Warwick Regis Hotel, San Francisco, Bad

OpinionWell's Blog

Home » United States » California » San Francisco Destinations » San Francisco Hotels » Warwick Regis Hotel

OpinionWell
Rank

53rd

Out of 493

Warwick Regis Hotel	Average Price: $180 Check Rates

Hotel Class:

490 Geary Street At Taylor

San Francisco, 00000 View map

3-Star Hotel Rank: 18 of 110
Average review rating: 3.87

OpinionWell Value Index: 3

Traveler reviews analyzed: Expedia (40) , MyTravelGuide (377) , Travelocity (17) , TripAdvisor (318) , YahooTravel (12)

SAFE TO BOOK ? (2/5 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:	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

a bit small (4) annoy (4) appalled (2) avoid (10) awful (6) bad (29) barely (2) broke (3) complain (11) complaint (4) cramped (5) difficult (2) dirty (6) disappoint (12) disgust (6) dump (4) dusty (5) expensive (18) filthy (6) gross (8) hard (16) horrible (4) issue (17) lack (7) loud (10) mistake (4) mold (10) nasty (2) negative (15) noise (85) noisy (23) outdated (3) overpriced (7) poor (10) pricey (4) problem (33) rock (4) rude (4) slow (4) smell (30) smoker (3) tiny (5) too small (3) ugly (3) uncomfortable (9) unsafe (2) was a joke (2) worn (4) worst (4) wrong (4)

Bad	Appears in 46 comments.

The following words were used in comments with Bad:
area (4) bar (3) few (4) hotel (13) location (6) most (3) nice (4) noise (5) not (19) old (2) pretty (3) reviews (3) room (20) service (2) size (3) small (2) staff (2) street (4) walking (4) weekends (2)

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

Sort by:

See all

1. All in all, for the reasonable room rate, it wasn't a bad choice for a weekend get away, but it wasn't the quality of other Warwick hotels we have stayed at.

"Conveniet Union Square Boutique Hotel " Read full review on TripAdvisor 3/22/2012 Vote

2. Note: the nearby Tenderloin district apparently does have a bad reputation, but is not on the way between the hotel and Union Square, which will be the daily route for most travellers, so it is easily avoided.

"Great central location near Union Square " Read full review on TripAdvisor 1/12/2012 Vote

3. Location is very nice It's conveniently close to Union Square and Bart station but be aware it's also close to a very bad neighborhood known as the Tenderloin so if you're not familiar with the city and decide to stay here you better ask which streets you're not supposed to walk into for safety reasons .

"Not bad if you book with discounted prices " Read full review on TripAdvisor 12/30/2011 Vote

4. Very bad decorations and not great 'feel' to the room.

"Great staff, not great room. " Read full review on TripAdvisor 11/10/2011 Vote

5. Too bad.

"This Hotel needs a/c. " Read full review on TripAdvisor 10/26/2011 Vote

6. Service and food in breakfast room , very bad.

"This Hotel needs a/c. " Read full review on TripAdvisor 10/26/2011 Vote

7. Noise was really bad.

"This Hotel needs a/c. " Read full review on TripAdvisor 10/26/2011 Vote

8. really? I was determined to go against the bad reviews when arriving, keeping an open mind, but the hotel is a dump.

"San Fran Priceline Buyers Beware " Read full review on TripAdvisor 10/22/2011 Vote

9. The bad: the Warwick charges $13/day to use their WiFi Internet (to wire the entire hotel costs them less than $200/month).

"Stay some other place! " Read full review on TripAdvisor 8/30/2011 Vote

10. The rooms themselves weren't bad.

"Overall it was okay... " Read full review on TripAdvisor 8/22/2011 Vote