Residence Inn by Marriott's revised plans for Brooklyn

[thelakelander]

They will. There are no Marriott affiliated hotels in DT. This, Courtyard and AC (if it happens) should do well with Marriott's loyal customer base.

[jaxnyc79]

Say what you want about the design, this will make a ton of money at this location.

Yes, that's why the DDRB should have been able to stand its ground to get adherence to design standards it was created to uphold.  Fundamental Commercial viability is there.  We just need DDRB to be a steward for standards in order to achieve the kind of built environment we want in Brooklyn.

[Kerry]

The DDRB had failed at its primary mission.

[MusicMan]

The renaissance in Brooklyn started with Fidelty moving there over 10 years ago.

I wonder why it took so long for a hotelier to move into this area?

Traveling south from the Times Union PAC all the way to Orange park, I am counting the hotels of good quality.  ZERO.

[Steve]

I wonder why it took so long for a hotelier to move into this area?

Since the Hyatt opened in 2000/2001, there has not been another hotel on the north side of the river in the urban core. I think the issue is more than about Brooklyn.

[jaxnyc79]

I dislike the Old Adams Mark - now Hyatt.  I despise how it looks, how it interacts with the streets around it, that it's yet another box behemoth on the waterfront, that it lacks ground-floor retail, and that with its 900+ rooms it has arguably sucked a ton of life out of the potential for other hotel ventures throughout the core. 

The new Hyatt Regency proposed for the triangular lot along Water Street will have 128 rooms and is a much bigger architectural adornment for downtown than the Adams Mark.  Since the Adams Mark's opening in 2001, 6 or 7 smaller hotel products could have served as incredible infill opportunities all throughout the Northbank.

I'm pleased that Downtown finally has 1000+ hotel units in the pipeline for Downtown, and I'm even more pleased that they're all not in a single project.  Small is beautiful.

[Steve]

I dislike the Old Adams Mark - now Hyatt.  I despise how it looks, how it interacts with the streets around it, that it's yet another box behemoth on the waterfront, that it lacks ground-floor retail, and that with its 900+ rooms it has arguably sucked a ton of life out of the potential for other hotel ventures throughout the core. 

The new Hyatt Regency proposed for the triangular lot along Water Street will have 128 rooms and is a much bigger architectural adornment for downtown than the Adams Mark.  Since the Adams Mark's opening in 2001, 6 or 7 smaller hotel products could have served as incredible infill opportunities all throughout the Northbank.

I'm pleased that Downtown finally has 1000+ hotel units in the pipeline for Downtown, and I'm even more pleased that they're all not in a single project.  Small is beautiful.

The new Hyatt is a Hyatt Place, but your point is well taken.

The Adam's Mark and Berkman are why we have what is now the DDRB. While they could be better at their role IMO, they didn't exist before those awful buildings happened.

For context, all of Adam's Mark's properties (Well, most) were terrible buildings - suburban boxes in downtowns or waterfronts. The City lured them to town to win a super bowl. Jacksonville as a market really shouldn't have a single 1,000 room hotel. You only see those in Tier 1 cities (or at least, tier 1 convention cities e.g Orlando and Vegas).

In fairness to them, the Garage (old Daniel building) wasn't their fault. That awful thing was built in the 1980s. Adam's Mark developers received it and put lipstick on the pig to match the hotel.

But....it's here now.

[ProjectMaximus]

JNYC, totally agree. I guess the silver lining is the Hyatt has served as a quasi-convention center for many smaller conferences, which might not have been possible otherwise. But really it would have benefited Jax to have developed many smaller hotels and eventually build up to the mega hotel, rather than the other way around. And of course as everyone would surely agree, ATROCIOUS building!

[Wacca Pilatka]

Bringing in the Adam's Mark essentially torpedoed the Bucky Clarkson plan to build a 22-story Marriott next to the Prime Osborn.  One wonders how differently development in LaVilla in the 2000s might have turned out had the city incentivized that instead of the Adam's Mark.  Not that it would have made placement of the convention center there much more logical.

[thelakelander]

I believe at one point the city considered putting $50 million in the BJP for the Prime Osborn. I imagine if that happened and Clarkson's hotel were built, we would not be having this convention center discussion right now. However, we'd also be screwed in efforts to return passenger rail.

[Steve]

Bringing in the Adam's Mark essentially torpedoed the Bucky Clarkson plan to build a 22-story Marriott next to the Prime Osborn.  One wonders how differently development in LaVilla in the 2000s might have turned out had the city incentivized that instead of the Adam's Mark.  Not that it would have made placement of the convention center there much more logical.

Ohhh....yea. forgot about that one. I do wonder if an Expanded Prime Osborne with the Marriott would have been better. The Marriott would have been right-sized for the market, and Marriott certainly runs a better hotel than Adam's Mark ever dreamed of. In terms of synergy with the core, that wouldn't have happened though.

[Tacachale]

Bringing in the Adam's Mark essentially torpedoed the Bucky Clarkson plan to build a 22-story Marriott next to the Prime Osborn.  One wonders how differently development in LaVilla in the 2000s might have turned out had the city incentivized that instead of the Adam's Mark.  Not that it would have made placement of the convention center there much more logical.

Ohhh....yea. forgot about that one. I do wonder if an Expanded Prime Osborne with the Marriott would have been better. The Marriott would have been right-sized for the market, and Marriott certainly runs a better hotel than Adam's Mark ever dreamed of. In terms of synergy with the core, that wouldn't have happened though.

It wouldn't have. In addition to being logistically more poorly placed than the Adams Mark, the specific deal was a bad one for the city, which is why it was passed on. Too much in incentives for any impact it might have had.

The Adam's Mark also didn't necessarily torpedo Bucky Clarkson's plan. In fact, the city would probably have given him some incentives (just not what he was asking for). However, he made himself such a thorn in everyone's side that no one in the city wanted to deal with him again.

[Kerry]

Let's not kid ourselves - the DDRB would approve every mistake of the past if presented with that same option today.

[Charles Hunter]

Let's not kid ourselves - the DDRB would approve every mistake of the past if presented with that same option today.

Yeah, it seems all the developer has to say is, "Well, I can take my development somewhere else ..."  and the DDRB (and everyone else) rolls over and gives them whatever they want.

[Steve]

Let's not kid ourselves - the DDRB would approve every mistake of the past if presented with that same option today.

Meh....not sure about that. They have critiqued and required other changes. Should they have more of a spine? Absolutely. But it's not an absolute.