Planning the guest-room floorBy Walter A. Rutes & Richard H. Penner & Lawrence Adams   |  

Planning the typical guest-room floor presents one of the greatest challenges in hotel design. Because

guest rooms and suites generally represent between 65 and 85 percent of the total floor area in a hotel or

resort, any savings in the planning of a given floor arrangmenr (or grouping of rooms) is multiplied many

times. Therefore, a major planning goal in every lodging project should be to maximize the amount of

salable guest-room space and keep to a minimum the vertical core, horizontal circulation, and necessary

support areas.

A chief goal for hotel planners is to find an efficient floor plan for guest rooms

In addition, guest-room planning comprises several important architectural objectives. The architect

should select a particular plan configuration and orient the building to (1) enhance the appearance and

visibility of the structure, (2) reduce energy costs, and (3) accommodate possible future expansion.

Should lodging demand increase, the owner may want to add rooms, whether by extending the guest-

room wings, adding additional floors, or building a new structure.

For many projects the architect needs to consider a configuration and orientation to take advantage of

views from the guest rooms. In developing the plan itself, the designer should reduce as much as possible

the walking distances for both the guest and the housekeeping staff, provide for support functions, and

seek ways to reduce construction cost and non-salable space. Exhibit 1 (overleaf) lists the principal

objectives in planning the guest-room floor.

The program requirements for the guest-room floors are relatively few: a designated number of guest

rooms or suites, conveniently located public and service elevators, exit stairways to meet building codes

and provide safe emergency egress, adequate linen storage and vending areas, and small-electrical-and

telephone-equipment rooms.

Myriad variations. The analysis of alternative plan. configurations for the guest-room structure is one of

the earliest design studies for a hotel, even before the exact guest-room mix is confirmed. The conceptual

program may call for, say, 300 rooms including 15 suites, at a typical size of 350 sq. ft. (32.5 [m.sup.2]).

The architect starts with the objective of providing a specific number of guest-room bays of a particular

size and, taking into account constraints and opportunities of a particular site, may initially select a

double-loaded corridor configuration (i.e., one with rooms on either side), a compact vertical tower, or a

spacious atrium structure--each with its myriad variations. Low-rise properties generally are planned

using a double-loaded corridor and may be shaped into an L, a T, a U, or a +, among other configurations.

High-rise buildings may follow those patterns; they can be terraced into pyramid-like forms; or they can

adjoin a large lobby space so that some of the rooms look into the hot el's interior. The tower plan, in

which the guest rooms surround a central core, can be practically any shape, although rectangular or

circular are most common. Early atrium configurations, such as that of John Portman's Hyatt Regency

Atlanta, were designed on a basic rectangular plan. More recent projects have taken on numerous,

complex shapes. The various configurations are illustrated throughout this article.

The most appropriate configuration for the guest rooms depends largely on the nature of the building site.

In densely populated urban areas, where land costs are high and the site may be relatively small, the ideal

arrangement of public and support spaces on the lower floors may be the most critical consideration. Two

major planning requirements often dictate both the shape and the placement of the guest-room structure

on urban sites. Those requirements are the preferred location of the public and service elevators and of the

column-free ballroom. At resort properties, on the other hand, the opposite is true: the functional

organization of the hotel's elements is secondary to the careful siting of the buildings to minimize their

impact on the site and to provide views of the surrounding landscape or beach. Many resorts feature not a

single building but, instead, provide a number of villa structures that greatly reduce the perceived scale of

the project, give the guest a greater connection to the site and the recreational amenities, and enhance the

sense of privacy. At airport sites, height limitations often dictate the choice of a specific plan--one that

packages the rooms into a relatively low and spread-out structure.

While the choice of an architectural plan is a function of a balanced consideration of site, environment,

and program requirements, the architect must realize that a particular configuration will shape the

economics of the project. Not only does the type of plan drive budgetary issues--including the cost of

initial construction; furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FF&E); and ongoing energy and payroll

expenses--but the choice of a plan also influences the more subtle aspects of guest satisfaction. The

design that is most economical to build, for instance, may not provide the best (i.e., most profitable)

design solution. A relatively less efficient (and, thus, more expensive) plan type may offer more variety in

room types than an efficient construction design, as well as afford a more interesting spatial sequence,

shorter walking distances, and other advantages that affect the guest's perception of the value of the hotel

experience.

