By Jon Champelli
There are unique complications that come with designing hospitality megaprojects, specifically those relating to the design of integrated resorts. These are projects with square-footages measured in the millions, budgets in the billions, and design/construction schedules that can last for half a decade or more. For example, design work for Circa Las Vegas began in earnest in early 2016, and it opened in December 2020. Resorts World Las Vegas was originally a 2011 job number for us, and it finally debuted in 2021.
Time frame as well as size are what separate these projects from other design efforts: time frame because extended design and construction schedules require a vastly different approach than does a project that will be designed and built in year or two, and size because a 5,000,000- to 10,000,000-sq-ft project includes many spaces to design and numerous designers to accomplish it. The size and time frame factors can be further categorized into financial challenges—whether for the design firm or the project itself—and difficulties related strictly to the design process. Naturally, there will be significant overlap between, well, all of it.
All projects undergo revisions, most due to budgetary matters, some due to changes in design direction or project scope. Changes late in the design process are the costliest to the design team, as they represent more potentially wasted staff hours. When you’re dealing with a schedule that lasts for multiple years, the opportunities for late changes due to project scope increase dramatically for two main reasons: experiences and opinions. Regarding experiences, megaproject clients tend to be extremely wealthy individuals, and wealthy individuals have a propensity to travel. These clients are constantly visiting new places, staying in the trendiest hotels, eating in the freshest restaurants, and seeing the latest attractions. When they return from their travels and their attention returns to the project you’re working on, they ask, “Do we have one of those?” and “How are we positioned to compete with that?” These questions are valid and must be treated as such.
The opinion changes stem from the fact that a megaproject, like an integrated resort, will include as many as 40 to 50 power spaces: restaurants, retail, lobbies, pools, spas, rooms, and suites, among other spaces. To make the project manageable, these spaces will not all be designed simultaneously, and stretching out the process increases the risk of late-stage redesign. Additionally, such projects will ultimately employ hundreds of operational staff, who the owner will not hire until relatively late in the construction timeline, including surveillance, pit bosses, and hotel managers. You may have a celebrity chef who will be laser-focused on the design of his or her restaurant and the layout of the kitchen, but that will be the exception, not the rule. Much later in the process, all the operational staff for the individual venues will be hired. That staff will be responsible for the successful and profitable functioning of those venues and will have requests and requirements related to that functionality. Smaller projects experience this as well, but the problem is compounded when dealing with dozens of venues at once.
So, how are designers to protect themselves from these eventualities? The key is foresight. Recognize that these issues are not things that might happen—they will happen. Understanding that fact and preparing accordingly is what will make the difference. The sheer amount of work being done raises the stakes for mid-process client approvals. Designers should strongly consider the scheduling of fees not tied to design phases but billed at regular intervals, perhaps monthly. Fees tied to design phases can lead to contentious negotiations when a project changes course mid-phase and work is lost. Designers bill for 80% design development, but the client claims the work represents 50%. Contentious negotiations are the exact opposite of a collaborative creation process and can easily damage important relationships. If design fees are billed monthly based on a predetermined schedule length, when the changes come, the schedule is extended (should be extended) and the process continues without a counterproductive fight. Better to have a disagreement about needing additional time than one about the exact quantity of prior work completed.
On the client’s end, the multi-billion-dollar budgets being managed must be vetted, verified, and justified at multiple stages in the design and construction process. With 40 to 50 power spaces on a project, not every one will be the must-see space, but the people designing them may feel differently. Early effort must be put into an organized prioritization of spaces so that designers understand their relative budgetary allocations and can proceed with confidence. This fiscal direction will ultimately be provided by the client, but that guidance is rarely available early on, as the client’s vision often develops along with, and because of, the design.
The design team must be proactive in requesting guidance to avoid spending much-needed resources heading in an inappropriate direction. A venue that the designers believe may be critical to the success of the project, for example, a primary entry, may be of lesser importance to the client. A space that the design team may consider secondary—say, a food court—could to the client be a critically important revenue source, worthy of extra budgetary consideration. Ideally early-stage conceptual discussions will reveal the client’s priorities. At Circa, we knew from the outset that the pool and the sportsbook were seen by the client as differentiators and vital to the brand. At Resorts World, it was the high-limit gaming areas that were critical. Knowing these priorities early allowed us to appropriately allocate resources, both ours and the client’s.
