Donovan House Washington Dc, Washington DC, Positive

OpinionWell's Blog

Home » United States » » Washington DC Destinations » Washington DC Hotels » Donovan House Washington Dc

OpinionWell
Rank

50th

Out of 279

Donovan House Washington Dc	Average Price: $293 Check Rates

Hotel Class:

1155 14th Street NorthWest

Washington DC, 20005 View map

3-Star Hotel Rank: 24 of 58
Average review rating: 4.28

OpinionWell Value Index: 5

Traveler reviews analyzed: Expedia (85) , Travelocity (9) , TripAdvisor (370) , YahooTravel (1)

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

accommodating (10) attentive (11) awesome (18) beautiful (26) best (50) better (38) big (39) cares (24) clean (153) cleanliness (8) comfortable (118) comfy (19) convenient (44) cool (86) courteous (13) decent (12) efficient (12) excellent (50) exceptional (25) fantastic (34) free (82) fresh (16) friendly (146) fun (37) funky (19) generous (16) good (196) gorgeous (11) great (300) happy (21) helpful (134) huge (25) impressed (16) liked (161) love (46) new (70) nice (215) perfect (48) pleasant (26) plenty (27) positive (13) professional (26) quiet (40) reasonable (18) soft (8) spacious (29) stylish (26) superior (12) welcoming (14) wonderful (32)

Positive

Appears in 13 comments.

The following words were used in comments with Positive:
chair (2) desk (2) excellent (2) experience (3) hotel (4) impressed (2) not (3) room (4) shower (2) staff (4) style (2)

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

Sort by:

See all

1. Although this is an updated, retro style hotel, there are more negatives than positives.

"Not worth it " Read full review on TripAdvisor 10/10/2011 Vote

2. On a slightly more positive note, the hotel is in an excellent location.

"Tired - not at all what the photos would have you believe " Read full review on TripAdvisor 10/7/2011 Vote

3. The sleeping experience is OK to positive, however the windows are not totally sound proof and the place is on a busy street.

"Good rooms - the rest: Not so good " Read full review on TripAdvisor 6/19/2011 Vote

4. On the positive side.

"Not Recommended " Read full review on TripAdvisor 6/1/2011 Vote

5. All our other dealings with the front desk staff was extremely positive.

"Nice Spot " Read full review on TripAdvisor 2/8/2011 Vote

6. My first impression of this hotel was relatively positive.

"Style over substance (and hygiene) " Read full review on TripAdvisor 2/19/2010 Vote

7. Overall, a very positive experience.

"winning ugly " Read full review on TripAdvisor 2/6/2010 Vote

8. Basically my only complaint the first time I stayed at Donovan House was the size of the standard rooms, which was a bit small - but with the bigger rooms, my review can only be positive, as everything else about the hotel - design, style, friendliness of the staff, quality of the furnishings, the shower, the ample space for storing stuff in the bathroom, is excellent.

"really impressed again " Read full review on TripAdvisor 11/14/2009 Vote

9. The only real positive is the staff, who were all very friendly and helpful.

"All style, no substance. " Read full review on Travelocity 7/1/2009 Vote

10. On the positive side the beds were very comfortable, the appearance of the room was outstanding, the shower was cool, and the staff was very accomodating making great recommendations for restaurants and things to do.

"group trip " Read full review on TripAdvisor 6/1/2009 Vote