Analyzing Alternative Configurations

For an operator to realize profits, the design team must maximize the percentage of floor area devoted to

guest rooms and keep to a minimum the amount of circulation and service space (e.g., service-elevator

lobby, linen storage, vending, and other minor support spaces). Although the architect and developer must

not ignore aesthetic and functional issues, a simple comparison among alternative plans of the percentage

of space allocated to guest rooms versus non-revenueproducing space can suggest a set of efficient

solutions. The major alternatives among plan types are described in Exhibit 2 (on the previous page).

Our analysis of hundreds of different guestroom floor plans shows that some patterns yield more cost-

effective solutions than others. The choice of one configuration over another can mean a savings of 20

percent in gross floor area of the guest-room structure and of nearly 15 percent in the total building. For

example, the three principal plan alternatives--the double-loaded slab, the rectangular tower, and the

atrium--when designed with identical guest rooms of 350 net sq. ft. (32.5 [m.sup.2]), yield final designs

that vary from about 470 to 580 gross sq. ft. (44 to 54 [m.sup.2]) per room.

Our study also indicates the effect of subsequent minor decisions on the efficiency of the plan--pairing

two guest rooms back-to-back, for example, or choosing a double- or single-loaded corridor, grouping

public and service elevators, and planning efficient access to end or corner rooms. Because guest rooms

account for so much total hotel area, the architect should establish a series of quantitative benchmarks for

the efficient design of the guest-room floors. For example, one approach is to set a goal of the median

guestroom percentage figure, say, 70 percent for the double-loaded slab. In that case, if the gross area isn't

more than 1.42 (the reciprocal of the .70 figure) x the net area, then the plan is relatively efficient.

The relative efficiency of typical hotel floors can be compared most directly by calculating the percentage

of the total floor area devoted to guest rooms. This varies from below 60 percent in an inefficient atrium

plan to more than 75 percent in the most tightly designed double-loaded slab. Clearly, the higher this

percentage, the lower the construction cost per room. In turn, a relatively low construction cost offers the

developer a range of options: build additional guest rooms, provide larger guest rooms for the same

capital investment, improve the quality of the furnishings or of particular building systems, expand other

functional areas such as meeting space or recreational facilities, or lower the construction cost and project

budget.

The following sections describe the planning decisions that have the most influence on creating an

economical plan for each of the basic guest-room configurations. In some plans, the key factor is the

number of rooms per floor, while in others the driving factor is the location of the elevator core or the

shape of the building. In general, the most efficient configurations to construct and operate are those

where circulation space is kept to a minimum--either the double-loaded corridor slab or the compact

center-core tower.

Slab Configuration

The slab configuration includes those plans that are primarily horizontal, including both single and

double-loaded corridor schemes (as shown in Exhibit 3). The few planning variables are concerned

primarily with the building's shape (straight, L-shaped, or other), the layout of the core, and the position

of the fire stairs. The architect must consider the following issues relating to a slab pattern.

* Corridor loading. Given site conditions, are any single-loaded rooms appropriate?

* Shape. Which particular shape (e.g., straight, L, courtyard) best meets site and building constraints?

* Core location. Should the public and the service cores be combined or separated, and where in the tower

should they be positioned?

* Core layout. What is the best way to organize public and service elevators, linen storage, vending, and

other support areas?

* Stair location. How can the exit stairs best be integrated into the plan?

The high degree of efficiency found in the slab plan arises primarily from double-loaded corridors.

Single-loaded schemes, in contrast, require 5- to 8-percent-more floor area for the same number of rooms.

Therefore, one should employ a single-loaded design only where external factors militate, such as a

narrow site dimension or the availability of spectacular views in one direction.

