Arthur St Rooms vs Similar Hotels

Mixed reviews on room quality; issues with noise and size mentioned.

Mixed: some guests found rooms cosy and comfortable, others described tiny, dated or unrenovated rooms (1980s), warm attic rooms and basement rooms—average-to-slightly-below-average room quality.

Room size and comfort received mixed reviews, some expressed dissatisfaction.

Issues with room assignments and inconsistent maintenance.

Cleanliness issues noted in multiple reviews, particularly regarding room cleanliness and shared bathrooms.

Mixed comments: several guests said rooms and bathrooms were clean and functional, but multiple reviews noted poor drainage, a leaking vent, and at least one report of unsatisfactory cleanliness and dated fittings, so cleanliness is below average.

Some reviews mentioned issues with cleanliness, particularly regarding carpets.

Mixed feedback; some reports of unclean bedding.

Multiple mentions of good location, easy access to transport and attractions.

Consistently praised: close to bus links, good access to Edinburgh city centre, pleasant park nearby and quiet neighbourhood—location is a clear positive.

The location was praised across multiple reviews for its convenience.

Consistently praised for being good and well-connected.

Generally good communication and overall satisfactory service from hosts.

Generally positive: staff described as friendly and helpful with useful local tips; one case of slow resolution (TV fixed partially after 3 days) lowers the score slightly but overall service is a strength.

Reviews frequently highlight friendly and helpful staff.

Service was standard; issues raised were addressed, but satisfaction varied.

Not explicitly mentioned; assumed average for a homestay.

Hardly mentioned directly; one guest recommended a nearby café for breakfast. No major positives or negatives about hotel F&B, so assigned the target/neutral score.

Breakfast received mixed reviews; some found it average.

Not mentioned; assumed standard for this rating.

Basic amenities present; some complaints regarding cleanliness and functionality.

Several amenity problems reported: non-working TV and Wi‑Fi in some rooms, shower issues, no AC in attic rooms, limited parking. Although basic amenities exist (microwave access), reliability is an issue.

Amenities were generally considered good, though some reported average food quality.

Some amenities lacking, but mentioned others were satisfactory.

Positive remarks about price-to-quality ratio despite some concerns.

Mixed perceptions: a few guests felt the price-quality ratio was good, others felt it was not good value given room condition and amenity issues, so value is slightly below neutral.

Many reviews noted that the accommodation offered great value for its price.

Varied opinions; some felt it did not meet expectations.