Astroland + Cedar Point?

Chief Wahoo said:

As for the Breakers losing the Historic Building status:

That hotel (particularly the wings that were torn down) was in bad shape. There was no elevator access anywhere (a problem with the ADA passed in '92), the structure was aged, weathered and generally unsalvageable. Keep something in mind, those buildings stood from the early 1900's to present day with little preventative maintenance, no temperature controls to speak of to avoid issues with moisture, heat/cold, etc. It wasn't unusual to find snow piled up in the hallways during the winter months.

Sounds like the Cedars to me.

I said they should have spent money on restoring/upgrading the lobby with higher grade materials and better lighting. I would argue that DOES score them more revenue. I'm sure a lot of people go to Breakers and are disappointed with the quality compared to what they paid. So, they don't return. If you spend a little money on finishes, you can impress people and they will return - usually with friends - or at least referrals.

My issue with the tower is the design. Simply put, it's ugly. The new wings are too. Take a look at the old wings. They have residential scale windows, nice trim, roof brackets, finials and overall, a really nice "feel" to them. If the interiors are nasty, fine. Rebuild. But, at least make the outside close to the original character of the hotel. Don't just build a Holiday Inn, paint it the same color and say it's the "same".

The new wings are just clumsy and poorly detailed. I much prefer the new wings to the tower, but they still could have been much nicer. They wouldn't have cost that much more either. They added a fourth floor. That's great. Like I said, that's value in construction. But, why not put a peaked roof on it? They're relatively cheap to build with pre-engineered trusses. They also cost less to maintain because of water and snow that can/will leak on a flat roof.

Check out this comparison. You can't honestly say the "new" Breakers is attractive compared to the old one. They could have gotten the same number of rooms by rebuilding more wings and just making them all a couple of floors taller. Plus, they could have maintained the character of the once beautiful hotel.

Nice resorts bring in more money. Disney has shown this for decades. People stay at the Disney resorts and pay a premium for far more than just the location. The resorts are beautiful and fun to be in. Good design doesn't necessarily cost more, it just takes effort and a desire to create beautiful structures.

I don't really expect everyone to care about the way buildings look. It's obvious the majority of the US doesn't care about good design. But, since I'm an architect, I feel other architects and builders have a social responsibility to create buildings that not only are affordable to build, but have a positive impact on the built environment. Anyone can build a ten-story block of windows and stucco with no visual appeal. Does that mean it was a good decision? I would argue no. You would say yes because it was cheap. Well, it's entirely possible to build an attractive hotel that is still cost effective. And, if it's done right, you'll make more revenue in the long run because more guests will be impressed and WANT to stay there.

They don't return? The occupancy is near 100%. You can call it ugly all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that they're booked solid most of the season.

To tell you the truth, I walk down the "boardwalk" almost every weekend in the fall, and I think the hotel looks pleasant enough. I'm not fond of the amenities in the room at all, but again, if I don't get a room, someone else will.

And enough with the Disney comparisons. The hotels are open 120 days a year. They get 1/3 the opportunity to generate revenue.

Your hang up on what constitutes a "good decision" seems to completely disregard the business. If the return on investment is quick and enormous, as it was for Breakers Tower and Breakers Express, and occupancy rate rivals rooms in Vegas, and it does, then they made the right decision for the business.

If the occupancy is near 100% like you say, then they have room to make even more money, right? People are paying a lot of money for a hotel that even you say doesn't live up to the quality it should. So, if it was even nicer, they could up the price and make more money. If they're booked solid, I highly doubt an increase in price would affect occupancy at all. But, they'd have a better product on their hand, plus a higher price. If they raise park admission, attendance goes down. But, I bet if they raised prices (and quality) of the hotel, occupancy would remain the same (it can't really go above 100%).

