AUSTIN | Aloft Austin & Element Hotel Downtown | 328 FEET | 31 FLOORS | Complete - Page 6

Tech House · #**101** Posted **Mar 29, 2014, 9:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brando

So I went to Wholly Cow at 619 Congess to see if they knew if/when they would be closing down and they had no idea what I was talking about. I mentioned the proposal to build a hotel on the site and they just knew the landlord had been by a few times but they didn't know why. I quickly clarified that nothing was approved but I got out of there as fast as I could.

....woops.

Welcome to the forum, and very nice first post --- investigative journalism!

JACKinBeantown · #**102** Posted **Mar 30, 2014, 2:11 AM**

Looks like this might be roughly the same height and width as One American Center's tallest portion (of three).

deerhoof · #**103** Posted **Apr 1, 2014, 7:13 PM**

Construction starting in December 2014 according to the article:

http://www.statesman.com/news/busine...nned-fo/nfP6K/

KevinFromTexas · #**104** Posted **Apr 1, 2014, 7:38 PM**

They're saying 32 floors and I've seen that number listed before, so I guess we should go with it.

austlar1 · #**105** Posted **Apr 6, 2014, 4:17 AM**

Regarding that south facing wall on the Aloft proposal, I don't think it is going to be very visible except up close. Take a trip north Congress (start around 3rd St) on Google Street View. There are tall buildings blocking all or most of the sight lines to the Aloft site all the along the way. The south facing wall will be set back from the street sufficiently to stay mostly out of view.

The ATX · #**106** Posted **Apr 9, 2014, 1:27 AM**

I wouldn't have expected the NIMBYs to get confrontational about this project. Paywall Alert ahead.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/busi...atesman_launch

KevinFromTexas · #**107** Posted **Apr 9, 2014, 4:59 AM**

I'm going to steal electricon's trademark emoticon for a minute.

The capitol view argument is a load of BS. The building will actually be setback farther away from Congress than all the other highrises on that side of Congress.

As for the parking issue, it's a parking lot that has a capacity for maybe 2 dozen cars. The new hotel will have 410 rooms. That's at least 410 new customers to those businesses, and that's not even counting the hotel employees and the construction workers who will build it or the patrons to the restaurant and any other retail the hotel might have. Let's assume for a moment that each of those 24 cars only sit in that lot for an hour each day. That gives the parking lot a maximum potential of 576 patrons in the area each day - 24 times 24 is 576. Assuming they stayed 2 hours, that chops that number in half to just 288 a day. That's already half the number of area patrons that will likely be generated daily by the hotel. The parking lot patron number becomes dismally smaller each time you assume each car stayed another hour in the lot.

lzppjb · #**108** Posted **Apr 9, 2014, 5:19 AM**

I'm not able to read the article, but are they worried about the lost parking lot, or the increased number of cars in the area due to the hotel? Will it have underground or above ground parking?

austlar1 · #**109** Posted **Apr 9, 2014, 5:48 AM**

I think they are just trying to get some money out of White Lodging. White had to pay some bucks down the street to remove objections to the Marriott, and maybe some property owners are hoping for a repeat of that greenmail episode.

The ATX · #**110** Posted **Apr 9, 2014, 9:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I'm going to steal electricon's trademark emoticon for a minute.

The capitol view argument is a load of BS. The building will actually be setback farther away from Congress than all the other highrises on that side of Congress.

As for the parking issue, it's a parking lot that has a capacity for maybe 2 dozen cars. The new hotel will have 410 rooms. That's at least 410 new customers to those businesses, and that's not even counting the hotel employees and the construction workers who will build it or the patrons to the restaurant and any other retail the hotel might have. Let's assume for a moment that each of those 24 cars only sit in that lot for an hour each day. That gives the parking lot a maximum potential of 576 patrons in the area each day - 24 times 24 is 576. Assuming they stayed 2 hours, that chops that number in half to just 288 a day. That's already half the number of area patrons that will likely be generated daily by the hotel. The parking lot patron number becomes dismally smaller each time you assume each car stayed another hour in the lot.

Good points, Rusty.

KevinFromTexas · #**111** Posted **Apr 9, 2014, 9:56 AM**

Yeah, I'm Rusty Shackelford on there. It's a King of the Hill reference. Of course I went and spelled it wrong.

