nilvado

Method

How we read a building.

Every sheet asks the same five questions in the same order, and ends with one number. Here is exactly what that number means and how it is arrived at, so you can disagree with it properly.

The five questions

They are deliberately in this order. A building has to answer the first before the second is worth asking.

1. Idea. What was it trying to be?

Taken from the competition entry, the architect's stated brief, or the developer's own announcement at the time. Not reverse-engineered from the finished thing, which is how you end up praising a building for accidents. If a resort never claimed an architectural idea, it is not marked down for failing to have one. Solaire, on sheet 03, is the clearest example: it promised a well-planned host box and delivered one.

2. Structure. How does it stand up?

Spans, piers, cantilevers, transfer levels, exoskeletons, shells. Where the load goes, what route it takes, and what that route cost. This is the part that most travel writing skips entirely and the part we were founded to cover.

3. Payoff. What does the guest get from it?

This is the question that keeps the publication honest. Difficult engineering is not a virtue on its own. A hard structural move that produces nothing for the person staying in the building is engineering as advertising, and we say so. The corollary matters too: a completely ordinary structure that produces a good place to be is not marked down for being ordinary.

4. Access. Who is actually allowed in?

Age limits, entry charges for local residents, foreigner-only floors, guest-only decks, professional bars. This is where the surprises live and where the other guides are least reliable. It is also, in this region, where the buildings get genuinely strange: Paradise City is one building in which a Korean passport opens the spa and not the casino.

5. Candour. Does the operator publish its own numbers?

A resort that will not state its casino floor area, or that publishes three different hotel counts on one website, has told you something about itself. We record the silence rather than fill it. This question does not affect the Structure score. It affects how much of the rest of the sheet you should trust, and we would rather you knew.

The Structure score

One number, out of ten, answering one question: does the building pay off the ambition it announced?

It is not a quality score, not a value score, and emphatically not a hotel rating. A resort can be a lovely place to stay and score a 6 here. A resort can score a 9 and have a mediocre breakfast. We are not the people to ask about the breakfast.

Roughly what the bands mean.

9 to 10. The engineering and the reason to visit are the same object. Rare. One building in this issue.

7 to 8. One idea, carried through, without a gimmick. Includes buildings that never promised a structural idea and executed their actual promise well.

5 to 6. Good pieces, no argument holding them together. Or a facade gesture doing the work a structure should have done.

Below 5. The building fights its own stated ambition. Nothing in this issue scores here, which is a fact about our shortlist rather than about the industry.

Rules we hold ourselves to

What we do not assess

Service, food beyond the verifiable facts of who holds what star, value for money, room rates, whether you will enjoy yourself, and anything at all about the gambling. We describe a gaming floor the way we would describe a plant room: what is in it, how big it is if anyone will say, who is allowed in. That is the whole of it.