So, you'd be fine with them bulldozing the "inefficient" sections of Breakers and just building more towers because it makes money? Do you really think people don't care what things look like? There is a way to build well designed and attractive structures without affecting the return on investment. That's all I'm saying. I work for a developer, so I know that you can have high returns on investment with well designed projects. The industry is also realizing that those "designer" projects tend to make more money because they're unique.

Looking at that comparison, I would actually say that I like the new view better. Call me crazy, but I think that for its size and use, the place looks really nice. Sure they could have made it look a little more modern or more like the older sections of breakers, but I think the stucco is nice enough. About the only thing I can see on the Tower building that they could have done better on is the section of the building with no rooms on the top five floors of the east wall.

^ That's kind of what I'm thinking. The new one looks fine to me.

Tim,

You're looking at it from an architect's point of view. Do you really think the guests that stay at these resorts pay attention to the fine little details that you've pointed out so far? I'll answer: no.

Cedar Point doesn't even have to have resorts at all. They could just as easily demolish everything and put in more attractions that have hardly any ROI, but clearly, they must be thinking somewhat straight, especially, as Jeff pointed out, they're booked 100% of the year. People go to Cedar Point for the thrills, NOT for the resorts.

People go to Disney for the thrills and the resorts. Two completely different comparisons.

Yeah, you guys are right. People are dumb and never pay attention to buildings they're visiting. They'd never pay more money to stay at a hotel that was nicer. I'm not even sure why chains like Hyatt exist because everyone in the world just wants a square box Quality Inn. I'm don't know what I was thinking. I'm going to get back to detailing our resort that no one's going to stay at because it's actually nice.

Tim,

We're not disagreeing with your opinion that they could have built something nicer, we're disagreeing with your statements that they should have and need to build something more aesthetically pleasing. If some of their toughest critics (being us) are of the opinion that the place looks pretty good on the outside, how many of the GP do you think (well, lets exclude architects) are sitting there thinking about the stuff that you are? My guess is basically not a single one. Of course people will pay more money to stay at a nicer hotel, but with occupancy rates like they are, they obviously don't have a need to make it nicer on the outside.

What BlueStreak64 said. Sure they could have built something that looks nicer. I think we can all agree on that. But to the business, it doesn't matter. The nicer building would cost more and they'd get nothing for it. Just because it's nicer doesn't mean people will pay more for it. I'm sure that the rates are priced at just the point where they can charge as much as possible, which is the reason it changes throughout the year.

Your sarcastic rant about people being dumb and not being willing to pay for whatever is completely irrelevant because it lacks context. I could, and would, pay big bucks for the Grand Floridian at Disney World, but I'd never pay it for Cedar Point. I'll stay at any number of expensive hotels in the Inner Harbor in Baltimore, but not at Cedar Point.

Besides, there are no competitive forces on the peninsula. There's only one game in town there. If I want to stay on-point, I have to stay in one of their hotels. Ultimately, that's what people are willing to pay for, and they do. They maintain their occupancy rates because they price it right for the market that wants to stay there. It's probably the only pricing thing that they've gotten consistently right for the past ten years.

I don't know Tim personally but I have dealt with a lot of architects over the years (in fact, I had a little, tiny influence on the Breakers Tower). My dealings with architects have been less than positive and it usually comes down to money.

If I have $X to spend on a facility I want to get the biggest bang for my buck and I want to make sure my needs are met. If the architect can go above and beyond my needs...AND stay in budget, great.

But, here is what happens. I was building a community center and the architect was just paranoid about the symmetry of the building. The right half HAD to look like the left half. It just HAD to.

I brought up some major concerns I had about office space in the facility. The office for 3 people was about the size of my walk in closet. But, the architect made an impassioned and emotional plea to the mayor about the symmetry of the building and she sided with him.

Now, the architect has never visited the building since that day and we had staff members crammed into a sardine can making for some pretty lousy productivity.

Form over function instead of the other way around.

If you want "pretty", stay someplace else. But, for what it is Breakers is fine.

