Jump to content

Proposed W Hotel In Uptown


W Hotel  

147 members have voted

  1. 1. What Development will Land the "W" in Houston?

    • BLVD Place
      48
    • Westcreek - Whatever it's called
      15
    • Highland Village
      17
    • Somewhere else
      31
    • Don't kid yourself. Houston can't support a "W"
      20
    • Downtown (Even though it would be financial suicide
      30


Recommended Posts

Call me a skeptic but i wouldn't put too much into something that someone "says" without a source. No offense ENGcons! But how do we know you're not just some kid playing with our minds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 419
  • Created
  • Last Reply

just for clarification, are you saying they have closed the land, without any drawings/renderings, and will break ground sometime within the next two years?

thank you in advance for the insight.

and edited to add, after reading tnj's post: he pretty much hit the nail on the head. several downtown hotels are bleeding red and the owners are throwing good money after bad.

you can choose to believe it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call me a skeptic but i wouldn't put too much into something that someone "says" without a source. No offense ENGcons! But how do we know you're not just some kid playing with our minds?

No offense taken. The reason for the Hush Hush is the company I work for is in negotiations with the W people to build the thing. I do not want to jeopordize the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and edited to add, after reading tnj's post: he pretty much hit the nail on the head. several downtown hotels are bleeding red and the owners are throwing good money after bad.

you can choose to believe it or not.

I'm perfectly willing to believe it. But I am genuinely curious about why they would not take significant actions to save themselves, as I have asked in several previous posts. I seriously wish one of the industry people would tell me where my logic is wrong. Why would they not lower their weekday rates a bit to fill up some more rooms (and generate higher revenue)? Why would they not affiliate with a chain to instantly generate more business traffic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New hotel numbers:

Downtown Houston hotel occupancy: April 2007: 72.3%, up from last year's 70.9%.

Jan-Apr 2007: 67.7%, down from last year's 72.3% (Katrina/Rita effect)

downtown ADR: April 2007: $162.36, up 8.4% from last year

Jan-Apr: $164.66, up 6.6% from 2006

Uptown/Galleria hotel occupancy: April 2007: 77.9%, up from last year's 73.9%

Jan-Apr: 74.3%, down from last year's 76.1%

uptown ADR: April 2007: $145.36, up 11.8% from last year

Jan-Apr: $138.44, up 4.4% from 2006

What in those numbers would cause a rational investor to automatically exclude downtown from consideration for a new luxury hotel in favor of uptown?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and edited to add, after reading tnj's post: he pretty much hit the nail on the head. several downtown hotels are bleeding red and the owners are throwing good money after bad.

you can choose to believe it or not.

I believe it. His only mistake was to predict that there would be closings. It is indeed a financial bloodbath, but as long as they can cover their operating expenses, their doors will not close. Some may be repositioned or eventually even converted to some other use, but the building won't just go dark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would they not lower their weekday rates a bit to fill up some more rooms (and generate higher revenue)?

Lowering the rates does not necessarily mean that a sufficient number of hotel customers will be induced to stay there; meanwhile, those of the clientele that would have stayed there anyway would effectively get a discount. I would suspect, however, that if you were to play one boutique off another, you could get a really good deal, since they'd have the opportunity to engage in the kind of price discrimination that their price-taking customers couldn't get a peice of.

Why would they not affiliate with a chain to instantly generate more business traffic?

There are plenty of possible reasons. There are only so many chains with which to affiliate, and chains often have standards for consistency that would require remodeling. It can be difficult to convince an owner of something that is unprofitable--or especially his lender--to throw more money at an unprofitable venture. The owner may be in it more for his/her ego than for the buck. Those chains that are a good fit may already have a position in the market, probably with a non-compete agreement with the other hotel owner(s). There may be agreements in place between the hotel and the City regarding subsidy in some form or another that could be tricky to work around. And then there are the oddball reasons that aren't known to more than a handful of people.

^Just brainstorming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lowering the rates does not necessarily mean that a sufficient number of hotel customers will be induced to stay there; meanwhile, those of the clientele that would have stayed there anyway would effectively get a discount. I would suspect, however, that if you were to play one boutique off another, you could get a really good deal, since they'd have the opportunity to engage in the kind of price discrimination that their price-taking customers couldn't get a peice of.

