PTRAVEL wrote:

That may be true in the US, but, at least with respect to Marriotts, is not
true internationally. Many international Marriotts were formally
individually-owned grand hotels. In Rome, the Marriott is the Grand Flora,
which is quite unique (and quite nice). In London, it's now called
Grosvernor Square -- I don't know the original name -- but it has a
completely unique character. Same for the Champs Elysees Marriott in Paris.
Not only is it the only hotel on the Champs Elysee, but it has a unique
Parisian character not at all like any of the other international Marriotts.
The same is true in Milan. The JW was, to my knowledge, built specifically
as a Marriott, but it is quite spectacular and has nothing in common with
the American implementations except the name.

Interesting. I should add a visit to the local Marriott whenever I go
somewhere.

It's a bit like going to a McDonald's in Nova Scotia, ordering a McLobster,
then saying you've 'experienced local food delicacies'.

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. I've stayed in 5-star "local hotels"
as well as the international chains, and there is nothing to distinguish the
two except that one will give me frequent stay points.
That's what I mean. 5 star hotels isolate you from the country you're
in, it's like a bubble isolating you from the country you're in. It
brings home to a foreign land. Sacrificing the princely comfort will
give you more of a local flavour, you may have to eat rice with
chopsticks instead of steak with a fork, the waiter may not speak
perfect english, the train ride will show more of the country than a
plane over it...