AUSTIN | Natiivo / Austin (48 East) | 358 FEET | 33 FLOORS | T.O. - Page 3

KevinFromTexas · #1 Posted **Jul 8, 2016, 12:31 AM**

Site plan posted today with the elevations. I can't see any changes.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...enue_PLANS.pdf

SkyPie · #2 Posted **Jul 8, 2016, 12:57 AM**

I kind of forget about this building, but I like it. There are some interesting design elements that make it unique.

ivanwolf · #3 Posted **Jul 8, 2016, 9:16 PM**

I kind of forgot too, but behind 70 Rainey that's my favorite proposed project, 48 East is my second favorite.

The ATX · #4 Posted **Aug 23, 2016, 8:22 PM**

The site plan was withdrawn. This typically means there will be some changes to the project.

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11397813

wwmiv · #5 Posted **Aug 23, 2016, 9:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

The site plan was withdrawn. This typically means there will be some changes to the project.

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11397813

Or that the project is dead entirely. And I won't hold my breath that if there are changes, any of them will be positive.

AustinGoesVertical · #6 Posted **Aug 23, 2016, 10:05 PM**

Does this mean they have to submit an entirely new site plan? Why withdraw it? Couldn't they have just updated it... Seems like there's an issue. I guess we can all but rule out a Fall groundbreaking at this point.

KevinFromTexas · #7 Posted **Aug 23, 2016, 11:24 PM**

Oh man. That building was good looking, too. I hope they don't hit it in the face with a shovel too hard.

ivanwolf · #8 Posted **Aug 24, 2016, 5:35 PM**

Their 180 day extension expired on 8/6/16, meaning they had to clear all comments and failed to do so. They have to resubmit, could be the same could be different. They could have had any number of types of delays to clear comments.

The city last sent comments on 7/22/16 so they had 15 days to clear everything.

They will likely resubmit the same thing over again they just have to pay the fees again.

I hope that this is just the case based on the documents in the case file.

The ATX · #9 Posted **Aug 25, 2016, 2:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

Their 180 day extension expired on 8/6/16, meaning they had to clear all comments and failed to do so. They have to resubmit, could be the same could be different. They could have had any number of types of delays to clear comments.

The city last sent comments on 7/22/16 so they had 15 days to clear everything.

They will likely resubmit the same thing over again they just have to pay the fees again.

I hope that this is just the case based on the documents in the case file.

Nice catch on the dates there. Hopefully it's just an Admin issue and not a value engineering thing.

The ATX · #10 Posted **Sep 12, 2016, 5:40 PM**

A new site plan was filed after the original one was withdrawn. The floor count according the project description has been reduced to 31-stories. The new elevations are not available yet.

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11586407

wwmiv · #11 Posted **Sep 12, 2016, 5:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

A new site plan was filed after the original one was withdrawn. The floor count according the project description has been reduced to 31-stories. The new elevations are not available yet.

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11586407

Probably around ~345 feet, then.

LoneStarMike · #12 Posted **Nov 27, 2016, 10:17 AM**

I think this pool rendering might be new:

Here are the other ones that might have been on one of the links posted earlier:

Source: STG

drummer · #13 Posted **Nov 29, 2016, 7:30 AM**

I love the nicknames in London for all their newer buildings. They crack me up.

The ATX · #14 Posted **Dec 16, 2016, 1:36 AM**

The site plan status has been changed to "inactive". I haven't seen that status type used before. But it doesn't sound positive.

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11586407

drummer · #15 Posted **Dec 16, 2016, 3:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

The site plan status has been changed to "inactive". I haven't seen that status type used before. But it doesn't sound positive.

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11586407

No good.

The ATX · #16 Posted **Jan 10, 2017, 8:34 AM**

I was wondering exactly what an "Inactive" site plan status means because the site plan status of the Marriott @ Cesar Chavez was changed to that as well today. I can see this project going inactive because of a temporary glut in high end rentals. But the Marriott is the only big project that hasn't already broken ground that I thought would start this cycle.

Anyway, here's a list of the site plan status types and their meanings. Below the list is a link to probably more than most folks want to know about the city's permit process.

The only "Inactive" status type listed means that a revision to the site plan is coming. That's definitely the case for 48 East since it was recently shortened by a few floors. But apparently there is now a revision coming for the Marriott as well.

https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/de...elp_Manual.pdf

We vs us · #17 Posted **Jan 10, 2017, 1:18 PM**

That's a good find, thanks for that. Interesting to see how not particularly descriptive "inactive" is without more info.

From talking with my White Lodging friends this week, that Marriott is positively, definitely happening. Spring 2019 tentative opening date. Again, they're already selling it, in combo with the JW for larger groups.

GoldenBoot · #18 Posted **Jan 10, 2017, 9:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by We vs us

That's a good find, thanks for that. Interesting to see how not particularly descriptive "inactive" is without more info.

From talking with my White Lodging friends this week, that Marriott is positively, definitely happening. Spring 2019 tentative opening date. Again, they're already selling it, in combo with the JW for larger groups.

Interesting. Did your friends mention if it will it me a "mainline" Marriott or something a little more upscale like a Marriott Marquis? White Lodging switched up the JW a couple of times before finally landing on the JW "brand."

We vs us · #19 Posted **Jan 11, 2017, 12:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Interesting. Did your friends mention if it will it me a "mainline" Marriott or something a little more upscale like a Marriott Marquis? White Lodging switched up the JW a couple of times before finally landing on the JW "brand."

Nope it's literally called the Austin Marriott, so a pretty standard mid range product (which is actually underrepresented here). From talking with my friends, it's pretty clear that White Lodging's strategy is to be able to bid for complete convention center blocks (in concert with their Hyatt Place, Westin, Courtyard, etc) and potentially freezing out the two connected hotels, the Hilton and Fairmont. It's a ballsy play, especially if you understand convention and large group markets. It's even better if ACC expands because they could potentially share all the business generated by the expansion while Fairmont/Hilton splits business from the older side.

Sorry, more than you wanted to know, I'm sure.

GoldenBoot · #20 Posted **Jan 11, 2017, 2:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by We vs us

Nope it's literally called the Austin Marriott, so a pretty standard mid range product (which is actually underrepresented here). From talking with my friends, it's pretty clear that White Lodging's strategy is to be able to bid for complete convention center blocks (in concert with their Hyatt Place, Westin, Courtyard, etc) and potentially freezing out the two connected hotels, the Hilton and Fairmont. It's a ballsy play, especially if you understand convention and large group markets. It's even better if ACC expands because they could potentially share all the business generated by the expansion while Fairmont/Hilton splits business from the older side.

Sorry, more than you wanted to know, I'm sure.

No. Not at all. Thank you.