Not stayed there but other MI have, (See the reviews), I just think it is too out of the way for my London likes. Too many people and I just do not want to do the tube in London. Great for Eurostar travel and a fantastic looking place, but I just want to much peace in my travels for this. I stay at County Hall.
I have stayed at the St. Pancras Renaissance a few times since it's opening. Here are my thoughts:
1. If you like historic hotels, this one is top notch and I believe they've done a great job with the renovation such that the 'charm' of the hotel is left but has all the ammenities that are expected of a modern hotel.
2. The standard rooms (referred to as Barlow rooms) are nicely appointed but in my opinion lack in size (relative to US hotels/other London Marriott's that I've stayed). If you are lucky (my success rate is 50%) and you get upgraded to the Chambers suites, these rooms in my opinion, are amazing. Extremely well furnished, tall ceilings and great decor. Most rooms have both showers and bathtubs and are very spacious. My only gripe is if you are facing the street, the rooms can be rather noisy (there is complementary ear plugs in the bathroom - too bad I didn't find them till I was leaving!). Ask for an 'inside' room as these have amazing views of the train platform and are a lot less noisy.
3. Restaurants - The Book Room is a good place to grab a quick bite/drink and the lounge has a good selection of food/drinks. The Gilbert Scott has excellent food but is a little pricey. Finally, you can go to the lower level of St. Pancras station and there are a number of quick service food options if you're not willing to pay hotel prices.
4. Location - Great if you're taking the EuroStar. As jerrycoin mentioned, it's a little out-of-the-way and not close to a lot of London attractions but very easy to get to any point in London via the tube (directly below the hotel).
I was there a few weeks ago, and took the Eurostar to Paris. One of the things I wanted to check-out was this hotel. I can share with you I would not stay there. The hotel is most lovely, but I could not "Relax" at this property. It was long lines just to take a taxi away from St. Pancras and the sidewalks were so busy, you could hardly find a place to walk.
Chris, I am not a "Tube person", (Prefer taxi) if you are this is a good place as the tube is below the hotel. Again, it is a beautiful property, but not a place for me. It reminds me of another place I have stayed, (Marriott Marquise, NYC), but would stay at the CY or Ren. nearby for the same reason.
Look up my recent write up on the Eurostar. It may come in handy.
Likewise, here is what two recent publications had to say about the Ren. St. Pancras.
Travel and Leisure, November 2011
It opened in 1873, went into decline during the Depression and after 40 years of preservation battles has been restored as the St. Pancras Ren. Hotel. Actually two buildings: a new wing of 207 sleek rooms that appeal to the business traveler and the old building with 38 idiosyncratic rooms full of architectural drama for those who appreciate it.
T&L, id high on The Gilbert Scott rest. and say it is well worth the visit.
The other recent discussion was by American Express in their "Departures", November 2011 issue, the comment:
They are high on the hotel, but state check-in takes 20 minutes, but that is due to the newness and tremendous crowds at the hotel.
Please make sure you give us a full report.
More London threads