AUSTIN Update Thread - Page 402

MichaelB · #**8021** Posted: **May 21, 2012, 9:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

LOL.

It seems dumb to me anyway for them to be looking at a skywalk. I'm sure there will have to be pedestrian bridges, (similar to the ones in San Antonio), built across the creek anyway once the creek project is done. Couldn't they just build a "pretty bridge" near the building over the creek so that both hotel and creek visitors would benefit?

Agreed. Somethin don't smeel right.

hookem · #**8022** Posted: **May 21, 2012, 9:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

LOL.

It seems dumb to me anyway for them to be looking at a skywalk. I'm sure there will have to be pedestrian bridges, (similar to the ones in San Antonio), built across the creek anyway once the creek project is done. Couldn't they just build a "pretty bridge" near the building over the creek so that both hotel and creek visitors would benefit?

I agree. They have a $4.7M city incentive on the table and they'd walk away because of a sidewalk? No way.

My guess, they don't have the money. It always seems the more dream-like the renderings are, the more likely they are to remain a dream. Not always, but most of the time...

They also probably are aware that the lot value is skyrocketing right now due to the Waller Creek Tunnel (and F1, etc). If they own the lot, they know they can flip it and come away with a profit regardless -- a safe play. If they have an agreement to buy the lot from an entity, chances are it market value is getting too expensive.

ahealy · #**8023** Posted: **May 21, 2012, 11:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hookem

I agree. They have a $4.7M city incentive on the table and they'd walk away because of a sidewalk? No way.

My guess, they don't have the money. It always seems the more dream-like the renderings are, the more likely they are to remain a dream. Not always, but most of the time...

They also probably are aware that the lot value is skyrocketing right now due to the Waller Creek Tunnel (and F1, etc). If they own the lot, they know they can flip it and come away with a profit regardless -- a safe play. If they have an agreement to buy the lot from an entity, chances are it market value is getting too expensive.

....and I've always felt that would add WAY too many hotel rooms. I'd rather see this become a new super tall mixed use building.

hookem · #**8024** Posted: **May 22, 2012, 12:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahealy

....and I've always felt that would add WAY too many hotel rooms. I'd rather see this become a new super tall mixed use building.

Well, a hotel with significant convention space would be a good addition IMO. Something like the W with a condo component and other uses (music venue) would be better. Would love to see that trend continue... honestly, if they overbuild the condos downtown, that would be fine with me. Then maybe I could pick one up for cheap!

An office building that close to the lake and convention center seems like a waste to me.

Of course, maybe an observation tower with a park at the bottom would be nice...

the Genral · #**8025** Posted: **May 22, 2012, 12:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hookem

Well, a hotel with significant convention space would be a good addition IMO. Something like the W with a condo component and other uses (music venue) would be better. Would love to see that trend continue... honestly, if they overbuild the condos downtown, that would be fine with me. Then maybe I could pick one up for cheap!

An office building that close to the lake and convention center seems like a waste to me.

Of course, maybe an observation tower with a park at the bottom would be nice...

I don't know if you were being serious about the observation tower and park, but I for one like that idea and location. However, from past discussions, I believe most of our beloved fellow forumers do not favor observation towers.

hookem · #**8026** Posted: **May 22, 2012, 1:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the Genral

I don't know if you were being serious about the observation tower and park, but I for one like that idea and location. However, from past discussions, I believe most of our beloved fellow forumers do not favor observation towers.

I was being serious, but I know I'm in the very small minority. Most folks would consider it a waste of a prime location. I just have a soft spot for observation towers, they probably are the thing that got me interested in skyscrapers.

migol24 · #**8027** Posted: **May 22, 2012, 3:49 AM**

observation towers? suck!

manchester not getting built? double suck!

Austin1971 · #**8028** Posted: **May 22, 2012, 5:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by migol24

observation towers? suck!

manchester not getting built? double suck!

I bet they work out the details and they build it. If anything I could see them increasing the height and adding condos. The location is as good as you can get for a project like that. It's all about leverage......

austlar1 · #**8029** Posted: **May 22, 2012, 6:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austin1971

I bet they work out the details and they build it. If anything I could see them increasing the height and adding condos. The location is as good as you can get for a project like that. It's all about leverage......

I think it is all about timing. This project will probably get shelved for a few years until the market has absorbed the 1500 or so hotel rooms currently in the pipeline, The location is perfect for a convention hotel, and once the new amenities along Waller Creek materialize, I suspect we will see a hotel (maybe not this particular hotel) go up on that site. Maybe I am wrong about this. I'd love to see the thing go up now, but common sense tells me that funding for this puppy is not going to materialize just yet.

