Lessons Learned in the Design of Luxury Hotels

LESSONS LEARNED: The Perils of Assumed Responsibilities in the Development of a Luxury Hotel

Overview:

In many of my previous posts and discussions, I stressed the need for comprehensive agreements between developer and architect covering the process in each design phase (Pre-Design, Concept, Schematic, Design Development, and Construction Documents), including timelines, deliverables, and revisions. We also highlighted how failing to define scope precisely can lead to conflicts—particularly in Levels of Design (LOD), coordination of drawings, and Interior Design and the associated gray zone between the architect’s “core and shell” and the surfaces to be finished by the interior designer.

A luxury hotel provides a perfect illustration of these issues. The developer may hire an architect for overall building design—covering structure, MEP, and public areas—while excluding specific interior spaces, such as themed restaurants or spas, because those decisions come later. Eventually, however, the developer realizes that specialized interior design heavily influences MEP, lighting, and even the building’s bid documents. A well-documented process—and clear delineations of responsibility—can help avoid these misunderstandings.

Furthermore, a hotel flag or luxury brand may not be secured before design of the hotel begins.  In fact some luxury brands want to see the base design  of the hotel before committing to the project and when they do, they come with their own brand standards that extends into Furniture, Fixtures, and Finishes and even to HVAC and lighting standards.

Below is a detailed examination of how conflicts emerge and why it is critical to outline every scope boundary, deliverable, and approval checkpoint throughout the design process—especially for high-end hospitality projects.

1. The Hotel Project Scenario

Developer’s Initial Assumptions

• The architect’s contract includes core and shell, general MEP, and public areas (e.g., lobby, corridors).

• Interior design for restaurants or the spa is excluded since the restaurant concept and spa theme remain undecided, especially if the hotel flag has not been decided before design on the project begins.

• The developer believes that guest room interiors only need superficial “pick and stick” on the wall decisions (finishes, fixtures, furniture).

Reality Check

• Guest rooms often require custom ceilings, built-in closets, decorative lighting, and unique mechanical/electrical layouts—none of which typically fall under a generic “core and shell” package.

• The columns and major structural elements are set before interior design begins.  The interior designer proposed layout for each room type results conflicts within the architect’s fixed structural framework, vertical shafts, and MEP system which requires redesign of rooms, walls, ceilings, and more.

• The architect may need to reconfigure MEP for each room based on final interior layouts—which is not included in the base fee if interior design is an exclusion.

• The hotel brand arrives late to the party and requires significant changes to accommodate its brand standards.

• Developers may feel blindsided by extra fees or schedule impacts, while the architect contends that these services were explicitly excluded from the scope.

2. Why Interior Design Is More Than “Pick and Stick”

Room Layouts Drive MEP

• Even if structural elements remain fixed, the placement of wardrobes, soffits, lighting coves, window treatments, furniture, and beds can significantly affect sprinkler heads, air diffusers, or electrical outlets.

• Different layouts for each floor plate has a ripple effect that impacts each suite type which requires room-by-room coordination.

Material and Finish Constraints

• 4-star and 5-star hotels typically involve custom millwork and high-end finishes that interact with HVAC, sprinkler, lighting, and electrical systems (e.g., cove lighting, decorative soffits).

• A small dimension shift can demand a unique detail for built-in cabinets, closets, or fixture placement.

Specialty Areas: Restaurants and Spas

• An elevated restaurant will require specialized ventilation and exhaust, adjustments to plumbing and drainage for kitchen layouts, and partition layouts—well beyond a mere furniture selection.

• A spa may demand unique HVAC, water systems, and steam fittings, all of which directly affect the architect’s MEP plans.

Room IT Systems

• Beyond interior design, IT infrastructure—such as telecommunications, fire alarms, televisions, sound systems, and public address systems—often gets overlooked.

• These systems require wiring pathways, special equipment closets, and integration with room layout and finishes—adding another layer of coordination if not stated in the base scope.

3. The Root of Conflict: Undefined or Vaguely Stated Exclusions

Exclusion Clauses

• Many agreements list “Interior Design and “IT Systems” as exclusions without explaining how these elements can alter MEP, life safety systems, or coordination of final construction documents.

