THM Acquisitions • Sugar Land Head to Head

Hyatt Place vs Courtyard Lake Pointe

Two upscale select-service hotels, next door to each other on Creekbend Drive in Sugar Land, both brought to market in the same window by different brokers. This compares them on product, performance, profit, and what each can finance.
Generated 2026-05-25 by Woz. Sources: JLL OM (H158), HWE OM (H153), Texas tax-receipt baseline, deal database. Every figure cited inline. No figure is estimated unless flagged.
The one-line read: The Courtyard is the cleaner asset (newer, higher rate, higher margin) and in 2025-2026 it out-earned the larger Hyatt Place on absolute NOI despite 79 fewer keys. The Hyatt Place is the contrarian turnaround: bigger, cheaper per key, with a self-inflicted 2026 occupancy slide to fix. Both fell about 14% on RevPAR in 2025, so the submarket softened for both; the divergence is that the Courtyard held in 2026 while the Hyatt Place kept sliding.
H158 • Broker: JLL (Scott Dickey, Ketan Patel)

Hyatt Place Houston Sugar Land

214 keys, opened 2010, 9 stories. Seller: Starwood Capital Group. 16730 Creekbend Dr.
H153 • Broker: HWE / Austin Brooks + Franklin Street

Courtyard Houston Sugar Land Lake Pointe

135 keys, opened 2017, 5 stories. Seller not named in OM. 16740 Creekbend Dr (adjacent).

1. The assets

Same submarket, same brand tier (Upscale select-service), both fee simple and unencumbered. The Courtyard is 7 years newer and 79 keys smaller.

AttributeHyatt Place (H158)Courtyard (H153)Source
Keys214135HP OM p7 / CY OM p6
Year opened2010 (reno 2020)2017HP PIP p1 / CY OM p6
Stories95HP PIP p1 / CY OM p6
Meeting space3,429 SF1,305 SFHP OM p7 / CY OM p6
Brand / scaleHyatt Place / UpscaleCourtyard / UpscaleHP OM p7 / CY OM p6
Interest / debtFee simple, unencumberedFee simple, unencumberedHP OM p7 / CY OM p6
SellerStarwood Capital GroupNot named in OMHP PIP p1 / CY OM p2
Distance apartAdjacent, 0.05 mi (16730 vs 16740 Creekbend Dr)HP OM p30

2. Performance: occupancy hero vs rate hero

The Hyatt Place runs higher occupancy but much lower rate. The Courtyard wins RevPAR almost entirely on ADR (about 29 dollars higher in 2025), the classic newer, smaller-box rate-integrity advantage. Both fell about 14% on RevPAR in 2025.

Metric202320242025TTM (early 2026)Source
HP Occupancy74.6%82.7%77.4%72.7%HP OM p32
CY Occupancy79.2%80.1%72.0%70.9%CY OM p43
HP ADR$113.83$116.48$107.17$111.87HP OM p32
CY ADR$136.12$143.44$136.49$139.47CY OM p43
HP RevPAR$84.92$96.33$82.95$81.35HP OM p32
CY RevPAR$107.87$114.91$98.23$98.93CY OM p43

2025 RevPAR change: Hyatt Place down 14.1% (96.33 to 82.95), Courtyard down 14.5% (114.91 to 98.23). Then they split: the Courtyard held in TTM early 2026 ($98.23 to $98.93), the Hyatt Place kept sliding ($82.95 to $81.35, and only $75.7 on calendar YTD through April per the STR 2026-04 file).

3. Profit: the smaller hotel now earns more

NOI is after management fee and after the FF&E reserve, the lender and appraiser basis. In 2024 the larger Hyatt Place earned more total NOI. In 2025 and into 2026 the smaller Courtyard out-earned it on absolute dollars, and ran a 7-point higher margin throughout.

NOI (after reserve)202320242025TTM / 2026Source
Hyatt Place$1,956K$2,288K$1,384K$1,422KHP OM p36
Courtyard$2,059K$2,152K$1,482K$1,539KCY OM p48
HP margin28.4%29.2%20.1%20.8%HP OM p36
CY margin35.2%34.5%27.4%28.3%CY OM p48
HP NOI per key (2025)$6,467$1,384K / 214
CY NOI per key (2025)$10,977CY OM p48

Note the HP TTM figure is a full-year 2026 forecast (HP OM p36); the CY figure is a trailing-twelve actual through March 2026 (CY OM p48). Both represent current run-rate.

4. Independent check: Texas tax receipts ($/key/day)

State-filed tax receipts (room plus ancillary, so levels run above pure RevPAR; trends track it). This is the independent read that does not rely on either broker's numbers. It confirms the split: the Courtyard recovered in Q1-2026 while the Hyatt Place kept falling.

$/key/day20242025Q1-2025Q1-2026Source
Hyatt Place$97.44$84.79$82.23$75.06tax-receipt baseline
Courtyard$117.12$100.30$105.94$109.59tax-receipt baseline
Q1 year over yearHP -8.7%   CY +3.4%derived

5. Stabilized pro forma (each broker's case)

Both OMs project a renovation-led recovery. They land at similar absolute stabilized NOI, but the Courtyard reaches it on 79 fewer keys, so its stabilized NOI per key is far higher.

Stabilized NOIReno Year 1Mid (Yr 2-3)StabilizedSource
Hyatt Place (2027 to 2029)$1,906K$2,320K$2,618KHP OM p37
Courtyard (Yr1 to Yr3)$1,750K$2,072K$2,352KCY OM p48

6. What each can finance, and value reference

Both are unpriced. The table below is what a 1.4x DSCR supports at 65% LTV and a 7.0% interest-only rate (all three are assumptions, the NOI inputs are sourced). The DSCR test caps price at these levels; more equity lets a buyer pay more.

BasisHyatt PlaceHP per keyCourtyardCY per key
Price at 1.4x DSCR, on 2025 NOI$21.7M$101K$23.3M$173K
Price at 1.4x DSCR, on stabilized NOI$41.1M$192K$36.9M$273K
Replacement-cost reference$47.8M$223K$30.2M$223K
Property tax assessmentPending (Fort Bend CAD)$14.9M (appealed 2025)

Inputs: DSCR price = NOI / (1.4 × 0.65 × 0.07). 2025 NOI from HP OM p36 and CY OM p48. Stabilized NOI from HP OM p37 ($2,618K) and CY OM p48 ($2,352K). Replacement at $223,378 per key (HVS 2025 select-service U.S. median, memory) times keys. CY assessment from CY OM p48 footnote. DSCR terms (1.4x, 65% LTV, 7.0% interest-only) are assumptions.

The read

Open items: Courtyard intake is not yet in the deal database (no writeup or deal row, just OM, P&L, and STR in the H153 folder). Confirm both sellers' motivations, get pricing guidance from JLL (Scott Dickey) and HWE (Austin Brooks), and pull the Hyatt Place Fort Bend CAD assessment. PIP cost for the Hyatt Place is scope-only and not yet estimated.

Source files: Hyatt Place in Drive / H158 - Hyatt Place Houston Sugar Land, Courtyard in Drive / H153 - Courtyard Houston Sugar Land Lake Pointe. Tax-receipt baseline computed room-weighted from v_hotel_tax_receipts_split through 2026-03. Generated 2026-05-25.