While slab plans constitute the most efficient design category, various approaches can nevertheless

further tighten the layout. Configurations that bury the elevator and service cores in interior corners, for

instance, accomplish this task. They reduce the non-guest-room area, reduce the building perimeter, and

increase the opportunities for creating architecturally interesting buildings. The offset-slab plan, for

example, is especially economical because the public and service elevator cores share one area and, in

addition, they do not displace any guest rooms from the building perimeter. The knuckle configuration,

which bends at angles, creates the potential for interestingly shaped elevator lobbies, provides compact

service areas, and breaks up the slab's long corridors.

The core design is complicated by the need to connect the public elevators to the lobby and the service

elevators to the housekeeping and other back-of-house areas. This often necessitates two distinct core

areas at some distance from each other, although in many hotels those areas are located side by side. One

common design is to position the elevator core in the middle third of a floor to reduce walking distances

to the farthest rooms. Most often the vertical core is fully integrated into the body of the tower, but the

designer may occasionally add the core to the end of a compact room block or extend it out from the face

of the facade.

The final layout of the core is another factor that determines a plan's efficiency. In most slab-plan hotels,

the vertical cores require space equivalent to two to four guest-room modules. One goal is to keep the

core to a minimum, and the plan's efficiency improves when the core displaces the smallest number of

guest-room bays. Our comparison of many projects shows that the vertical core displaces fewer guest-

room bays when the service areas are located behind the public elevators than when those areas are beside

or at some distance from the public elevators. Many of the more efficient configurations also feature a

distinct elevator lobby. Such a foyer space helps to isolate nearby guest rooms from the noise and

congestion of people waiting for the elevator. Also, plans that incorporate an elevator lobby generally

have fewer awkwardly shaped rooms, thereby providing a more uniform guest-room design.

Building codes generally require emergency-exit stairs to be located at opposite ends of the building.

Each such stair tower might simply replace the last guest room on the corridor. But, instead, the architect

may be able to integrate the stairs within the building, as part of an elevator core, at an "inside corner"

where the building turns, or within the usual bathroom zone of a guest-room bay (where the bathroom is

part of an oversized room or suite). Careful placement of the stairs provides one more opportunity to

create a more efficient overall plan by reducing gross floor area, compared with simply attaching the stair

tower to the end of the building.

One factor that limits the number of rooms on the guest-room floor is the typical code requirement for

hotels with automatic sprinklers that there be no more than (typically) 300 ft. (91 m) between exit stairs.

Therefore, another goal in planning the repetitive guest-room floor is to create a layout that does not

require a third fire stair. Experienced hotel architects have established techniques for maximizing the

number of rooms per floor and manipulating the stairs and corridors to increase the building's overall

efficiency.

Tower Configuration

Tower plans are the second major category of guest-room-floor layouts (as shown in Exhibit 4). These

generally comprise a central core surrounded by a single-loaded corridor of guest rooms. The tower's

exterior architectural treatment can vary widely, depending on the geometric shape of the plan (e.g.,

square, cross-shaped, circular, triangular). Tower plans exhibit different characteristics than those of the

slab, but towers still raise a similar series of questions for the designer:

* Number of rooms: How many guest rooms economically fit a particular layout?;

* Shape: Which shape is most efficient and permits the desired mix of rooms?;

* Corridor: How is hallway access to corner rooms arranged?; and

* Core layout: How are the elevators, linen storage, and stairs organized?

Unlike the other plan configurations, selection of the tower shape creates specific limitations on the

number of rooms per floor. For the most part, towers can accommodate between 16 and 24 rooms,

depending on the guest-room dimensions, the number of floors, and the optimum core size. With only 16

rooms, the core would barely be large enough for two or three elevators, two egress stairs, and minimum

amounts of storage. On the other hand, designs with more than 24 rooms become so inflated and the core

so large that the layout becomes highly inefficient.

The efficiency of most guest-room configurations improves as the number of rooms on a floor increases,

with little or no expansion in the core or building-service areas. With the tower plan, the opposite is true.