^ You've dealt with some pretty lousy architects then. Since my dad has owned a construction company for my entire life, I have a lot of experience in construction itself. I have a formal Architecture education and now work for a developer. So, I know how to design buildings that look great and also are cost effective. Ask my brother next year how he likes his house that I'm designing right now. I guarantee he will absolutely love it. I'm working well within his budget (maybe even come in UNDER budget) and he's going to have a house that's more attractive than anything in the area and functions perfectly. It just takes time, creativity and patience to design a structure that has BOTH form and function.

You say bad things about architects. Well, I can say bad things about developers, builders and clients. The point is, everyone needs to be on the same page for a successful project. If the client doesn't give a rat's a$$ what the building looks like, the architect's job is going to be very difficult. If the builder doesn't care what the architect has drawn, it's going to be built incorrectly. If the architect doesn't care how the building functions for the client, the client will probably fire him. It's the same with anything else. When there are multiple players on a project, everyone needs to have the same goals in mind. My best projects have involved clients and builders that all cared about the look of the building as much as the budget.

There are so many simple things you can do to build a hotel to keep costs down but still have a unique looking property. The reason I compare the concept to Disney is because I used to design resorts for them. One is built and three are still waiting approval to proceed with construction. It doesn't matter how many days a year the resort is open. It's simply a design exercise. Cedar Point had X number of dollars to work with on Breakers. I'm sure they had a certain number of rooms and also view issues to work with as well as a slew of other programmatic requirements. All I'm trying to say is they could have built something totally different for little or no more money and been able to charge more to make more profit. Plus, they'd have a structure they could use to draw in more people. Even if they couldn't raise the price, they wouldn't have spent any more money, but they would have had a much prettier resort.

If occupancy is at 100% (which I doubt because Disney doesn't even maintain a true 100% occupancy), then prices could go up. Like Jeff said, if people want to stay on property, they're stuck. If the resort was at a different level, they'd gladly pay more. Look what they pay more for now.

But, if everyone is happy with the mediocrity that is Breakers, that's ok. I'll just leave it at that. It seems I'm the only one that's interested in attractive buildings.

Tim what do you do for a living anyway? Life on a tropical island must be boring! :)

I care what a building looks like that I'm staying at and I'm pretty far from an architect.

Let's just put this in perspective for a second. There WERE buildings there that were aesthetically pleasing and were functional for many many years. So they may have needed torn down and rebuilt, do it. What happened is they tore down buildings and replaced them with something that didn't fit or even compliment the existing area.

Jeff, Conneaut Lake Hotel doesn't have air conditioning or telephones yet they were booked solid too when in operation. That's just proves people will pay for aesthetics. I'll have to agree with Tim in the fact that if they would spend more time and money on the fit and finish they'd most likely be overbooked. So mediocrity is happiness in this case. When Maverick lost some of it's theming due to budget cuts you guys were the first to cry foul and bash CF/CP, what's the real difference between a nice resort and nice theming? According to some here, aesthetics won't increase capital but better theming will?
Then we have the folks who are under the impression that the hotels on point aren't "resorts". If it isn't a resort, then DON"T CALL IT A RESORT.

It is "Cedar Point Resorts" and Hotel Breakers/Sandcastle Suites Hotel. The "resort" aspect doesn't come from the physical structure but from the location. It is on a lake/beach, next to the amusement park, has pools and restaurants, next to the water park, etc.

The hotels are well over 80% occupancy for the season. That includes the "shoulder season" of the early and late weekends when occupancy is high but not 100%. Putting a parapit or a pretty facade on the outside of any of the buildings isn't going to change that.

As for my complaints about the unfinished Maverick, I was interested in the theme elements as they would affect the ride itself. The buildings/village that you run through while on Big Bad Wolf enhance the ride experience making it feel faster than it is. That is what I was expecting when I saw initial drawings of Maverick.

