Austin | Motto Hotel by Hilton | 149 Feet | 12 Floors | Cancelled - Page 2

The ATX · #21 Posted **Feb 21, 2020, 7:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by enragedcamel

12 floors? Seriously?!?

More and more I find myself supporting a minimum-height requirement as part of DT area zoning. Because this is such a waste.

The site is within the Capitol Dominance Overly. The developer may have maxed out the allowable height or came close to the limit.

EDIT: We have a link in the sticky thread to a zoning map for individual properties in the City. This site is DMU-H with 120' limit. So they did max out the height. The "H" is for Historical because of proximity to the Capitol, so a zoning change request would have most likely been a waste of time.

Armybrat · #22 Posted **Feb 21, 2020, 8:42 PM**

Maybe it is too close to the Capitol?

The Westgate tower was built in 1965, IIRC, and probably nobody was thinking about CVCs then.

corvairkeith · #23 Posted **Feb 21, 2020, 8:57 PM**

IIRC the Westgate tower is the reason we have CVCs.

Syndic · #24 Posted **Feb 21, 2020, 10:19 PM**

WTF? This is awesome. Haha. I used to walk through that weird enclosure and wonder why it existed.

Armybrat · #25 Posted **Feb 22, 2020, 12:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by corvairkeith

IIRC the Westgate tower is the reason we have CVCs.

Probably, and maybe the Federal building & central post office on 8th Street that wiped out the dramatic view of the Capitol from the Riverside Drive point on northbound I-35.

The ATX · #26 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 1:11 AM**

A screen cap from tonight's HLC meeting.

The ATX · #27 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 1:26 AM**

The developer was only looking for feedback from the commission to get some guidance for moving forward with the project, and no vote was scheduled. In short, there was no support for this project.

urbancore · #28 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 2:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

A screen cap from tonight's HLC meeting.

Hello Motto!

Syndic · #29 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 2:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

The developer was only looking for feedback from the commission to get some guidance for moving forward with the project, and no vote was scheduled. In short, there was no support for this project.

IDGI. This project is cute. It would be a nice addition to the area. Build it!

the Genral · #30 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 3:16 AM**

Really nice looking midrise. See, this is the kind of result you get when just a little extra thought is put into the design.

The ATX · #31 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 3:44 AM**

They are not going to get approval from the HLC based on the Commissioners' comments. The elderly female Commissioner said she would be voting no no matter what they wanted to do with the site. In general they disliked this even more than the Masonic Lodge proposal which barely squeaked by after months of trying. The developers will most likely have to go around the HLC which would be a longer and still uphill battle.

The ATX · #32 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 3:49 AM**

Also, the building is currently abandoned due to mold and water issues, and two-thirds of it has no roof! They would rather keep it in its deteriorating state with no plans for restoration.

The one speaker who spoke against it was a Rep from the Texas Bar Association that shares the block. The Rep also stated that they wanted to buy the site, but lost out to the hotel developer. Sounds like a conflict of interest for them to be coming out against the site being developed.

atxsnail · #33 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 3:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

The one speaker who spoke against it was a Rep from the Texas Bar Association that shares the block. The Rep also stated that they wanted to buy the site, but lost out to the hotel developer. Sounds like a conflict of interest for them to be coming out against the site being developed.

A new State Bar of Texas building might be interesting if that's what the plan was (it's almost certainly not). They don't really have the need for additional space, so it's kind of unlikely they would ever build anything taller than the current Texas Law Center, which is a semi-interesting modernist building with a rather large and underused courtyard area. They're probably super constrained anyway by the location so close to the Capitol.

Most likely they just want it for additional parking. They were looking for parcels to acquire for parking even when I worked there a very long time ago. Bar employees are not permitted to park in other state lots despite the fact that there are multiple underutilized state garages and surface lots basically next door. The Bar has an underground parking garage and a tiny handful of surface spaces.

The State Bar is interesting, in that it's a quasi-state agency but it's not financially constrained in the way that other agencies are. The funding comes primarily from membership dues and fees for things like continuing ed. I don't know for sure, but I believe they would probably be able to finance the construction of a new building on their own if they wanted to without having to go through the lege/state facilities agencies.

urbancore · #34 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 3:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

Also, the building is currently abandoned due to mold and water issues, and two-thirds of it has no roof! They would rather keep it in its deteriorating state with no plans for restoration.

The one speaker who spoke against it was a Rep from the Texas Bar Association that shares the block. The Rep also stated that they wanted to buy the site, but lost out to the hotel developer. Sounds like a conflict of interest for them to be coming out against the site being developed.

Did the HLC give them guidance as to what they expect should be there?

The ATX · #35 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbancore

Did the HLC give them guidance as to what they expect should be there?

The only guidance given by any of the Commissioners was that there was nothing or probably nothing that they could do to get approval. It was suggested to the Rep that he watch the meeting videos of the Masonic Lodge project.

urbancore · #36 Posted **Feb 25, 2020, 8:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

The only guidance given by any of the Commissioners was that there was nothing or probably nothing that they could do to get approval. It was suggested to the Rep that he watch the meeting videos of the Masonic Lodge project.

approval for anything? as in....."what is there must be preserved and nothing can be developed...ever", or "we just don't like what you designed, try again"

zrx299 · #37 Posted **Feb 26, 2020, 8:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbancore

approval for anything? as in....."what is there must be preserved and nothing can be developed...ever", or "we just don't like what you designed, try again"

...or the right palms were not greased correctly behind the scenes.

Urbannizer · #38 Posted **Feb 26, 2020, 9:12 PM**

More from the meeting:

https://www.virtualbx.com/constructi...oric-building/

KevinFromTexas · #39 Posted **Feb 26, 2020, 9:13 PM**

That enclosed parking lot/service yard they added to it is a far worse architectural abomination than putting a tower on top to keep the rain out.

This looks like the recreation yard at an upscale prison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

2/3 of the building is currently a hollow shell:

Source: Streetview

Sigaven · #40 Posted **Feb 26, 2020, 10:21 PM**

At this point I'm okay with this proposal not being approved if it means something better may come along in the future. This looks like cheapo freeway exit design and construction on top of a handsome historic building. I hope to see something more like the Mason Lodge proposal for this building.