Home 2 Suites by Hilton proposed for Brooklyn

[fieldafm]

Basically, the building frotange doesn't wrap around enough of the surface parking lot.

No argument with anything you said, but again, what is different here vs. the Vestcor stuff in LaVilla? Those buildings don't wrap around the parking lots either.

Those buildings (which required deviations) wrap around slightly more of the parking lots than this hotel does.  It's an eye-rolling 'distinction'.  The DDRB staff reports didn't have the words 'recommend denial' imbedded when the Vestcor projects came up for review. That's really what grinds my gears in this case.

[Steve]

Andy Allen piss someone off?

[fieldafm]

Andy Allen piss someone off?

I doubt that's even possible.

Seems its just typical inconsistent COJ bureaucracy. See other eye-rolling COJ staff recommendations like https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/will-parking-derail-post-modern-brewing/ and https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/grassroots-owners-restaurant-faces-changes-hurdles/.

The inconceivable irony in this hotel application is that the DIA allowed, once again, someone to tear down buildings to build an illegal parking lot... and now 'recommends' denial of a much more sensible and urban-friendly use and site plan. DDRB would be foolish to deny, but having nonsensical workshops on this proposal, while some really alarmingly bad site designs get approved without blinking an eye, is mind-numbing.

The biggest irony, is that the current property owner (who is under contract to sell to the proposed developer) tore down two buildings on this site about 5 years ago.. and about a year and a half ago, was somehow permitted to build a surface parking lot for Florida Blue on the site.  Forget about overlay deviations... the specific act of tearing down buildings to build surface parking lot is ILLEGAL (no exceptions, no deviations, etc) in the current code. Furthermore, the current parking lot doesn't even conform to the current parking lot standards if it was a grandfathered use (it was not a grandfathered use.. it was just built less than two years ago... a decade after the parking lot standards went into effect).

[tufsu1]

Basically, the building frotange doesn't wrap around enough of the surface parking lot.

No argument with anything you said, but again, what is different here vs. the Vestcor stuff in LaVilla? Those buildings don't wrap around the parking lots either.

Those buildings (which required deviations) wrap around slightly more of the parking lots than this hotel does.  It's an eye-rolling 'distinction'.  The DDRB staff reports didn't have the words 'recommend denial' imbedded when the Vestcor projects came up for review. That's really what grinds my gears in this case.

The Vestcor projects have more screening than proposed here - but again, agree that this should be approved

[Steve]

Andy Allen piss someone off?

I doubt that's even possible.

Seems its just typical inconsistent COJ bureaucracy. See other eye-rolling COJ staff recommendations like https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/will-parking-derail-post-modern-brewing/ and https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/grassroots-owners-restaurant-faces-changes-hurdles/.

The inconceivable irony in this hotel application is that the DIA allowed, once again, someone to tear down buildings to build an illegal parking lot... and now 'recommends' denial of a much more sensible and urban-friendly use and site plan. DDRB would be foolish to deny, but having nonsensical workshops on this proposal, while some really alarmingly bad site designs get approved without blinking an eye, is mind-numbing.

The biggest irony, is that the current property owner (who is under contract to sell to the proposed developer) tore down two buildings on this site about 5 years ago.. and about a year and a half ago, was somehow permitted to build a surface parking lot for Florida Blue on the site.  Forget about overlay deviations... the specific act of tearing down buildings to build surface parking lot is ILLEGAL (no exceptions, no deviations, etc) in the current code. Furthermore, the current parking lot doesn't even conform to the current parking lot standards if it was a grandfathered use (it was not a grandfathered use.. it was just built less than two years ago... a decade after the parking lot standards went into effect).

Yea, I mean I said that in jest about Allen because I don't really get it. If the only difference is how Vestcor screened the parking, then DIA should have approved this with the condition that upon Final approval (remember, this is only conceptual) they enhance the screening.

While this thing won't win any architectural or design awards, for that location it's totally fine and a big improvement on what's there now. It's miles better than the previously approved Residence Inn.

Though I firmly believe that DIA's role should never get into business viability, I would also believe that this hotel would do quite well and getting a sit down restaurant in the location shouldn't be too hard, especially considering the captive hotel audience.

[Ken_FSU]

The inconceivable irony in this hotel application is that the DIA allowed, once again, someone to tear down buildings to build an illegal parking lot... and now 'recommends' denial of a much more sensible and urban-friendly use and site plan.

Was chuckling a bit about this during the DIA's Lot J meeting earlier this week when members were worried about "breaking from policy and setting bad precedents."

Meanwhile, 19 months and counting since the DIA sent a letter to Ramon Llorens/AK Pearl demanding that they cease using the old GreyHound parcel for illegal surface parking, it's still in daily use as paid surface parking for TIAA execs.

[Tacachale]

It's perfectly in line or better than most everything else approved in Brooklyn.  The use meets a very unmet need (long term hotel accommodations near two Fortune 500 companies and a vibrant commercial district). You have an experienced hotel operator and an an experienced local developer.  Approve the damn thing and get it built already!

THIS!

Preach!

[acme54321]

That area of Park St needs all the help it can get. 

[thelakelander]

It's the gap between what's been taking place in Brooklyn and Five Points. They need to do whatever it takes to get projects like this off the ground in that area.

[thelakelander]

Home2Suites project for Brooklyn up for DDRB review



A Home 2 Suites by Hilton hotel could be on its way to filling a pedestrian hostile gap between Brooklyn and Five Points. Here is a look at the project's presentation to the Downtown Development Review Board (DDRB) as the applicant seeks conceptual approval at the Thursday, December 10 board meeting.

Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/home2suites-project-for-brooklyn-up-for-ddrb-review/

[blizz01]

This will be a nice addition to the area.  I think those lilac colored trees in the renderings are a bit of a stretch (from reality) though.

[Steve]

I still can't understand why staff recommended denial here. Let's look at the recent developments along Park St in that vicinity:

Gate Gas Station - typical suburban gas station (approved)
Florida Blue Parking garage - supposedly it could accommodate retail...sort of unless retail at that corner could lease for $1,000 SqFt (approved)
Dialysis Clinic - surface parking lot adjacent (approved)
Residence Inn - surface parking on three sides of the building (approved)

This is far and away the best site plan of all of them.

[thelakelander]

I'm still somewhat confused at why the Gate and Residence Inn projects weren't recommended for denial, much less approved in their current state.

[JaxAvondale]

I’m surprised that they were so hung up on Chelsea St.

[Steve]

Same here. It did pass, with conditions to review the Chelsea St side as well as to try to upgrade the architectural materials at Final review.

It looks like legally, they effectively have to treat Chelsea St no different than any street downtown. That’s a flaw.