July 21, 2006
Marriott is the New Las Manitas
Plans for the block between Second and Third Street on the east side of Congress have been released. In the place of Las Manitas, Escuelita del Alma Learning Center, and Tesoros Trading Company, we will have a Marriott hotel, a Marriott Renaissance Hotel and a Springhill Suites by Marriott Hotel. These will complement the Courtyard by Marriott and the Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott being built on Fourth Street. All five Marriotts will be built and operated by White Lodging Services Corp.
On the positive side, the plans include street level retail for Second Street, some of which may be used to accommodate the displaced tenants. Plus, there are trees lining Second Street. On the negative side, the plans do not appear to leave the existing structures in place. Even worse, the Congress and Brazos sides do not appear to get street front retail or even trees. This treatment of Congress Avenue, the heart of downtown Austin, is perhaps the most depressing aspect of the proposal.
The architect, Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum, generally has a good reputation and has done some beautiful projects, but this design is less than inspiring. It doesn't appear to be much more three EIFS boxes, with corporate logos as their most noticeable feature. On another block, this wouldn't be an issue, but given the centrality of this block, the lack of prime space for development, and the iconic nature of the businesses being displaced, this seems like a real waste. This block should host a dramatic landmark, not a generic chain hotel.
* Image from Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum*
|
that probably won't be much of a construction nightmare
Someday, in the not too far off future; people from City Council are going to look and say "what have we done?"
Eventually there will be hotels and condos in place of everything that made people want to come here in the first place.
Is Las Manitas closing?
Someday in the not too far off future; the people from city council will look and say "What have we done?"
Before too long there will be hotels and condos in place of everything that made people want to come here in the first place.
We won't have any live music venues or local restaraunts, but damn it; at least we'll have enough hotel rooms for all the people that come in town for SXSW.
What's up with the posting errors today?
Anyway, all we know is that Las Manitas is in a building that will be torn down. I'm sure they will be offered space in the new retail spots, but the rent will probably be twice as much. Most likely they would close like a lot of other local businesses due to the Dallasification of our city.
Here's a site setup for promoting the preservation of Las Manitas and Escuelita Del Alma. It's too early to tell what will happen, but Las Manitas has the option of moving to where La Pena is now since they own that building and it has to be perserved because of it's historic designation.
Escuelita is on their own unless they can persuade the developers to work them into the new plan.
Full disclosure: Both of my kids have attended Escuelita since its inception and I'm hosting and maintaining the site I linked. The content is generated by representatives from both Escuelita and Las Manitas.
I hope those pterodactyls guarding the hotels don't like migas. The future is to be feared. Hey, will they have HBO, AC, and WiFi? Can't wait. Everybody into the hotchubb.
Crap, the link didn't make it through?
http://www.savelasmanitas.org
I think the best way to save these businesses would be to get the city to give the buildings individual landmark designation. Let the developmer build around, behind and above them, but keep the existing structures in place. That would also clear up most of the problems I have with the design. It saves the street front retail on Congress and generic boxes are a lot more interesting when they are wrapped around funky old brick warehouses.
I didn't know enough about the process to include it in the post - who makes the designation? What is the process? My understanding is that it is based on a combination of the architectural and historical importance of the building. These may not be the most interesting buildings architecturally, but certainly they have played a major role in the history of the city.
anon, you're a retard. We now have an equal number (or more) live music venues, and definitely more local restaurants downtown than we did when I moved here in 1996.
Mandating that all new development downtown must have first-level pedestrian uses (usually retail) eventually means that local retail / restaurants will fill the gaps (since the overall supply of first-floor space shoots up dramatically). I've been surprised at how long landlords will let spaces sit unrented rather than drop the rates, but that can't continue forever.
Thank you M1EK, for saying something rational. We don't have all the same local restaurants and live music venues as we did in 1996 (the year I moved to Austin as well), but obviously we have many, many new ones. Change is part of life. That said, I hate the hotel design -- it manages not only to be ugly but extremely boring as well.
M1EK, I'm hardly the one who should be pointing fingers concerning proper treatment of opinion, but "you're a retard" might not be the best way to introduce your counterpoint.
In fact, I kinda didn't read anything else you have to say after that, which is a shame, because you're usually quite eloquent.
the loss of Las Manitas is a tragedy. And this situtation to me is no different than a Tinsel Town being stamped on top of the Paramount. There is one less reason to stay in Austin. upon completion, we should all brace ourselves for increased honky tourist presence downtown-- driving the wrong direction on one-way streets, etc.
The kind of character Las Manitas has could not be bought, or even re-created, with all the blood money Marriott/Sodexho has...
