AUSTIN | Fairmont Hotel | 595 FEET SPIRE/456 FT ROOF | 37 FLRS | Complete

[The ATX]

The shorter of the remaining two cranes is coming down.

[Colo Designer]

Gensler IS becoming a bit of a one-trick pony.

Originally Posted by deerhoof

This building that is currently being built in Kuala Lumpur looks a lot like an old version of the Fairmont Austin before it was shortened. What could have been...

[ILUVSAT]

When does the spire begin to be erected?

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

When does the spire begin to be erected?

I've been wondering about that too, and I can't find any info about it. But the tallest and only remaining crane seems to be in place long past the point where it's needed for the building's construction. So I suspect it's in place just for the eventual spire construction. They haven't started building the sky walk yet either.

[hequals2henry]

The impact that this building makes to the view on i35 is undeniable.

[the Genral]

Good Lord it looks like downtown spilled onto I35. And btw, those highway cement barriers look real ghetto. What are we trying to emulate, the Bronx??

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by the Genral

Good Lord it looks like downtown spilled onto I35. And btw, those highway cement barriers look real ghetto. What are we trying to emulate, the Bronx??

Yes we are... Just a tinge of NYC to go with our ever growing skyline.

[Myomi]

Hey, to cut costs even further, maybe they will just leave the crane there and call it a "spire." What's more efficient than that!

[Sigaven]

Originally Posted by Myomi

Hey, to cut costs even further, maybe they will just leave the crane there and call it a "spire." What's more efficient than that!

LOL

Seriously, this building doesn't even deserve a spire anymore. Just leave it as it is - a big blank, unin(spire)d glass box representing what kind of monumental failure and disappointment can come about with such huge design/budget cuts.

[brando]

I saw an article today about the opposition to a skywalk from the Hilton to the convention center. There was discussion about how some on the city committee regret allowing the Fairmont to have one. I think it makes more sense for the Fairmont given the side of the convention center that it's on. Red River is a lot busier than 4th and you don't have a wall of entrances on the south wide of the convention center like you do the north.

https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...ng-commission/

A request seeking permission to construct a pedestrian skybridge connecting the Austin Convention Center and the Hilton Austin hotel downtown was postponed by the Planning Commission last week. The case, which the commission came close to denying altogether, will now be reviewed by the Downtown, Design and Urban Transportation commissions before returning to the Planning Commission in May.

Before agent Nikelle Meade even made the case for the bridge at the meeting, Commissioner Greg Anderson voiced strong opposition to the plans. He cited the city’s Urban Design Guidelines which read: “Pedestrian bridges and building flyovers should not be permitted anywhere downtown.”

“(Skybridges) separate the haves and the have-nots,” Anderson said at the meeting. “You have folks that are protected in their skybridges and then folks that are on the streets.”

In order to build the bridge, Austin Convention Enterprises, Inc. is requesting an aerial right-of-way encroachment of 2,451 square feet over Fourth Street near the intersection with Neches Street. The proposed overhead walkway would sit about 50 feet above the street, linking the sixth floor of the Hilton with the third floor of the convention center.

Meade argued that the project made sense in the context of other infrastructure developments in the area, like the Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s new rail line and plaza as well as a new Hilton Cafe. “There’s a lot of traffic going between those two buildings,” she said. “We just want to give people another option.”

Anderson remained unconvinced and made a motion to deny the request. Some of the commissioners expressed regret about an earlier approval for the Fairmont Austin hotel’s canopy walk, another skybridge leading to the convention center.

“I felt like I was too late into the process to oppose that one,” Commissioner Jeffrey Thompson said, “but this one feels like, ‘If they have a skybridge shouldn’t we have one too?’ Where does it end?”

Commissioner Chito Vela agreed. “The only reason I can think of to grant the request is to be ‘fair,’ and that’s not a good reason,” he said.

Other commissioners wanted more information, with commissioners James Shieh and Karen McGraw asking for more details about the streetscape at that location and more precise numbers on the foot traffic. Following their lead, Commissioner Nuria Zaragoza made a substitute motion to postpone the item until the May 23 meeting so the three other commissions could take a look at it and give their recommendations. Commissioner Angela Pineyro De Hoyos seconded.

“My goal in sending this to the three boards is certainly not to slow it down or kill it,” Zaragoza said. “I just want to make sure that it works.”

Meade said the postponement would be doable for the applicant, on the condition that the item could come before City Council before its summer break since construction was scheduled for the fall. Andy Halm with the Office of Real Estate Services said it was possible, but he could not guarantee that it would be scheduled in time.

Shieh suggested that if the applicant was not able to meet with all the other commissions before the postponed date, the Planning Commission would still reconsider the case.

Photo by LoneStarMike (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.

[KevinFromTexas]

Hmm, I wonder which Greg Anderson they could be talking about. I agree, Greg, I generally dislike skybridges as well.

I see they used one of LoneStarMike's photos, too.

[lzppjb]

“(Skybridges) separate the haves and the have-nots,” Anderson said at the meeting. “You have folks that are protected in their skybridges and then folks that are on the streets.”

