January 11, 2008
Marriott Gets Its Way
Fate, progress and the American/Marriott's Way? A win/win for Austin? Maybe. We haven't seen the new design, but we have some predictions (based partly on the recently constructed Marriotts two blocks away): 1. The primary entrance will be a driveway. 2. The building will be covered in EIFS. 3. There will be a blank wall (no pedestrian access for the hotel or street-front-retail) on at least one side. Given claims that downtown Austin is running out of prime developable space (see page 25), putting a pedestrian-unfriendly chain hotel on one of the choicest undeveloped parcels of land downtown seems like a huge mistake. The city still has some leverage - Marriott is seeking variances and subsidies - so maybe this otherwise tragic story will have a happy ending.
|
The odds of a blank wall on a street are nearly nil; the rules about pedestrian-oriented use are pretty well enforced, even against hotels. Notice that the other Marriott you refer to does have ped uses on all sides as far as I can tell.
It's also not unusual for big hotels to have a driveway in front, even in real cities. People have to have a place to unload, and an alley isn't going to cut it.
The design will likely be dumb and cheap. So be it; what's there now sucks even more (closing early; oriented just as much towards cars; one lousy story high; etc.)
You don't think the Perez sisters got their way too?
They were renting the space in which Las Manitas currently resides, but Marriott quite clearly is paying them (an undisclosed amount) so that they can move into a neighboring building they already own. And they'll be allowed to stay open in the current location until the new one is ready.
M1EK, I just took a walk around the other Marriott to make sure I have my facts straight. The west side is blank wall - no access of any kind. The north side (facing the alley) is utility - lots of dumpsters (where are these going to go if the city lets Marriott build over the alley?). The east side is half blank wall, half fenced off sidewalk cafe. The only pedestrian entrance for the entire building is the restaurant entrance on the southeast corner. The restaurant is the only ground floor retail/pedestrian use in the building. The south side is a giant driveway, which is the entrance to the hotels.
The original plan for the new Marriott was very similar - the south side (facing Second Street) was a giant driveway and the west side (facing Congress) was a blank wall. There are plenty of hotels in real cities where the main entrance is pedestrian friendly (not so much in Dallas or Houston, but other real cities). Even if there is a driveway at the main entrance, it can be made more pedestrian friendly by having the sidewalk go between the driveway and the entrance, as in the plan for the new W:
http://www.urbanaustin.org/index.php/Image:Block21New.jpg
and the plan for 21C:
http://www.urbanaustin.org/index.php/Image:301_Brazos_1.jpg
Compare the other Marriott, where cars have to drive over the sidewalk/pedestrians to get to the hotel.
I agree that the new Marriott is going to be dumb and cheap. I expect it will be better than the other one only because it will have to conform to the new design regs, but I expect it will do the bare minimum that it can to conform, and will be designed from a car-centric, predestrian-unfriendly mindset. Will it be better than what is there now? Maybe not - what is there now is the opportunity to build something really great - something at least as nice as the W, 21C and other projects currently proposed.
Heyzeus, I'm apparently not as excited about what the Perez sisters got or didn't get as the rest of Austin. I don't think them getting Finley give them some cash, or them moving down the street, has much effect on the urban development of the city of Austin. I think building a monster POS on this block has a serious effect on the urban development of the city of Austin, so that is what I focused on in the post.
What's sad is, if we had a council that really was interested in a pedestrian-friendly city (instead of just lip service), they could enforce city codes requiring those amenities (sidewalks, ground-floor retail) shilli mentions.
But no, their sole raison d'etre is boosting the city's tax base. That means allowing for more glass-&-stucco boxes downtown and forcing pedestrians to "yield right-of-way" to Cadillac Escalades barreling into the Marriot's unloading zone.
You might check into the COA "Great Streets" program - This it the program that will extend the 2nd street look (extra large sidewalks, landscaping, etc.) from Seaholm all the way to the convention center on 2nd street. I think this will prevent the Marriott 2nd street entrance from being too unfriendly. I'm working from memory here - I went to a meeting about a year ago and I'm positive this block will be converted just not sure if Marriott gets a pass.
