This report has been prepared to evaluate an existing and operational boutique hotel by addressing its architectural configuration, operational functioning, and user experience together. Rather than focusing solely on the aesthetic or technical adequacy of the physical space, the study aims to examine—through a holistic perspective—the relationship between the space, user profile, operational reflexes and experiential continuity.

The report’s core approach is to:
‍
• Read the hotel’s existing architectural potential accurately,
• Make visible the operational and spatial breakpoints that weaken the experience,
• Identify misalignments between structural realities and operational decisions,
• Define improvable areas together with their technical, experiential, and strategic rationales.

The report does not impose a final directive or an operational preference regarding the venue. However, in line with the user profile and experience ambition the hotel aims to deliver, it brings forward critical decision points and concretizes potential areas of improvement.

In the first phase of the reporting process, in order to properly analyze the hotel’s architectural and operational infrastructure, the following documents were requested from and reviewed with the relevant architectural office:

• Architectural implementation drawings
• Functional schemes and circulation scenarios
• Room typologies and layout plans
• Common-area usage scenarios
• Fire safety, escape distances, and regulatory schemes
• Material decisions and concept approach

Within this desktop pre-reading, it was observed that the hotel applies a conscious architectural retreat strategy against the dynamics of its location; despite being situated within a dense and noisy context, it aims to isolate the user from sound and movement by placing the accommodation units toward the back.

However, it was assessed that this correct architectural move is not supported in every point by operational decisions and functional usage preferences; and that, in certain areas, the potential of the architectural solution is not fully utilized. Outputs of this pre-reading are presented in the appendices together with relevant plan references (Appendix–1).

A.2.2 Regulatory and Safety Pre-Assessment

Within this preliminary assessment, fire safety requirements, escape distances, occupancy scenarios,and regulations related to service areas applicable under local legislation were also reviewed. In certainareas—particularly during peak usage hours—the existing layout was assessed as having the potentialto conflict with relevant regulatory provisions. Technical reading notes and risk markers regarding thesefindings are provided in the appendices (Appendix–2).

The hotel was evaluated on-site—across different days and time periods—including the accommodation experience. During the review, the following topics were observed simultaneously:

• The hotel’s environmental context and positioning
• Reception and welcoming experience
• Daytime and early-morning use of common areas
• Room layouts and acoustic behavior
• Courtyard–pool–room relationship
• Breakfast and restaurant operation
• Restaurant and social-area use during evening hours
• User profile, age distribution, and behavioral patterns

These on-site reviews constitute the primary source of the experiential diagnosis that forms the report’s backbone.

Although the hotel is located in one of the island’s busiest and most active areas, it has adopted a correct placement strategy by architecturally pulling the accommodation units back from the mainartery. The beach front character is not carried directly into the room experience; instead, the restaurant function is positioned along the front facade, consciously separating public and high-movement use.

This approach is an accurate and well-placed architectural decision. However, it must be supported consistently through the quality of the experience delivered inside.

B.2 Spatial and Operational Organization Diagnosis

(Experience Control Through the Courtyard–Pool–Room Relationship)

The hotel’s overall layout is built upon a correct architectural decision: despite being situated within adense and active zone, it aims to isolate accommodation units from noise through a retreat strategy. Directing all rooms toward the back courtyard theoretically aims to create a more controlled lodging experience, detached from intense external influences.

However, on-site reviews showed that this architectural move is not supported by operational andusage decisions, and therefore cannot fully produce the expected experience quality.

The shared pool positioned at the courtyard’s center is the main focal point with which all rooms are indirect contact. While designing the pool at a shallow depth is a positive choice in terms of safety, inpractice it enables intensive and prolonged use by children. The absence of an age policy at the hotel,and the continuation of this use in an uncontrolled manner from early morning hours onward, creates aserious experience issue for all rooms opening to the courtyard.

On-site observations identified that:

• The pool begins active use as early as 06:30–07:00,
• Child-driven noise levels quickly spread across the entire courtyard,
• Because rooms open directly to the courtyard and there is no sound insulation, this effect is felt simultaneously in all rooms.

This makes the hotel’s accommodation experience time-dependent and unpredictable. The same roommay:

• Offer a calm, rest-friendly experience one day, yet
• Lose its function due to high noise from early hours on another day.

The core issue here is not children’s use as a standalone factor. The main problem is the combined operation of: a room configuration opening onto a single shared courtyard, a shallow pool design, and the absence of any timing or behavioral control for this area.

