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

[The ATX]

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]

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]

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?

[The ATX]

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.

[austlar1]

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.

[KevinFromTexas]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[MightyYoda]

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.

[austlar1]

Are there any published renderings of the east side of this building? I would love to see a rendering showing the southeast corner with both the east and southern walls detailed.

[KevinFromTexas]

Still, the windowless argument is kind of dumb. Do windows on a facade really make it that much better? I refuse to believe the owners of those businesses are any sort of architectural critics in the way we are. But who knows. I suspect it's because of meism, the idea that whatever effects one in any sort of way that the person can construe as negative, that they throw a fit and try to highlight the issue to others to gain sympathy/support. But back to the windows, do they really make that much of a difference? Even the Littlefield Building has few windows on its north facade on the same block. And there are some buildings that you can't even make out the windows. Bank of American Center is just a black box. And even the glass towers are basically just blank walls when you think about it. From a distance this won't even be an issue since other buildings will block the view of that wall. It's only when you're up close and probably on foot that you'll notice it. And from considerably further away such as along I-35, you won't even notice there are no windows. The windows on the building according to the renderings appear to be low impact. I don't this is going to be as bad as what we have with The Plaza. They're obviously planning a quality tower and property, and I'm confident they'll design the south wall with facade accents that mask the fact that it doesn't have windows.

And oh yeah, on the parking issue, I really think they're being market specific with this one. I think the idea is this will be a hotel that serves typically younger people who fly into Austin for SXSW, ACL Fest or other events happening strictly in downtown and don't need a car for their visit. They'll take a cab or shuttle from the airport into downtown and stay in downtown for the duration of their visit. If anything this hotel is a plus in that regard since it'll mean that many fewer cars in downtown adding to traffic.

[ChrisBBradford]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Still, the windowless argument is kind of dumb. Do windows on a facade really make it that much better? I refuse to believe the owners of those businesses are any sort of architectural critics in the way we are. But who knows. I suspect it's because of meism, the idea that whatever effects one in any sort of way that the person can construe as negative, that they throw a fit and try to highlight the issue to others to gain sympathy/support.

The blank wall is my one concern with what otherwise is an exciting project. It's hard to convey just how nice that corner will be with a restaurant replacing a worthless parking lot and a canopy to match the Stephen F. Austin's canopy. The street design is really very good.

If not handled properly, the blank wall could definitely be an eyesore. There will be some downtown pressure on them to set back 10' and put in windows. The one property owner who shouldn't want the Aloft to add windows, though, is its neighbor, since that would create a deep pocket (Aloft) to oppose the historic demolition permit for their building should they ever choose to redevelop. Put differently, the only way the Aloft will add windows to its southern face is if it's reasonably sure it can prevent the neighbor from building upward.

It will be interesting to see whether an unparked hotel can get funding in Austin. If they can, great.

[kingkirbythe....]

If the builders of the Aloft project could purchase the air rights to the building just south, then windows could be allowed. Makes for a very expensive low rise building in the future.

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by kingkirbythe....

If the builders of the Aloft project could purchase the air rights to the building just south, then windows could be allowed. Makes for a very expensive low rise building in the future.

Ding! Good thinking. They won't, but a great idea. !