpet needs to be taken out, the bed wasn't all that comfortable but honestly it was decent for the price (the bed that is, I've had worse beds in more expensive hotels).

"Felt bad for this hotel " Read full review on TripAdvisor 3/9/2012 Vote

10. I would recommend this hotel to a friend due to the excellent location and price.

"Older hotel, with excellent location " Read full review on TripAdvisor 3/4/2012 Vote