The analysis of a large sample of hotel designs shows that, surprisingly, the fewer the number of rooms

per floor, the more efficient the layout. This is true because the core, by necessity must be extremely

compact and, as a result, the amount of corridor area is kept to a bare minimum. Inefficient layouts, on the

other hand, often result from adding rooms and from extending single-loaded corridors into each of the

building corners.

The shape of the tower has a direct effect on the structure's appearance and perceived scale. The

efficiency of the plan is also a direct result of the shape, because of the critical nature of the corridor

access to the corner rooms in the rectangular towers and the design of the wedge-shaped guest room and

bathroom in the circular towers. Those plans that minimize the amount of circulation and, in addition,

create unusual corner rooms exemplify the best in both architectural planning and interior layout.

For circular tower plans, the measures of efficiency are judged by the layout of the room, in addition to

the core design. Typically, the perimeter of the wedge-shaped guest rooms is about 16 ft. (4.9 m),

whereas the corridor dimension may be less than 8 ft. (2.4 m), thus challenging the designer's skill to plan

the bathroom, entry vestibule, and closet.

While the design of the core in both rectangular and circular towers is less critical than the arrangement of

guest rooms, certain specific issues have to be resolved. Generally, the core is centrally located, and the

vertical elements are tightly grouped. Small hotels (i.e., those with only 16 rooms per floor) usually do

not feature an elevator lobby, and the guests in rooms opposite the elevators must tolerate noise from

guests waiting for the elevator. In a few cases, the core is split into two parts, creating roughly an H-

shaped circulation zone, effectively providing an elevator lobby on each floor. The two fire stairs can be

efficiently arranged in a scissors configuration (if permitted by code) to conserve space.

In tower plans with 24 or more rooms per floor, the central core becomes excessively large. Some hotel

architects introduce a series of multistory "sky lobbies" to make this space a positive feature, or add

conference rooms on every guest floor. The efficient design of hotel towers requires the simultaneous

study of the core and an imaginative layout to meet the demand for ultra-high-rise mixed-use structures.

Atrium Configuration

Atriums constitute the third major category of guest-room floor plans (see Exhibit 5). As we mentioned

above, the present-day atrium design was introduced by architect John Portman for the Hyatt Regency

Atlanta in 1967. The atrium prototype had been used successfully late in the nineteenth century in both

Denver's Brown Palace (still in operation) and San Francisco's first Palace Hotel, which was destroyed in

the 1906 earthquake and fire. By far the least efficient of the plans we are highlighting here, the generic

atrium configuration has the guest rooms arranged along single-loaded corridors, much like open

balconies overlooking the lobby space. The following issues must be addressed by the architect:

* Shape: What configuration of rooms best fits the site and can be integrated with both public and back-

of-house area needs?;

* Guest-room location: Should any guest rooms look into the lobby?;

* Public elevators: How are scenic or standard elevators best arranged?;

* Corridor: How can the amount of single-loaded corridor space effectively be reduced?; and

* Service core and stairs: Where are service areas best located and integrated into the building design?

Practically all atrium hotels feature glass-enclosed elevators that provide the guest with an ever-changing

perspective of the lobby activity, as well as add animation to the space itself. In some cases, scenic

elevators are placed opposite conventional ones, creating two distinct experiences for the guest. The

location of the service elevators, housekeeping-support functions, and emergency-exit stairs, while

needing to be integrated into the plan, are not particularly critical to the efficiency of the guest-room

floor.

In addition to the open lobby, each atrium hotel is distinguished by the plan of the guestroom floors.

While the basic prototype is square, many of the recent atrium designs are irregularly shaped to respond

to various site constraints. This sculpting of the building contributes to creating a distinctive image for the

hotel, which is a primary goal in selecting the atrium configuration.

Recognizing the atrium's inefficiency, architects have sought ways to gain the prestige benefits of the

atrium while increasing its efficiency. One technique that has been successful in several hotels is to

combine a central atrium with extended double-loaded wings, as was done at the Hyatt Regency hotels in

Cambridge (Massachusetts) and Dallas. This approach effectively draws together the architectural

excitement of the atrium space (on a smaller and more personal scale than in the large hotels) with the

desirable economies of the double-loaded plan. However, many developers and architects believe that the

atrium design has become a cliche--and also recognize its tremendous cost premium--and seek other

means to create a memorable building and guest experience.