What the hell is this garbage?

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

What the hell is this garbage?

I thought the same thing. Other than the downtown homeless hordes not having easy access to the sky bridges, this is not a class issue except in someone's mind.

[the Genral]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...88/Skyway1.jpg
Apparently, all the people on the street in this picture are have nots.
They seem to be ok in Minneapolis, they are found all throughout their downtown connecting offices, retail, restaurants, apartments, condos.....I have a friend who lived there and said they come in particularily handy during their cold winters, and inclimate weather, but they are climate controlled and used year round. He said you almost never have to walk on the sidewalks. You have to think there's less congestion on the street level and less vehicle pedestrian accidents. I don't see the harm with a couple of skywalks connecting the two closest hotels to the cc, and I can't help but think that using the have and have nots as a reason for not allowing them is absurd. I can't wrap my mind around why this such a big deal. They're not going to just start popping up all over dt connecting buildings on the east side of Congress Ave to the west side. Traffic is going to continue to get worse dt and I would like to know this guy's reasoning against anything to seperate foot traffic and car / bus traffic. Frankly, this IS idiotic reasoning with a touch of paranoia.

[drummer]

In truth, this particular skybridge would only separate the people staying at that particular hotel that are en route to the Convention Center and those who are potentially not staying at that particular hotel and potentially not en route to the Convention Center. Beyond that, it's a moot point.

Whether or not the skybridge is necessary is another question entirely, but I for one have been grateful for skybridges from a hotel to a convention center in really hot climates when I'm wearing a suit...AC all the way! It's a matter of convenience in this case, like many other things that are built.

[427MM]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Hmm, I wonder which Greg Anderson they could be talking about. I agree, Greg, I generally dislike skybridges as well.

Haha! As a fellow fan of good urban design I knew you would, Kevin.

For those of you who agree or disagree with me, or if you don't have an opinion but are interested in why folks may, check out the fairly long thread on this topic on the FB ATXUrbanists page.

In a nutshell, skybridges (in climates where you're not buried by snow) help to suck the life out of the grade-level public realm. After 20 years of getting things pretty right here, I for one am not ok to vote for this. If the at-grade crossings are too dangerous for people, then we need to correct them and make them safe. One of the best things about convention centers and the hotels that accompany them are the monies they leave in our city--something that only happens when these visitors engage our city.

You don't have to agree with me, but I do ask that you consider just how bad our streets could get if you take more and more people off of them. The hotel has stood open now for 14 years--is there really a good argument for the skybridge?

[the Genral]

Adding 2 sky bridges from 2 convention hotels will not depreciate foot traffic below by that much. It would create easy access for hotel guests to the convention center and back. I would imagine they would embark eventually to the streets below to see what else Austin has to offer. I think any unfounded fear would be if other businesses claim they should be able to build one also and there would be sky bridges all over town. Where else would they be warranted except at those 2 hotels? Maybe we should just call them hospitality passageways.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by 427MM

Haha! As a fellow fan of good urban design I knew you would, Kevin.

For those of you who agree or disagree with me, or if you don't have an opinion but are interested in why folks may, check out the fairly long thread on this topic on the FB ATXUrbanists page.

In a nutshell, skybridges (in climates where you're not buried by snow) help to suck the life out of the grade-level public realm. After 20 years of getting things pretty right here, I for one am not ok to vote for this. If the at-grade crossings are too dangerous for people, then we need to correct them and make them safe. One of the best things about convention centers and the hotels that accompany them are the monies they leave in our city--something that only happens when these visitors engage our city.

You don't have to agree with me, but I do ask that you consider just how bad our streets could get if you take more and more people off of them. The hotel has stood open now for 14 years--is there really a good argument for the skybridge?

I actually agree with you in principle, but I see the Convention Center as slightly different. I certainly don't see it as haves/have-nots, but a potential of killing street interaction, well, maybe. If these were in place throughout downtown, I could see it doing that. Given that they're not (and I'm actually thoroughly happy about that), I think allowing one more at the Convention Center wouldn't hurt anything. I could go either way on it, but if the discussion is whether or not they should exist in downtown, with a handful of exceptions, I'd say no. I just don't like the class-separation argument because I don't think that's true in this case.

One way or another, thanks for getting out there and speaking up for good urban design!

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I see they used one of LoneStarMike's photos, too.

Damn - that photo is from November 2007, so it's almost 10 years old.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by the Genral

Adding 2 sky bridges from 2 convention hotels will not depreciate foot traffic below by that much. It would create easy access for hotel guests to the convention center and back. I would imagine they would embark eventually to the streets below to see what else Austin has to offer. I think any unfounded fear would be if other businesses claim they should be able to build one also and there would be sky bridges all over town. Where else would they be warranted except at those 2 hotels? Maybe we should just call them hospitality passageways.

Skybriges would also make meeting and exhibit spaces inside the hotels directly accessible to similar spaces inside the convention center. This maximizes available exhibit and meeting spaces in a way that is likely to appeal to meeting and convention planners when they decide where to hold large conventions and meetings.