M Social Hotel New York Times Square vs Similar Hotels

Rooms described as fantastic, large and comfortable beds, with occasional negatives (smaller-than-expected windows, bathroom tile design, occasional cold shower) resulting in a strong but not perfect score.

Rooms were adequate but complaints about hot water and HVAC.

Mixed: some rooms are spacious (including accessible rooms) with great views and good beds, while others are small; several guests reported corridor/street noise and inconsistent room sizes.

Mixed: some comfortable rooms and good bed setups, but frequent comments about small, dated rooms, thin walls and poor pillows; no in-room fridge in many rooms.

Multiple reviews explicitly state rooms are spotless, housekeeping praised and rooms described as clean and complete; overall very positive cleanliness sentiment.

Issues with clean water and overall upkeep mentioned.

Generally positive: multiple guests mentioned rooms were clean and well maintained, though a few noted minor maintenance issues (broken curtain, drawers) that affected perceived upkeep.

Mixed: several guests reported the rooms as clean and comfortable, but others mentioned dirty carpets and occasional odor in rooms.

Location repeatedly called 'perfect', 'Times Square', 'very central' and is one of the strongest consistent positives across reviews.

Central location highlighted as a plus.

Excellent: many guests praised the central location (close to subway, Times Square, Central Park) and enjoyed city views from higher floors.

Very positive: repeatedly described as unbeatable/central, within walking distance of subway, Central Park and major attractions.

Service is often praised (staff going above and beyond, named staff member assisting), but several reports of poor reception behavior and a serious deposit/refund complaint lower the composite service score.

Service was slow and staff unresponsive at times.

Strong positive: staff repeatedly described as helpful, friendly and accommodating; transfer service to JFK noted as available.

Mostly positive: many reviews praise friendly, helpful staff; a few reports mention unwelcoming reception and slow/bad handling of complaints (refund/manager issue).

Breakfast/buffet is praised by multiple guests, but there are mentions of overpriced breakfast and mixed experiences, producing a moderately high score.

Negative comments about restaurant/bar service and quality.

Mixed: breakfast was described both as good with variety and as pricey; some guests found the coffee and certain breakfast elements disappointing.

Negative: breakfast repeatedly criticized as inadequate/overpriced (e.g., one drink, a pastry and fruit), guests upset about paying extra for minimal offering.

Rooftop bar and views are repeatedly praised and breakfast/buffet mentioned positively; however elevator wait issues and some operational frustrations temper the amenities score.

Elevator issues and food offerings negatively mentioned.

Some shortcomings: building amenities are basic (small appliances, basic kitchenware), limited elevators causing waits at peak times, and advertised private parking was not available for at least one guest.

Negative: multiple guests note lack of minibar/fridge and no coffee station; requests for basic items (e.g., extractor for odors) unmet.

Several guests explicitly note great value for money, though breakfast price complaints and isolated negative experiences slightly reduce the rating.

Extra charges noted as unfair and contributed to poor value perception.

Negative sentiment: at least one guest explicitly felt the rate paid did not match room size or level of service/amenities; overall perceived value was below expectations for the price.

Negative: several guests feel the hotel is overpriced for what is offered—'just a bed and bathroom' and misleading room advertising noted.