Austin Hotel | 30 FLOORS

[BevoLJ]

What is the deal with a case against this development by people saying it will block their views? I just read a comment on the 'Austin Contrarian' blog that mentioned something like that. Anyone know more?

Go down to Anita's comment.

http://www.austincontrarian.com/aust...+Contrarian%29

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

What is the deal with a case against this development by people saying it will block their views? I just read a comment on the 'Austin Contrarian' blog that mentioned something like that. Anyone know more?

Go down to Anita's comment.

http://www.austincontrarian.com/aust...+Contrarian%29

The folks who are developing the project asked for a variance that exceeds the set backs for that part of congress. It does have to do with the CVC's.
I do agree that if other developments have been forced to adhear to the CVC and set their propperty back in accordance, then the same rules should be inforced for all. The Austonian set their buildiing back and buyers knew what views that would have of the capitol based on the CVC. I know some folks on here will brush away the word "fair"..... ( not refering to you BevoJL) but I do not think it is the spirt of fair play to change the rules now. And yes, if you have done your due dilignece and know what you views by law will be, then you do have a right to those views. Laws that have been set in place to protect views should not change to suit the whim of develpers or the law makers they support.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/pr...ity-counc.html

Controversial Austin hotel heads to City Council
Developer: This will fit well on Congress

Austin Business Journal by Robert Grattan, Staff Writer
Date: Friday, October 26, 2012, 5:00am CDT - Last Modified: Thursday, October 25, 2012, 8:46pm CDT

Robert Grattan
Staff Writer- Austin Business Journal

Austin’s Planning Commission endorsed a 30-story, $90 million hotel project on Congress Avenue — but withheld its recommendation for construction as proposed — after a protracted discussion that pit some of the city’s biggest landowners against each other.

The proposed building would add a four-star hotel with 210 rooms, a 5,900-square-foot restaurant, 41,300 square feet of office space and a music venue to 800 and 804 Congress Ave., said project developer David Kahn of Gone to Texas Capital One LP.

[KevinFromTexas]

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

The folks who are developing the project asked for a variance that exceeds the set backs for that part of congress. It does have to do with the CVC's.
I do agree that if other developments have been forced to adhear to the CVC and set their propperty back in accordance, then the same rules should be inforced for all. The Austonian set their buildiing back and buyers knew what views that would have of the capitol based on the CVC. I know some folks on here will brush away the word "fair"..... ( not refering to you BevoJL) but I do not think it is the spirt of fair play to change the rules now. And yes, if you have done your due dilignece and know what you views by law will be, then you do have a right to those views. Laws that have been set in place to protect views should not change to suit the whim of develpers or the law makers they support.

The CVC for Congress Ave. runs directly down the avenue itself. Thus, the tower is not within a specific view corridor. However, the old Congress Avenue Overlay setback rules called for a 60' set back at 90'. The developers are asking for a 15' setback at 45' and another at the 90' level (for a total of 30'). The 30' setback is within the New Downtown Austin Plan rules. These call for a minimum 15' setback at the 90' level.

To me, the whole fight is not about adhering to current or past rules; but, how tall a tower should be three blocks south of the Capitol. If anyone is trying to "change the rules," it's the City (i.e., the whiny NIMBY'S on City Council)!

A part of living or working in the central business district of a growing urban metropolis is knowing that some day your "view" may end up being blocked by a new building. It is a choice you made in moving downtown to live, work or play. Accept it or move to the burbs!!!

[gmsalpha]

Having a "view" in a building downtown doesn't really apply to a lot of people, I would think. First of all, you really have to be on a higher floor, and then you have to be facing a particular direction. For instance, if you're in 5FiftyFive with an East-facing view of I35, I don't think you're going to be all that enamored with your view, whereas if you're facing West/NorthWest, you'll have a totally different perspective on things (literally). Surely, it has to be a fairly small amount of people who have any claim to complain about their precious view being obstructed. Though, I guess those few are influential/important.

What do y'all think about the building itself? Or the renderings at least? As is always the case, it comes down to what materials end up being used. I'm already "over" the whole jagged two-toned color scheme that they have over in the Hyatt, but the materials on that building look cheap, so in that respect, I'm not thrilled with the design of this, though it clearly looks like a more expensive project. I do like the overall shape of it and the top is appealing from what I can tell. I wish the tan part was shorter, however.

Hopefully the ground level retail will be there, but it's a pretty good looking building overall, imo. Happy to see it and looking forward to progress reports and pictures!

[lzppjb]

This was supposed to go before the council in December. Any word yet?

[lzppjb]

I looked up the City Council's actions in their Dec. 6th meeting. Only thing I saw was a mention of the Austin Hotel in #99 about zoning from CBD & CBD-H to CBD-CURE & CBD-H-CURE. It was postponed till 1/17/13.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

I looked up the City Council's actions in their Dec. 6th meeting. Only thing I saw was a mention of the Austin Hotel in #99 about zoning from CBD & CBD-H to CBD-CURE & CBD-H-CURE. It was postponed till 1/17/13.