I love a nice hotel as much as the next person. I think the Grand Floridian, Coronado Springs, Wilderness Lodge at Disney are fantastic and I'd stay there even if I didn't go to the parks. But, the fact of the matter is that the Cedar Point hotels are open less than 120 nights per year and you have to question the value in over doing it on those facilities.

Perhaps some of you think the old Breakers wings looked nice from the outside but those rooms were DUMPS. I was flabbergasted when I first went into them after learning how much they cost to rent. I think Breakers East is pretty nice and the Tower, while a bit of an obstruction and oddly out of place ain't bad either.
*** Edited 9/21/2007 6:48:47 PM UTC by Chief Wahoo***

Those theming aspects on Maverick may have affected the overall experience but would have had no affect on how much money the park made due to the ride or how many people revisited the park because the ride had over the top theming.

That statement sounds pretty crazy doesn't it?

It's EXACTLY what you're saying about the design of the hotels.

If this was the case then why don't they just build a bunch of rides in a parking lot and but a Best Western next to them? What other reason would people pay loads of money to stay in a hotel without air conditioning or telephones?

I don't know why people would spend a lot of money to stay in a hotel with no A/C; then again, I don't know why people pay a little money to stay in Knight's Inn.

I would argue that, at least in Cedar Point's case, it seems to be that the new rides aren't really affecting how much money the park will make. Attendance has been flat, if not down, for quite some time now.

For a good chunck of the season the Cedar Point hotels are at 100% or darn close on occupancy. That is a safe bet from mid-June to Labor Day. You can build the Taj Mahal around Breakers and they couldn't do better than that 100%.

If they DID build the Taj Mahal around the Breakers would that drive the occupancy higher in the shoulder season? I don't know...but I doubt it would be a substantial shift. The weather plays a greater roll in shoulder season occupancy than anything else.

Yes, they could do better than that 100%. Obviously if you're going to spend money on something like this you'd be adding more rooms and better facilities to house more people so instead of the 100% they're at now it could possibly double or triple that.

Why is it so difficult to understand that 100% is a relative term. If you only have 50 beds, for instance, being at 100% is great, but you're also at 100% if you have 5000 beds and are filling them all too. Which would you rather? I may not be a rocket scientist but I'm going to take the 5000 over the 50. They're both 100% but one is making more money than the other.

It's a win win situation for CF. If they're at 100% occupancy now, they would not only add to that but get more repeat customers and referrals from those repeat customers. I'm glad you don't own a business 'cause it wouldn't be long for this world.

"So, how's business?"

"It's great, we're in this little shop but we're maxxed out on services, 100% efficiency"

"Why don't you expand and grow your market?"

"Why? We're already at 100%, where else is there to go?"

halltd said:

But, if everyone is happy with the mediocrity that is Breakers, that's ok. I'll just leave it at that. It seems I'm the only one that's interested in attractive buildings.

Oh please. Go back to Disney if you're so unhappy with Breakers, and let someone else stay at Breakers who is happy with what Cedar Point has done with it. You make it sound as if Breakers is total crap.

You think Disney is so great in their designs, including your own, thats fine. But all I get out of your posts is how everyone else: has bad taste, that you're the only good architect, and that if you had built Breakers, it would have been perfect.

Disney has a long list of flaws with their resorts too. For example, the Caribbean resort...yeah, its no more better than Breakers, and quite frankly, I thought their spa area sucked.

Putting yourself above others with statements like the one above voids any and all arguments you might think you have.

You guys crack me up. You can keep saying the place looks crappy, and yet they're still booking rooms for far more than what they're really worth at any other location.

I have similar architect stories, Wahoo. My college theater was shaped like an octagon, because it looked great from the air. Of course, it's the most non-functional theater you've ever been in with terrible sight lines and acoustics. While working with school architects, who mostly got educational spaces, they wanted to put a bunch of windows between the TV studio and the control room. I couldn't make them understand that you don't look at the studio through glass, you look at it through cameras. Duh.