Hotel Nikko San Francisco, San Francisco, Bad

OpinionWell's Blog

Home » United States » California » San Francisco Destinations » San Francisco Hotels » Hotel Nikko San Francisco

OpinionWell
Rank

3rd

Out of 493

Hotel Nikko San Francisco	Average Price: $307 Check Rates

Hotel Class:

222 Mason Street

San Francisco, 94102 View map

4-Star Hotel Rank: 2 of 37
Average review rating: 3.85

OpinionWell Value Index: 5

Traveler reviews analyzed: BedBugRegistry (4) , Expedia (77) , MyTravelGuide (181) , Travelocity (61) , TripAdvisor (712) , YahooTravel (30)

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:	No recent comments about room smell were found.
Parking Fees:	Recent comments complained about parking fees.
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 (6) annoy (9) avoid (15) awful (5) bad (30) complain (17) complaint (24) cramped (6) damage (4) dated (5) difficult (4) dirty (10) disappoint (35) disturbing (8) downside (13) expensive (52) hard (11) horrible (7) irritate (3) issue (18) lack (6) loud (5) mess (7) mistake (4) negative (18) noise (39) noisy (13) outdated (3) overpriced (7) poor (11) pretty small (4) pricey (11) problem (37) ridiculous (6) rough (3) rude (6) slow (4) smell (7) sophisticated (3) stained (4) terrible (9) tiny (6) too small (5) ugly (5) uncomfortable (5) unfortunate (10) unhelpful (3) worn (7) worst (6) wrong (10)

Bad	Appears in 57 comments.

The following words were used in comments with Bad:
area (6) bath (3) charged (3) expectation (3) extra (3) few (4) good (11) great (5) hotel (17) liked (3) location (3) not (30) price (5) reasonable (3) room (14) service (4) shop (3) small (5) street (3) walking (3)

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

Sort by:

See all

1. The porter (at least we think it was him) WREAKED of extremely bad B.

"Disappointing for the price. Tired, outdated early 80s decor. " Read full review on TripAdvisor 5/17/2012 Vote

2. The bad:The room was smaller than I expected but I'm told by friends and co-workers that is pretty standard for downtown San Francisco.

"Very nice hotel " Read full review on TripAdvisor 5/16/2012 Vote

3. Our stay was also spoilt a bit as we mistakenly left a bag with shopping and souvenirs in the room on checkout, phoned the same day to query and the bag was gone - although completely our fault due to oversight, this is still theft as it was plainly brand new goods that were left by mistake and this left a bad last impression.

"Great location, great amenities, indifferent service " Read full review on TripAdvisor 4/24/2012 Vote

4. The pool area is a bonus although be aware there is a charge for this (think it was 20 dollar per room per stay which wasnt bad really).

"Excellent location " Read full review on TripAdvisor 4/18/2012 Vote

5. Too bad I didn't get to take a swim.

"Amazing room " Read full review on TripAdvisor 4/9/2012 Vote

6. Not too bad.

"Great family-friendly hotel in a perfect location " Read full review on TripAdvisor 3/12/2012 Vote

7. Never a bad seat in the house.

"Wekend Getaway " Read full review on TripAdvisor 2/20/2012 Vote

8. Front desk could be a LITTLE more friendly but not bad.

"Great hotel - not in Japan Town, but downtown! " Read full review on TripAdvisor 2/18/2012 Vote

9. She was talking to me with a very bad attitude and no smile on her face at all.

"Very poor frontdesk attitude and management " Read full review on TripAdvisor 1/5/2012 Vote

10. Concierge gave bad directions.

"Misrepresentations, nickel and dime for everything, Japanese hospitality. " Read full review on TripAdvisor 1/1/2012 Vote