- 2 out of 5
- Avg. Member Rating
- 15
- Reviews
A Mediocre Experience
- June 2, 2009
- Rated 3 of 5 by
a traveler from Travelocity.com
The girl at the front desk upon registering was very nice. The room was okay and seemed clean but the entire building could use either a face lift (resurfacing) or remodeling. The room smelled stale but there was not access to fresh air. The continental breakfast was very basic and not particularly appetizing.
never again
- December 12, 2008
- Rated 2 of 5 by
a traveler from Travelocity.com
Dirty dirty dirty; bedspreads did not fit beds; noisy (freeway AND other travelers). I remember when Ramada was a quality brand. Sad.
Don't bother with this one!
- November 19, 2008
- Rated 2 of 5 by
a traveler from Travelocity.com
This is an old Motel and needs a major overhall. The carpeting is dirty and needs to be replaced. The bathrooms has never seen any type good old scrubbling in a long time. Don't be supprised to see the same clerk all the time, she nice but evry over worked.
Not too good
- July 18, 2008
- Rated 2 of 5 by
a traveler from Travelocity.com
Upon checking in to a non-smoking room, the room reeked of smoke and the carpet was filthy. The clerk nicely moved me to another room that did not smell as bad and the carpet was not quite as dirty.The internet did not function-- (I could connect buy not make it work) but the clerk said it was intermittent and knew nothing about trouble-shooting it. The next morning , the desk person did help me find directions to a meeting place by Mapquesting ... but it took her 15 minutes to get her internet up. The continental breakfast was disappointing (two of the juices ran out) with a poor fruit selection. This Ramada was really a no-tell motel. Despite the cheap price I would not stay there again
SU
Hotel was okay for one night
- March 10, 2008
- Rated 3 of 5 by
a traveler from Travelocity.com
The hotel was okay but I would not stay there again.