AUSTIN | Projects & Construction II

[Syndic]

Amazing news! Does anyone know if these two developers are competing for the fee wavers? If one gets them, does that mean the other one won't? If the other one doesn't, will that dissuade them from building? I think I remember reading that this eastern hotel was ready to build no matter what. But there's also been a lot of language about the two "competing".

I think what's driving this boom is the annual events we have here in Austin; the ROT rally, SWSW (which is obviously the big one), ACL, UT sporting events, the F-1 race. Notice, these proposals are hotels, not residential. The best thing Austin can do for itself is create more annual events. Much was made of the traffic/congestion nightmare that happened during SXSW. Developers may realize that that was the case because there weren't enough places to stay in downtown Austin. I think we can accommodate all of these hotels. We just need maybe 1 or 2 more big annual events to make sure that things are really secure.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Amazing news! Does anyone know if these two developers are competing for the fee wavers? If one gets them, does that mean the other one won't? If the other one doesn't, will that dissuade them from building? I think I remember reading that this eastern hotel was ready to build no matter what. But there's also been a lot of language about the two "competing".

Only the Marriott is asking for the fee waivers, apparently. The newer proposal doesn't care and is just going to build. They already have most of the funding necessary, as well.

Frankly, this means that the Marriott is probably dead in the water. The city council is going to get what they want (a new convention center hotel) and eat their cake too.

[BevoLJ]

Bill Spelman said that whoever is going to break ground first will get the waivers. I think the Marriott was asking for them and Manchester said they would expect the same deal from the city, but I don't think Manchester are really pushing for them. The Marriott is said to be breaking ground later this year where as Manchester is said to be breaking ground ~Q1 or Q2 of 2012.

Also I agree that the crazy number of events that happen seemingly every week now have a lot to do with this new boom. Whether it is those you mentioned like South By, ACL, that have grown so large or the other new one that have popped up the last couple of years. It seems like every week there is at least one sometimes 3-4 events. Events like Fun fun fun, Old Settlers, Pecan Fest, Bat Fest, Marley Fest, Wine & Music Fest, Celtic Fest, Eeyore's, Carnaval, Film Fest, Rodeo, or all of the festivals that have been going on at Seaholm.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

Bill Spelman said that whoever is going to break ground first will get the waivers. I think the Marriott was asking for them and Manchester said they would expect the same deal from the city, but I don't think Manchester are really pushing for them. The Marriott is said to be breaking ground later this year where as Manchester is said to be breaking ground ~Q1 or Q2 of 2012.

The Manchester said that they will start sometime in the next 12 months, but didn't give an exact time frame. My guess is that if the city decides to give them the waivers, the Marriott will pack up and go home. Knowing that the city prefers nice designs over crap ones, they could get the waivers irrespective of whether or not they actually start construction first or not. After all, hasn't the Marriott said that they won't build or will hesitate building without the waivers?

Although Spelman has said that the Manchester expects the same deal in principle, I don't think they really care. The level of design detail that has been put out so far indicates that they are fairly far into the process - I.E. they must have had this planned behind the scenes way before the Marriott started pursuing the deal. Given that this is the case, I seriously doubt that they really care about the waivers. They'll take them if they can get them, but if not it won't change their build plans.

[Syndic]

So it sounds like it's a race at this point, but mainly just on the Marriott's part. Manchester will build no matter what, but White Lodging will only build if they get the fee waivers? Sounds like the best-case scenario is White Lodging starts first (though I'm not necessarily stoked about their retro design), gets the waivers, and the Manchester group builds anyway, thus giving us two new buildings instead of one. Unless the White Lodging people start thinking that if the Manchester group builds no matter what that it's not worth building because there's only a need for ONE hotel. It's like a chess game! This Manchester group has a nice strategy, IMO. Sounds like they're daring White Lodging to call their bluff.

I want both of those lots to be filled. They're both eye-sores. The one on Congress may be worse, just because it's more visible/noticeable (and White Lodging is right about it being "far superior"), but we don't need much more to fill out our skyline. This Manchester group building would probably do the trick, seeing as it's supposed to be so large.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Syndic

So it sounds like it's a race at this point, but mainly just on the Marriott's part. Manchester will build no matter what, but White Lodging will only build if they get the fee waivers? Sounds like the best-case scenario is White Lodging starts first (though I'm not necessarily stoked about their retro design), gets the waivers, and the Manchester group builds anyway, thus giving us two new buildings instead of one. Unless the White Lodging people start thinking that if the Manchester group builds no matter what that it's not worth building because there's only a need for ONE hotel. It's like a chess game! This Manchester group has a nice strategy, IMO. Sounds like they're daring White Lodging to call their bluff.