Defining the Guest-room and Suite Program

After the architect establishes the conceptual design, including a basic configuration for the guestroom

floors, the team needs to refine and modify the earlier thumbnail guest-room program to fit the

architectural concept--or shape the building to accommodate the nuances of the program. The room mix

is based on the initial market study and, more important, on the advice and experience of the hotel-

operating company. The guestroom program defines the typical room module (key dimensions and

bathroom configuration), the mix of room furnishings (e.g., single king bed, two double beds), and the

variety of suites. The proposed room mix is intended to reflect the estimated demand from the individual

business, group, and leisure market segments.

Design development of the guest-room floors to meet the specific requirements of the program is among

the earliest steps in refining the conceptual design. The design team studies a wide range of possible

modifications, including changing the width of the guest-room module, the number of bays per floor, the

location and layout of the elevator and service cores, and the arrangement of suites. To avoid

misunderstandings, the following definitions should be used:

* Key: A separate, rentable unit;

* Guest-room bay: The typical guest-room module;

* Structural bay: The dimension between two structural columns, typically equal to the width of one or

two guest rooms; and

* Suite: Combination of living room and one or more bedrooms.

Generally, a hotel's management thinks in terms of keys, or the total number of individual guest-room

units available for sale. A suite containing a living room that connects to two bedrooms totals three keys

if the parlor has a full bathroom and convertible sofa and the bedrooms can be locked off. But the same

arrangement is only two keys if the living room cannot function as a room on its own and must be sold

with one bedroom. Large suites often are described in terms of the equivalent number of guest-room bays

so that a hotelier may refer to a four-bay suite containing a two-bay living room and two connecting

bedrooms. Architects, on the other hand, often refer to the individual rooms and to structural bays, the

former being the basis of the contract documents and the latter a chief component of cost estimates for the

guest-room portion of the hotel.

During the development phases, feasibility consultants project revenues and expenses, occupancy

percentages, and average room rates based on the number and type of guest-room keys. In addition, both

parking requirements and zoning ordinances (used to control project size and density) are usually based

on the key count. However, clarification is essential to avoid possible misunderstandings and delays.

Exhibit 6 illustrates an example of a typical guest-room and suite program and the use of the terms "key"

and "bay."

Documenting the Guest-room Mix

Throughout the late design phases the architect and other design-team members continually modify

details of the guest-room structure, in response to the owner's or operator's input, or as the result of

changes in the public and service areas on the lower floors. But often changes in the guest rooms occur

when the designs are fleshed out for the building's mechanical and electrical distribution systems, elevator

cores, or stair towers. Because it is important that the team be able to keep an accurate count of the total

bays and keys, the architect or interior designer should prepare and regularly update a guest-room-mix

analysis.

Exhibit 7 illustrates one typical approach for documenting the guest-room mix. The technique presented

here forces the architect or interior designer to make a number of conscious decisions:

* Architectural shape: Categorize each room by its shape or configuration;

* Bed type: Label each room by its bed type;

* Connecting rooms: Indicate adjoining guest rooms;

* Suite locations: Position and label any suites;

* Guest-room numbers: Assign final room numbers; and

* Key and bay analysis: Develop and maintain a summary table of keys and bays by architectural shape

or bed type.

Documenting the room count confers a number of advantages. To begin with, the design team can test the

schematic design against the major element in the space program--the required number of guest rooms--

and initiate any necessary changes at the earliest point in the conceptual design. Second, the

documentation establishes a format that allows the designers readily to analyze the guest-room mix and

maintain a precise record of the guest-room count through the later design phases. Third, details of the

repetitive guest-room block can be considered at a relatively early phase. For example, the architect can

study possible pairing of rooms to increase the number of back-to-back bathrooms and to establish a

repetitive pattern of setbacks at the guest-room doors. Finally, the interior designer can identify any

potential problems, such as odd-shaped rooms, that might not easily accommodate the necessary

furnishings and amenities. In addition, other members of the team can offer better input when changes to

the gues t-room tower are fully documented through the different design phases. For instance, the

engineering consultants can review the major systems in the guest-room tower--the elevators, HVAC, and

communications systems, for example--in the same context as the rest of the design team.