There is a little controversy with this hotel. The city council's MO is to postpone anything controversial.

[lzppjb]

Yeah, I read about the view issues. Is that the only thing we're waiting on?

[Myomi]

According to this article from the chronicle (http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/...bar-on-burnet/), the Downtown Austin Alliance is against this hotel.

More likely to raise sand will be the hearing over the proposed Austin Hotel (Eighth and Congress), with dueling recommendations for a CBD-H-CURE zoning change, endorsed by city staff but rejected by the Planning Commission, and opposed as well by the Downtown Austin Alliance. (We'll have more on that case next week.)

Jude, or anyone else connected with the DAA: Do you have any insight on the rationale for this opposition. Are they against this project in all facets, just the view corridors issue, or some other concern we are not aware of. Thanks.

[KevinFromTexas]

I don't even understand what the problem is. It won't block any views of the Capitol. Look at those renderings, pay attention to where the tower is in relation to the Congress facing walls of 816 Congress (the building it stands next to) and to One American Center.

Now look at these photos I took looking down Congress. It's just not going to block the view of the dome at all.

[KevinFromTexas]

Also, look at these that are looking straight down Congress from the middle of it. It's just not going to block the dome at all.

In this photo, the nearest building to the dome is the Scarborough Building, and that building has been there since 1910. The hotel will be behind (to the left) of it. Notice that other little setback slightly above the Scarborough Building? That's the setback at 816 Congress. The hotel will come forward as much as that setback does.
http://stevehopson.photoshelter.com/...000Ir_w4aDlsNw

http://www.flickr.com/photos/49394874@N08/6261087717/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/meezoid/7307768242/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimnix/5409952147/sizes/o/

It won't even block it from this angle, and this is all the way over to the left of the bridge. If it was going to block it from any angle on Congress, this should be the one it would affect the most.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/atmtx/4374348373/sizes/o/

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I don't even understand what the problem is. It won't block any views of the Capitol.

More info from back in October:

Controversial Austin hotel heads to City Council
Developer: This will fit well on Congress
Robert Grattan
Staff Writer- Austin Business Journal
October 26, 2012

The Capitol View Corridor has been protected since 1984 by two ordinances that established overlays for the Capitol View Corridor and Congress Avenue. The overlays require buildings on both sides of Congress to be tapered back from the forward-most facade as they go up to prevent them from narrowing the view down the avenue.

[SNIP]

The proposed building plan meets the Capitol View Corridor requirements, but not the city-defined Congress Avenue Overlay, according to city documents.

[SNIP]

“All projects on the west side of Congress Avenue have respected the Congress Avenue Overlay, and we believe that 800-804 [Congress Ave.] should as well,” wrote Charles Betts, executive director of the Downtown Austin Alliance.

Edited to add a December news story (with video) from KXAN

Hotel plans stir up controversy
Proposal requires changes to zoning restrictions
December 6, 2012

[lzppjb]

How I understand it, they're not saying it will block the CVC. All those photos show rightly that it will not block any view when looking straight down Congress. But as you move away from the Capitol along Congress, each successive building must be set back a bit from the previous. It's supposed to create more of a V shape converging at the capitol instead of two parallel lines basically down the sidewalks.

I know y'all already understand this. Just sort of talking it out for my own benefit. From the looks of it, it will stand closer to Congress than the building south of it, thus screwing up that tapered line they're going for. But am I correct in understanding what was stated in that article that buildings on the east side of Congress have already gotten exceptions to this rule?

Personally, I like that they try to keep that tapered look.

[wwmiv]

... the distance naturally creates the V-shape regardless of how far away each building closer to you is set back from the street.

And this emphatically isn't the purpose, otherwise they would have crafted the setback statute to accomplish it.

[lzppjb]

What is the purpose then?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

What is the purpose then?

Simply to protect the view through line of sight. I was responding to this...

It's supposed to create more of a V shape converging at the capitol instead of two parallel lines basically down the sidewalks.

... which is wrong.

[lzppjb]

I re-read the article that describes the issue. I had read it incorrectly the first time. I think I understand now. Thanks.

[KevinFromTexas]

Yeah, there is no v-shaped setback. If that were true then Congress Avenue itself should be V shaped, it is not. The street is 120 feet wide from the river to the Capitol, and has been since the city was planned by Edwin Waller prior to 1839.

I think there's just a concern that the building will be too close to the boundary that is the Capitol View Corridor. But that's unreasonable. We have a Capitol View Corridor, not a Capitol View Corridor to the Capitol View Corridor.

For me the highrises along Congress are less offensive to the visibility and prominence of the Capitol than those ugly street lights and traffic light poles hanging across Congress.