After the shambolic Sheraton Heathrow, the Chicago Airport branch of the same hotel chain was a bit of a faith-restorer.
The shuttle was prompt; the driver friendly. The hotel offers a view across to the city - although this is an airport hotel, you can nip into Chicago proper fairly easily by cab; beware suggestions you should take the shuttle back to the airport and get the train into town - it's cheap, and a great way to see Chicago's guts, but it'll eat a couple of hours out of your day in both directions. If you're hoping to squeeze a day in Chicago out of changing your planes, you'll need a cab in at least one direction.
Clean hotel; friendly staff; a bright, airy feel to the public areas. The rooms are arranged around the edge of an almost-courtyard like atrium, with glass lifts zipping you to your floor and back. There appeared to be ice machines and drinks dispensers on each floor; there was also a really well-stocked little shop, and it's nice to have a little shop.
We didn't stay here long, but I could have happily spent a week.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Hotel Review: Heathrow Sheraton
So, once again I'm falling behind with my hotel reviews.
This is one of two Sheratons for Heathrow; not to be confused with the Skyline Hotel. Perhaps the Skyline is nicer.
To be fair, the hotel isn't wretched, but compared with what other hotels near Heathrow manage - like the Marriott, for example - it falls disappointingly short. The rooms are clean, the bed good. It's the communal areas where things fall down.
There's one kitchen servicing three eating areas, all of which abut each other; each have slightly different menus and there seems a genuine reluctance to allow people to sit in the bar and order from the "cafe" menu, for example. To be honest, nobody would want to sit in the bar anyway - it's dark and noisy and uncomfortable.
You wouldn't really want to sit in the cafe area, either - it calls itself a cafe, but it's just chairs in the recepetion area. It's like sitting in an airport check-in queue, in fact, but since the only other option was the laughably poor and overpriced restaurant proper, that's where we wound up.
I tried to order the only vegetarian dish on the menu; the woman glumly told me I couldn't have it. "We don't do that here. I don't know why it's on the menu."
I see. To be fair, she did tell me there was a different vegetarian pasta available, which I had, and was edible, but the appearance of a non-existent item on the menus, that nobody had even bothered to cross out with a Sharpie, sums up the general feeling of this place: nobody does anything more than they have to. There's no attention to detail; there's no sense of care or pride. That Sheraton allow this to carry on under one of their luxury brands - and charges a luxury price for it - is a blot on their record, I'm afraid.
This is one of two Sheratons for Heathrow; not to be confused with the Skyline Hotel. Perhaps the Skyline is nicer.
To be fair, the hotel isn't wretched, but compared with what other hotels near Heathrow manage - like the Marriott, for example - it falls disappointingly short. The rooms are clean, the bed good. It's the communal areas where things fall down.
There's one kitchen servicing three eating areas, all of which abut each other; each have slightly different menus and there seems a genuine reluctance to allow people to sit in the bar and order from the "cafe" menu, for example. To be honest, nobody would want to sit in the bar anyway - it's dark and noisy and uncomfortable.
You wouldn't really want to sit in the cafe area, either - it calls itself a cafe, but it's just chairs in the recepetion area. It's like sitting in an airport check-in queue, in fact, but since the only other option was the laughably poor and overpriced restaurant proper, that's where we wound up.
I tried to order the only vegetarian dish on the menu; the woman glumly told me I couldn't have it. "We don't do that here. I don't know why it's on the menu."
I see. To be fair, she did tell me there was a different vegetarian pasta available, which I had, and was edible, but the appearance of a non-existent item on the menus, that nobody had even bothered to cross out with a Sharpie, sums up the general feeling of this place: nobody does anything more than they have to. There's no attention to detail; there's no sense of care or pride. That Sheraton allow this to carry on under one of their luxury brands - and charges a luxury price for it - is a blot on their record, I'm afraid.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Calls for consultation... quietly
It's long been a suspicion of those involved in fighting planning decisions that those who would hope for a positive outcome attempt to skew things in their favour by being selective about where they solicit opinions. A public consultation is good, but you don't want all the public chipping in.
In the old days, you could simply put the adverts for the consultation in an obscure part of a little-read newspaper, or post bills in the middle of nowhere. But what in the internet age? How can you show you seek participation, while not overly encouraging that participation?
The government is currently seeking opinions about expansion for Heathrow, to see if the public agrees with conclusions it has already met. There's a website set up to gather responses and - to be fair - there are banner adverts running on other sites calling for everyone to join in.
Here's one. Now, this looks like a fairly standard banner ad - you think you'd click on it, and it would take you to the consultation, right?
Except it doesn't work like that - you have to click right in that little 'click here' lozenge. Now, since most people will be used to clicking anywhere in a banner and being taken to the advertiser's site, chances are many people will have tried to click the advert, rather than the lozenge and - when nothing happens - assume the link is broken and not bother.
Surely the Department For Transport and the groups keen to tarmac over more of the countryside aren't so cynical as to deliberately create an advert which flies in the face of usability standards to reduce participation in the debate, would they?
You can find the Consultation page here.
In the old days, you could simply put the adverts for the consultation in an obscure part of a little-read newspaper, or post bills in the middle of nowhere. But what in the internet age? How can you show you seek participation, while not overly encouraging that participation?
The government is currently seeking opinions about expansion for Heathrow, to see if the public agrees with conclusions it has already met. There's a website set up to gather responses and - to be fair - there are banner adverts running on other sites calling for everyone to join in.
Here's one. Now, this looks like a fairly standard banner ad - you think you'd click on it, and it would take you to the consultation, right?
Except it doesn't work like that - you have to click right in that little 'click here' lozenge. Now, since most people will be used to clicking anywhere in a banner and being taken to the advertiser's site, chances are many people will have tried to click the advert, rather than the lozenge and - when nothing happens - assume the link is broken and not bother.
Surely the Department For Transport and the groups keen to tarmac over more of the countryside aren't so cynical as to deliberately create an advert which flies in the face of usability standards to reduce participation in the debate, would they?
You can find the Consultation page here.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
NASA releases safety data... almost
In perhaps the most grudging of festive season gifts, NASA has made public its data on airline safety in the US. Only it's been fudged and munged to the point of almost being unusable:
The agency went to extreme lengths to make the information useless, just stopping short of translating it into Reformed Egyptian and hiding it under a rock in the middle of the woods.
NASA administrator, Michael Griffin, said his agency had no plans to do additional work with the material, which he sought to disown in a conference call with reporters.
“It’s hard for me to see any data here that the traveling public would care about or ought to care about,” he said. “But it’s also not for me to prescribe what others may care about. We were asked to release the data and I said that we would, and I’ve done that.”
“It’s hard for me to see any data here that the traveling public would care about or ought to care about,” he said. “But it’s also not for me to prescribe what others may care about. We were asked to release the data and I said that we would, and I’ve done that.”
The agency went to extreme lengths to make the information useless, just stopping short of translating it into Reformed Egyptian and hiding it under a rock in the middle of the woods.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)