This will bring many jobs but as we've seen with the South Austin hospital takeover by Sodexho many of the jobs that realy take 2 or 3 people to do are being forced on 1 person for less pay.
Mmm... retarded blood money. Why is there no lament for the loss of Hard Rock Cafe Austin? Rock = music, Austin = live music capital of your world, you do the maff. Talk about losing character. It's just sad. Maybe iffin we're lucky we'll get a Planet Hollywood. At least the waterfront TGIFriday's is still kickin' and we'll always have Chili's, all 509 of them in the Austin Metro Plex.
M1EK,
I wouldn't go as far as to call me a retard. You have a point - there will be so much development that the owners may, I stress may, have to lower rates, but I'll be they will still be higher than what these little places were paying prior. Also, my point is not specifically that the business itself stay open, but the character of what it is and where it is becomes a part of the picture. While I'll still go to Las Manitas if it does stay open, I'm afraid it won't be the same going into a space that looks like a Subway snadwich shop. Look at maria's - it's great that they are staying open and pretty much in the same location, but should I really have to enjoy parking in the lot of a 24 hour Walgreens to go to one of my favorite places that I liked because of the dirt floors and old structure? This is the problem I have with development. Eventually we will have a bunch of square boxes downtown and every shop will look exactly the same. Look at 2nd Street.
come on downtown austin, you almost look like me. mayor wynn is selling your town o-u-t. it is turning into convention land and downtown is one big shopping mall-parade route by the time it is all done. aggies!
hey truecraig:
Try answering the same exact bullshit hippie ignorant-of-economics elitist nonsense about four thousand times a week and see if your fuse doesn't get considerably shorter.
anon:
Congratulations. You've disproved economics! Your Nobel Prize is on the way.
I actually think Second street is a model of what we should be aiming for with new development- narrow, tree lined streets with maximum street front retail. My primary concern with this proposal is that it doesn't seem to have those things on two of its three sides.
Also, I don't see a good reason not to preserve the existing structures on this particular street - there is plenty of room on the rest of the block for the developer to build as much as they want. I wouldn't mind them taking out the one building facing Brazos, which appears to be vacant anyway, but why take out Marnitas, Escuelita and Tesoro's? Build above them, build higher, whatever, but leave those structures in place out of respect for their place in Austin's history and in an effort to maintain what makes Austin great.
As M1EK has brought the forefront so eloquently, money is everything and the only thing that matters. Thank you for enlightening us all. Without money, how in the world would anyone ever be happy. Lesson to be learned everyone; new and expensive is good; older and community based is bad.
anon,
Calling that last comment of yours retarded is an insult to retards everywhere.
The point is that there are other, yet-to-come, local businesses which will move in to the new space generated by this (and other) redevelopment - since the supply of ground-floor retail space has been skyrocketing over the years. 2nd street is full of them, for christ's sake.
You seem to accept implicitly the contention that Las Manitas is more deserving of the space somehow than those other local businesses are. I say bullshit - simple seniority is a really poor argument.
And I agree with Shilli - if the development doesn't lead to a net increase in pedestrian-oriented business on the block, all bets are off - at that point I'd say it's a negative. But I have yet to be convinced that's the case here.
Actually M1EK, I do answer similar questions on a regular basis. And I usually answer them in a manner similar to your response: laced with frustration and smarter-than-thou vitriol. And now I have a better understanding as to why I feel like I’m repeating myself all the time. It’s because I am, and that’s because I get tuned out before I even begin.
Thanks M1EK. I continue to learn something new every day.
Have I got served? Have you? I'm so confused.
I really like the Second street model- narrow, tree lined streets with maximum street front retail.
But if we have to build huge buildings, can't they at least be green/eco friendly and interesting architectually?
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/07/green_wonders_o.php
Damn good to have you here M1EK. Regardless of how it may come off, I really do appreciate your take on things.
Green buildings are definitely the way to go. I'm currently on a Green Roof trip. Love the Green Roof.
http://inhabitat.com/blog/2005/11/13/green-roofs/
I am always amazed at the general level of negativity in the Austinist 'articles'. It seems that any news of a new development and/or economic progress is considered "bad for Austin". This is a very interesting way of thinking. Should Austin remain exactly as it was in 1980? 1990?
The other thing that I find funny about these negative posts is that the majority of the folks who write for Austinist aren't native Austinites or even Texans!! Why did you move here if its soooo horrible? Maybe you should pick the next 'latest thing' city and live there until it too becomes overrun with economic development and insane capitalists. I'm thinking Corpus Christi, El Paso, or possibly Davenport, Iowa.