• The developer may later introduce a complex spa or themed restaurant, seeing it as “part of the hotel,” but the architect sees it as an unplanned scope increase requiring additional fees.

Architect’s Perspective

• Once the core and shell are established, the architect does not modify columns or major structural elements. However, final layouts from an interior designer may still require the architect to revise mechanical, electrical, and plumbing routes in rooms and key area.

• The architect views this as additional work beyond the original scope, since the contract specifically excluded the interior design portion and any resulting changes.

Developer’s Perspective

• The developer often assumes the architect accounted for basic interior flexibility. When the architect requests extra time or fees to update lighting or sprinklers based on final room layouts, the developer perceives it as unexpected nickel-and-diming.

• Discontent escalates when the developer discovers IT or specialty systems—like a hotel-wide sound system—also need careful coordination.

4. A Proactive Solution: Document the Process and Deliver a Coordinated Set of Drawings

A well-defined design process—from Pre-Design to Construction Documents—flushes out these assumptions early on:

Proforma Layout of Rooms

• The architect may provide a preliminary (proforma) layout reflecting typical room dimensions and essential MEP distribution.

• The agreement should specify that final interior design details (e.g., reflected ceiling plans, furniture placement) will require the architect to update and coordinate with the MEP drawings.

Allocating Time for MEP Coordination

• Clearly state the allowance of hours or budget the architect will dedicate to finalizing MEP after the interior designer’s layout is fixed. Indicate how additional changes beyond this allowance will be billed.

Exclusions, Additional Services, and Coordination

• Include a clause such as: “The interior design of guest rooms, spa areas, and restaurant is excluded. Upon receipt of the final interior layouts, the architect will integrate these details into the base drawings.

• Emphasize that IT and specialized systems (telecom, sound, TVs) are either included or excluded, with a clear path to address either within the A/E agreement or through a third party.

Delivering a Fully Coordinated Bid Package

• Once the interior designer finalizes room layouts, wardrobes, soffits, light fixtures, and other elements, the architect must produce a fully coordinated set of drawings to incorporate those details into the final bid package.

• Without this coordination, conflicts between core & shell, MEP, custom fixtures, and IT systems may lead to costly change orders during construction.

5. Key Takeaways: Preventing Surprise Showdowns

Document Each Space and System

Define which areas the architect will design (lobby, corridors, back of house, public restrooms, etc.) and explicitly note that specialized interiors (fitness center, spa, restaurants) are separate—unless otherwise agreed upon.

Establish a Pro Forma Layout

Develop indicative building floor plans with typical room layouts indicating interior walls, ceilings, and their basic MEP requirements. Make it clear that final interior design will necessitate adjustments, which are billable.

Acknowledge Fixed Core and Shell

Once the structure is set, columns are not moving, and shafts are fixed. Any adjustments post-approval revolve around fine-tuning the final placement of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems within the spaces.

Set an Allowance for Coordination

Clearly plan and state how many hours or design cycles the architect will devote to updating mechanical and electrical drawings based on the interior designer’s final room plans.

Provide a Fully Coordinated Bid Package

Require the architect to incorporate final interior layouts and IT specifications into a consolidated set of drawings, ensuring minimal conflict among structure, MEP, custom fixtures, and technology.

Conclusion: A Well-Documented Process Preserves Harmony

When it comes to 4+-star or 5-star hotels, interior design is rarely a mere selection of finishes. Even if columns and core structure remain set, the layout of furniture, lighting, and custom features (and the addition of IT systems) can directly affect MEP design. If excluded from the initial scope without a clear framework for subsequent coordination, both developers and architects risk budget overruns and friction.

By documenting a pro forma layout for guest rooms, allocating a specific allowance for MEP updates, and clarifying how to incorporate final interior design details into a fully coordinated bid package, both parties avoid the dreaded “I thought that was included” debate. Ultimately, a thorough, transparent agreement keeps everyone aligned on scope and responsibilities—allowing the team to focus on delivering the high-quality, market-driven hotel experience that modern guests demand.