AUSTIN | Hotel ZaZa & Apartments | 305 FEET | 24 FLOORS | Complete - Page 2

KevinFromTexas · #21 Posted **Dec 21, 2012, 2:24 PM**

Ridiculous. They're saying traffic is the reason for their concern, but actually they're no doubt concerned about their views going away. What about everyone else that has to see that fugly east wall of the Plaza Lofts...

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/pr...-proposed.html

Quote:

Residents push back against proposed hotel and apartments

Austin Business Journal by Robert Grattan, Staff Writer
Date: Friday, December 21, 2012, 5:00am CST

Robert Grattan
Staff Writer- Austin Business Journal

Residents at the Plaza Lofts are banding together to oppose a zoning change that would give the Hotel ZaZa and apartment building at Fourth and Guadalupe streets the zoning it needs to reach a planned 24 stories.

The resulting fight could throw a wrench into plans to start construction by late 2013, and could pit some of Austin’s top development lawyers against each other.

ATXboom · #22 Posted **Dec 21, 2012, 3:48 PM**

Time consuming and costly. The city should ideally get ahead of this issue by establishing some framework so this doesn't happen with future developments. With more and more residential towers owners are going to take owner centric actions. Bottom line is more people are going to be living downtown. Traffic can not be a gating issue. Neither can views.

Owners act like they own acres in the hill country. I'm here first, no one else can build near me. Come on... It's downtown. Hopefully the city steps up and establishes clear expectations and parameters to put this sh_t to bed for good. For example the downtown plan.... But I don't have faith in our city gov to take a hard position on anything.

Spaceman · #23 Posted **Dec 21, 2012, 5:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATXboom

Time consuming and costly. The city should ideally get ahead of this issue by establishing some framework so this doesn't happen with future developments. With more and more residential towers owners are going to take owner centric actions. Bottom line is more people are going to be living downtown. Traffic can not be a gating issue. Neither can views.

Owners act like they own acres in the hill country. I'm here first, no one else can build near me. Come on... It's downtown. Hopefully the city steps up and establishes clear expectations and parameters to put this sh_t to bed for good. For example the downtown plan.... But I don't have faith in our city gov to take a hard position on anything.

I can't wait to stay at the Manchester and visit the planetarium. Austin talks about building but nothing gets built.

The ATX · #24 Posted **Dec 21, 2012, 5:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spaceman

I can't wait to stay at the Manchester and visit the planetarium. Austin talks about building but nothing gets built.

Downtown is constantly under construction, and most cities would love to have has much new construction as Austin does.

Maybe you should have said: I'm looking forward to the Fairmont (Manchester) and Planetarium tower so much that I can't wait for them to start construction.

migol24 · #25 Posted **Dec 21, 2012, 6:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Downtown is constantly under construction, and most cities would love to have has much new construction as Austin does.

Maybe you should have said: I'm looking forward to the Fairmont (Manchester) and Planetarium tower so much that I can't wait for them to start construction.

In fairness though, there is a bit of truth to what Spaceman is saying. Lots of the projects under construction right now took years for them to break ground. We're still talking about projects that were proposed over four years ago when I first joined this site and most of those haven't even been officially "approved". I agree with you though, Austin is still pretty lucky to be in this position.

MichaelB · #26 Posted **Dec 21, 2012, 8:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Ridiculous. They're saying traffic is the reason for their concern, but actually they're no doubt concerned about their views going away. What about everyone else that has to see that fugly east wall of the Plaza Lofts...

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/pr...-proposed.html

yeah... traffic is BS. It's downtown. There is traffic. It is about view and they are using every tatic possilbe. I understand, but this is about reasonable expectations.

Anyone who bought on the south side of that building should have had a reasoanble expectation that another tower would be built on the south side. It is downtown and It is not a protected view. The builders made one correct assumption by builiding a plain wall to the east. The only easement that is reasonable to the south is the alley. If you look at the Austonian, part of the very smart oval design we to ensure that as another tower is built to the west and north, you will have some views left because of the curve. Nope folks on the south side of this building are fucked. They took the risk.

Now if you were talking about the west view. Then I would bitch if the city sold that park and something were built. I would call that a resaonable expectation that a public park would remain so. OR, say a view corridor that was a law. Those fights I would support.

The ATX · #27 Posted **Dec 21, 2012, 9:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB

yeah... traffic is BS. It's downtown. There is traffic. It is about view and they are using every tatic possilbe. I understand, but this is about reasonable expectations.

Anyone who bought on the south side of that building should have had a reasoanble expectation that another tower would be built on the south side. It is downtown and It is not a protected view. The builders made one correct assumption by builiding a plain wall to the east. The only easement that is reasonable to the south is the alley. If you look at the Austonian, part of the very smart oval design we to ensure that as another tower is built to the west and north, you will have some views left because of the curve. Nope folks on the south side of this building are fucked. They took the risk.

Now if you were talking about the west view. Then I would bitch if the city sold that park and something were built. I would call that a resaonable expectation that a public park would remain so. OR, say a view corridor that was a law. Those fights I would support.

Good points. Isn't that the building where former mayor Will Wynn lives? The one person who arguably started the downtown Austin residential high rise boom in the mid-2000s?

KevinFromTexas · #28 Posted **Dec 21, 2012, 9:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Good points. Isn't that the building where former mayor Will Wynn lives? The one person who arguably started the downtown Austin residential high rise boom in the mid-2000s?

No, he lives at Austin City Lofts.

