D

Debbie

5/5Google· 5 months ago

What a stunning property. The rooms are divine - you feel like you’re in the snowy tree tops. The restaurant - Rakas - is superb. We could have stayed all day for breakfast, but hey, then we would have missed the evening meal. Absolutely delicious.Thank you to everyone who made our stay so memorable.

EL

Emily Levert

5/5Google· 5 months ago

We’ve had wonderful stay here. Our room is super cozy with stunning view of the forest. Big glass windows offering the best view, we just lay down on bed and enjoy sunrise, and star sky in the night. Breakfast was huge with such a nice collection of food including some special ones from local. We had dinner at Rakas and it was really really good. I gotta mention one of the activities that you must experience while staying here is massage. We got to know Sarah our massage technician lady who was really good at what she doing and amazing personality too. Just 5 mins away there is a reindeer farm that you can visit walk and feed the reindeer also are very indeed special Love it and definitely will come back during winter time

F

Federico

1/5Google· 5 months ago

Serious hygiene breach with no corrective action. We paid over CHF 1,000 for this stay. After returning from an evening tour, we found the bed visibly contaminated with human hair — the primary sleeping area in the room was simply not in a usable hygienic condition. We reported it immediately via the hotel’s WhatsApp service. Response time exceeded 30 minutes and no practical solution was offered — no cleaning, no room change, nothing. We were left to remove the contaminated bedding ourselves and use sheets from the second bed. After formally escalating, Hotel Manager Katarina Bobotova offered a 50% refund as a “gesture of goodwill,” noting the room “remained in use.” It remained in use only because we had no alternative and no support from staff. Scrolling through other reviews — including recent ones — it appears hygiene concerns are not isolated to our experience. This suggests a recurring housekeeping issue rather than a one-off mistake, which makes the hotel’s failure to act promptly even harder to justify. The property is visually stunning and the location is genuinely special. But hygiene is a baseline expectation, and the failure to act on a reported issue — combined with a slow response and inadequate resolution — is not acceptable at this price point. The matter remains escalated.

WC

Weijie Chu

5/5Google· 7 months ago

We have a lovely stay at the hotel. The hotel can be said situated without any other surrondings, giving a good forest view. The room is great and the bed and blanket are really comfortable. While we were told about the limited hot water, we had faced no issue with it. The hotel also comes with activities: we enjoyed the fat bikes ride, the tube slides and campfire. The staff are extremly helpful and friendly from the moment we stepped in. Providing rides to our room, answering all the questions we had. We also had the chance to book for a sledge ride to the Santa Claus Village through the forest which feels magical.

TM

Trip.com Member

5/5Trip.com· 2 years ago

The hotel is quite beautiful and I highly recommend the room 37 with the brilliant view from the window.

JS

Juliana S

3/5Google· 8 months ago

We stayed at Arctic TreeHouse for three nights, paying around €800 per night. While we had a lovely time overall, we feel the price does not fully justify what the hotel offers. The rooms are very small and not particularly luxurious for the cost, although the glass-front design and views are absolutely stunning and truly the highlight of the stay. The staff were respectful, welcoming, and accommodating throughout. Unfortunately, breakfast was very disappointing. Having stayed in many hotels worldwide, this was one of the weakest breakfasts we’ve experienced, very limited options and stale pastries each morning. A special mention to the two wonderful Kosovo gentlemen at valet service and the restaurant waiter, who were exceptionally kind and accommodating. Overall, a unique experience with beautiful views, but significantly overpriced for the level of service and amenities provided.

AW

Arch W

4/5Google· 6 months ago

Very comfortable room, and nice atmosphere. Overall very happy stay here. One problem was there is street lamps infront out our room… which means we cant see the northern lights from our room when its not super bright.

CY

Celine Y

1/5Google· 10 months ago

Systemic Failure: Discriminatory Service, Security Risks & Substandard Conditions at a Premium Price My experience at your front desk on the night of December 12th was not simply poor service—it was a prolonged, unprovoked, and unpleasant interaction that felt racially charged. From the outset, I encountered consistent disdain, refusal, and exaggerated negativity from two staff members, suggesting a permissive culture of discrimination rather than isolated “bad moods.” When faced with polite requests, they acted in unison with contempt, a choice your management must own. 1. Charger Inquiry: I politely asked if a lost power bank had been turned in. The female staff immediately responded with a loud, theatrical exclamation and a dismissive facial expression. She refused to answer directly, forcing repeated clarification, then ended with a sharp “No.” The tone was patronizing and obstructive. 2. Shuttle Booking: When requesting the complimentary shuttle for my 11 AM checkout, the male staff refused in-person processing, insisting I “send a WhatsApp message.” He feigned surprise about standard checkout times, attempting to frame my reasonable request as unreasonable. 3. Unsafe Financial Practices: During check-in, staff requested my credit card PIN for pre-authorization—highly irregular and unsafe, violating standard European hotel protocol. 4. Substandard Accommodation: The room was cramped and overpriced, with inconsistent water temperature and insufficient heating. As a “Treehouse,” it offered zero privacy, with constant foot traffic outside the windows. Mechanical noises disrupted sleep further. 5. Heating & Temperature Dispute: requested a warmer room the first night; the staff claimed adjustment but asked me to “wait and see.” The next night, after returning from viewing the aurora, my door was fully closed (only unlocked) with no draft. I immediately pointed out that the AC airflow was too low and I still felt cold, yet the staff insisted they could only adjust the temperature, entering an endless mode of debate and nitpicking rather than actually warming the room. Eventually, they brought an AC remote capable of adjusting airflow. They blamed the cold on my door, despite admitting the room had reached their preset 22°C and noting the hotel’s average temperature is 20–22°C. Nearly two hours of nitpicking were required before I received the most basic service. Most tellingly, the central ventilation panel in my room—which they first dismissed as irrelevant—proved to be the key. When I complained, it showed a fan speed (Puhallinnopeus) of only 12%, a setting that clearly restricted warm air circulation at the time my discomfort was reported. Hours into the debate, without acknowledging its importance, they remotely increased it to 42% and activated Tehostus (boost mode). This silent admission—adjusting the very system they claimed didn’t matter—exposed the core issue: the heating was crippled by their own incorrect settings from the start, not by a door or my preferences. Crucially, my observation of the low fan speed was entirely accurate. I never claimed the air conditioning was ineffective; I was objectively reporting that the ventilation system’s airflow was insufficient. Yet the staff engaged in a protracted debate, insisting that only the temperature could be adjusted and that the ventilation system was irrelevant or merely decorative. Despite this, they ultimately adjusted the fan speed themselves and provided a separate remote, framing it as a convenience for me, when in reality it was an implicit acknowledgment of their own initial misconfiguration. This pattern of contradiction—denying functionality while simultaneously correcting it—highlights that the prolonged debate served only to deflect responsibility, not to resolve the underlying issue. 6. Systemic Obstruction: Routing all service requests through WhatsApp was used as a pretext to refuse in-person service, compounding mismanagement and showing disregard for guest comfort.