Recent Sandcastle Suites Pictures...

My main point in that instance is that people actually use the TVs and internet, and when you are watching TV on a little TV that looks like its from the 90s or earlier and you're paying as much as you are to stay there, I would expect better out of the room. We've already reached the conclusion that the resorts look fine to most everyone on the outside.

You expect better out of the TV, other people expect better out of the hotel building and its decor. What's the difference? How is your argument about return on investment only valid when other people have an opinion that differs from your own? If Cedar Point isn't going to see a boost in profit from upgrading the TVs, what is the BUSINESS reason for doing so?

Oh gosh, everyone I've asked (I was just at the park last weekend and had quite a few random conversations with various guests) thinks that Breakers looks great on the outside. And another point, you can't effectively and efficiently change the actual hotel building every few years, but you can update things like refrigerators, TVs, etc., on a consistent basis every few years. You know what would be something for them to look at for the TVs? A system that has a PPV movie service/video game service. That would be one way to bring in immediate revenue from the update.

But its obvious you won't let us forget that you, the architect, don't think Breakers very aesthetic, so I see no point in trying to carry on a normal discussion anymore.

I was having a "normal discussion". I was showing how increased amenities can add to the perceived value of a property. For some people like myself, that's a more attractive building and/or interior decor. By the way, decor can be changed out just as easily as a TV can. For people like Jeff, that would include higher quality sheets, towels and mattresses. For people like you, that would include nicer TVs or wireless internet in the rooms. The fact remains that different people who pay for rooms at Breakers look for different things in the resort. If those amenities are there, they are more likely to pay more for the hotel. If they're not, they're less likely to pay more for the hotel. It's quite a simple concept. I was playing devil's advocate with the TV comment because I was trying to show you weren't remaining on the same point because it was something you wanted. Personally I'd love to see new TVs in the rooms because I think it would go a long way to increasing the overall "grade" of the properties. But, the fact remains that none of those items equal a boost in revenue for the hotel as they stood in the "discussion."

However, if you want to talk about the PPV movies, video games, pay internet, or "luxury" rooms, I would agree there is a market for increased revenue there. But, that wasn't the original topic. I was just trying to maintain a "proper" debate and/or discussion on the points being made in the thread.

^ I would also think that, for $1000+ per night, they could equip the higher-end suites with LCD or Plasma TV's instead of the older CRTs. That's just something small to nit-pick on, but if I'm spending a month's rent on one night in a hotel, they'd better have better electronics than I already have at home, or at least comparable.

Just a thought.

-Josh

If you would have told me you wanted to focus on the actual decor of the rooms and that you had accepted that many of us think the place is nice enough on the outside, I would have gone that direction. I thought you were still stuck on complaining about the outside of the hotel. There's a lot more I would do beyond the TVs, I just don't have time because I really should be asleep due to a rather unfortunate 7:50 class that is really quite useless as I learned this stuff two years ago in high school (not to mention I thought my high school teacher is doing it better than my current prof). That's the beauty of gen-ed courses though, as well as a completely different discussion entirely. :)