MichaelB · #29 Posted **Dec 21, 2012, 10:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Good points. Isn't that the building where former mayor Will Wynn lives? The one person who arguably started the downtown Austin residential high rise boom in the mid-2000s?

Austin City Lofts.

jngreenlee · #30 Posted **Dec 24, 2012, 5:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Austin City Lofts.

Too bad. That building has had so many facilities problems. Probably the highest HOA in the CBD at this point. I'm talking off the cuff though...

jngreenlee · #31 Posted **Dec 24, 2012, 5:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Ridiculous...no doubt concerned about their views going away.

In the renderings, does it look to anyone else that the residential tower portion of the Zaza building is setback far enough s.t. the impact to Plaza Lofts won't actually be that much?

Looks to me like just some lower floors will be looking at a hotel portion. If the pool is on the deck, that might offer some nice gazing benefits for anyone above!

The ATX · #32 Posted **Dec 24, 2012, 7:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jngreenlee

In the renderings, does it look to anyone else that the residential tower portion of the Zaza building is setback far enough s.t. the impact to Plaza Lofts won't actually be that much?

Looks to me like just some lower floors will be looking at a hotel portion. If the pool is on the deck, that might offer some nice gazing benefits for anyone above!

But remember they are complaining about "traffic" and not "views."

ATXboom · #33 Posted **Jan 11, 2013, 12:12 AM**

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...e-despite.html

ZaZa moving forward despite neighbor complaints. Looks like it will go to council on 17th. Look for it to be delayed like all other contentious proposals lol.

They were complaining about ally traffic and pool deck noise lol.... come on this is all smoke and mirrors about views.

Whats more funny is that there was a 4 story bar and exposed roof bar deck in that spot for years... and now a lesser version is an issue. Out of hand. Waste of tax payer money haggling over this petty crap.

Of course, Jeff Jack voted no... I question whether he has all his chromosomes. He has no ability to reason with logic.

LoneStarMike · #34 Posted **Jan 28, 2013, 7:37 AM**

An update from the Austin Chronicle. This article seems to have a different slant to it and makes it seem like the residents at the Plaza aren't complaining about the building so much - just the 6 stories of above-ground parking.

Then There's This: Light and Air
Condo dwellers fear dark days ahead with parking structure next door
By Amy Smith, Fri., Jan. 25, 2013

Quote:

Gables requires a zoning change for the additional height allowed in this area, and is set for a City Council hearing and possible action on Feb. 14. The neighbors don't have a problem with the added height – in fact, they say they welcome the density and would prefer a tower that was even taller and skinnier. What the neighbors don't like is the planned 500-space, six-level above-grade parking structure that would sit across a 20-foot alley from Plaza Lofts. There are other concerns as well, such as amplified music on the pool deck, but Plaza Lofts' attorney Joseph has narrowed the argument to a matter of light and air: residents' diminished light by day, flashes of vehicle headlights at night, and car exhaust fumes at all hours.

[SNIP]

Though Gables' attorney Richard Suttle has indicated that his client is already locked into a design that would be too costly to change, Joseph believes the parking issue can be reasonably resolved with some design and engineering adjustments.

wwmiv · #35 Posted **Jan 28, 2013, 10:37 AM**

Hopefully they can work out their differences. This project will span the entire length of the block between Lavaca and Guadalupe, so the Ghost Room will be history, correct?

The ATX · #36 Posted **Jan 28, 2013, 12:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Hopefully they can work out their differences. This project will span the entire length of the block between Lavaca and Guadalupe, so the Ghost Room will be history, correct?

The Ghost Room has already been history for going on two years.

JoninATX · #37 Posted **Jan 28, 2013, 3:01 PM**

I'm sure Gables can come up with an idea on how to resolve this parking issue. Possibly put it underground and they could keep the same height and it would add more space.

wwmiv · #38 Posted **Jan 28, 2013, 4:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

The Ghost Room has already been history for going on two years.

Has it? Oh well. I live in S.A. anyway, so it's difficult keeping up with everything.

Komeht · #39 Posted **Jan 28, 2013, 4:47 PM**

"There are other concerns as well, such as amplified music on the pool deck, but Plaza Lofts' attorney Joseph has narrowed the argument to a matter of light and air: residents' diminished light by day, flashes of vehicle headlights at night, and car exhaust fumes at all hours."

Wait - seriously? Does anyone buy that residents in a high-rise in the CBD have an expectation of being protected from car fumes?

Is this how we build cities now?

LoneStarMike · #40 Posted **Jan 28, 2013, 6:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoninATX

I'm sure Gables can come up with an idea on how to resolve this parking issue. Possibly put it underground and they could keep the same height and it would add more space.

Another possible solution would be to do something similar to this parking garage in Miami.

Quote:

This adaptive re-use of one block of historic art deco facades in Miami Beach places a parking garage within and above newly renovated shops along the streets. Five stories (206,000 SF, 650 parking spaces) of parking structure become a vertical green zone and a monumental topiary. The three types of plants, each in a different shade of green, create a pattern of wavelike forms, mimicking the nearby ocean. With the unsightly cars hidden and the sound of the cars reduced by the vegetation screens, a large parking structure is camouflaged into the city.

They'd really only have to do this on the one side that faces The Plaza. The plants would help hide the "headlights at night" complaint and could help absorb some of the exhaust fumes.

IIRC, there were plans to do something similar at that parking garage at the Concordia site next to that office building where Texas Monthly used to be (according to some of the original renderings) but that ultimately didn't happen.