Hollander's Foss Hotel Plans - Updated
Hollander Investments’ plan to open a hotel on the Foss Waterway is heading back toward our City Council. As many of you will recall, the hotel was unable to secure a routine indemnity agreement with the City because of various Council concerns … completely unrelated to the indemnity agreement. According to The News Tribune, a revised design for the hotel was presented to a design review committee of the Foss Waterway Development Authority on Wednesday.
The new design includes greater variations in the building’s facade with more brick surfaces and less stucco than the previous design.
The upgraded plan moves retail spaces to the Dock Street side of the hotel and shelters the windows with awnings. It also includes an expanded pedestrian pathway linking Dock Street to the public walkway along the waterway near downtown.
The new hotel site plan includes extensive landscaping that surrounds the building. That landscape plan envisions an event space on the north side of the building, terraced walkways where the public can sit, and more private spaces for a sports court and an outdoor dining area.
The plans now go to the full FWDA before heading to the City Council for consideration. It’s a new Council. We’ll see what happens this time.
Link to The News Tribune
Previously on Exit133: SEARCH RESULTS
Filed under: Tacoma Business, Waterfront, Developments, Foss Waterway, Hotels, Foss Waterfront, Foss Hotel
22 comments
T Tacoma1 January 21, 2010
It’s still not beautiful, but the landscaping sounds like a great improvement.
Mr Boe’s opinion on this will be interesting to here.
T Tacoma1 January 21, 2010
I mean’t hear, not here. But I coulda mean’t hear here, or read here.
P precast January 21, 2010
Remember these guys? They are the same group that built that piece of crap Marriot in the middle of downtown. Even after much energy and time spent to force them to redesign the thing, the city capitulated and rolled over. So now we have the potential of being strapped with yet another of the developers beasts, but now on the waterfront. I thought dumping garbage on the Foss was illegal
J jamie from thriceallamerican January 21, 2010
I agree that the Murano shouldn’t have a horse in this race, but I’d also be rather disappointed to see an ugly suburban hotel build on our waterfront. If Hollander wants to build something ugly like this, let them do it over by the mall. If they’re willing do design something that won’t ruin our downtown, let’s talk.
F frizzlebee January 21, 2010
So… A boutique hotel is wanted. A boutique hotel cannot be financed. The alternative to the boutique hotel is uglier than the vacant lot. It’s an impasse. If you have an art gallery full of Monet, with an empty spot on the wall, you’re not going to put my 3rd grade drawing of a Tyranasaurus eating Daffy Duck just because there’s room. You wait for something better.
And, while you’re doing this, you repurpose the empty spot; perhaps with an advertisement, or a water cooler, or something useful. I’m not suggesting a giant billboard for our open spot (although we could use the revenue to raise money towards a boutique hotel). But how about a park? It would be nice to have a volleyball court where any spike wouldn’t float into the oblivion. Or better yet… pickleball anyone?
M Mofo from the Hood January 21, 2010
The project is still alive and that’s good.
Maybe some of the critics could cut some photo’s from a travel magazine that shows what kind of hotel design would be preferred—-Not trying to be funny, but from my experience working with people, sometimes the simple things are not put on the table because they are so simple.
T tom waits January 21, 2010
The rendering reminds me of every tired 1970s-1980s mid market hotel development I’ve seen…from the riverfront in Wenatchee (which actually is sort of visually similar) to the tired old Sheraton in Pittsburgh. You know, from the last time convention center construction was all the rage for urban revitalization.
In fact, come to think of it, a lot of what has happened in Tacoma since 2002 is eerily similar to what was happening in other cities in 1985.
D dolly varden January 21, 2010
It’s hard for me to tell how ugly (or not) the building would be from the drawing in the TNT, but it definitely doesn’t spark the imagination. I think I could support a less than completely tasteful hotel if Hollander could ink a deal to bring Wintergrass back from Bellevue.
D David Boe January 21, 2010
Just an attempt at a clarification here. If the City Council is reviewing this project, I am pretty sure it is to only look at the environmental permitting of the project. The design review and approval is being handled by the Foss Waterway Authority – whose Board is scheduled to review this project next Wednesday at 4pm – and this is a public meeting that accepts public comment. So if you have an opinion of the proposed design, then this meeting would be a good meeting to attend and voice those concerns.
