This hotel must be going for some sort of a record, or something…
Continue reading: A Hyatt Hotel With 96-Square-Foot Rooms?!?
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
If these rooms were on the Orient Express they would be considered luxury suites priced at thousands of dollars. One way to look at it...
The base rooms at Le Belgrand Hotel Paris Champs Elysees, Tapestry Collection by Hilton are 12 sqm or about 129 sq ft, not much bigger than the smallest base rooms here.
I'm afraid this is much more common than you think Lucky! Especially across Europe.
Years ago, I stayed at a hotel in London where there was a twin bed (single bed) against a wall. There was a narrow walkway along one side of the bed. There was a closet at the foot of the bed and a little sink in the corner. In retrospect, I estimate the room to be 10 ft x 5 ft or 50 sq ft. Maybe it was 65 sq. ft.
It did have a window! That's more than I can say about another London hotel that was in the basement and had a window facing a brick wall and about 3 ft. of space between the window and the brick wall of the next building.
@ Ken -- Hah, I know small hotel rooms are common, but there's a big difference between 9 square meters and 12 square meters!
As an American who suffers through Premier Inns or hubs to save some money in England, I would much rather suffer through a loyalty program I value, but it has to be comparable in price!
What do you mean this hotel doesn't belong in Hyatt.
It directly represent Hyatt's core brand image.
The footprint is so small and clustered. It's hardly useful for guests who like to go around a lot of places.
Agree with Ben - even though this isn't a very compelling experience, the LOCATION of this as a place to spend Hyatt points on a lower category hotel is much needed - anytime i want to spend Hyatt points in London it's either a bad location or much further upmarket than I need.
@ Alonzo -- LOL. Well, since he's two, his blog would probably be called ONAAT (One "No" at a Time).
Was this once a Quality Inn? Because we once stayed at the Quality Inn Paddington (about 20 years ago) with rooms exactly like this. The first night was spent in a room so small that it was just big enough to accommodate the bed. Our luggage blocked the door. But the furnishings, TV, bathroom, etc were brand new and very nice. They upgraded us the second night, to a room that was still small but not laughable. This new Hyatt Place reminds me very much of the aforementioned hotel.
Hi Lucky; have you done a search on hotel pricing in London lately? It’s off the roof. So if they price themselves accordingly I can see them being full all the time. But yeah I don’t think anytime pays attention to the room size until they get there. I spend 160+ nights a year in hotels and honestly the only time I look at room size is when I’m gonna use a suite night award.
Slap the word Hyatt on it - fool people who believe Hyatt is somehow a premium brand, make money off of blindly-brand loyal fools
I've stayed at the Mercure Hotel there at Paddington several times, and the rooms are TINY, and it's fine. I'm usually passing through London for 1-2 nights and just need a place to crash and it does the trick. The last time I was there (February 2023) I had a double bed pushed up against the wall with barely enough room to walk around the room, let alone open my suitcase, but it was clean and comfortable, and the price was about half the price of a "traditional" hotel room, and that's all that mattered to me. The location is fantastic, which is another big selling point. I was also a solo traveller, so it I wasn't sharing the room with anyone so that certainly helped.
I am absolutely nowhere near a backpacker and wouldn't ever set foot in a hostel, so this is not some place that naturally appeals to me, and it was still fine, it does what it needs to do. If you do need a traditional hotel room there is a spacious Hilton right next door.
I am back from a trip to London and simply could not believe the sky-high hotel prices there... The stay at the Sheraton Park Lane was the worst experience this year. What a shabby hotel, no upgrade for elite guests, old and tired room with no view. Wow! But what is going on with the pricing?!!
True, but at least they manage expectations well by listing those rooms as pods. It's likely being booked by a single traveler who is aware of the room size. I'd be far angrier if I booked a "1 queen bed" hotel room for two guests, only to find out the space is 96 sqft.
I'm really looking forward to this Category 4 in west central London. Everything else in town is so expensive (cash or points). The small room is a small price to pay for having some centrally located in which I can use free night certs. I'll be curious to see how long this stays a Category 4.
One time our corporate travel agent booked me in a tiny windowless shoebox in Stockholm because it was the policy to book the lowest priced room at any given hotel. I was on the road and got surprised at check in. Of cause all the nicer rooms were taken.
Some innocent business travelers may get surprised after their agent told them “I booked a Hyatt for you!”.