Walter A. Rutes (not pictured), FAIA, is chair of 9 Tek Ltd., a hotel-design consulting firm

(Tek9Ltd@aol.com).

Richard H. Penner, M.S., is a professor of property-asset management at the Cornell University School of

Hotel Administration (rhp2@cornell.edu).

A teacher of hotel design at New York University, Lawrence Adams is an architect in New York City

(lawadams@aol.com).

EXHIBIT 1

Guest-room planning objectives

Siting and orientation

* Site the guest-room structure to be visible from the road.

* Orient guest rooms to enhance views.

* Assess the relative visual impact and construction cost of various guest-room configurations.

* Position the guest-room structure to limit its structural impact on the ballroom and other major public

spaces.

* Consider solar gain; generally north--south exposures are preferable to east--west exposures.

Floor layout

* Organize the plan so that the guest rooms occupy at least 70 percent of gross floor area.

* Locate elevators and stairs at interior locations to use the maximum possible length of outside wall for

guest rooms.

* Develop the corridor plan to facilitate guest and staff circulation.

* Place the elevator lobby in the middle third of the structure.

* Place the service elevator, linen storage, and vending in a central location.

* Plan corridor width at a minimum of 5' 0" (1.5 m), but consider the option of 5' 6" (1.65 m).

* Design guest bathrooms back-to-back for plumbing economies.

* Locate handicap-access guest rooms on lower floors and near elevators.

EXHIBIT 2

Guest-room floor analysis

Rooms Dimensions Guest-room

Configuration per floor ft (m) percentage

Single-loaded slab Varies by site 32 (10) x 65%

size: 12-30+ available length

Double-loaded slab Varies by site 60 (18) x 70%

size: available length

16-40+

Offset slab Varies by site 80 (24) x 72%

size: available length

24-40+

Rectangular tower 16-24 110 x 110 65%

(34 x 34)

Circular tower 16-24 90-130 diameter 67%

(27-40)

Triangular tower 24-30 Varies 64%

Atrium 24+ 90+ 62%

(27)

Corrider area

per room, [ft.sup.2]

Configuration ([m.sup.2])

Single-loaded slab 80

(7.5)

Double-loaded slab 45

(4.2)

Offset slab 50

(4.6)

Rectangular tower 60

(5.6)

Circular tower 45-65

(4.2-6)

Triangular tower 65-85

(6-7.9)

Atrium 95

(8.8)

Configuration Comments

Single-loaded slab Vertical core usually not affected

by room module.

Double-loaded slab Economical length limited by exit-

stair placement to meet building

code.

Offset slab Core is buried, creating less perim-

eter wall per room; more corridor

because of elevator lobby.

Rectangular tower Planning issues focus on access to

corner rooms; fewer rooms per

floor make core layout difficult.

Circular tower High amounts of exterior wall per

room; difficult to plan guest

bathroom.

Triangular tower Central core inefficient due to

shape; corner rooms easier to plan

than with square tower.

Atrium Open volume creates spectacular

space, open corridors, opportunity

for glass elevators; requires

careful engineering for HVAC and

smoke evacuation.

Each guest-room floor configuration has certain characteristics that

affect its potential efficiency. This table shows the basic building

dimensions, the usual percentage of floor area devoted to guest rooms,

and the amount of area per room needed for corridors.

For Example, the table shows that the offset double-loaded slab is the

most efficient in terms of guest-room-area percentage and that the

atrium configuration is the least economical, largely because of the

high amount of corridor area required per room.