I want both of those lots to be filled. They're both eye-sores. The one on Congress may be worse, just because it's more visible/noticeable (and White Lodging is right about it being "far superior"), but we don't need much more to fill out our skyline. This Manchester group building would probably do the trick, seeing as it's supposed to be so large.

I'm not a fan of the Marriott hotel under any circumstances. That lot deserves much, much better. We'd just be moving from one eye-sore to another.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I'm not a fan of the Marriott hotel under any circumstances. That lot deserves much, much better. We'd just be moving from one eye-sore to another.

We actually sort of agree. But, looking at it again, I think it could end up looking okay. The image is just in black and white, so it's hard to tell certain things about it. I want to see more renderings before I make up my mind. Right now, I just want building to pick up again.

[OU812]

anyone have news about that development planned for the block east of Whole Foods?

http://downtownaustinblog.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/shoal-creek-walk-render-1.jpg

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=124346&page=348

[KevinFromTexas]

I don't mind the Marriott design, I just wish it was a bit taller. I think it'll turn out ok once it's finished. Still, I'd much rather see the Manchester project built.

[Myomi]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I don't mind the Marriott design, I just wish it was a bit taller. I think it'll turn out ok once it's finished. Still, I'd much rather see the Manchester project built.

I think you guys should be careful what you wish for...A big tall design (like Manchester) would be incredible on the lot on Congress. However, a big building right there would also block much if not all the view of Frost from South Congress. That iconic view of Austin framing the Capitol, with Frost on one side and now the Austonian on the other, would be completely gone. Now I am not saying "Make a view corridor for Frosty down S. Congress," but it will be sad to see Frost being covered from that angle. Maybe a shorter, very set back tower, like the one in the rendering, isn't such a bad deal after all. Then again change is inevitable, and I will always embrace any new tall building in Austin...

Just food for thought.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Myomi

I think you guys should be careful what you wish for...A big tall design (like Manchester) would be incredible on the lot on Congress. However, a big building right there would also block much if not all the view of Frost from South Congress. That iconic view of Austin framing the Capitol, with Frost on one side and now the Austonian on the other, would be completely gone. Now I am not saying "Make a view corridor for Frosty down S. Congress," but it will be sad to see Frost being covered from that angle. Maybe a shorter, very set back tower, like the one in the rendering, isn't such a bad deal after all. Then again change is inevitable, and I will always embrace any new tall building in Austin...

Just food for thought.

I don't care if Frost gets blocked as long as the design is good. If the design is bad, I'm against it.

[Austin1971]

If the city was ambitious enough they would incorporate and subsidize a new downtown arena into the Manchester project. The Frank Erwin Center is old and outdated. I'm thinking something like what they have in LA with the Staples Center and LA Live.

[ATXboom]

That would mean Austin leadership investing in future growth. As much as history proves that's a wise investment our leaders continue to demonstrate the opposite behavior.

[KevinFromTexas]

I am sort of against the idea of something blocking Frost from South Congress, although, that's a bit silly to want to protect the view of a commercial property.

I was looking at my LEGO model last night after reading the posts about the hotel blocking it, and imagining how tall and where on the block the hotel could go before it blocked the view of Frost.

My LEGO model of downtown is built to scale. All of the building heights, for the skyscrapers anyway, are from heights from official sources, such as the architects, developers and such or from GIS maps. Everything else is estimated to within 5 feet of its actual height. I also measured distances using Google Earth and also the old historic maps of downtown to show me the widths of the streets and blocks. I also have some measurements of the lengths/widths of the buildings from their architects straight from the blueprints. So everything is to scale with the model, and so is placed where it really is in real life.

The tower is in the shape of an L, but is turned on its side to the right. The longest part of the tower is on the east side of the block and is well out of the way of Frost's crown.

The only part that could block the view of Frost from Congress is the part that is on the north side of the block. So I took my model and did a mock up of the hotel. I built just a rough rectangular shaft to represent the tower and placed it on the north side of the block. First of all, the tower section on the north side of the block is stepped back about 80 feet from Congress. This is because of the two older buildings on the block which will stay. So the tower rises behind (to the east) of them. The west face of the hotel tower will actually step back about 20 to 25 feet from the west face of 301 Congress across the street (the office tower north of the hotel). So I first built that section at 400 feet. And then I stepped back to imagine what the view would look like if you were driving across the bridge on Congress.