Yep I learned the hard way that using an "OTA" in Europe sometimes gets you exactly what you pay for and _nothing_ more. My shoebox occurred in Copenhagen, where my room was in the basement and faced the alleyway/garbage chute.
The fact that it's at Paddington means this could essentially serve as an airport hotel for Heathrow. If it's prices are reasonable, I'd very easily overlook a small room for a one night stays.
Hyatt has been so desperate for UK growth in the London market that they've went from virtually no London properties to a bunch in a very short period. Two or three were Crowne Plazas that converted. It seems like they'll take anyone these days. And don't forget, at Hyatt Place in Europe, breakfast isn't free for all guests. This hotel seems to be competing with that Four Points by Sheraton Express property that Marriott announced. There were allegations that not all of the rooms were en suite.
I've stayed in 96-sq.-ft. rooms before at Buddy Hotel in Munich. With smart design elements, it was quite okay.
I've stayed at CitizenM hotels, in rooms 120-150 square feet. These are compact, but well-designed, functional, and comfortable. I've stayed in Seattle and Chicago, and paid ≈$100/night - less than half of what a 3.5 star hotel room would have cost. I didn't spend a ton of time in the room or the hotel, though the hotel lobby and restaurant were comfortable and plenty of people were working from there.
I'd gladly stay at one of these hotels again for the price.
I don’t see what the problem is. I’ve stayed in smaller rooms in New York, Tokyo, Stockholm (the underground shoebox), and other places. I’ve never been surprised or dissatisfied because o knew what I was booking when I booked it. Whether you book direct or through an OTA they are pretty good a disclosing the size or room photos.
What’s the problem anyway, a hotel room is for sleeping in - life is outside. If you need a bigger room to work from or whatever, book a different hotel.
Hotel prices are a function of supply and demand. The BBC reported in October 2023:
According to the latest available data, 50,546 asylum seekers were being housed in hotels in the UK at the end of June. This is around 10% more than the 45,775 living in hotels at the end of last year. According to a Freedom of Information request by BBC East Investigations, 380 hotels were being used to house asylum seekers across the UK at the end of June. The region with the most hotels in use is London, with 86, followed by south-east England with 50 and the West Midlands with 42.
But Globalist!!! Free powder eggs!
Doesn't matter the room is small and overpriced. Globalist!!!!
pictures makes the room look alright tbh. no different than tokyo hotels. if priced right, not a bad choice.
To be fair...perhaps we're all misunderstanding the demographics for this hotel? I mean, 96 square feet is like a premium suite for a very polite tea-drinking bear.
Single occupant, for one or two nights, maybe OK. If staying with a partner, no way.
I've stayed at the Hyatt Place London City East for 15K points a night. The rooms are about 21 sq mts, and the location—in an interesting part of East London—forced me to explore and discover that part of the city. There are lots of pubs and restaurants, and the Tube is about a 5-minute walk. No breakfast, though.
My go-to Hyatt now is the Hyatt Regency London Blackfriars. It's really well located directly outside Blackfriars station. The rooms are about 30 sq mts, and they're fairly modern for a London hotel. The best part is getting rooms at 20K points (or so) a night. Amazingly, you can get there from Heathrow by Tube without ever having to go up any steps or elevators. There's just one escalator at Blackfriars Station, and then right across the street to the hotel.
Oh what a useless comment. So what’s the overall occupancy in London, the SE, and the W Midlands versus available rooms? If you’re going to attempt to fear monger or pander, at least provide enough data to make it frightening.
Let me say first up, I recognize my experience is not an apples to apples comparison and the “Hyatt Place” branding may be part of the perceived problem. If they’re being transparent about the room you get and the price is fair this seems more than adequate for a few days of sightseeing in London. Paddington is convenient to many things, not least LHR, and if you’re only showering and sleeping at the hotel I’d choose it.
With that said, I spend about a third of my life every year on a train living in a 72sqf bedroom, and it’s perfectly adequate. Has everything you could need - bed, closet, toilet, shower, luggage storage, and other storage. If you’re only using the room as a space to sleep and bathe, it’s amazing how little room you really need. And no, I don’t work for Amtrak despite my username.
No breakfast getting a room using points. I think there’s some sort of breakfast if you pay cash.
Hub by Premier Inn is a chain of hotels with plenty of locations in central London. Their room size is 11sq ie similar to the Hyatt’s entry room. They are well priced (if you book in advance) and are very popular if you are traveling into town and fancy staying over after the theatre or dinner.