With this in mind I would worry about Brazos between 2nd and 3rd - that might be the blank wall space.
Also, on a similar note, the 3rd store has closed on 2nd Street. Octane is now history.
kenneth1
So, in your mind, there is NO value in the hundreds or thousands of additional pedestrian shoppers/diners that will frequent the downtown district as a result of the hotel?
None at all.
I'm going to boycott Marriot (even though I can't afford to travel) and I urge you all to do the same too.
Having a hotel there is just retarded. This shit makes me sick but what can you do?
Shilli, it's possible I'm remembering the other 10-15 story hotel in the area of similar age, although our company had a meeting at the Courtyard/Renaissance pair a year ago, so it's hard to believe. But I'ma have to take your word for it.
I also expect the 2nd street side to be fine, for the same reasons the other commenter gave - they're going to need an FAR variance, and that will require 2nd street to be treated similarly as 21st C has done. Where did you see the plan that indicated a huge driveway on 2nd? All I ever saw was renderings of the buildings, but no site plan.
LoudMouth:
Just curious, but how much was your offer to purchase the tract?
There is a Hampton Inn is a few blocks south that is reasonably ped-friendly - you might be thinking of that.
This site plan I saw was in the Statesman:
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/10/18/WEB1018manitasalley_1.html
Not sure if that is accurate, and it may change now that they are doing a new design, but that pretty clearly depicts a big driveway on most of Second Street, Great Streets or not. Even if there is a wide sidewalk and landscaping, this would mean there would be no pedestrian destinations on either side of this block (the other side is an office building with no GRF and a drive through bank), which would effectively kill most pedestrian connectivity between Second Street west of Congress and Second Street east of Congress.
kenneth1
So, in your mind, there is NO value in the hundreds or thousands of additional pedestrian shoppers/diners that will frequent the downtown district as a result of the hotel?
Hundreds of thousands? Where do you get your numbers? Those hotels only hold at most a couple of hundred guests per night, so it would take years to reach 200,000+ visitors.
Anyway, I'm not against downtown hotels (nor lofts for that matter), nor am I against a hotel on this particular tract. What I do oppose is the shape that, as Shilli points out, these big Marriots always take: Big rectangular boxes, with walls fronting streets on three sides, and a big pedestrian-hostile driveway on the fourth. We can do better.
turd_on_the_run:
I'll put this in a language you can comprehend.
u r a eeeediot.
kenneth1,
He said hundreds OR thousands, not hundred of thousands. Way to misread and pull numbers out of your ass.
For what it's worth, I think the new design standards will at least require 1st floor glazing on all sides visible to the public, as well as awnings.
Marriott will have to earn "bonus" points. Options include street-facing stores, but there are lots of other ways (including plants on the roof) that don't do much for the pedestrian experience.
I hope the city will use any leverage it has to get pedestrian amenities. Mike, are you sure it will need a FAR variance? (What is it -- 8:1?)
The one thing that worries me is that some city officials may have privately assurred Marriott there'd be no hassle with the variances if they settled with the Perez sisters. That's just speculation . . .
AC,
8-1 is the base entitlement. I'm assuming they need more on the project since almost everybody does. Any idea?
Shilli, that site plan doesn't really tell me much of anything. There's hotels just like that in Waikiki with a driveway cut (for loading/unloading) in the middle of very busy pedestrian areas where the ped-oriented uses abound. Again, you have to have unloading for passengers somewhere. Either Congress or 2nd was going to be it - I can see advantages and disadvantages to both - but this picture doesn't preclude ped uses on 2nd; and obviously they'd be required on Congress.
Keep in mind, though, it IS a hotel, and a lot of people will be coming in rental cars or cabs. They DO need a place to unload luggage, and the alley isn't going to suffice. Even in Manhattan, people take cabs/cars to hotels after all.