Austin | Austin Marriott Downtown | 386 FEET | 31 FLOORS | Complete - Page 3

lzppjb · #41 Posted **Aug 17, 2016, 1:53 AM**

Very cool update.

Syndic · #42 Posted **Aug 17, 2016, 2:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by We vs us

The tower orientation of the downtown Marriott is weird. Facing the Fairmont? Conspicuously not facing a convention center expansion. Distressing.

Not sure why this would be "distressing". To me, it's smart because it will appear that it's closer to the convention center and therefore more convenient than the Fairmont and I like it because it will be more visible from 35 this way so as to add more height and density to the east end area.

The coolest perk of this, though, is the fact that it will add some ground floor retail and shopping along that stretch of Cesar Chavez. Right now, that whole stretch is fairly bleak, barren, and unwelcoming.

Case in point:

Yuck.

We vs us · #43 Posted **Aug 17, 2016, 1:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syndic

Not sure why this would be "distressing". To me, it's smart because it will appear that it's closer to the convention center and therefore more convenient than the Fairmont and I like it because it will be more visible from 35 this way so as to add more height and density to the east end area.

I know, I'm just super sensitive to the need for a CC expansion, feel like this design subtly puts a thumb in the eye of the original concepts.

I know, I know, this is just a rendering, but still:

brando · #44 Posted **Aug 17, 2016, 3:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by We vs us

I know, I'm just super sensitive to the need for a CC expansion, feel like this design subtly puts a thumb in the eye of the original concepts.

I know, I know, this is just a rendering, but still:

I don't think White Lodging would ever do anything to compromise the convention center expansion. Can anyone actually tell what direction the hotel is facing? There is an expansion option that positions the hotel facing west. It would effectively kill rail down trinity street. Here are all the options for the expansion:

I think the eastward expansion will be done at some point. The south expansion would cost a lot more in eminent domain and the connection is not ideal. http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=242405

jbssfelix · #45 Posted **Aug 17, 2016, 4:04 PM**

The tall portion is facing east to the convention center and the Fairmont. The rendering shows the perspective as if you were on the sw corner of Cesar Chavez/Trinity looking east.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brando

Can anyone actually tell what direction the hotel is facing?

We vs us · #46 Posted **Aug 17, 2016, 5:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brando

I don't think White Lodging would ever do anything to compromise the convention center expansion.

Yep, you're absolutely right, I know White Lodging won't scotch a CC upgrade. Those additional 616 rooms are actually the biggest bet so far that it'll happen.

And everything I hear in the hotel community is that the only expansion option the city is looking at is to the west.

brando · #47 Posted **Aug 17, 2016, 7:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by We vs us

Yep, you're absolutely right, I know White Lodging won't scotch a CC upgrade. Those additional 616 rooms are actually the biggest bet so far that it'll happen.

And everything I hear in the hotel community is that the only expansion option the city is looking at is to the west.

Yea but the issue is that there are two westward options and they have a different requirement for the orientation of the hotel. If the plan is to "face" west then it would suggest the committee might pursue option 3a instead of their previous preference for 3b. The ballroom space would double with 3a which might be too good to pass up. It would effectively eliminate the possibility of rail going North-South down Trinity. I would be ok with that as long as it's technically possible to extend the red line to the next rail that is built in this city. You cannot have two strips or rail that don't meet in central point in the city for public transportation.

However, the eastward expansion is a no-brainer in the future. You need to go west now to get the rest of that city block before someone else buys it.

Jdawgboy · #48 Posted **Aug 17, 2016, 9:42 PM**

I'm not sure what the concern is about the latest design causing a problem with a future westward expansion of the cc? Going by the rendering, the footprint looks like it would cover the same area as the earlier design. The only difference would be instead of a tower wall fronting Cesar Chavez, the tower would be on the corner. If the original rendering shows a 26 floor tower, that would explain why they have increased the floor count because the tower portion will be thinner. The North facing side of the hotel could easily be designed in such a way that when the cc is eventually expanded, they can tie the hotel directly into the new expansion.

I would like to see other rendered angles, specifically one looking west on the tower portion to get a better idea of how it will look.

I bet the change had a lot to do with the 4 Seasons Residency. The new design would alleviate blocking the north facing views.