When these three elements work together, the experience becomes unsustainable—particularly for anadult user profile arriving with expectations of rest and comfort. As a result, even though the hotelproceeds from an architecturally correct decision, it fails to achieve its intended outcome in terms of operations and experience management.

Therefore, the problem diagnosed under this heading is: not a spatial design flaw, but the fact that the relationship between space, user profile, and time of usehas not been defined.

At this point, two core solution needs emerge:

• Clearly defining the hotel’s target guest segment and developing usage policies aligned withthat definition (age, time, area use), or
• If the current user diversity is to be maintained, implementing acoustic measures that soften theroom–courtyard relationship, and adopting experience-management decisions that balance commonareause.

Otherwise, an architecturally correct layout scheme becomes a structure that tires the userexperientially and fails to meet comfort expectations.

The hotel’s kitchen quality, breakfast content, beverage selection, and overall atmosphere point not to achild-and-family-oriented accommodation experience, but to an adult, experience-driven, mid-to-uppersegment traveler profile.

The high-quality, menu-served breakfast; healthy and refined beverage options; and the restaurant atmosphere supported by live music in the evening clearly reinforce this identity. However, the failure to clarify this identity through an age boundary and common-area usage rules causes an architecturally well-resolved structure to weaken experientially.

The open-air bathroom and toilet configuration in the rooms is one of the hotel’s strongest and most characteristic architectural solutions. This detail stands out as: compatible with the local context, authentic, and experience-enhancing.

However, insect control and fumigation processes need to be managed more effectively in these areas. This topic is related not to architectural design, but to maintenance and operational processes.

The narrow transition corridors connecting upper-floor rooms, and the insufficient guardrail heights,create a serious safety risk—especially in a scenario where children’s use is uncontrolled. This condition makes it mandatory for the hotel to either:

• Clearly define its target guest segment, or
• Implement additional safety measures appropriate to the existing user profile.

Based on on-site observations and the lived accommodation experience, it was assessed that housekeeping operations cannot deliver full efficiency under the current scale and organization.

In particular, it was observed that:

• An insufficient number of mobile cleaning carts for housekeeping staff,
• The need to carry cleaning equipment in a dispersed manner between rooms, and
• The lack of a clear rhythm for room vacancy and re-useextend cleaning durations and slow operational flow.

This affects not only staff efficiency, but also guest check-in/check-out timing and overall satisfaction perception. Additional equipment investment for housekeeping and re-planning the service flow stand out as a low-cost, high-impact improvement area.

B.7 Relationship Between Inner Kitchen and Outdoor Grill Station

(Operational Disconnection)

The restaurant kitchen operation is split into two separate physical areas:

• Inner kitchen (breakfast and main meal production)
• Outdoor grill station

Reviewing existing architectural plans shows that these two kitchens are positioned close to the same structural system and shaft line; however, there is no direct service connection between them. This disconnection operationally:

• Extends staff circulation routes,
• Increases service times,
• Complicates hygiene and control processes.

On-site assessment identified that, without requiring intervention to the structural system, it may be possible to establish a back-of-house service connection at certain points; and that this move could significantly ease kitchen operations. Potential connection points and their plan-based counterparts have been marked in the technical appendices (Appendix–4).

Despite the restaurant’s kitchen quality and location advantage, it is not made sufficiently visible to hotel guests. There is no special package for dinner, no fixed menu, and no guiding communication language.

Similarly, spa and massage services, as well as island activities such as diving, snorkeling, paddle boarding, turtle swim, etc., are not offered as a natural extension of the hotel experience. Currently, users must discover these services through individual research.Yet for a traveler hotel at this scale and segment, a curated approach that frames the island experience would significantly increase user satisfaction and perceived value. Partnerships with reliable local operators and simple guidance in rooms/common areas represent a major opportunity area to strengthen experiential integrity.

When all findings are evaluated together, the hotel’s core issue stems not from architectural inadequacy, but from the fact that correct architectural decisions are not sufficiently supported by an operational strategy.

The hotel has a structure that reads its location correctly, applies a spatial retreat strategy, and naturally appeals to an experience-oriented user profile. However, the lack of target-audience clarification, the absence of common-area control, and the failure to address operational details through an experience lens prevent this potential from fully materializing.

Evaluations in Sections A and B show that the hotel’s core issues relate directly not to isolated architectural mistakes or operational short comings, but to how the experience is defined and managed.

