HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Dec 2, 2009, 6:21 AM
johnfthomasv johnfthomasv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3
This is awesome. If I ever have the support (financially) I would love to make a hotel like this but have magnolias everywhere. Think about the aroma the place would strike off in the spring. Maybe a few live oaks here and there but mainly magnolias.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2009, 7:40 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,134
Magnolias are wonderful trees. There is this huge old Magnolia tree a few blocks from my house. They can grow here and if taken care of properly will do just fine but Ive noticed some people just plopping them down without a care as to what the tree's needs are so alot of them do look kinda puny over time.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2009, 12:05 AM
SecretAgentMan's Avatar
SecretAgentMan SecretAgentMan is offline
CIA since 2003
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 347
City Council to vote on hotel project that split Planning Commission

InFact Daily (Dec 7, 2009)



On Thursday, the Austin City Council is scheduled to discuss the fate of a new hotel proposed for downtown. Unfortunately, council members will not have the benefit of a Planning Commission recommendation – but not for lack of trying on the commission’s part. At its Nov. 10 meeting, the commission spent over an hour discussing a requested zoning change to accommodate a 255-room hotel slated for the corner of 5th and Colorado streets.



In the end, commissioners voted 4-4 on a motion to approve the zoning change, resulting in no recommendation. (The nine-member board has one vacant position.) Commissioners David Sullivan, Jay Reddy, Clint Small, and Dave Anderson voted for the motion. Commissioners voting against it were Kathryne Tovo, Danette Chimenti, Saundra Kirk, and Mandy Dealey (who voted against the project after adding a friendly amendment to lock in setback dimensions).



Commissioners acknowledged that the project has its merits. The “eco luxury” hotel, proposed by Austin Hotel Holdings, LLC, would be built with the latest energy-efficient technology. The design includes wide, pedestrian-friendly sidewalks, no unsightly above-ground parking structures, and architecture that blends with the Warehouse District.



It’s slated for construction in the desired development zone where city plans call for high-density buildings. It would add 255 needed hotel rooms and funnel wallet-wielding tourists to downtown businesses.



Above all, it will rake in $1.73 million annually in hotel occupancy tax for the city.



Although the plan had won a positive recommendation from both the Downtown Commission and the Design Commission, some planning commissioners wanted more. They thought that the developer should contribute to the city’s affordable housing trust fund.



The developer had requested to change the site’s zoning from CBD (Central Business District) to CBD-CURE (Central Urban Redevelopment District) in order to increase the allowed building height. The CURE zoning designation is available for urban infill projects on vacant lots and for redevelopment of buildings more than 10 years old. According to a city staff report on the project, the commission has recently approved three CBD-CURE zoning changes.



In order to secure a CURE zoning designation, developers must show that the project offer benefits for the community. “We are paying a lot of attention to the public benefits associated with CUREs ... and the fact that increased entitlements are supposed to be married to increased public benefits,” said Planning Commission Chair David Sullivan.



However, developers have another choice. They can request an increase in height and floor to area (FAR) ratio above current zoning under the city’s interim density bonus ordinance, passed last year. Under that ordinance, the developer is required to contribute cash to the city’s affordable housing trust fund and a public benefit fund. Developers tend to steer clear of the density bonus ordinance to avoid writing a big check to the city.



“I am not aware of any developments in downtown that have chosen the density bonus,” said Charlie Betts, executive director of the Downtown Austin Alliance. “That (fee) acts as a disincentive for (developers to build) density where we want it.”



Betts was the single community member who spoke in favor of the hotel project at the meeting. Nobody spoke in opposition to it.



Under the density bonus ordinance, the hotel would be required to contribute $942,000 to the city, half of which would be earmarked for affordable housing. Half the commission was unwilling to let that money fly out the door like a bat from underneath the Ann Richards Congress Avenue Bridge.



“Was there any consideration of your client to contribute to the affordable housing fund?” Tovo asked Steve Drenner, the applicant’s attorney, who presented the project to the commission. “That is a very substantial figure that we’re not obtaining as a city by granting a CURE zoning.”



“This project would not contribute toward affordable housing,” Drenner replied. “I think this developer, like many developers, we share the concerns that everybody has in this community about affordable housing. But every project is not going to be able to help satisfy those issues. A project can only take so much of an economic burden, and this one would not be able to absorb a separate burden that would include an affordable housing contribution.”



Drenner argued that the project’s environmentally conscious design, pedestrian-friendly perimeter, and potentially lucrative hotel tax revenue constituted enough public benefit to justify a CURE overlay.



Nevertheless, on a motion to approve the staff recommendation for CURE, Commissioner Chimenti added a friendly amendment to require the developer to make a $450,000 contribution to the city’s affordable housing fund. However, Commissioner Reddy questioned the legality of the amendment.



Clark Cornwell, an attorney with the city Law Department, said that the amendment might constitute an “exaction,” which must meet specific legal requirements in order to be lawful. He recommended that the commission adjourn to closed-door executive session to discuss the matter. The commissioners declined, but some reasoned that since their responsibility only consists of offering a recommendation to City Council, it might be OK if that recommendation included a potentially unlawful exaction.



“We can base our recommendation on the applicant’s willingness to offer (the money) to City Council so that we dodge the legal question,” said Reddy.



“Do you see that is a risk, that we are only making a recommendation and the City Council would actually be taking the risk?” Sullivan asked.



“What do you think?” Cornwell replied. “If you are basing a recommendation on something that may be perceived as an exaction, then I don’t think there is any difference between pushing it off on City Council.”



The amendment failed 6-2.