The ATX · #49 Posted **Aug 18, 2016, 2:09 PM**

Unless it's an optical illusion, this larger version suggests that the side facing Cesar Chavez is not just the flat side of a rectangele.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...300314625.html

lzppjb · #50 Posted **Aug 18, 2016, 4:54 PM**

Yeah, the tower portion juts out a bit on the bottom. Up top, it looks to me like that additional glass portion is making it appear concave. Not sure how that's supposed to look. Really interested in seeing an angle from the opposite direction now.

drummer · #51 Posted **Aug 18, 2016, 5:43 PM**

I don't see them going with Option 3a in any scenario. Even the strongest rail opponent wouldn't want to lose the grid there to vehicular traffic. Option 3b is the most likely, in my opinion (though I admittedly have zero connection to those who are making decisions).

GoldenBoot · #52 Posted **Aug 18, 2016, 6:19 PM**

Anyone else notice the generic "Marriott" name on the building. I would imagine that there is a chance that this hotel could end up being branded any hotel under the Marriott International (which, I guess, now includes Starwood Hotels & Resorts).

The JW started out being a "Marriott," then a "Marriott Marquis," before finally being branded as a JW.

So this hotel could end up being a simple Marriott branded hotel or possibly anything from a Renaissance, Ritz-Carlton, Edition, or Austin's second Autograph Collection hotel to possibly a Sheraton, another Westin, St. Regis, Le Meridien, or Austin's second W hotel. Guess we'll see...

We vs us · #53 Posted **Aug 18, 2016, 6:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer

I don't see them going with Option 3a in any scenario. Even the strongest rail opponent wouldn't want to lose the grid there to vehicular traffic. Option 3b is the most likely, in my opinion (though I admittedly have zero connection to those who are making decisions).

At this point the hospitality community + ACC + ACVB are all focused on 3b. No other options are currently being discussed to my knowledge.

clubtokyo · #54 Posted **Aug 18, 2016, 6:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Anyone else notice the generic "Marriott" name on the building. I would imagine that there is a chance that this hotel could end up being branded any hotel under the Marriott International (which, I guess, now includes Starwood Hotels & Resorts).

The JW started out being a "Marriott," then a "Marriott Marquis," before finally being branded as a JW.

So this hotel could end up being a simple Marriott branded hotel or possibly anything from a Renaissance, Ritz-Carlton, Edition, or Austin's second Autograph Collection hotel to possibly a Sheraton, another Westin, St. Regis, Le Meridien, or Austin's second W hotel. Guess we'll see...

Is Austin grown up enough to get a Ritz? Dallas has one, maybe Austin is next.

jbssfelix · #55 Posted **Aug 18, 2016, 8:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by clubtokyo

Is Austin grown up enough to get a Ritz? Dallas has one, maybe Austin is next.

I could easily see (not necessarily this project) an Andaz, Grand Hyatt, Ritz, Conrad, etc coming soon.

GoldenBoot · #56 Posted **Aug 18, 2016, 9:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by clubtokyo

Is Austin grown up enough to get a Ritz? Dallas has one, maybe Austin is next.

Yes, I believe so. In fact, Ritz-Carlton proposed a hotel where the apartment complex is just to the north of Barton Creek Square Mall back in the '80s.

Can you imagine those views from a window in the Ritz?!?

wwmiv · #57 Posted **Aug 18, 2016, 9:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

I could easily see (not necessarily this project) an Andaz, Grand Hyatt, Ritz, Conrad, etc coming soon.

Andaz was attached to a project at one point, wasn't it?

ATXboom · #58 Posted **Aug 18, 2016, 9:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Andaz was attached to a project at one point, wasn't it?

Yes, the project off 35 just north of St David's main hospital. Andaz was a done deal at one point and I heard Ritz was sniffing around back then.

GoldenBoot · #59 Posted **Aug 18, 2016, 9:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

I could easily see (not necessarily this project) an Andaz, Grand Hyatt, Ritz, Conrad, etc coming soon.

Actually, an Andaz was announced for the old Concordia University site before the original project died and it's developer was jailed.

I can do without a Grand Hyatt and/or a Conrad. A Park Hyatt would be cool, however.

clubtokyo · #60 Posted **Aug 18, 2016, 10:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Yes, I believe so. In fact, Ritz-Carlton proposed a hotel where the apartment complex is just to the north of Barton Creek Square Mall back in the '80s.

Can you imagine those views from a window in the Ritz?!?

That would have been awesome!