I just spent a night at the Park Hyatt London River Thames, which I’ve been meaning to check out, since it opened less than a year ago.
While I had no real need to visit London, the timing worked out — I had a Category 1-7 free night award that was about to expire, and I wanted to travel through London Heathrow to fly American’s new Boeing 787-9 business class, so I figured I might as well spend a night in London to stay at the hotel.
While I’ll have a full trip report soon, I’d like to share some initial thoughts. Quite honestly, the Park Hyatt London was exactly what I expected. It’s a beautiful, luxurious property, with impressive amenities. However, the hotel’s location is less than ideal for most, and the property also feels rather generic.
London is woefully lacking when it comes to luxury points hotels, so I think this property poses a pretty simple question — how much are you willing to compromise on location and sense of place to redeem points (or take advantage of elite perks) at a luxury hotel?
In this post:
The Park Hyatt London is in a random location
The Park Hyatt London is located in the Nine Elms district, which is on the south bank of the River Thames, in Wandsworth. This is a fast growing area, given how space constrained central London is. There’s a ton of construction in the area, and it all feels very modern, with lots of high rises.
The Park Hyatt is located in Nine Elms, which is a high rise development with residences. Sadly the hotel takes up the lowest floors of the building, limiting the views.
In many ways, the setting on the River Thames is pretty. There are lots of boardwalks along the river, that are nice for a stroll. I have to imagine that a vast majority of guests staying at the hotel don’t actually desire to be in this area, but instead, stay here because of the points angle.
It’s not like there’s anything wrong with having a hotel in this area, it’s just strange for Hyatt to open its flagship brand in this location, in such an important market. But I guess this was the best Hyatt could get, and something is better than nothing.
If you actually want to go to the areas of London that most people want to visit, expect that it’ll take anywhere from 20-40 minutes by public transportation, and probably a similar amount of time by car (given London traffic).
In fairness, you benefit a bit from the out-of-the-way location. Rooms are bigger than they’d be if the hotel were in central London, and I have to imagine rates would also be higher.
The Park Hyatt London is luxurious and beautiful
The designers of the Park Hyatt London did a great job with making the property feel grand and luxurious. Honestly, it’s stunning across the board, from the public spaces, to the rooms. I’m not sure it reflects London much — I feel like the hotel could just as easily be in in Dubai, or Kuala Lumpur, or New York, or Sydney — but it’s generically luxurious.
The rooms are just as nice as the public spaces. As a World of Hyatt lifetime Globalist member, I was upgraded to a Park Deluxe Suite, which is one category above the standard suite, so that was a very generous upgrade, especially since I booked last minute. I give the room decor 10/10 — how lovely!
The catch, which is minor in the scheme of things, is that my suite was on the lowest level with guest rooms (floor three). From one direction, the bedroom had okay views, while from the living room and other direction of the bedroom, below were the views…
The Park Hyatt London has great amenities, good dining
The hotel makes up for its less central location with a spa, massive pool, sauna, and solid gym. So at least if you’re looking to be entertained on property, there are lots of options. I imagine this is something that a lot of families value.
The hotel has three(ish) dining outlets. There’s Nine Elms Bar & Lounge, which is physically beautiful, but mostly just seems to be where guests checking in plop down until their room is ready.
Then there’s Nine Elms Kitchen, the hotel’s all-day dining restaurant, which is also where breakfast is served. The Globalist breakfast was quite good — it consisted of a buffet, the option to order an a la carte dish, and barista coffee.
Then there’s Yú Gé, the hotel’s Cantonese restaurant. This is only sort of part of the hotel, as you have to walk through a bunch of doors and through part of the residences area to get there. This looked excellent, though I didn’t end up eating here, unfortunately.
The Park Hyatt London lacks a vibe
Aside from the location, here’s the other thing I don’t love about the Park Hyatt London — it has no vibe, in my opinion. I love people watching, so it’s fun when you have a hotel with lively social spaces that are frequented by both guests and locals. It’s nice when there’s a cool speakeasy-style bar (which you’ll find at many London hotels), live music, etc.
There’s none of that here. It feels like the only people in the hotel common spaces are hotel guests. And at least during my stay, they weren’t all that varied. I’d estimate that 95% of the guests were American, and 5% were Chinese. It felt like being in an American Flagship Lounge, down to the number of Executive Platinum bag tags.
