Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

AC Marriott hotel @ 5th and Main

Downtown hotel

  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#51 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,438 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 03 November 2017 - 03:42 PM

The full block at the NE corner of Throckmorton and 5th is a Sundance property. Planned to eventually be a hotel, maybe?

The half block at the SE corner with First Christian is owned by a private group that lists a suite in the Sinclair building as their address and I'm assuming that is outdated information.

#52 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,857 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 03 November 2017 - 03:52 PM

There is a small surface lot that shares the block with HSG and XTO/Petroleum Building. If the lot could be made vertical, it would provide some additional parking for ACH.



#53 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,438 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 03 November 2017 - 04:03 PM

The Petroleum Building and that surface lot are a single property owned by XTO.

#54 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,857 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 03 November 2017 - 04:05 PM

 

I have a new height for the building.  With the extra floor, it will be 177 feet tall.

 

Or the height of Sundance West.

 

  ACH is not going to push the skyline ceiling upward but that slate facade will really be a contrast and an attention getter.



#55 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,119 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 03 November 2017 - 04:11 PM

The Petroleum Building and that surface lot are a single property owned by XTO.

 

But on the market currently.


  • JBB likes this

#56 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,438 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 03 November 2017 - 04:33 PM

Right. I thought that went without saying.

#57 Austin55

Austin55

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,119 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tarrant

Posted 06 December 2017 - 07:32 PM

Incentives awarded.

http://amp.star-tele...impression=true

#58 JBB

JBB

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,438 posts
  • Location:Bedford

Posted 06 December 2017 - 10:40 PM

I'm starting to wonder if Mr. Campbell, representative for a major private stakeholder in downtown, has any business being on the TIF board or DDRB.  As usual, rename beat us to the punch on that one.



#59 JKC

JKC

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 06 December 2017 - 11:53 PM

The questions were intended to align the City policy with a unanimous desire to approve the project. The current City TIF policy says that TIF proceeds may not be used for an exclusively private purpose which this is. That was made very clear in the meeting as was full support for the project. The high cost of the double redundancy requirement in downtown is definitely a competitive disadvantage that needs to be addressed. The TIF policy should allow the board to simply say this is what is needed.. However, As it turns out, modifying the policy is not as simple as it sounds either. Edited.
  • JBB likes this

#60 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,857 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 08 December 2017 - 03:18 PM

The questions were intended to align the City policy with a unanimous desire to approve the project. The current City TIF policy says that TIF proceeds may not be used for an exclusively private purpose which this is.....

 

 I will thread lightly in the weeds surrounding TIF policy as it is something that is lawyerly, a bit complicated and something that I don't delve in.  But Campbell (Sundance Square) is acting suspiciously to me.  Isn't Sundance Square a private property and didn't the City close a portion of Main Street for them?  It may not be illegal, but it certainly looks improper and self serving. (Edited)

 

There too is the footnote that Frost Bank Tower received public incentives as a way to aid the construction of 640 Taylor Street.



#61 JKC

JKC

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 11 December 2017 - 01:30 PM

The opposite is actually the case.  The easiest and most self-serving route would be to just keep silent and not ask those questions. Take the hotel and the transformer reimbursements for future projects.



#62 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,857 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 11 December 2017 - 06:17 PM

(1) The opposite is actually the case.  (2) The easiest and most self-serving route would be to just keep silent and not ask those questions. (3) Take the hotel and the transformer reimbursements for future projects.

 

(1) Opposite of what?

 

(2) How would keeping silent be more self-serving then the act of raising questions that could be detrimental to a competitor's project?

 

(3) Not following you; in what way should reimbursements to the hotel or to Oncor for the transformer be better used and for what better future projects?



#63 JKC

JKC

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 485 posts
  • Location:Fort Worth

Posted 12 December 2017 - 03:03 PM

A hotel is not competition, it is very complimentary. In fact more are needed to support a hopeful growth in convention business and to offset frequent sellouts. 

 

The TIF position to reimburse for building transformers is also positive to future developments, arguably more positive for the larger developers who could more often take advantage of it.  The self serving route would have been to just let it go without discussion so as to be able to use it later without scrutiny.



#64 renamerusk

renamerusk

    Skyscraper Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,857 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Worth South

Posted 12 December 2017 - 10:26 PM

A hotel is not competition, it is very complimentary. In fact more are needed to support a hopeful growth in convention business and to offset frequent sellouts. ....The TIF position to reimburse for building transformers is also positive to future developments, arguably more positive for the larger developers who could more often take advantage of it.  The self serving route would have been to just let it go without discussion so as to be able to use it later without scrutiny.

 

I could not agree with you anymore. 

 

I do find that raising concerns  "philosophical discussion" has been a tactic that has cause some developers who are accustom to  Austin and Dallas style developer's environment and who are new entrants in the Fort Worth market to have fears about their investments being at risk.  What comes in mind are projects such as Hotel Renovo, City Place  "signage" and now this hotel; and of course there was the attempt to micro management of the proposed high rise apartment tower at Commerce @ 8th. 

 

If raising concerns is truly meant to improve the environment for more developers to enter the market then it may be worthwhile.  The thing is to know when it is appropriate and when it is not.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Downtown, hotel

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users