BevoLJ · #**8030** Posted: **May 22, 2012, 7:19 AM**

I think the market could absorb that many rooms today. These hotels will take years to build, and I see no reason to believe the market would be worse then than today.

Jdawgboy · #**8031** Posted: **May 22, 2012, 4:10 PM**

Iagree that Austin can absorbe these hotel rooms now. Austin currently is thousands of rooms behind where we should be and that is just with the events we have now. SXSW a perfect example this year when you have people going as far as camping because there were no hotel rooms anywhere in the Austin area. Add Formula 1 and Austin will be loosing money because a lot of visitors will be looking as far as San Antonio to get a room.

As far as Manchester goes I can't see it not going through. These people have actually worked with Formula 1 organizers to bring in certain elements to the project. So at this time Im not buying it until I hear official word its off.

JAM · #**8032** Posted: **May 22, 2012, 5:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Add Formula 1 and Austin will be loosing money because a lot of visitors will be looking as far as San Antonio to get a room.

The guys who are actually taking the risk and putting up the money really don't care about that....

BevoLJ · #**8033** Posted: **May 22, 2012, 5:20 PM**

I don't think SXSW and F1 really have anything to do with being able to absorb it. Those weeks of course they could. But even on the slowest weekends in Austin the central hotels are sitting at 90-93% occupancy.

austlar1 · #**8034** Posted: **May 22, 2012, 8:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

I don't think SXSW and F1 really have anything to do with being able to absorb it. Those weeks of course they could. But even on the slowest weekends in Austin the central hotels are sitting at 90-93% occupancy.

The downtown Austin hotel occupancy rate for the year ending 12/31/2011 was 75.1% according to data published on the Downtown Austin Alliance web page. I doubt business has improved that substantially in the following 6 months to justify a boast of 90% to 93% occupancy rates. 75.1% is a very healthy figure for the hotel industry, but the 1,500 or more new rooms currently in the pipeline is close to a 25% increase in hotel rooms downtown. Lenders are very aware of these figures and probably have a pretty cautious attitude about where they want to place a $350 million dollar construction loan. I would be delighted to be wrong about this, but I suspect that this project is on hold.

http://www.downtownaustin.com/business/demographics/

Downtown_Austin · #**8035** Posted: **May 22, 2012, 9:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Why do you think something as seeminly minor would derail the project? Or do you think they are looking for bargaining chips or just excuses? Seems like small thing really to derail that large of a project. would love insight.

The skybridge would be physical conduit to the convention center - a valuable asset in a city with a competitive hotel sector. They can probably make it work without, but the discussion was contentious. All the while, the Marriott Marquis is getting real traction.

BevoLJ · #**8036** Posted: **May 22, 2012, 10:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by austlar1

The downtown Austin hotel occupancy rate for the year ending 12/31/2011 was 75.1% according to data published on the Downtown Austin Alliance web page. I doubt business has improved that substantially in the following 6 months to justify a boast of 90% to 93% occupancy rates. 75.1% is a very healthy figure for the hotel industry, but the 1,500 or more new rooms currently in the pipeline is close to a 25% increase in hotel rooms downtown. Lenders are very aware of these figures and probably have a pretty cautious attitude about where they want to place a $350 million dollar construction loan. I would be delighted to be wrong about this, but I suspect that this project is on hold.

http://www.downtownaustin.com/business/demographics/

I was not talking about overall occupancy. I was talking about on the weekends.

hookem · #**8037** Posted: **May 22, 2012, 11:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downtown_Austin

The skybridge would be physical conduit to the convention center - a valuable asset in a city with a competitive hotel sector. They can probably make it work without, but the discussion was contentious. All the while, the Marriott Marquis is getting real traction.

I wonder if they could compromise on an elevated outdoor crossing, like what they do in Vegas. That way, they'd have the competitive advantage of a no-signal pedestrian crossing, but people would at least need to enter/exit the crossing via the sidewalk.

BevoLJ · #**8038** Posted: **May 23, 2012, 12:08 AM**

Normally I am very much against these skybridges, and I think I have gone back and forth flip flopping on this one a few times too. But honestly it isn't like there is much street level retail between the hotel of and convention center. All there is, is Iron Works and a creek.

Jdawgboy · #**8039** Posted: **May 23, 2012, 5:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAM

The guys who are actually taking the risk and putting up the money really don't care about that....

From what I heard F1 organizers went to them to talk about adding a helipad.

Austin1971 · #**8040** Posted: **May 23, 2012, 5:46 AM**

With the addition of both convention center hotels it would create a new market for much larger conventions that simply cannot use Austin now due to the lack of large blocks of rooms. You have to have the rooms in order to attract the big fish....They don't like being spread out over multiple hotels. It's the conventions and everything else after that is gravy....F1, ACL, SXSW, ROT Rally, UT home football games and so on....