The Franciscan Inn, Santa Barbara, Pricey

OpinionWell's Blog

Home » United States » California » Santa Barbara Destinations » Santa Barbara Hotels » The Franciscan Inn

OpinionWell
Rank

19th

Out of 107

The Franciscan Inn	Average Daily Rate: NA Check Rates

Hotel Class:

109 Bath Street

Santa Barbara, 93101 View map

2-Star Hotel Rank: 4 of 20
Average review rating: 4.04

OpinionWell Value Index: NA

Traveler reviews analyzed: YahooTravel (16) , TripAdvisor (132)

SAFE TO BOOK ? (0/5 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:	No recent comments about noise were found.
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

a bit small (4) annoy (1) avoid (2) awful (1) bad (8) bit dated (1) chipped (2) complain (4) complaint (3) cramped (2) dated (8) delay (1) difficult (1) dirty (3) disappoint (5) downside (1) expensive (8) hard (6) hassle (1) ignored (1) inconvenient (1) is a joke (2) issue (2) lack (2) loud (1) mistake (2) negative (2) noise (6) noisy (6) overpriced (2) poor (3) pricey (1) problem (4) rude (4) shabby (2) slow (2) smell (1) smelly (1) stained (1) stale (1) tacky (1) tiny (2) uncomfortable (3) unfortunate (3) unfriendly (4) unhelpful (1) wrong (1)

Pricey

Appears in 1 comments.

The following words were used in comments with Pricey:

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

Sort by:

1. I do wish there were some options in Santa Barbara that were just a bit less pricey .

"Visit to Santa Barbara & a hotel " Read full review on TripAdvisor 5/20/2012 Vote