The ATX · #**112** Posted **Apr 9, 2014, 11:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Yeah, I'm Rusty Shackelford on there. It's a King of the Hill reference. Of course I went and spelled it wrong.

Unfortunately, your logic and good sense is lost on the Statesman's hate all new things trolls. I wish news sites would just shut down commenting. Yeah, I know I don't have to read them.

Jdawgboy · #**113** Posted **Apr 9, 2014, 3:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Unfortunately, your logic and good sense is lost on the Statesman's hate all new things trolls. I wish news sites would just shut down commenting. Yeah, I know I don't have to read them.

I know what you mean and it goes beyond the news sites too. Can't get on YouTube (other than a few comments blocked vids) without some sort of negative or hateful remarks over videos with no possible reason for posting other than to be cruel. It makes me sad and wonder where society is heading.

MightyYoda · #**114** Posted **Apr 9, 2014, 5:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I know what you mean and it goes beyond the news sites too. Can't get on YouTube (other than a few comments blocked vids) without some sort of negative or hateful remarks over videos with no possible reason for posting other than to be cruel. It makes me sad and wonder where society is heading.

As someone who works in IT, it is all about consequence. Society in most ways is much more civil now than in the past. However, a lot of people are douches deep down and if they can be a jerk without consequence on the internet or otherwise they will. The Internet just makes it a lot easier.

the Genral · #**115** Posted **Apr 9, 2014, 7:18 PM**

I read the article about the objections to this tower in the AAS today and the two main issues were parking and the windowless south facade. Elizabeth Wendland and Anne Wheat, who own buildings next to the tower, hired a consultant...bfd...Jill Rowe, to represent their concerns. They feel a "windowless wall could mar views of the Capitol from Sixth Street and Congress".
Richard Suttle Jr., White Lodging's Austin attorney, said architechs have already made design changes based on feedback from the city's Historic Landmark Commission. There's a picture of the 3 ladies mugging for the camera.
I think we all agree that blank walls of any height are undesirable, and that parking is always an issue dt,
so I guess I don't really have a problem with the adjoining property owners speaking out. We do it all the time.

MichaelB · #**116** Posted **Apr 9, 2014, 9:20 PM**

Re: Article. I also read it and had same/similar response as "The General". It was a news piece generated by Shonda to garner some front page space. The "complaints" were all things that have been addressed already by the developer or created by the city.
So, maybe those "Nimby's" will help get a better looking south facade! Yeah!
As for parking.. This is not a complaint against the developer. It is a complait against a city policy. Of course it will require more parking, Its a major hotel downtown. I think it is a huge mistake for a hotel at this point in our development to not have their own parking. I have never agreed with the city droping the requirement in these cases.
As for their concerns about construction damage. Standard fare. Of coure they are, and of course the construction company will consider it or be liable.
It really was "soft" news that was not worthy of a headline. " Planned hotel worries some"…. lol… like 2 people. ??? Well, at least Shonda got some front page space!

GoldenBoot · #**117** Posted **Apr 9, 2014, 9:46 PM**

A south facing blank wall may be "difficult to see" from Congress. However, from the southeast side of downtown (i.e. from the convention center area through Rainey and IH-35 coming into downtown), it will clearly be visible and could become quite an eyesore (considering how tall the building is proposed to be versus the surrounding structures).

the Genral · #**118** Posted **Apr 9, 2014, 10:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

A south facing blank wall may be "difficult to see" from Congress. However, from the southeast side of downtown (i.e. from the convention center area through Rainey and IH-35 coming into downtown), it will clearly be visible and could become quite an eyesore (considering how tall the building is proposed to be versus the surrounding structures).

Why not just paint the illusion of windows or use faux windows to get out of this controversy?

lzppjb · #**119** Posted **Apr 9, 2014, 10:17 PM**

Paint the view as if it wasn't there. Then it'd be invisible from the South.

MightyYoda · #**120** Posted **Apr 9, 2014, 10:41 PM**

I am not sure on the exact location, but there are tons of gorgeous vines that grow well here and would be a low cost cheap solution to cover that space. Plants like Virginia Creeper only use suckers and don't even do superficial structural damage. Not sure if it would cause issues for rodents, etc..., but our vines have not so far. We need to squeeze as much green space as possible and I would think vertical spaces would be a great way to do that where lateral space is at a premium downtown.