I I'm for Change (for tacoma) January 22, 2010
Eww! That was my involuntary reaction to the artist rendering.
On a second look and knowing where this will be placed, taken along with the Esplanade and Thea’s Landing, the 3 buildings look like the progressive stages of finishing a building.
Esplanade – almost done.
Marriott – getting there, some color and touches applied.
Thea’s Landing – finished building.
Like its style or not, at least Thea’s Landing looks finished and has some color other than beige / gray-beige.
N NSHDscott January 22, 2010
It would be nice to see more than the one rendering, and maybe some comparison to the previous renderings. I don’t see a whole lot of improvement here. Instead of trying to build a nice hotel, don’t you get the feeling that Hollander is trying to figure out the minimum they can get away with?
S subterranean January 22, 2010
Once again the City is getting desperate for something, anything rather than sticking to the vision… Sometimes you have to say no in order to get to yes
T tom waits January 22, 2010
One other short thought that I have: knowing how widely panned the downtown Marriott has been, and how it serves as probably the best example of economic development gone wrong in Tacoma, does anyone else find it absolutely amazing that the city would give over waterfront space to the same developer?
This is not to disparage Hollander Investments…they made no claims that the downtown Marriott would be anything other than inexpensive to build.
J Jesse January 22, 2010
I say build the thing. I’d rather have Tacoma’s boutique hotel be the Winthrop.
D drizell January 22, 2010
Looks like a big improvement over the Marriott in front of the convention center. The Marriott is basically a couple blank stucco walls with windows. The rendering in the TNT article is much more interesting. The ugly suburban porte cochere is located on the side of the building, not directly on Dock Street. There is some variation in each exterior wall. Some brick. When working with an hotel chain with specific design standards, the architect is doing a lot to conform to the FWDA’s vision.
R RR Anderson January 22, 2010
I say build the damn thing just to make the hotel murano richy riches unhappy.
M Mike B January 23, 2010
Seems to me that if another hotel developer was out there they would have surfaced by now. This longing for some ‘perfect’ hotel seems irrational given the history of this waterfront. Finally, there is a developer that seems to have the necessary rescources to complete this project and is willing to work to create a pleasing design. The city needs to get the design they want then let the developer proceed.
T Thorax O'Tool January 23, 2010
Not enough glass in the design.
The height is good, though I personally want to see more than 8 stories (yes, I know zoning limits height). The massing is pretty decent too… it’s just the facade that isn’t very inspired.
T TacomaThinker January 24, 2010
Who chose Antoine Predock?
Who chose Arthur Ericson?
Who chose Charles Moore?
Please bring them into the conversation. Please don’t say we’re okay with ugly, we are not. We are Grit City and we love our grit but we are not Fife. (sorry Fife but we’re not)
T Thorax Z O'Tool January 24, 2010
The designs they’ve given us suxx0rz.
Yes, they tend to be getting incrementally better, but that doesn’t bear much meaning.
So then, why doesn’t the community put it’s money where it’s mouth is?
I propose that We, the Community, whip up a bunch of designs that we’d want to see and then present these ideas to both the Council and Hollander.
We tell them that these are along the lines of what we’d like to see, and that they are free to use these ideas to come up with a better design.
Time for a little less talk and a lot more action.
D drizell January 26, 2010
Antoine Predock and Arthur Erickson probably won’t be making return visits to Tacoma anytime soon. Erickson died last year and Predock recently won a pair of competitions for iconic buildings in Taiwan and Manitoba.
T TacomaThinker January 27, 2010
Charles Moore also died after completing the history museum…can you say grit-city curse?
We need to follow the example set by the people who chose the architects – not the dead architects.
@22 the problem with this awesome idea is that it’s not their goal to give Tacoma the beautiful building it wants, but to do as little as required and make as much as possible, especially given the economic climate. Besides the design process is a balancing act of many issues and it would be an insult to think we could begin to handle them realistically. What we can demand is an expression of all things Tacoma. It’s resources, climate, character and goals for a livable urban future. Enhance it, critique it, contrast it, be communal or be individual, but be creative and authentic in whatever you do. Plunking down some Nowhere-town brick and stucco corporate logo is an insult and a waste of our very limited and hopefully very unique urban waterfront.