Hotel Majestic, San Francisco, Bad

OpinionWell's Blog

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

OpinionWell
Rank

127th

Out of 493

Hotel Majestic	Average Price: $105 Check Rates

Hotel Class:

1500 Sutter Street

San Francisco, 94109 View map

3-Star Hotel Rank: 56 of 110
Average review rating: 3.82

OpinionWell Value Index: 2

Traveler reviews analyzed: YahooTravel (7) , MyTravelGuide (1) , Expedia (15) , TripAdvisor (134)

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

apologetic (2) arrogant (2) bad (11) barely (2) broken (4) complain (3) complaint (4) creaky (2) damage (2) dated (2) difficult (4) dingy (3) dirty (4) disappoint (6) dump (4) errors (2) expensive (6) filthy (2) hard (6) horrible (3) incompetent (2) issue (6) lack (3) loud (2) mistake (3) mold (4) noise (7) noisy (5) overpriced (3) problem (13) roach (1) rock (1) rude (3) scary (1) slow (1) smell (11) smelly (2) stain (1) stunk (2) terrible (2) tiny (3) unfriendly (1) unhappy (1) unhelpful (2) unsafe (1) unskilled (1) unsympathetic (1) worn (2) worst (5) would have liked (1)

Bad	Appears in 14 comments.

The following words were used in comments with Bad:
brilliant (2) car (5) good (2) location (2) not (4) paper (2) park (3) room (6) sleep (2) smell (3) valet (2) wall (2)

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

Sort by:

See all

1. Our room has a bad moldy smell.

"How can this be a 3-star hotel? " Read full review on TripAdvisor 4/30/2012 Vote

2. The carpet, wall paper, windows and fixtures were all in bad shape.

"How can this be a 3-star hotel? " Read full review on TripAdvisor 4/30/2012 Vote

3. None of them were catastrophic and the room was pretty cool looking, old victoria, so overall its not bad.

"Inconsistent but not bad " Read full review on TripAdvisor 12/27/2011 Vote

4. In that room, which didn't smell as bad (although we bought some air freshner to deodorize the room), the wall paper was coming off in some areas and one of the two chairs was badly stained on the seat.

"The Majestic is Pathetic!!! " Read full review on TripAdvisor 9/25/2011 Vote

5. And yes rooms have air condition; there is free wireless and a computer w/ printer at the lobby ; parking on street isn't to bad and no smell .

"Small but charming room! " Read full review on TripAdvisor 9/24/2011 Vote

6. Beds are small and rigid (maybe good for someone with a bad back - trying to see the upside here), and be ready for a nice helping of city noises to lull you to sleep - mostly sirens and cars honking at each other at the intersection just outside the room.

"Good deal for a tired old hotel with nice people and questionable parking " Read full review on TripAdvisor 8/10/2011 Vote

7. The location wasn't bad but it wasn't great.

"Musty " Read full review on TripAdvisor 11/12/2010 Vote

8. I thought the location would be inconvenient but it wasn't too bad, and much quieter at night for sleeping.

"Old World Charm " Read full review on TripAdvisor 8/10/2010 Vote

9. The internet was $7 for the entire stay, not bad.

"Charming place " Read full review on TripAdvisor 6/20/2010 Vote

10. If that wasn`t bad enough, while we were filling out the accident report, their brilliant valet decides to re-park a car infront of ours and smashes into our bumper and the bumper of the car in front of him.

"Worst hotel ever visited " Read full review on TripAdvisor 6/21/2008 Vote