I get that might come across as “tourist complains about other tourists” (I’m even an American flyer, mostly!), and that’s not my intent. My point is simply to say that if you care about vibe or an interesting scene, this hotel isn’t it. There are lots of less luxurious points hotels in central London that have a more varied combination of hotel guests and local visitors.
Bottom line
The Park Hyatt London is exactly what I was expecting. For most visitors to London, the hotel has an out-of-the-way location. But the property makes up for that with a luxurious design, spacious rooms, and ample amenities.
Is the hotel worth staying at? It all depends on what you value most — if you care about location and vibe, I’d stay elsewhere. If you care about luxury and amenities, along with the points angle, then this is an option worth considering.
What’s your take on the Park Hyatt London?
Just a few thoughts...
I recently stayed here and felt it was just meh. Like you said, it was luxurious and new but something about the service was missing. It didn't feel genuine and felt kind of cold.
One thing that I did love is the free car service into the heart of London (within 3 miles of the hotel). Unfortunately, the driver was not that friendly either and didn't really want to converse....
Just a few thoughts...
I recently stayed here and felt it was just meh. Like you said, it was luxurious and new but something about the service was missing. It didn't feel genuine and felt kind of cold.
One thing that I did love is the free car service into the heart of London (within 3 miles of the hotel). Unfortunately, the driver was not that friendly either and didn't really want to converse. It was a weird ride and you would think they would have someone who could engage in a conversation in that position.
The breakfast was OK but I thought the Andaz London was better and even the small breakfast at the Great Scotland Yard, which is still my favorite Hyatt hotel in London, was better I thought.
The pool was great and that was definitely a highlight of staying there.
I probably won't stay here again because of the location but at least it had a Tube station within a 5-10 minute walk.
Ben - your review is spot on. I finally stayed at the PH earlier this year (I lived in London for 10+ years, now visit often for work). It’s a nice property, OK globalist treatment, but it’s in the middle of a ghetto area. Not close to anywhere by taxi or tube (both tube stations are a 10 or so minute walk from the hotel).
If this were New York, it’s like building a...
Ben - your review is spot on. I finally stayed at the PH earlier this year (I lived in London for 10+ years, now visit often for work). It’s a nice property, OK globalist treatment, but it’s in the middle of a ghetto area. Not close to anywhere by taxi or tube (both tube stations are a 10 or so minute walk from the hotel).
If this were New York, it’s like building a luxury hotel in the middle of the Bronx (not even hip Williamsburg which would be the equivalent of London’s Shoreditch).
Nine Elms is hardly the equivalent of the middle of the Bronx, neither in location from central London nor crime which I assume you're getting at. The area includes the US embassy and MI5 building and it's close to hipster Vauxhall and Battersea Power Station which is full of luxury shops. Yes, it has some council estates close by but so has much of London.
My understanding this is all about selling the residences in the same building under the PH brand. I would put money on this being a Grand Hyatt/Regency within a decade. I'd love to see a proper London Park Hyatt ala Paris, Vienna, etc. It deserves one! And, in the correct location, would command a real premium.
I think the wellness facilities are anything but good. A newly built hotel and there isn't even a steam room, just a sauna. That's ridiculous. And the pool is also completely lacklustre. Yes, it's 20 metres long, but that's about it.
What speaks in favour of the hotel are the very reasonable prices and the breakfast buffet, which is lavish by London standards.
No snaps of the wine bar on the second floor? It hadn’t opened yet when I stayed at the PH London.
It's primarily a business hotel, not a tourist-oriented hotel. And it's located in an area convenient to many businesses and firms.
I spend 40 to 60 days in London every year and I typically walk 3 to 6 miles a day. While not shy about walking, I have an appreciation of Mayfair/St. James/West End property locations. That's where most of what I'm after is. And, I think that's where most of what most others are after is as well. Someone who thinks otherwise is thinking what THEY would do rather than thinking what OTHERS would prefer . . . which is what Ben is doing.
When I lived in South London in 1996 this site was the council dump. Wandsworth was up-and-coming last century and it's still struggling with that moniker today. It's a poor location for a trip to experience the sites of Central London (and I still walk everywhere today, so getting around London on foot is never an issue for me).
Only lazy Americans will claim this is a bad location. It is only 30 minutes walk to Palace of Westminster ffs.
@ Cb — Respectfully, I don’t consider myself to be a “lazy American.” I love walking places, and average 15K steps per day when at home.