Lighting design budget estimates are important components of all projects, but they become critical for megaprojects and must be continually revised and updated at each stage, as the extended timelines will have a major impact on fixture costs. Vendors need to protect themselves against inflationary pressure on the supply side as well as political unknowns such as tariffs on products coming from overseas. Some manufacturers will provide duration limitations to their quotes, requiring that the orders be filled within six months or a year. Other vendors will provide multiple prices, one for purchase immediately or within a set limited time, and another, higher price that can be considered solid for a longer duration. Transparency is a must when communicating these realities to contractors, the client’s procurement team, and anyone else involved in the budgeting process.
Another strategic consideration is preparing for the inevitable value engineering (VE) exercise. It may seem counterintuitive, but the bigger the project’s budget, the more likely an extensive VE effort. By the time lighting procurement is starting in earnest, many of the project’s priorities—steel, façades, kitchen, and HVAC equipment—have already been purchased. All too often, attention turns to the lighting package when looking for late savings. The potential savings available within a lighting package (potentially worth tens of millions of dollars) will be seen as too significant to pass up.
As lighting designers, we are responsible for providing the best possible value for our clients—the best possible combination of quality and cost. How do we provide that value while still leaving room for the VE we know is coming? Like many of the other keys to designing megaprojects, the answer is in planning early for the late stages of design. To avoid wholesale VE sacrifices, it is critical early in the process to identify the spaces and fixture types that will be able to absorb a slight reduction in quality without compromising the overall integrity of the design aesthetic. If a designer’s reaction to a VE request is flat refusal or extreme resistance, many clients may simply push harder or bypass the designer altogether, going straight to the contractor to look for savings. On the other hand, if the response to the VE request is the presentation of a thought-out and well-justified list of acceptable VE targets as well as prioritized, protected spaces, the client is far more likely to listen to and accept the designer’s recommendations.
With a significant number of individual interior spaces comes the involvement of many different designers, possibly even multiple design firms. Early coordination is critical to the setting of expectations regarding overall design style. For example, does the property want to have a very cohesive design aesthetic to which all venues should adhere, or is it preferred to have an intentionally wide variety of styles? Designers may want to exercise their individual creativity, but if adjacent spaces bear no relationship to each other whatsoever, the result can lack cohesion, and a collection of highly respected retail brands can feel disjointed.
Furthermore, each designer on a team is going to come in with their own personal favorite manufacturers and styles, but the interests of the overall project must be priority. It is vital that there be a design lead that listens to the desires of the various designers and drives the process of selecting a primary manufacturer or two, with an eye specifically to the future maintenance of the property. No property wants to keep attic stock of hundreds of different lighting types. The chosen manufacturer(s) must have as wide a range of offerings as possible to limit the number of concessions made by individual designers. Without a doubt, there will be many venues with critical needs, be they aesthetic, functional, or code-required, necessitating departures from the primary fixture family. If that family is diverse enough and presents the facility’s operations and maintenance teams with a fighting chance of successfully organizing their efforts, those teams will be much more understanding about special requirements.
Finally, lighting professionals are all very aware of the incredible speed at which lighting technology is currently evolving. The good news is that most of this change is for the better in efficiency, quality, and value. Over the course of a year plus of design, fixtures specified at the beginning of the design process may very likely have been upgraded by the time the design process is concluded, to say nothing of the changes when the project is fully approved, bid, and built. Documenting design choices in terms of performance is the most reliable way to future-proof design. If a fixture is specified because 850 lumens provided at 2700K is what is needed, an increase in efficiency will only result in wattage saved. Diligent maintenance of a highly detailed fixture schedule is the best way to ensure the entire design team can track both fixture performance and changes over time. It’s also essential to closely collaborate with manufacturers to get a clear picture of what the future holds. It is very common for manufacturers to come to our office to discuss a new fixture about which they say, “Do not specify this yet; it’s not ready!” but they’ll quickly offer to generate preliminary cut sheets when informed about a project three years from construction that could use hundreds or thousands of their new fixtures.
Every project has challenges, opportunities, potential pitfalls, and the chance to create something truly impactful. The bigger the project, the more each of these categories will be represented. Ultimately, the key to maximizing the positive opportunities and sidestepping the roadblocks is being able to see the future as clearly as possible from the beginning and preparing accordingly.
the Author | Jon Champelli LC, LEED AP, Member IES, is president of Shop12 Design, an affiliate of Steelman Partners.