There are plenty of possible reasons. There are only so many chains with which to affiliate, and chains often have standards for consistency that would require remodeling. It can be difficult to convince an owner of something that is unprofitable--or especially his lender--to throw more money at an unprofitable venture. The owner may be in it more for his/her ego than for the buck. Those chains that are a good fit may already have a position in the market, probably with a non-compete agreement with the other hotel owner(s). There may be agreements in place between the hotel and the City regarding subsidy in some form or another that could be tricky to work around. And then there are the oddball reasons that aren't known to more than a handful of people.

^Just brainstorming.

You are quite right that lowering the rates does not necessarily mean that a sufficient number of hotel customers will be induced to stay there, etc. But you know as well as I do that it is quite likely to do so. Especially when we can all see that they do lower their rates on the weekends to induce demand.

Your brainstorming list is interesting and most are possible. None are likely, especially in the combinations required to come up with three or four hotel/owner situations.

There are plenty of chains of various levels not currently represented in downtown Houston. None of Starwoods chains are there (W, Westin, Sheraton, Aloft, and more). Fairmont. Raddison. Omni. Marriott has several chains not represented. Intercontinental Group has several chains not represented. (and it's highly unlikely that the agreement with Courtyard/Residence Inn would not allow a Marriott, Rennaissance, Ritz-Carlton or other Marriott property.)

Yes, chains have certain standards. But, the properties we are talking about have all been recently built/rehabbed and are all well-done to pretty high standards. In most cases, the required remodeling would probably not be huge. As to owners' willingness to undertake such expense, you are sort of stepping on your message. On one hand you tell us they are willing to continue to bleed huge losses year after year. On the other hand, you suggest they would not be willing to spend money necessary to stanch those losses. In general, these people probably didn't become rich by being economic fools.

I suppose it's always possible the owner is in it for his ego. But, again, is it really reasonably likely that we have 3 or 4 such owners operating hotels in downtown Houston? Seems unlikely. And even if they are doing if for their ego, wouldn't their ego get just as much stroking from a profitable hotel? I don't know, maybe not... As I said earlier in this thread, I know a lot of rich people with large egos. NONE of them enjoy writing checks.

It's very difficult to imagine what could possibly be in the agreements with the city that would make affiliation with a chain difficult. That just makes no sense. It's in everyone's interest for the hotels to succeed.

My skepticism of our resident insiders' claims of rivers of red ink for all downtown boutique hotels aside, the more important point is this. It has almost no relevance to the question of whether or not a W or Ritz-Carlton or Mandarin Oriental or other such uber-high-end hotel might be built downtown (or for that matter other high-end hotels). This is so for several reasons. 1. The market is pretty healthy, even if certain individual hotels are not. 2. All of those mentioned possible hotels are affiliated with strong chains. 3. Any of those hotels would also have (presumably profitable) condos associated with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are quite right that lowering the rates does not necessarily mean that a sufficient number of hotel customers will be induced to stay there, etc. But you know as well as I do that it is quite likely to do so. Especially when we can all see that they do lower their rates on the weekends to induce demand.

Right, they lower their rates on the weekends but even then, they only lower them to a point. Beyond that point, they'd only hurt their own profitability by continuing to lower rates, even if their occupancy could be boosted.

There are plenty of chains of various levels not currently represented in downtown Houston. None of Starwoods chains are there (W, Westin, Sheraton, Aloft, and more). Fairmont. Raddison. Omni. Marriott has several chains not represented. Intercontinental Group has several chains not represented. (and it's highly unlikely that the agreement with Courtyard/Residence Inn would not allow a Marriott, Rennaissance, Ritz-Carlton or other Marriott property.)

Yes, chains have certain standards. But, the properties we are talking about have all been recently built/rehabbed and are all well-done to pretty high standards. In most cases, the required remodeling would probably not be huge. As to owners' willingness to undertake such expense, you are sort of stepping on your message. On one hand you tell us they are willing to continue to bleed huge losses year after year. On the other hand, you suggest they would not be willing to spend money necessary to stanch those losses. In general, these people probably didn't become rich by being economic fools.

These chains, especially the high-end ones that could take on a boutique hotel, tend to be extremely picky. The greater the number of stars a hotel is going to have, the more leverage they exert over everything, especially location. And the boutique chains tend not to be quite as interested in downtown as they are in other areas, especially the Galleria area. That isn't necessarily the case when you throw condos into the mix in a new construction deal, but it is a strike against the independent downtown boutiques.

