Downtown hotels seem can’t seem to get a break. No matter how valiant the effort of local
economic development directors in attracting that major chain (Hilton,
Marriott, Intercontinental) and no matter how unorthodox the architects’ designs,
the closeted coterie of urban advocates never hesitate to lob their Molotov
cocktails at the final proposal. Perhaps it’s the transformative effect a
successful hotel can exert on a downtown’s pedestrian activity; perhaps it’s
the ex post facto realization that
everyone ultimately overhyped that transformative effect. (Hotels rarely seem to stimulate
further activity, nor do they necessary help to fill vacant storefronts of
neighboring buildings.) Maybe it’s realization that biggest and most
influential hotels nearly always arrive in the form of a multinational chain;
maybe it’s resentment that the bland chains most reliable survive the
occasional economic downturn.
Maybe the love-hate relationship simply parallels the conflicting
emotions that the locals feel toward the typical hotel’s biggest users: the
tourists.
Regardless of the final outcome, hotels in urban settings
generate simultaneous excitement and derision, often with little consideration
for both the complexity of the deal and the hotels’ extreme sensitivity to
occasional lapses in tourism, conventions, or optimal climatic conditions. The
most common metric in the hospitality industry to gauge overall hotel
performance is RevPAR (Revenue Per Available Room), which equates to the
hotel’s average daily room rate (ADR) multiplied by its occupancy rate. Because hotels are widely variable, the
analysis of RevPAR is highly sensitive to both seasonal and weekly
fluctuations. Ideally, any RevPAR study for a single hotel will evaluate
using a certain benchmark, such as consecutive Fridays over several years. RevPAR could also determine regional
performances, by taking the median RevPAR for all hotels of a certain size
within a city across a single year-long duration, then comparing it to peer
cities and their respective year-long RevPARs. Smith Travel Research is the leading agency responsible for assessing general economic trends within
the hotel and hospitality industry.
Most hotels expect to operate at a median occupancy rate of
60%. Dipping more than 2% below
that suggests either a hotel’s poor performance (if it’s an outlier within the
region), an oversupply of rooms (if other hotels are suffering the same rates),
or a generally struggling local market.
This low elasticity manifests itself for positive hotel performance as
well: persistent occupancy rates above 65% will encourage other industry
leaders to test their luck in that region. But, aside from seasonal vicissitudes in tourism, fickle
convention business, or over-representation from particular demographics among
visitors, most hotels also struggle to keep those RevPARs high because of
continually shifting consumer tastes.
Few hotels better demonstrate this struggle to remain viable than
Detroit’s Westin Book Cadillac Hotel.
By the time Detroit rung in the 21st century, the
Book-Cadillac had suffered years of pillaging, vandalism, and exposure to the
elements. The exterior looked like this;
locals have told me that you could through a football cleanly through the
buildings many smashed windows.
The interior may have been an even bigger disaster. Year after year of attempting to
find a developer to resuscitate the building failed, and, naturally, over time,
the condition of the building posed a greater challenge, amplifying its
cost. At last, in 2006, a
Cleveland developer announced a partnership with Westin Hotel to begin a $200
million dollar renovation; the new hotel opened its doors in the fall of 2008.
One of the biggest considerations that had frustrated
numerous prior attempts at redevelopment had been the hotel’s configuration;
the rooms simply didn’t meet the size standards for today’s hotel patrons, by
either a luxury or budget hotel classification. This situation—coupled with the catastrophic economic
decline of Detroit in the second half of the 20th century—killed the
hotel’s profitability by the early 1980s and forced developers to question how
it could ever return to viability.
Obviously Cleveland’s Kaczmar Architects found a solution,
which manifests itself when one investigates the details to the typical room in
the renovated Westin.
A double at the Westin Book Cadillac looks like the photo
above. Nothing terribly
remarkable, featuring a cleanly spartan interior in keeping with modernist
revival trends. Is there anything
abnormal, in fact, about the look or shape of the room? Here’s another angle:
Doesn’t seem to be.
But check out the hallway on that floor of the Westin:
By today’s standards, it appears unusually narrow—almost
claustrophobic. Yet the continuing
the unadorned motif almost helps to mitigate the narrowness: if the designer
had filled the walls with decorative bric-a-brac, the space would feel
cluttered and even constraining.
It doesn’t take any great powers of discernment to determine
what has happened here. The
architects and developers decided to sacrifice hallway space in order to make
the sleeping quarters larger. But
that still doesn’t explain the considerable decline in the number of rooms at
the Book-Cadillac, from more than 1,100 at the time of the hotel’s founding, to
a mere 455 rooms today. Is it possible
that rooms also expanded in width?
Reassessing the rooms’ configuration through one of those photos, I
don’t see any other way.
The small pair of windows is atypical. Though I didn’t include the photo, the
bathroom lies directly through the wall to the right (behind the dresser and
television) is. But perhaps the
Book-Cadillac of the past offered rooms that were essentially squares, with the
wall bisecting at the space between the two windows. Meanwhile the window on the left, sequestered from its
neighboring window through a partition, would bring light into a second bedroom
whose bathroom would rest to its
left, leaving the two windows of the bedroom in the next room to host both a
very small bedroom and its respective restroom. If that sounds confusing, the best way to describe it is
that the two rooms of today were big enough to squeeze in three rooms of the
Roaring Twenties. This would
result in an essentially one-third decline in the number of rooms—significant,
but nothing on par with the 60% actual loss of rooms.
So what accounts for all those other missing rooms in the
hotel? While it’s possible that
the Book-Cadillac may have crammed more rooms in by simply offering a single
restroom shared by a cluster of rooms (such configuration was still common at
that time), my guess is the building lost another share of rooms through space
devoted to amenities that most high-end hotel patrons have come to expect:
swimming pools, fitness centers, a spa, a breakfast lounge—not to mention over
60 luxury condominiums on the top floors.
Only a handful of these
features would contribute to the Westin’s overall revenue stream. Thus, the real coup for the hotel chain
is the comfier rooms accompanied by a smaller overall baseline—that is,
denominator in the “available room” quotient used to devise RevPAR. A smaller city than in 1920, Detroit
simply doesn’t need a hotel that big, but Westin sure needs a confident bottom
line established by desirable occupancy and RevPAR numbers—exactly the sort of
variables that investors seek in Westin’s parent, the publicly traded Starwood
Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc.
Older downtown hotels in cities across America have
languished due to the lack of marketability of their small rooms, regardless of
how winsome or visionary they are.
Developers routinely hesitate to touch such a costly redevelopment,
because most hotels have an inordinately high density of plumbing, much of
which the construction team will need to reconfigure—or completely extirpate—to
accommodate those bigger bedrooms.
The Westin Book Cadillac seems to have found a solution, but there’s
nothing to say that cultural shifts in taste for hotel rooms won’t render the
existing layout obsolete someday.
In fact, most evidence suggests that precisely this sort of thing could
happen. In contemporary US living,
we take for granted the standard of a unique bathroom to every bedroom, but
someday in the future, the notion that people at one point had to share ice
machines, business centers, or even exercise rooms may seem unthinkable.
0 comments:
Post a Comment