The hotel has strong potential in terms of location, architectural configuration, kitchen quality, and atmosphere. However, because this potential is not supported by a clear experience framework, it turns into an unpredictable and fluctuating experience for the user.

Experience stabilization in this context does not mean targeting silence or liveliness alone; it means clarifying which experience is offered, for which user, and under which conditions.

For this reason, Section C addresses recommendations aimed at aligning the hotel’s architectural, operational and communication decisions along the same axis.

C.2 Clarifying the Target Experience Identity

(Adult, Experience-Oriented Traveler Hotel)

Based on the analysis, the user profile the hotel naturally aligns with can be defined as follows:

An adult traveler profile belonging to the mid-to-upper economic segment, who values experience, food& beverage and atmosphere; knows the character of the island and chooses it consciously; acts with a“traveler” reflex rather than a family-holiday reflex.

This profile represents neither a segment seeking a completely silent honeymoon experience, nor a backpacker-oriented, low-budget accommodation expectation.

Therefore, the hotel needs to move away from an ambiguous definition such as “family-friendly boutique hotel” and clearly position its experience around adult users.

This clarification should be addressed not only through communication language, but together with spatial usage, operational decisions, and service delivery formats.

C.3 Architectural and Spatial Recommendations

(Physical Interventions That Support Experience)

The architectural interventions proposed within this report are framed not as radical transformations, but as focused and strategic touches that increase the impact of existing correct decisions.

Courtyard–Pool–Room Relationship
• Limiting usage hours of the courtyard pool, or prioritizing adult use during certain hours; alternatively, re-evaluating pool depth and usage format; if not feasible, assessing passive solutions that increase sound insulation within rooms.

Circulation and Safety
• Re-evaluating upper-level corridors and guard rails in line with the user profile,
• Reducing safety risks not only through architectural intervention, but also through usage policies.

Flexible Use of Common Areas
• Expanding breakfast-area capacity in relation to the lobby,
• Activating the front-façade restaurant more during morning hours.

These are among the primary spatial headings to be assessed.

Housekeeping Organization

It was observed that, due to insufficient housekeeping equipment (cleaning carts, etc.), inter-floor distribution routes become extended, which increases room preparation times and disrupts operational rhythm. Increasing housekeeping equipment capacity and reorganizing service flow stand out as a low-cost, high-impact improvement area.

Kitchen and Service Relationship

The absence of a direct operational connection between the inner kitchen and the outdoor grill station—despite being within the same building envelope—extends service durations and makes hygiene/flow control more difficult.

Based on architectural readings, it was assessed that there are non-structural partitions between these areas and that operational efficiency can be increased through an appropriate connection. Potential transition points have been marked on plans and presented in the appendices.

The hotel does not make many of its qualified experiences sufficiently visible to users.

• Dinner experience
• Spa and massage services
• Island activities (diving, snorkeling, paddle, sunset points, etc.) are left for the user to discover through personal effort.

However, the hotel can offer these experiences in a curated way by establishing collaborations with selected and reliable local partners—making the user experience safe and effortless. Small in-room guidance, reception briefings, and a simple experience guide would create a meaningful difference here.

The Hotel’s strongest points of attraction are:

• Kitchen and breakfast quality
• Location
• Architectural character
• Open-air bathroom experience

These headings should not merely “exist”; they should be consciously placed at the center of the experience.This approach would increase current guest satisfaction while also supporting repeat preference among the right user segment.

The recommendations defined in Section C should be considered together—aligned with the chosen experience identity. The most critical step is clarifying what experience the hotel offers.

Fragmented interventions implemented before this decision may create new ambiguities rather than strengthening experiential consistency.

In order to progress without disrupting hotel operations, implementation should be phased:

Short-Term Phase
• Usage policies
• Pool and common-area rules
• Service guidance
• Communication language and briefings

Mid-Term Phase
• Sound insulation improvements
• Kitchen–service connections
• Housekeeping organization

Long-Term Phase
• Architectural detail improvements
• Strengthening artistic/spatial narrative
• Brand perception and experience-depth work
‍

The aim during the transition is not to confront the user with sudden changes, but to transform the experience in a controlled and predictable way. Therefore, transformation should begin through behavior and communication—before spatial interventions.
‍

This report does not aim to rebuild the hotel’s existing potential, but to reveal why its already-strong foundation does not fully translate into outcomes—and to define how this foundation can be stabilized.

Architectural, operational and communication decisions aligned with the right experience identity will meaningfully increase both user satisfaction and the hotel’s long-term value.
‍