EXHIBIT 6

Typicql guest-room program for a 300-room hotel

Room type Unit area (*) Keys Bays Total bays

King 350 (32.5) 120 1 120

Double-double 350 (32.5) 160 1 160

Parlor 350 (32.5) 6 1 6

Hospitality suite 700 (65) 6 2 12

Conference suite 700 (65) 4 2 8

Deluxe suite 1,050 (97.5) 3 3 9

Presidential suite 1,400 (130) 1 4 4

Concierge club 1,400 (130) 0 4 4

Totals: 300 321

Room type Total net area (*) Comments

King 42,000 (3,900) --

Double-double 56,000 (5,200) --

Parlor 2,100 (195) Wet-bar; connects to K and DD

Hospitality suite 4,200 (390) Kitchen; connects to K and DD

Conference suite 2,800 (260) Boardroom; connects to K and

DD

Deluxe suite 3,150 (295) Connects to K and DD

Presidential suite 1,400 (130) Connects to dedicated K and DD

Concierge club 1,400 (130) Include pantry, conference

room

Totals: 113,050 (10,500)

(*)Unit area and total net area given in [ft.sub.2] ([m.sub.2])

EXHIBIT-7

The guest-room-floor plans above illustrate the procedure for analyzing the architectural planning and

room layout for a hypothetical hotel. The plans show the typical floor and suite floor, the latter with five

different room types--not unusual, as the standard room bay is modified to fit around elevators, stairs, or

support areas. The number of different room types is increased further by handicap-accessible rooms and

by various suites. The following discussion describes the necessary steps including key plans for each

floor, labeled with room shape, bed type, room number, and connecting doors, and a comprehensive tally

of the guest-room mix.

* Architectural shape: Identity each room of a different shape or configuration (primarily different

dimensions or bathroom layout) and assign it a number. Different room types are identified by a Roman

numeral in the top half of the circular code in each room. Room I is the most typical; room II is similar

but has a different configuration at the entry vestibule; room III is the corner guest room with a wider bay

and different bathroom; room IV is a two-bay conference suite (only one key); and room V is a two-bay

living room that connects to two standard guest rooms.

* Bed type: Label each room by its bed type (king, queen, double-double, twin, king-studio, parlor,

handicap-accessible) and place a simple abbreviation (e.g., K, Q, DD) on the plan. Note that the standard

room type may be furnished in a variety of ways.

* Connecting rooms: Mark interconnecting rooms with an open circle, for example between rooms 15 and

17. Operating companies seek a specific number of connecting pairs of particular types (for example, half

the pairs connect K to DD).

* Suites: Position all suites, combinations of a living room and one or more adjoining bedrooms, within

the typical room configuration. Two suites are shown in the example: a conference suite in the corner that

connects to a standard double-double room, and a VIP suite that connects to two bedrooms. The VIP suite

also counts as a key, or rentable unit, because it has a full bathroom and a convertible sofa. Often, the

suites are grouped together on the top guest-room floors.

* Room numbers: Assign room numbers to the bays to meet the management company's eventual

operating requirements. Doing this in schematic design greatly aids communication among the various

design professionals and reduces later confusion if the operator were to modify the room numbers.

Determine room numbers to simplify directional and destination signs; maintain corresponding numbers

on different floors.

* Key and bay analysis: Develop a summary table to tally the number of rentable 'keys' and room

modules for each floor by architectural shape or bed type. The table next to each plan cross-references the

number of room types (I-V) and the bed types for each floor. Frequently, a larger chart is developed for

the entire hotel showing the stacking of typical and suite floors and providing totals of the number of

rooms for each type.

RELATED ARTICLE: About This Book

With the growth in world travel in recent years, business and pleasure travelers are demanding more

diverse hotels, resorts, and leisure-time amenities around the globe. The accompanying article, "Planning

the Guest-room Floor," is excerpted from Hotel Design, Planning, and Development, published earlier

this summer by W.W. Norton in the United States and the Architectural Press in the United Kingdom. A

total revision of our 1985 book, Hotel Planning and Design, the new volume explores the latest trends in

hotel and resort architecture, establishes a wide range of planning and design criteria, and discusses key

development issues. In addition to extensive photographs and scores of plans and checklists, the book

features a three-part foreword by architect Gyo Obata, designer Michael Bedner, and industry consultant

Bjorn Hanson, as well as commentary from I.M. Pei, John C. Portman, Jr., Robert A.M. Stern, Ian

Schrager, Robert E. Kastner, Valentine A. Lehr, and Howard J. Wolff.