Yeah huge buildings! Density is good! It means we're growing into a real city and it makes us more sustainable in these days of $70/barrel oil.
Boo this crap. It looks like something on the access road in Richardson. WTF? Don't we have design standards in downtown? How about developers with a sense of civic pride? How come nearly every major building in Chicago is interesting, while nearly all the ones in Texas are crap?
And I'm sorry, M1EK, Las Manitas IS special. It's part of what makes Austin a tourist/convention attraction to begin with. It's not just "seniority" that makes it special. Fortunately, the sisters own the La Pena building, which isn't going anywhere despite it's absence from this rendering. I expect that's where Las Manitas will go, but they'll try to extract the remodeling costs from the hotel people. The day care center will find another home in downtown, it's got too many connected parents, the city and/or the developers will take care of it.
Walton, the 'article' (we call them 'posts', as we are more of a 'blog' rather than a 'journalistic publication complete with credentials and paychecks') is neither positive nor negative (more like: both). I believe you're referring to the comments.
Those are all over the place, as usual.
One of my main purposes in writing for this blog is to advocate for what I believe to be the betterment of Austin, specifically in the field of urban development. That consists mainly of street front retail, tree lined streets, attractive buildings, green buildings, preservation of Austin's positive attributes, and density/prevention of sprawl. To the extent that new developments move those principles forward, I try to comment positively on them, to the extent that they don't, I comment negatively. I am certainly not opposed to development or growth as a general matter - I'm writing about it because I like it, I just want to do what I can to move it in what I believe to be a positive direction.
gman, I didn't say Las Manitas wasn't 'special'. I've only eaten there once, and didn't like it, but I understand others disagree.
What I have a problem with is the automatic assumption that replacing Las Manitas with, say, three new local restaurants(*) is automatically going to result in the end of Austin. That thinking basically implies that seniority is more important than anything else. What if one of those new local restaurants which now has the opportunity to open is ten times as good?
(* - if, say, a big block downtown is covered with street-level retail where little exists today, providing more spaces for more local restaurants to come along).
I don't think M1EK understands where a lot of the long time downtown / South Austin residents are coming from. Its not that Las Manitas exist or that other new places shouldn't; its that Las Manitas and other places like it should remain as they are, not as some space in a white, sterilized for society building. Remember my previous post; the dirt floor at Maria's is one of my favorite attributes that sets it apart from other retaraunts.
Do you think the Broken Spoke would be the same if they lined it up next door to McCormick and Schmick's with valet parking and big industrial glass doors in a grey concrete building? What more says line dancing and country like a 52 story building right? Starting to see where some of us are coming from now? Why does growth and economic stability have to come in the form of concrete amd steel only? I respect your opinion, but please understand where some of us are coming from. We don't want to live in a Dallas or Houston.
Las Manitas has my favorite enchiladas rojas in town. It also has a unique cultural and political history. It's part of what makes Austin Austin. If you only went once, maybe you missed it. Anyway, if it wasn't, it wouldn't be on the cover of the Chronicle and the Statesman. I could go into the standard "this town was better before you moved here" Old Austin guy routine, but I won't.
But, Las Manitas not going anywhere, I'm sure. The Perez sisters are too strong and they've got the trump card with the La Pena building. I'm sure they'll make the transition and end up with a larger, more profitable space that they can leverage for their larger social and artistic goals.
I disagree that these uniquely Austin places can't make the transition to the new big city Austin paradigm. Jo's on 2nd Street is a good example. It's still Jo's only better. The folks at AMLI should be giving them free rent, they make that block.
So, cheer up, old Austinites! Embrace the new big city Austin! Or move to Terlingua, I don't care. But those of us who plan to stick it out can demand that our beloved local institutions make the transition with us. The Maria's Taco Express transition is a good model. Although, that Walgreen's does look like crap . . .
Forgive me for not using the proper lingo. I did enclose article in quotes. However, I was referring to the general level of negativity in the Austinist posts, not the comments. I have read quite a few posts that do nothing but provide negative information about some aspect of Austin.
-- Not enough wrist bands for SXSW
-- Band schedules at ACL are too challenging
-- Some developer is building some new thing downtown that will 'ruin' Austin as we know it today.
-- I couldn't get in to some 'elite' party so I lied about who I was and got in anyway
-- etc..etc..etc..
I ask again, where did all of the non-natives come from and why did you come here? Is it possible that all of these new developments, including the new Marriott, are a result of the influx of people (money) to the Austin area? Is it even remotely possible that what motiviated you to come to Austin in the first place are the very things that are being complained about here? Last time I looked, SXSW, ACL, and Lance Armstrong were all sponsored by large corporations that push ALOT of money into the Austin community. Bite the hand that feeds eh?
