Crestwood Suites Las Vegas Boulevard, Las Vegas, Good

OpinionWell's Blog

Home » United States » Nevada » Las Vegas Destinations » Las Vegas Hotels » Crestwood Suites Las Vegas Boulevard

OpinionWell
Rank

144th

Out of 481

Crestwood Suites Las Vegas Boulevard	Average Price: $63 Check Rates

Hotel Class:

7260 South Las Vegas Blvd

Las Vegas, 89119 View map

2-Star Hotel Rank: 32 of 99
Average review rating: 3.38

OpinionWell Value Index: 1

Traveler reviews analyzed: Expedia (26) , MyTravelGuide (85) , Travelocity (9) , TripAdvisor (69) , YahooTravel (3)

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

acceptable (4) accommodating (1) affordable (5) awesome (2) best (9) better (5) big (8) cares (5) cheaper (2) clean (49) cleanest (1) cleanliness (1) comfortable (11) convenient (9) courteous (2) decent (6) excellent (5) exceptional (2) fast (3) first class (2) free (8) fresh (1) friendly (29) generous (2) good (21) great (28) helpful (13) impressed (4) liked (21) new (9) nice (26) perfect (8) perfectly (2) pleasant (1) pleased (3) plenty (2) plush (1) positive (3) professional (3) prompt (2) quiet (8) reasonable (4) reasonably (1) soft (1) spacious (2) stunning (1) suitable (1) tremendous (1) welcoming (1) wonderful (4)

Good	Appears in 37 comments.

The following words were used in comments with Good:
accommodating (2) area (2) bad (2) bed (5) clean (3) hard (2) hotel (10) location (7) much (2) nice (3) not (7) price (3) room (2) sink (2) size (2) stains (2) walking (3) wifi (2)

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

Sort by:

See all

1. But if you are looking for basic accommodation this place was good.

"Good experience " Read full review on TripAdvisor 4/28/2012 Vote

2. this place is not a good look, not to mention the next door neighbor looked like a crack prostitute and couldn't walk without holding on to the wall.

"This place is disgusting! " Read full review on TripAdvisor 7/3/2011 Vote

3. The only good thing was the desk clerk that checked us in.

"Not for Families! " Read full review on TripAdvisor 6/14/2011 Vote

4. I had a good time staying in this hotel.

"BEST HOTEL WITH QUALITY MANAGEMENT " Read full review on TripAdvisor 3/10/2011 Vote

5. But we can't speak for all of the rooms in this large property and in any case we still advise that whether you stay here or anywhere for that matter it's always a good plan to ask to view your accommodations ahead of time.

"cheap and basic " Read full review on TripAdvisor 2/17/2011 Vote

6. good internet reception (326 is close to the office), the bed was surprisingly comfortable, no sign of any noxious insects.

"cheap and basic " Read full review on TripAdvisor 2/17/2011 Vote

7. The service was great, and it is in a good location to cheap affordable dining.

"Clean, Friendly, and Convenient... " Read full review on TripAdvisor 4/30/2010 Vote

8. a good location, a nice and convenient environment.

"A Good weekly residence with good location for your stay " Read full review on TripAdvisor 4/21/2010 Vote

9. Lots of stuff nearby which was good.

"Not Too Bad, Could Use Some Updating " Read full review on TripAdvisor 4/14/2010 Vote

10. We had a short, but very relaxing stay, good price and location, quiet, clean, wifi, walking distance to get food or others, employees and specially Autum was very helpfull and nice with us.

"I am sorry I could not stay longer " Read full review on TripAdvisor 11/24/2009 Vote