However, I wouldn’t really consider “30+ minute walking distance to one place that visitors regularly go to” to be much of an endorsement of the location.
Most people want to spend their time on vacation being in the area they want to be in, rather than walking here.
C’mon,...
@ Cb — Respectfully, I don’t consider myself to be a “lazy American.” I love walking places, and average 15K steps per day when at home.
However, I wouldn’t really consider “30+ minute walking distance to one place that visitors regularly go to” to be much of an endorsement of the location.
Most people want to spend their time on vacation being in the area they want to be in, rather than walking here.
C’mon, this really isn’t a controversial take. People can fairly claim this hotel is still worth staying at, but pretending the location is perfectly great for the average visitor just isn’t accurate.
Is it near a tube station? That’s one of the main criteria for choosing a hotel in London.
Sort of? About 600 meters to either Vauxhall station on the Victoria Line or the Nine Elms station on the Northern Line. Both walks are safe, but distances like that are actually a bit far for what's supposed to be a central location. And that leg of the Northern Line doesn't have quite as frequent service as the main line towards Morden.
Only an American would say a random location. It is certainly not if you actually know London.
It’s walking distance from many places including Chelsea, Westminster and Battersea. Although most Americans would need a car to go 100 metres
No, as a Londoner this description is spot on.
How many people come to London to spend the entire trip in Westminster and Battersea?
You can say the same for any area duh ! Westminster also covers a large area and indeed may never leave it . My point was clearly lost on you and it is easy to get about from there, including waking, the tube or a bus. It is certainly not random as if it was built in Dalston.
We have excellent transport here unlike most US cities
lol no it's an entirely random location
I feel Nine Elms is both a random location but it's distance is being overstated.
Yes, Nine Elms/Vauxhall is a former industrial location on the other side of the river from central London that few people ventured to previously that had bad transport links. It's not Mayfair or Westminster or the West End.
But it is on the river and an easy walk to Vauxhall Bridge, Pimlico and the Tate Britain which is, essentially,...
I feel Nine Elms is both a random location but it's distance is being overstated.
Yes, Nine Elms/Vauxhall is a former industrial location on the other side of the river from central London that few people ventured to previously that had bad transport links. It's not Mayfair or Westminster or the West End.
But it is on the river and an easy walk to Vauxhall Bridge, Pimlico and the Tate Britain which is, essentially, central London.
It's now a shiny - but bland - suburb which contains the US embassy and is close to MI6, Battersea Power Station and it's luxury shops is down the road, and it has its own new tube station so it's well connected.
Ben, might I recommend the Stafford next time in London. Such a chic property, with an excellent vibe and features the American Bar. Would love to know what you think.
Also Gleneagles when you make it up to Scotland (and Townhouse)
I stayed at one of the Hub by Premier hotels when I went to London. Literally only $100 a night and only a few blocks away from Buckingham Palace. Sure the rooms are small but you can’t beat the price or location. You can keep your Hyatt.
Not a random location, just a bad location. Unfortunate as the facilities and service were really nice (including the view from my room, though breakfast was meh)
For who ? You can walk to Victoria, Chelsea, Lambeth
Westminster, Hyde park, Knightsbridge. It’s near Battersea’s redeveloped port station and park. The US embassy is there. The whole world doesn’t revolve around Americans. I’m in the area frequently and it’s certainly not random.
Yeah, of course you can walk to Hyde Park or Knightsbridge. In about 50 minutes, that is. Each way.
Or you can stay in Mayfair and spend your travelling time enjoying the places where you actually want to be.
It’s a 44 minute walk to Sloane Square. Not exactly within walking distance.
And, the Hyatt apologists come out on cue. Oh, that 1.859352 cents per point.
You really should check out the Edition. It is a wonderful property in London, Bonvoy points and had one of the best restaurants in London
Normally I agree with Ben on most things, but I’m going to take the opposite view on this one. I stayed here very recently also and we found it to be excellent across the board. The location is not in central London - correct. We viewed that as a plus. Having walked through central London near the Big Ben, the Eye, the war rooms, Trafalgar Square, etc, those areas are all completely overrun with crowds....