In my experience hotel prices in London are only eclipsed by the bad quality of the cheap hotels. A premium hotel with nice but small rooms could work at a good location. I assume Hyatt will be able to stay well under their competitions pricing in the area.
If the price is right I would go for it when travelling solo.
I often have to spend a quick night in London when departing Heathrow airport and I will typically take the train from Liverpool to London, arrive around 6/7pm then check out again by 8am the following morning.
Paddington is perfect for Heathrow given the Heathrow Express rail service departs from there and I would much rather spend a night in that area than at the airport.
I would literally just use the room to sleep and shower.
In Europe and other international locations, breakfasts at Hyatt Place are not free for all guests. Only Globalists get breakfast. But in my experience, Hyatt Place internationally has a real restaurant with a much better breakfast. It's more like a full-service hotel internationally.
I've stayed a couple of times at the Hyatt Regency London Blackfriars. It's a great location. But it's a so-so hotel. This was a Crowne Plaza. It's still very much a mediocre, 4-star hotel. As a Hyatt Regency they advertise and have positioned themselves as 5 stars. Of course, London has heaps of real 5-star hotels. It is not a 5-star hotel. My biggest complaints were they falsely advertised a club lounge for the better part of six months when they had no club lounge. When they finally opened a club lounge, it was actually like an ex-staff canteen behind their restaurant and not even all-day accessible. They also limited your food choices to a tray of food they chose for you. The booze was decent, but on the whole, a pretty low-end experience.
I just stayed in the Ribera Sur, a Buenos Aires hotel that was recommended in the NYT "36 Hours In ,,," series. The rooms there have similar dimensions. Never again! There is no comfort. There is no space for a chair. The most minimal useless closet. You have to lift your suitcase onto the bed to open it. And like this property, not even cheap.
Premier Inn have a sub brand called Hub with a bunch of locations across London. The rooms are tiny but very comfortable and functional. I’ve had very good experiences staying at this brand. Typical customer is definitely not students and backpackers. It is mainly business travellers.
This is nothing I stayed in a Japanese business hotel once and the room was literally opening the door there is the bed and the bathroom was basically a tiny bathroom you would have on a plane in economy. Literally was one step above a pod.
If its 15k a night in Central London I'm fine with a tiny room lol! Any sense of what category it'll be?
You‘ll find many hotels on London with such small rooms. Stayed in a Radisson once where I had to lift the suitcase over the bed to be able to get into the room.
If you need a budget room in a decent hotel - try an ibis by Accor - likely to be a better expeerience.
But, Yotels are very well designed. Very clever positioning of everything compensates for a simple lack of square footage. Almost more important than the square footage is the use of the space. I stayed in the Sheraton at Niagara Falls where my large (25+ sq meters?) room was so badly designed that I had to stand ON the bed to open the wardrobe and IN the bath to close the bathroom door. Sheer square footage does not tell all.
Anyone have experience with the new hyatt PH, And using transit to get to interesting places & Airport? Considering it or Blackfriars for a 3 night globalist stay. I get it is "out of the way", but if i can get into town and is a good representation of PH brand standards then it's a go... thx!
It'll be fun also paying £11 for breakfast. Hyatt knocking it out of the park, as usual.
Seems to be a lot of people saying that's fine? It's almost as if the concept of how small that actually is, is lost. Most people's bedrooms at home are larger than 10ft x 10ft (even my 1 bed apartment in NYC has a bedroom over 100sqft) ...and that's without then needing to add a bathroom into that space! The bathroom alone probably needs to be 5ft x 5ft to fit a shower and toilet in with room to actually stand at all (and even then that's tight bare in mind your arm span is more than that!)... that doesn't leave much room left for the bed! I stayed in a hotel in London with I think 160sqft rooms once and that seemed pretty compact
There are some hotels in Japan with rooms this small that generally work out. There are several midscale hotel chains targeted at business travelers there. I frequently stayed at APA hotels a few years ago, the bathroom arrangement has you thinking of an aircraft or a small yacht, but when the sound insulation is good and the housekeeping staff is a bunch of serious college-aged part-timers and the pricing isn't so competitive as to ever be the absolute cheapest hotel nearby, the system generally works out. APA always has an onsen on site, so I wonder how a Hyatt gets as much out of the bathroom space without that cultural norm, just happy to use a much better shared facility
I just stayed at a Moxy in downtown Houston. Believe me I won’t make that mistake again. Tiny rooms. Hooks on the wall to hang stuff a tiny writer desk. So not for the business traveler