Hot L Baltimore was very popular with both critics and audiences on its debut in February 1973. After a month, Wilson’s play moved to an Off-Broadway theatre, the Circle in the Square Theatre, where it opened March 22, 1973.

Amongst critics, a sense of nostalgia prevailed. As Douglas Watt noted in his review, ‘‘It’s no place to live, but it’s worth a visit.’’ Watt discussed the setting, a crucial element of this play: ‘‘Time stands still in seedy hotels. The locations may change, and the people’s names; but today’s castoffs are the same as yesterday’s, giving their own kind of continuity to life. They’re the ones you meet in Lanford Wilson’s quietly affecting three-act play.’’

According to Watt, ‘‘nothing much happens . . . [but] we become part of their small world.’’ The audience becomes interested in these characters, although there is no plot or action, just dialogue.

Watt asserted that the characters are timeless; there is nothing that establishes them as from 1973, except for their clothing and the music playing in the background. ‘‘There are false notes and awkward moments,’’ said Watt, ‘‘but Wilson is a gifted and appealing playwright.’’

One of the aspects of the play that apparently appealed to Watt was the absence of gunmen, cops, heroes, villains, and melodrama. In conclusion, Watt maintained that ‘‘you wouldn’t want to room there, but Hot L Baltimore is an interesting place to visit on a quiet day.’’

Another critic, Martin Gottfried, lauded the play: ‘‘The Hot L Baltimore is first-class Lanford Wilson, and that is as good as you will find in the American theatre.’’

He praised Wilson’s ability to find beauty in American stories:

Wilson was one of the first of our playwrights to seek an American beauty and an essential mythology in our national roots; one of the first to deal with that subject in a style of heightened, poetized reality; one of the first to return to language while fashion was still demanding minimalism and noncommunication. The Hot L Baltimore shows him still at the peak of his mastery over these qualities.

He also contended that Wilson’s ‘‘writing is superb, a triumph of inspiration and craftsmanship.’’

After praising Wilson’s ability to create believable characters, Gottfried concluded that ‘‘Wilson builds a magnificently detailed concerto for humanity.’’

Richard Watts offered a mixed review. He deemed the play ‘‘as odd and original a play as you are likely to see all season.’’

After noting the lack of plot, Watts considered characterization the strength of this play, since Wilson is not trying ‘‘to make any particular points’’ but is interested in exploring people and their lives.

Wilson’s characterization was also praised by Jack Kroll in his review for Newsweek. Referring to Wilson’s work as ‘‘so old-fashioned in its humanity that it’s the freshest play—the best American play— I’ve seen this season,’’ Kroll wrote that Wilson ‘‘dares to remind us of what writers once were in this country.’’

The strength of character development was also noted by Leonard Probst in his television review of Wilson’s play. Probst contended that ‘‘the people are alive and real’’ and the set is ‘‘so real that you feel that you’re in the Hotel Baltimore.’’ Probst also considered the lack of plot, but added, ‘‘the play is completely engrossing.’’

Probst maintained that ‘‘the play has a wonderful sense of humanity, a feeling [sic] of the loss of passion as we, our cities, and our institutions grow weary, and too wise to do anything about it.’’