And you're right that many of these hotel owners are likely to have some basic sense about them...but not necessarily. Depending on their current level of financial distress and whether lenders will still trust someone that invested in a flop, it may not be easy to reposition a property.

I suppose it's always possible the owner is in it for his ego. But, again, is it really reasonably likely that we have 3 or 4 such owners operating hotels in downtown Houston? Seems unlikely.

...but I agree that the fact that there are several hotel owners that are hurting makes some combination of my brainstormed ideas unlikely. I'd suspect that there's something holding all of them back that is similar in nature.

It's very difficult to imagine what could possibly be in the agreements with the city that would make affiliation with a chain difficult. That just makes no sense. It's in everyone's interest for the hotels to succeed.

...and that's why I came up with the idea that it might be an issue with the City, which was giving away money left and right--except that there's no such thing as free money. There's always some sort of a contractual agreement. And what's more, there's no guarantee that the City's restrictions made sense. In fact, I'd hardly expect for everything to make sense.

My skepticism of our resident insiders' claims of rivers of red ink for all downtown boutique hotels aside, the more important point is this. It has almost no relevance to the question of whether or not a W or Ritz-Carlton or Mandarin Oriental or other such uber-high-end hotel might be built downtown (or for that matter other high-end hotels). This is so for several reasons. 1. The market is pretty healthy, even if certain individual hotels are not. 2. All of those mentioned possible hotels are affiliated with strong chains. 3. Any of those hotels would also have (presumably profitable) condos associated with them.

This much is true. All of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No offense taken. The reason for the Hush Hush is the company I work for is in negotiations with the W people to build the thing. I do not want to jeopordize the process.

Can you tell us who the players are in the deal? Obviously Starwood but who is their development partner? Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is a rumor that waterway square in the woodlands will have a W hotel. i do not know if this means that the development company is courting W hotels or that W hotels are interested in placing one here.

I actually work for Starwood Hotels/Resorts in which the W Hotel is part of. As of right now, the plans are to put the aloft hotel (which is a less expensive version of the W) in the SW area or possibly just south of the Galleria area. Then of course the new Westin and Sheraton will be going close to where Sam Parkway and I 10 meet...and there will be a Four Points over in that area as well...then another Starwood product, the Element, will be going in off 249 and Louetta...all of which are planned to open around 2009. There had been talks about the W taking over Hotel Derek but that is no longer the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually work for Starwood Hotels/Resorts in which the W Hotel is part of. As of right now, the plans are to put the aloft hotel (which is a less expensive version of the W) in the SW area or possibly just south of the Galleria area. Then of course the new Westin and Sheraton will be going close to where Sam Parkway and I 10 meet...and there will be a Four Points over in that area as well...then another Starwood product, the Element, will be going in off 249 and Louetta...all of which are planned to open around 2009. There had been talks about the W taking over Hotel Derek but that is no longer the case.

They've already announced the Aloft will be in the Galleria area, just west of the Galleria at 5433 Westheimer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

several downtown hotels are bleeding red and the owners are throwing good money after bad.

i was speaking with someone who works at the magnolia and he confirmed that occupancy is low. he mentioned that they had 3 nights where no one was staying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the latest BLVD place rendering there are 3 towers within the complex behind the retail stuff. It's all adding up now. I vote for BLVD place.

And your vote would be incorrect. BLVD Place is an entirely different development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My vote is that ENGcons needs to get his rocks off elsewhere.

This is absurd. Wake us up when they make an "official" announcement

No problem. Sorry guys, no more updates until ground is broken. Send your complaints to talltexan83 if you have any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, don't listen to talltexan, I like being played with... it's fun to guess. Come back Engcons and tell us more. I just wanted to point out an observation that BLVD place had a new rendering that depicted 3 towers, and Engcons said the W hotel project also had 3 towers. BLVD place has the most votes on the poll, so it sounded like a match.

No need for anyone to be rude or be driven away. We should all respect the insiders' need to limit the info they can post. Otherwise, we have NOTHING to go on at all around here about these speculative projects going up all over the place. HAIF would be dull without insider info - be especially nice to them, and save the hostility for the Dallas trolls (just kidding).