Before voting on the CURE overlay motion, Sullivan offered the applicant the option of continuing the matter to the Planning Commission’s next meeting. Ready and willing to take his chances with the City Council, Drenner replied, “No, sir, and frankly we would prefer to move forward. We would rather you make a decision tonight and let us proceed.”



The commission is expected to take up the thorny issue of downtown density bonuses at this week’s meeting, having postponed the item last month. However, based on the hotel vote, it may be difficult for the eight members to agree on a new ordinance for such bonuses.



Mayor Pro Tem Mike Martinez has indicated he would appoint the ninth member of the commission at the final meeting of the year, Dec. 17.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2009, 1:49 AM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,470
Affordable housing strikes again. I personally think affordable housing is a great idea, but the emphasis should not be placed on making high dollar real-estate affordable. There is no such thing nor should there be. The emphasis should be placed on providing a safe housing option to people who need a helping hand to get them thru a period of time. If they have to travel via bus, walk or ride a bike to their work or school destination then so it should be - who hasn't had to go thru this. Rather than making the affordable housing money go toward high dollar real-estate, it should be placed into an area where land is actually affordable and the remainder placed into an education fund for low income people.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2009, 3:11 AM
MichaelB MichaelB is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: North edge of Downtown
Posts: 2,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan View Post
InFact Daily (Dec 7, 2009)



On Thursday, the Austin City Council is scheduled to discuss the fate of a new hotel proposed for downtown. Unfortunately, council members will not have the benefit of a Planning Commission recommendation – but not for lack of trying on the commission’s part. At its Nov. 10 meeting, the commission spent over an hour discussing a requested zoning change to accommodate a 255-room hotel slated for the corner of 5th and Colorado streets.



In the end, commissioners voted 4-4 on a motion to approve the zoning change, resulting in no recommendation. (The nine-member board has one vacant position.) Commissioners David Sullivan, Jay Reddy, Clint Small, and Dave Anderson voted for the motion. Commissioners voting against it were Kathryne Tovo, Danette Chimenti, Saundra Kirk, and Mandy Dealey (who voted against the project after adding a friendly amendment to lock in setback dimensions).




Mayor Pro Tem Mike Martinez has indicated he would appoint the ninth member of the commission at the final meeting of the year, Dec. 17.
Point of interest for the sociologist out there. The four commissioners that voted for this were male , the four who voted against were female. That is a strange " coincidence"

I'll take the 9th position!!!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2009, 3:55 AM
Scottolini Scottolini is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Point of interest for the sociologist out there. The four commissioners that voted for this were male , the four who voted against were female. That is a strange " coincidence"
That is strange. More proof of why women....oh nevermind.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2009, 3:59 AM
Raining Inside Raining Inside is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: ASATex Megaplex
Posts: 536
I guess the women don't necessarily think bigger is better?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Dec 8, 2009, 6:41 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
friends don't lie
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the upside down
Posts: 49,359
There's a hilarious photo that one of the Canadian forumers took in his city of a skyscraper construction site where several men were standing outside the construction site looking in through the fence, and several women were just walking past not giving it a thought. It perfectly showed how men and women differ on the subject.
__________________
In America, today, it's not that truth has lost, it's that political bias has been accepted as a legitimate answer to every issue one struggles with.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2009, 2:49 AM
H2O H2O is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 612
Passed on consent, first reading only.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2009, 10:19 PM
Raining Inside Raining Inside is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: ASATex Megaplex
Posts: 536
The hotel was approved by the City Council.

http://austin.bizjournals.com/austin...4/daily18.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2009, 11:25 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
friends don't lie
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the upside down
Posts: 49,359
Updated renderings from BOKA Powell, the project's architect. These seem to be two different designs, so it's probably still just conceptual. The first view would be looking at it from the southwest corner.


BOKA Powell


BOKA Powell
__________________
In America, today, it's not that truth has lost, it's that political bias has been accepted as a legitimate answer to every issue one struggles with.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2009, 11:58 AM
JoninATX JoninATX is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 2,864
I like the 2nd one
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2009, 1:36 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
friends don't lie
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the upside down
Posts: 49,359
Me too. The first one seems a bit stumpy, and I really don't care for the base of it. The 2nd one looks more inviting. You also gotta love that wall of green.
__________________
In America, today, it's not that truth has lost, it's that political bias has been accepted as a legitimate answer to every issue one struggles with.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2009, 7:06 PM
Myomi Myomi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 231
I actually think both those renderings are the the same design, just from different angles. After looking at it closely, I feel like the first one is looking in the northeast direction (the southwest side), and the second one from the the southwest direction (looking at the northeast side). I can't be for sure, but I think everything matches up for this to be the case.

The one concern I have from this is that it doesn't appear to have very much, if any ground floor retail. Considering the location it is in, I would be considerably disappointed if that was the case. I understand the first picture doesn't have any, since we are seeing the side facing the alley. But the second picture, the one showing the side on 5th and Colorado, doesn't seem to show much more on the ground floor than a hotel entrance? Anyone else seeing the same thing I am seeing?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Dec 26, 2009, 5:05 PM
priller's Avatar
priller priller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,984
I agree, I think these are the same building. The first is probably the more realistic rendering, the second more dramatic.

I just hope it's not that white, since white buildings tend to look really bright white here in the Texas sun.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Apr 1, 2010, 12:00 AM
NThomas's Avatar
NThomas NThomas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Lubbock, Texas
Posts: 204
More renderings from BOKA Powell's page:

http://www.bokapowell.com/#/hospitality/8/
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:05 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.