Stanyan Park Hotel, San Francisco, Expensive

OpinionWell's Blog

Home » United States » California » San Francisco Destinations » San Francisco Hotels » Stanyan Park Hotel

OpinionWell
Rank

142nd

Out of 493

Stanyan Park Hotel	Average Price: $222 Check Rates

Hotel Class:

750 Stanyan Street

San Francisco, 94117 View map

3-Star Hotel Rank: 66 of 110
Average review rating: 3.47

OpinionWell Value Index: NA

Traveler reviews analyzed: Expedia (2) , Travelocity (2) , TripAdvisor (53) , YahooTravel (6)

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 pricey (2) avoid (1) bad (2) broken (1) complaint (2) cope (1) dated (1) depressing (2) difficult (1) dingy (2) dismal (1) downside (1) expensive (1) hard (1) hardly (2) hectic (1) horrible (1) issue (3) lack (1) lukewarm (1) mad (1) mediocre (1) mold (2) negative (3) noise (3) noisy (3) outrageous (1) overpriced (2) peeling (1) poor (2) problem (2) rough (1) rude (1) smell (2) subpar (2) threadbare (1) uncomfortable (2) unfortunate (2) unhelpful (3) unsafe (1) worst (4)

Expensive

Appears in 1 comments.

The following words were used in comments with Expensive:

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

Sort by:

1. Having said this one should not expect the amenities normally found in the more expensive hotel brands.

"Not The Best However Affordable For San Francisco " Read full review on TripAdvisor 2/21/2012 Vote