So now, if we can eliminate BLVD Place, I would vote for - High Street/Westcreek. - But I'm still HOPING it will be downtown.

Come back, Engcons :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey yeah. Maybe it's that thing people were talking about on Richmond and Post Oak near Windsor Plaza. That sounded like a large mysterious project that no one has elaborated on.

EngCons...?

Kinkaid...?

Houston 19514...?

Great Hizzy...?

Niche...?

PR Girl...?

Houston Developement...?

New Juniper...?

anyone...? anyone...?

Be nice to me - I'm one of your biggest fans. :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no clue other than I had heard that BLVD Place had higher aspirations than the W to run their hotel and condos (think RITZ). Wulfe wants to pull in empty nesters from Tanglewood and River Oaks to his condo tower at BLVD Place and they are too old and too blue-blooded for a W would be my uneducated guess. However, these types might trip over themselves to get the chance to say they live at the Ritz or Mandarin...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are quite right that lowering the rates does not necessarily mean that a sufficient number of hotel customers will be induced to stay there, etc. But you know as well as I do that it is quite likely to do so. Especially when we can all see that they do lower their rates on the weekends to induce demand.

Your brainstorming list is interesting and most are possible. None are likely, especially in the combinations required to come up with three or four hotel/owner situations.

There are plenty of chains of various levels not currently represented in downtown Houston. None of Starwoods chains are there (W, Westin, Sheraton, Aloft, and more). Fairmont. Raddison. Omni. Marriott has several chains not represented. Intercontinental Group has several chains not represented. (and it's highly unlikely that the agreement with Courtyard/Residence Inn would not allow a Marriott, Rennaissance, Ritz-Carlton or other Marriott property.)

Yes, chains have certain standards. But, the properties we are talking about have all been recently built/rehabbed and are all well-done to pretty high standards. In most cases, the required remodeling would probably not be huge. As to owners' willingness to undertake such expense, you are sort of stepping on your message. On one hand you tell us they are willing to continue to bleed huge losses year after year. On the other hand, you suggest they would not be willing to spend money necessary to stanch those losses. In general, these people probably didn't become rich by being economic fools.

I suppose it's always possible the owner is in it for his ego. But, again, is it really reasonably likely that we have 3 or 4 such owners operating hotels in downtown Houston? Seems unlikely. And even if they are doing if for their ego, wouldn't their ego get just as much stroking from a profitable hotel? I don't know, maybe not... As I said earlier in this thread, I know a lot of rich people with large egos. NONE of them enjoy writing checks.

It's very difficult to imagine what could possibly be in the agreements with the city that would make affiliation with a chain difficult. That just makes no sense. It's in everyone's interest for the hotels to succeed.

My skepticism of our resident insiders' claims of rivers of red ink for all downtown boutique hotels aside, the more important point is this. It has almost no relevance to the question of whether or not a W or Ritz-Carlton or Mandarin Oriental or other such uber-high-end hotel might be built downtown (or for that matter other high-end hotels). This is so for several reasons. 1. The market is pretty healthy, even if certain individual hotels are not. 2. All of those mentioned possible hotels are affiliated with strong chains. 3. Any of those hotels would also have (presumably profitable) condos associated with them.

OK. I apologize in advance for the posting, but i can only take so much.

I will not tell you that i know everything about the future of Houston real estate. But, I do know more than most. Don't believe me, just stop reading here.

I will not tell you that i know everything about the economics of hotel development. But, I do know welllllll more than most. Again, same admonition regarding leaving the post at this time.....

However, anyone who uses the logic (<- term used loosely) that hotels should merely lower their rates to increase demand knows NOTHING about the hotel business). It was at this point in the previous post that hopefully most of you hit the "back" button on your browser. Hotels have certain fixed costs and certain variable costs. By way of a very basic example, hotels would MUCH rather sell one room for $100 than 100 rooms for $1 each. Same amount of revenue generated, but much higher variable costs per room on the 100 rooms. So, a novice might say, "Well, if you can't fill your rooms at $150 per night, sell them for $75 and you'll be full." Half right. You'd be full. BUT, you would actually be worse off than if you closed the doors completely. Nice hotels such as Alden, Icon, Lancaster, have high fixed and variable costs.