Also, why aren't there any complaints about EXISTING buildings that are 'ugly' and not 'green'? I would argue that most of the buildings along 6th street are no where near 'green' and most of them are such horrible fire hazards that we should all be scared to spend much time in them anyway.
My point is that people should not be so quick to assume anything about any potential development in the Austin area. An artist's rendering of a building is certain to change before, during and after it has been built. New develoment is long overdue for the Austin area and we as a community should welcome it, and the benefits that come with it. If you don't agree, go visit some other po-dunk Texas town and then tell me how a lack of development is better.
One question about the Chicago comment - If Austin were to allow the widespread development of buildings to the point that it became as large as Chicago, but each building looked completely different, would that be OK?
"We don't want to live in a Dallas or Houston."
As soon as I hear this, I immediately know which type of person I'm talking to: the one who thinks that Dallas and Houston are urban, rather than suburban. (Dallas, at least, has pockets of pseudo-urban trying to grow up now, but the point still stands).
Dear hippie friends: The thing that will make Austin most like Dallas or Houston is if you and your pals SUCCEED in stopping any and all infill and urban development in the core. That will guarantee that Austin will sprawl as much as Dallas and Houston have, and that Austin's downtown will be as useless as both are. Dig?
One thing to keep in mind: the plans for the ugly-ass Mariott have not been approved by ANYONE yet except the developers. I'd be shocked if the proposal gets through council in its current soul-sucking form. I'm about as pro-density as anyone in the known universe but it's true that if you flatten all the low-rent joints at once, at some point a city becomes really, really lame: construction costs dictate that new spaces have higher rents than old spaces, ergo a more deep-pocketed, corporate type of tenant. Yawn.
Some things are worth saving.
It is sad that they are tearing down cultural history to make way for such an ugly replacement. I agree Austin needs more hotels, but I think there are other ways to do this. In New Orleans, the people would not let them tear down the old buildings where Harrah's wanted to build their hotel. Harrah's completely restored the historic buildings and built the hotel around them. why can't Austin do this? We need to can the city council.
google harrah's hotel new orleans and it's the first entry.
"
Forgive me for not using the proper lingo. I did enclose article in quotes. However, I was referring to the general level of negativity in the Austinist posts, not the comments. I have read quite a few posts that do nothing but provide negative information about some aspect of Austin.
-- Not enough wrist bands for SXSW
-- Band schedules at ACL are too challenging
-- Some developer is building some new thing downtown that will 'ruin' Austin as we know it today.
-- I couldn't get in to some 'elite' party so I lied about who I was and got in anyway
-- etc..etc..etc..
I ask again, where did all of the non-natives come from and why did you come here? Is it possible that all of these new developments, including the new Marriott, are a result of the influx of people (money) to the Austin area? Is it even remotely possible that what motiviated you to come to Austin in the first place are the very things that are being complained about here? Last time I looked, SXSW, ACL, and Lance Armstrong were all sponsored by large corporations that push ALOT of money into the Austin community. Bite the hand that feeds eh?
Also, why aren't there any complaints about EXISTING buildings that are 'ugly' and not 'green'? I would argue that most of the buildings along 6th street are no where near 'green' and most of them are such horrible fire hazards that we should all be scared to spend much time in them anyway.
My point is that people should not be so quick to assume anything about any potential development in the Austin area. An artist's rendering of a building is certain to change before, during and after it has been built. New develoment is long overdue for the Austin area and we as a community should welcome it, and the benefits that come with it. If you don't agree, go visit some other po-dunk Texas town and then tell me how a lack of development is better.
One question about the Chicago comment - If Austin were to allow the widespread development of buildings to the point that it became as large as Chicago, but each building looked completely different, would that be OK?"
Clearly the point is that Austin is growing and how best to grow. All cities struggle with this. Texas has a history of bulldozing it's past and it's so bad, it's a wonder the Alamo hasn't been bulldozed for a inner city Ikea. Austin is a very progressive city but part of being progressive is learning from the past. Austin can't stay the same forever but it can find ways to respect it's history/culture than it's been doing. I think that is the point of the previous posts.
In my mind, urban sprawl and bulldozing is not the answer. Development must be clustered with a mindset towards public transportation and green space. New York is a good example of respecting the past, revitalizing spaces, keeping green areas, and pioneering public transportation. Yes, Manhattan is land locked, but L.A. is now being forced to do the same thing. Sprawl is not the answer and historic buildings, cultural economy, and new development must all respect one another to truly have a smart progressive development.