Boston Park Plaza Hotel, Boston, Poor

OpinionWell's Blog

Home » United States » Massachusetts » Boston Destinations » Boston Hotels » Boston Park Plaza Hotel

OpinionWell
Rank

67th

Out of 197

Boston Park Plaza Hotel	Average Price: $229 Check Rates

Hotel Class:

64 Arlington Street

Boston, 02116-3912 View map

3-Star Hotel Rank: 25 of 37
Average review rating: 3.2

OpinionWell Value Index: 6

Traveler reviews analyzed: BedBugRegistry (12) , Expedia (96) , MyTravelGuide (604) , Travelocity (51) , TripAdvisor (718) , YahooTravel (87)

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:	There are recent comments about Construction, Renovation.
Noise:	Recent comments complained about noise.
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 (12) avoid (14) awful (15) bad (40) bed bugs (7) broken (21) chipped (7) complain (23) complaint (14) dated (14) difficult (6) dingy (8) dirty (21) disappoint (28) disturbing (8) downside (7) expensive (40) filthy (7) gross (5) hard (22) hardly (9) horrible (17) inconvenient (6) issue (25) lack (12) loud (39) lousy (5) mistake (7) mold (8) negative (20) noise (58) noisy (23) outdated (16) overpriced (6) peeling (6) poor (14) poorly (12) pricey (12) problem (78) ridiculous (6) rude (31) slow (11) smell (19) terrible (24) tiny (54) too small (8) uncomfortable (8) unfortunate (18) worst (21) wrong (11)

Poor	Appears in 44 comments.

The following words were used in comments with Poor:
bathroom (3) breakfast (3) condition (3) conference (4) disappoint (4) good (3) great (4) hotel (15) location (5) management (3) not (3) phone (2) quality (5) reception (4) reviews (4) room (10) service (16) shower (2) staff (2) tip (2)

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

Sort by:

See all

1. Then after reading reviews here, I was initially disappointed, especially given comments about the small bathrooms and poor service (I went with my wife and children, ages 4 years and 6 months).

"Better Than Expected " Read full review on TripAdvisor 11/29/2009 Vote

2. Their security staff was extremely unhelpful, took ages to reply to my phone calls and only offered me a very poor recompensation - and no apology at all.

"Do not stay here - stuff goes missing!" " Read full review on TripAdvisor 9/3/2009 Vote

3. When you took a shower, the bathroom floor flooded, this was due to the poor workmanship of installing the shower doors.

"Not worth the money " Read full review on TripAdvisor 8/21/2009 Vote

4. I thought this was very poor service on their behalf.

"Historic Hotel that needs to be renovated " Read full review on TripAdvisor 7/15/2009 Vote

5. They charged me USD 320 per day without breakfast and were poor in all sence.

"Poor hotel " Read full review on TripAdvisor 6/11/2009 Vote

6. Room quality and condition poor - especially heat and air.

Read full review on MyTravelGuide 4/23/2009 Vote

7. While its location is good, this is a noisy, smelly old hotel with poor service and it's better to find somewhere else even if you have to pay a bit more.

"Beware! " Read full review on TripAdvisor 3/17/2009 Vote

8. Our air conditioner was of poor quality and not even working.

"Nice Hotel - Terrible Rooms! " Read full review on TripAdvisor 11/16/2008 Vote

9. We had tipped graciously throughout our trip but I refuse to tip when the service has been poor.

"Poor Service .........Never again " Read full review on TripAdvisor 9/3/2008 Vote

10. Lighting in the room was so poor that it was impossible to see the clothes in my suitcase.

"Overpriced shoebox " Read full review on TripAdvisor 10/29/2007 Vote