The Book at a Glance

Part 1, Hotel Types, reviews more than 50 different types of hotels now flourishing in today's increasingly

customized marketplace, where concepts range from theme resorts to efficient extended-stay properties,

and from high-fashion boutique hotels to flexible office suites. Separate chapters are devoted to each of

12 major categories. For example, suburban hotels comprise many design types, including airport hotels,

office-park hotels, mall or university hotels, roadside hotels, and country inns. Resorts encompass an

ever-widening array as unique as the ecotourist retreat or vacation village is from the convention resort.

Many owners update existing hotels, reinventing their ambiance through innovative renovations,

restoration, additions, or adaptive reuse.

This section begins with an overview that traces the hotel's evolution and offers the latest forecasts of its

future development. It also features an evolutionary-tree diagram of hotels, another theme threading

through these chapters. Each hotel type is clearly addressed in terms of development considerations,

planning and design options, social and cultural implications, and future trends. (Those trends are

summarized in the final chapter of the book.) A continuing theme is the emphasis on strongly targeting

specific market sectors, so that the hotel may better fulfill its function. For example, luxury resorts and

super-luxury hotels need small, superb restaurants and health spas to maintain their clientele.

Part 2, the Design Guide, focuses on the program, planning, and design issues critical to creating a

successful lodging property. This section highlights the types of operational and financial decisions that

affect and influence the architectural and interior design. The first chapter introduces site and master

planning, perhaps the most important design issue for many resort properties. Succeeding chapters detail

the key design guidelines for the functional areas in hotels: the guestroom floor (excerpted here); guest

rooms and suites; lobby, food and beverage, meeting, and recreational areas; and administration and back-

of-house areas. The Design Guide concludes with a discussion of special building systems and

construction methods important to the whole range of hotel properties.

To develop a successful hotel, its principals must be familiar with more than just the distinct variety of

hotel types and the design criteria outlined in Parts 1 and 2. The developers must also be familiar with the

development process itself and how the many financial, operational, marketing, and organizational

objectives of an owner and developer influence the project and its prospect for success (as found in Part 3,

the Development Guide). If those objectives are in balance with demand for hotel facilities, with the site's

capacity to support a hotel or resort, and with the programmatic and design decisions, the project can

prosper.

The chapters in this third section trace the hotel-development process beginning with the initial concept of

developing a lodging property. The process includes a number of key steps: analyzing feasibility,

assembling the development and design ream, establishing the building program, and managing the

budget, schedule, and the hotel opening. In addition, the team should understand the issues of hotel

operation and how the planning and design decisions influence many of the practical and technical

aspects of running a hotel. This allows the team to consider solutions that effectively reduce staff numbers

or accommodate important life-safety or mechanical requirements.

Finally, the book considers lodging's future, including the prospect of increasing numbers of focused

niche-lodging types, broad socioeconomic trends, or creative proposals for new resorts under the sea or in

outer space. The future is wide open. With truly collaborative partnerships among developer, design team,

and operator the industry should see a continued explosion of creative hotels and resorts in the twenty-

first century.--W.A.R, R.H.P, and L.A.

Together the authors have many decades' experience comprising three long careers in hotel design and

development. Before founding 9 Tek Ltd., Walter A. Rutes was vice president and director of architecture

at such major hotel companies as Inter-Continental, Sheraton, Ramada, and Holiday Corporation. At

Cornell University, Richard H. Penner teaches courses in hotel development, planning, and interior

design. He also is the author of Conference Center Planning and Design. Lawrence Adams has

specialized in hotel design and large-scale developments at major architectural and planning firms

including HOK, William B. Tablet, S. Stuart Farnet, and Frank Williams and Associates.