Normally I agree with Ben on most things, but I’m going to take the opposite view on this one. I stayed here very recently also and we found it to be excellent across the board. The location is not in central London - correct. We viewed that as a plus. Having walked through central London near the Big Ben, the Eye, the war rooms, Trafalgar Square, etc, those areas are all completely overrun with crowds. There are two different tube stops within a 5 minute stroll of the Park Hyatt, making accessibility super easy. We had a lovely river view from our suite on a high floor. If you are going to London and your priority is on being as close as possible to many of the attractions, well then sure - stay closer. If your priority is having a beautiful and quiet room to relax after a day spent amongst the crowds, this is a great place to stay.
Yeah but you could just stay at the Conrad St James and be in central London with Tube entrance across the street, but quieter since it's in a more office area. There are plenty of more central locations that aren't massively busy. This location is as inconvenient as I thought the first time I read about it
You can be away from the obnoxious crowds without staying here. Mayfair is incredible and has tons of top notch hotels. The hotel is quite nice but the location sucks (have stayed here and many other hotels with 30+ visits to London). If you haven't stayed in Mayfair and your main exposure is the super mass-tourist areas yeah maybe this is better than those. For points hotels you do have options like the JW which are still much better located.
Ben, so curious what your go-to hotels are in central London (as you mentioned) - I wonder if you could do a recurring article format that has your few favorite points hotels in popular cities (London, NYC, Tokyo, Paris) - i get that it might be tough to know where to draw the line but we all love your airline product rankings. Even if it wasn't a true ranking it would still be an amazing resource.
He probably actively avoids any hotels that don't belong to the big American loyalty schemes (he's been very quiet even on Accor which is enormous in most of the world and which he'd promised to cover). I'm sure he'll have great recommendations if you've got an infinite amount of Marriott points, but you're probably better off with someone else's views if you want something that covers those local markets (I'm far from an expert, but...
He probably actively avoids any hotels that don't belong to the big American loyalty schemes (he's been very quiet even on Accor which is enormous in most of the world and which he'd promised to cover). I'm sure he'll have great recommendations if you've got an infinite amount of Marriott points, but you're probably better off with someone else's views if you want something that covers those local markets (I'm far from an expert, but my own take on London is to stay in Ealing which has really fast trains to the centre and LHR as well as hotels that are A LOT cheaper than those in zone 1).
Accor is the most points-to-cash loyalty program out of all the major chains; you literally get 40 euros for every 2000 points, which is not very exciting. That’s probably why he doesn’t cover it.
You can leverage it redeeming points for experiences, and you can double dip earning miles with Flying Blue or QR.
It's still not very exciting, but that doesn't matter that much- you know what you're getting for your points, rooms are priced competitively with the local market (none of that Marriott/Hyatt nonsense of paying nearly €300 a night for a basic 4* room in Madrid) and as a Gold/Plat you'll virtually always get some kind of complimentary upgrade.
"He probably actively avoids any hotels that don't belong to the big American loyalty schemes.."
Child, did mother not tell you not to speak on behalf of others (e.g. Ben)? Or that presumptuousness is a sure harbinger of downfall??
@John , there is no presumptuousness in pointing out that there have been posts on this blog dedicated to how it will cover Accor and that the aforementioned cover has yet to materialise.
I'd really like to see this too.
Any Maybourne property if you're not restricted to staying on points.
Otherwise JW Marriott or Hyatt Churchill for location; Great Scotland Yard for value/quality (premium at best, not luxury for all of those)
here to sincerely and unironically say i appreciate all the work Ben does for all of us, including this and all other posts
Anecdotally, lifetime globalists get better treatment here such as the upgrade you received (and the champagne, which is not given to everyone).
I would never stay at this hotel.
If I am paying those types of rates, I am going to stay at a central location.
If you're a US taxpayer, you're probably paying their rates even without staying there yourself!
I hate to say 'I told you so' to so many commenters last time around.
I love sarf London and my time living in Kennington, not too far away. But "Nine Elms" is a ridiculous place to put a Park Hyatt. It is 10-15 years away from becoming a viable location for wealthy international tourists. For god's sake, I AirBnB'd a place in my old area not long ago for giggles and there were...
I hate to say 'I told you so' to so many commenters last time around.
I love sarf London and my time living in Kennington, not too far away. But "Nine Elms" is a ridiculous place to put a Park Hyatt. It is 10-15 years away from becoming a viable location for wealthy international tourists. For god's sake, I AirBnB'd a place in my old area not long ago for giggles and there were clear gunshots at night coming from council estates nearer to the river and down Stockwell way. In fact, the weekend I was there, there was a riot by Surinamese expats at a party in Camberwell that resulted in multiple stabbings. Probably a five minute cab ride from this hotel.
