Hotel Blake Chicago, Chicago, Poor

OpinionWell's Blog

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

OpinionWell
Rank

53rd

Out of 415

Hotel Blake Chicago	Average Price: $241 Check Rates

Hotel Class:

500 South Dearborn Street

Chicago, 60605 View map

3-Star Hotel Rank: 19 of 73
Average review rating: 3.66

OpinionWell Value Index: 6

Traveler reviews analyzed: BedBugRegistry (2) , Expedia (50) , MyTravelGuide (11) , Travelocity (8) , TripAdvisor (432) , YahooTravel (36)

SAFE TO BOOK ? (1/5 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:	No recent comments about construction were found.
Noise:	Recent comments complained about noise.
Room Smell:	No recent comments about room smell were found.
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

annoy (5) avoid (10) bad (27) big deal (3) broken (9) bugs (3) complain (13) complaint (15) difficult (8) dirty (5) disappoint (17) disgust (4) downside (6) expensive (19) frustrated (4) hard (13) hardly (3) horrible (7) ignored (3) inadequate (4) inconvenient (6) issue (32) lack (9) loud (9) mess (5) mildew (3) mistake (6) mold (18) negative (16) noise (42) noisy (20) pathetic (4) peeling (5) poor (7) pricey (8) problem (45) ridiculous (3) rock (5) rude (11) shame (4) slow (4) smell (17) terrible (9) tiny (4) uncomfortable (5) unfortunate (9) weird (6) worn (4) worst (6) wrong (7)

Poor	Appears in 9 comments.

The following words were used in comments with Poor:
breakfast (2) continental (2) customer (2) desk (4) heating (2) internet (2) lighting (3) room (4) service (5) valet (2)

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

Sort by:

1. Continental breakfast is poor though -- muffins and coffee, nothing else (although the blueberry muffins were loaded with berries).

"Great " Read full review on TripAdvisor 9/6/2011 Vote

2. -- poor initial towel and toiletry stocking.

"I really want this to be my fav Chicago hotel but not yet... " Read full review on TripAdvisor 6/10/2010 Vote

3. Pro's: very nice valet customer service, great location, okay price (with internet deal on off season)Con's: front desk staff was rude, poor heat, cheap-looking room, poor internet, incorrectly charged for room, noisy room, inadequate continental breakfast.

"Not satisfied " Read full review on TripAdvisor 1/7/2010 Vote

4. Maybe because I'm a young college student I was given poor customer service but this luxurious hotel did not meet my standards.

"Not satisfied " Read full review on TripAdvisor 1/7/2010 Vote

5. Our room was missing a light bulb (that we still have yet to receive) our poor toilet paper dispenser looked as if it was ripped out of the wall and the sound of a jack hammer was coming through our vent.

"Worst Experience-Don`t be fooled by pretty pictures! " Read full review on TripAdvisor 11/3/2007 Vote

6. He made the mistake and even teased us by saying: Wow, you really need this $600 dollars, poor you.

"Horrible Experience " Read full review on TripAdvisor 9/28/2007 Vote

7. The front desk service was OK, but the service from the valet more than made up for poor front desk service.

"Great style " Read full review on YahooTravel 7/10/2006 Vote

8. Things that have been mentioned - no trash can, poor lighting - just a bunch of little lamps providing 'mood lighting,' the drawers on the table/desk were still taped shut.

"Not Quite There Yet... " Read full review on TripAdvisor 3/27/2006 Vote

9. For 3 days of my stay, I had a severe migraine from the construction, and experienced sinus/allergies from the poor air quality coming from the heating vents.

"very disappointed " Read full review on YahooTravel 12/21/2005 Vote