I think at the current size of the hotel, the current east/west width, 400 feet would partially block the view of the very bottom of Frost's crown. So I then took it down to 350 feet, which is probably close to how tall the hotel will really end up being. 350 feet seems to be ok. I think that would be the comfortable height the hotel could be before it started to block the view of Frost's crown from the south along Congress.

Now, if they wanted to, they could make it taller and shrink the footprint of the building. They could do away with that north side section completely and instead of having an L shaped tower it could be rectangular and much taller. They could also have setbacks facing west so that they could achieve the needed mass (square feet), but so that it step downward and not block the view of Frost. Think of what San Antonio's Marriott Convention Center hotel looks like. They could have setbacks similar to that. That hotel has over 1,000 rooms, and although the building is huge, I think it would fit in the same place where they're planning this hotel and still not block the view of Frost.

I'll get some photos of the model posted up in a bit.

[gardensoul]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

That would mean Austin leadership investing in future growth. As much as history proves that's a wise investment our leaders continue to demonstrate the opposite behavior.

This is very tired and outdated propaganda. Look at how this city has grown and continues to lead the nation in growth. Our leaders have invested well and have encouraged growth in almost all areas (but, granted, they could do more in transportation where one hand is tied behind their backs by the banana-republicans in the legislature.) Just look at our wonderful downtown streetscapes, the new airport, expanded convention center, tax breaks galore... What the ?+#* are you talking about? Every city in the nation wishes they were us.

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by Austin1971

If the city was ambitious enough they would incorporate and subsidize a new downtown arena into the Manchester project. The Frank Erwin Center is old and outdated. I'm thinking something like what they have in LA with the Staples Center and LA Live.

I think the Erwin Center is great! It might be a little old, and a bit boring looking as the old drum, but inside of it is anything but outdated. I go to most basketball games and it really is a fantastic facility in my opinion. They spent something like $60 million on renovations just a few years ago.

To me, saying The Drum is old and outdated is kinda like saying DKR Memorial Stadium is old and outdated. They both maybe old, but I really don't think they are dated.

Edit: Also kinda gotta agree with Gardensoul's post above me. As much as our City Counsel drives me nuts we are very lucky to have such a great city and that our great city has done so well. Our city counsel may do some wacky stuff and have its share of bozos but it has done a lot for us.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by gardensoul

This is very tired and outdated propaganda. Look at how this city has grown and continues to lead the nation in growth. Our leaders have invested well and have encouraged growth in almost all areas (but, granted, they could do more in transportation where one hand is tied behind their backs by the banana-republicans in the legislature.) Just look at our wonderful downtown streetscapes, the new airport, expanded convention center, tax breaks galore... What the ?+#* are you talking about? Every city in the nation wishes they were us.

I'll wait till Wed. and see what they do with the F1 vote before patting them on the back too much.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

I'll wait till Wed. and see what they do with the F1 vote before patting them on the back too much.

What result are you hoping for?

[Austin1971]

The Erwin Center seats 16,500 and was built in 1977 and it's had a great run. However, I think a new state of the art 23,000 seat arena would enable Austin to take that next step and compete for events that we currently cannot host due to the lack of a suitable venue. Just about every major city in the US has such a facility. I'd like to think if cities like San Antonio, Columbus, Memphis, Nashville, OKC and Kansas City can have state of the art arenas then why shouldn't Austin. If one or both of the convention center hotels get built it will open the door for Austin to compete with other cities like never before. The future looks very promising! Can't wait to see what happens.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Austin1971

The Erwin Center seats 16,500 and was built in 1977 and it's had a great run. However, I think a new state of the art 23,000 seat arena would enable Austin to take that next step and compete for events that we currently cannot host due to the lack of a suitable venue. Just about every major city in the US has such a facility. I'd like to think if cities like San Antonio, Columbus, Memphis, Nashville, OKC and Kansas City can have state of the art arenas then why shouldn't Austin. If one or both of the convention center hotels get built it will open the door for Austin to compete with other cities like never before. The future looks very promising! Can't wait to see what happens.

Agreed. One of the reasons that Austin can't compete for the Democratic and Republican Presidential National Conventions is that the Erwin center is substantially too small. The whole facility is awful even with the renovations (lipstick on a pig).