Their staff per occupied room is very high. (Thus the difference between full service and limited service - but that is a story for another day). Turning a room (transitioning from one guest to another), by way of example, in a limited service should run about $35 - $40 per room. In a full service boutique, it may be twice that. So, selling a room for $75 is actually a money loser just on that alone. Then figure in the staff that you wouldn't have to pay if you were not full of $75 per night guests, and it furthers the problem.

Lastly on rate. Few things in the hotel business are as studied and cherished as rate integrity. You have to build rate up and condition your customers to expect to pay a certain amount. Then, slowly, you can bump rate up without much push back. However, drop your rate drastically and here is what you get: business conditioned to pay $75 per night (money loser) that will jump ship the minute you try to push rate up again. Oh, and those that were paying $150 and happy to do so, resent the lowering of the rate, realize there is a problem, and go to the Four Seasons. The knee jerk reaction to declining occupancy is to dump rate. Biggest problem/mistake in hotel management. GM's want to be able to show owners that they have 85% occupancy and to heck with the ADR. HUGE problem if not caught early. It is a vicious, downward spiral.....

And, while i'm at it. Making a call on Wednesday to get a hotel room downtown and learning your hotel is full is not exactly a leading indicator of the hotel market in CBD. Business travelers are the bread and butter of downtown hotels. Staying full Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday evenings is not the problem. It is the other four nights that kill these places.

Making the decision between losing $1MM per year and spending another $10MM to upgrade with the prospect of STILL losing money is not as easy as you make it sound. Just consider if it were your money. And, while i'm on it, your statement of "the remodeling costs would not be huge" is equally as baffling. Have you ever recarpeted 250,000 sf of floor? How about new wallpaper for 150 rooms? Nevermind, let's say, just new bedding, towels, sheets. How about upgrading the HVAC system? The hot water delivery system? All of these things would help the guest experience but are VERY expensive.

Staying full for business travel and/or special events is easy. It is the other days that bankrupt a property.

Downtown, unflagged hotels lose money. Period.

I am certain of very few things in life. This one i know.

I don't want to go off on a rant here Dennis Miller style, but goodness gracious.

Sorry if the post skipped around a bit. However, just too much to address for one monring.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Happy to admit it. However, at least prove me wrong based on some, reasonable, sound, based on some sort of reality, logic.....

Respectfully,

TNJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

: applause :

well said tnj!

hopefully, people will take your post as gaining insight rather than looking for a way to be overly critical of your real world experiences.

and edited to add:

i am personally not aware that W closed and funded a sight.

engcons hasnt directly answered my questions, for whatever reason.. however, not saying he's right or wrong.

i just dunno...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

: applause :

well said tnj!

hopefully, people will take your post as gaining insight rather than looking for a way to be overly critical of your real world experiences.

and edited to add:

i am personally not aware that W closed and funded a sight.

engcons hasnt directly answered my questions, for whatever reason.. however, not saying he's right or wrong.

i just dunno...

Thanks houston dev.

The end game here is a sharing of info. Enough "i heard this" and "i heard that" eventually leads to the truth. No one person is the sole repository for all facts. I share what i know. I share what i heard.

If, from time to time, we have a spirited debate, then so be it. Opposing views are what make the world go 'round. Discussions, even arguments, should be reviewed carefully and learned from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

: applause :

well said tnj!

hopefully, people will take your post as gaining insight rather than looking for a way to be overly critical of your real world experiences.

and edited to add:

i am personally not aware that W closed and funded a sight.

engcons hasnt directly answered my questions, for whatever reason.. however, not saying he's right or wrong.

i just dunno...

And I am not going to answer questions about it. This is a project that NONE of you have come close to knowing anything about. I know a great deal about this project, yet cannot discuss it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I am not going to answer questions about it. This is a project that NONE of you have come close to knowing anything about. I know a great deal about this project, yet cannot discuss it.

i asked you to confirm if W closed the land, which is something you alluded to earlier. you are not providing any additional information; only making a clarification.

if you cant answer, then it is what it is. this has nothing to do with who knows more than the other.

again, thanks for the insight in advance.

edited to add the question i asked earlier:

just for clarification, are you saying they have closed the land, without any drawings/renderings, and will break ground sometime within the next two years?

thank you in advance for the insight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I was trying to give some insight to a project that I know about since the board was asking. I now wish I had never said a word and let you guys keep playing pin the tail on the donkey.

I'm done filling in the board on the W development. You guys can just guess on your own from now on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...