It's not exactly South Kensington, is my point. And for brand loyalists there's a perfectly serviceable Hyatt by Vauxhall, so why, why?
Nine Elms is a poor choice for tourists to stay in, although the nearby Vauxhall station does give rapid access to the West End via the Victoria line.
The location for a Park Hyatt is not ridiculous, as it is there primarily to serve the nearby US embassy, and the associated surrounding businesses.
Nine Elms is as you observed a melting pot for American visitors, its location next to the new US Embassy and other US government organisations makes it a focal point fir diplomatic staff and those from the intelligence community with MI6 within walking distance.
Well, exactly, that's the entire point of this hotel. There are countless options in London for those who either don't care about hotel chains or are loyal to Hilton, Accor, IHG, or even the GHA. Hyatt's presence in Europe is rather anaemic, so it makes a lot of sense to target American visitors who are more likely to be familiar with and/or loyal to their brand.
The location is anything but random!
@Throwawayname fine but PH? Hyatt has a dozen brands it can utilize to draw people to a gentrification area
I'm not familiar with the differences between Hyatt Regency, Park Hyatt etc, but my guess is that it's their way of getting away with charging higher rates to those travelling on other people's money.
I don't think Hyatt has an alternative brand portfolio to slot this into.
Hyatt Regency would downgrade this into a business hotel. Grand Hyatt would necessitate a completely different direction and set of amenties like a Grand Club, etc. Andaz could work as a "high end" property, if they changed up the design language, but probably would lack the rate premiums a Park Hyatt could get.
This feels very similar to Park Hyatt Seoul. Just...
I don't think Hyatt has an alternative brand portfolio to slot this into.
Hyatt Regency would downgrade this into a business hotel. Grand Hyatt would necessitate a completely different direction and set of amenties like a Grand Club, etc. Andaz could work as a "high end" property, if they changed up the design language, but probably would lack the rate premiums a Park Hyatt could get.
This feels very similar to Park Hyatt Seoul. Just a very vanilla, expensive hotel, without that much special to it, unlike other Park Hyatts like Jakarta, Saigon, etc.
The location sucks unless you need to visit one of those gov't buildings
Loved my stay here a month ago, it’s a great hotel. I also like the location, but I’m probably in the minority there. I’ve stayed in Vauxhall several times so I feel at home in this neighborhood and it’s well-connected to central London. As someone else mentioned, the hotel is close to several LGBT nightlife options.
It is a terrible location that Hyatt apologists will rationalize because of the cents per point redemption rate.
Actually it's quite an excellent location if you're interested in Vauxhall gay clubs...
I second this. The Royal Vauxhall Tavern is one of the most famous and idiosyncratic gay bars in all of the UK. And there are tons of others near the station and under the arches.
Several things.
1) Hyatt went from virtually no properties in London to four Hyatt Regencies, including two Crowne Plazas that converted. Hyatt was desperate for London properties, which explains why this property is a Park Hyatt.
2) The Park Hyatt is flagged as a Park Hyatt because of the American Embassy. Period. Previously, the JW Marriott Grosvenor House was the embassy hotel.
3) What idiot puts suites on the worst floors with the worst...
Several things.
1) Hyatt went from virtually no properties in London to four Hyatt Regencies, including two Crowne Plazas that converted. Hyatt was desperate for London properties, which explains why this property is a Park Hyatt.
2) The Park Hyatt is flagged as a Park Hyatt because of the American Embassy. Period. Previously, the JW Marriott Grosvenor House was the embassy hotel.
3) What idiot puts suites on the worst floors with the worst views? At least put some faux grass on the rooftop to mask the bad view.
4) While the Park Hyatt is unquestionably upscale, I would struggle to call this a real 5-star luxury hotel especially when London of real five-star luxury hotels. This is a nice hotel but it's not real 5-star luxury.
Upscale and 5 star is the same thing in much/most of the world. Sofitels, JW Marriotts, NH Collections, Radisson Blu(e)s etc around the world tend to be bona fide 5-star properties. The Mandarin Orientals and Amans may also be 5-star rated but it's not really the same market.
Most Embassy staff aren't staying at the Park Hyatt. It's rates are too high.
It's where the secretary of state and others stay.
It's flagged as a PH to see the PH branded residences above it. Once those are sold I can see changes coming ….