Ankrom Moisan Architects have gone before the Design Commission with designs for a 20 story hotel at SW 3rd and Salmon. The 246′-7″ tall building is being developed by Third & Taylor Development LLC, a partnership between Onder Development and Arthur Mutal. The proposed hotel will have 245 guest rooms, with a rooftop bar and a swimming pool proposed at the 20th floor. The hotel lobby, restaurant and a bar/market are planned for the ground floor, with conference facilities planned for the second floor. One basement level would be used for housekeeping and other back of house functions. No new vehicular parking is proposed.
The project site includes the southern three eighths of the block bound by SW 2nd, Salmon, 3rd and Taylor. The site includes the 1906 Hotel Albion building, which has housed the Lotus Cardroom & Cafe at its ground floor since 1924. The building is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In the City’s 1984 Historic Resources Inventory the building was given a Rank III designation [PDF], indicating that it may be eligible for listing in the National Register as part of a Historic District. The rest of the site for the hotel is currently occupied by surface parking.
Located on the northern half of the same block is the 1892 Ancient Order Of United Workmen Temple, which is set to be replaced by a 10 story office building. That project is proceeding as a separate Design Review application, and is not part of the hotel application. The National Register listed Auditorium and Music Hall Building is under separate ownership and is not part of either development.
The building is arranged as 20 L-shaped story tower on the southeast quarter of the block. A lower five story volume would be located on the southwest corner of the block, at a scale more similar to the Auditorium building.
Exterior materials proposed for the 3rd & Salmon hotel include iron spot brick, window wall with dark gray and light gray metal spandrel panels, and structurally glazed curtain wall. Laser cut metal screens are proposed where the new building meets the existing Auditorium Building, and at select locations at the ground floor.
A Staff Report and Recommendation to the Design Commission [PDF], published before the May 5th hearing, did not yet recommend approval for the project. Issues identified by City Staff included: the overall scale, form, and materiality of the western volume adjacent to the Auditorium Building; the cohesion of the tower volume, including whether there should be additional consideration given to the flatness and repetitiveness of the south façade; and whether the ground floor program at the northeast corner should be reconsidered, with additional glazing introduced in order to fully meet the ground floor window standards along SW 2nd Ave.
The Design Commission was largely in agreement with Staff recommendations. Though not present at the hearing, Commission Chair Wark provided written comments that were supported by other members of the Commission present, and read into the record by Vice Chair Savinar:
While the building massing seems acceptable, the composition of every exterior elevation and selection of materials are overly complicated, and do not clearly relate to one another, which results in two or three different buildings instead of one cohesive design. Applicant needs to simplify the material palette on all of the elevations, while striving to create one good building. There is much work to be done on the lower floors of the west elevation, and how it relates to the Auditorium building. The elevation diagram illustrating how the building is responding to the historic building is not carried through in the proposed design. Of concern, the disjointed nature of the composition; multiple types of glazing and materials, particularly the backlit reveal [Savinar: which has been taken care of]; and the louvers at the mechanical penthouse. Louvers this obvious, large, and their proximity to the street and the pedestrian level are problematic.
A stronger and more transparent gesture to the park is needed as part of the west elevation redesign. Wrap glazing around the corner to the south elevation, and possibly extend it the length of the ballroom and even the entire floor. Where did the angled roof/wall on the south elevation originate? It comes across as awkward and forced. Consider eliminating the angle, and simplifying the lower building’s mass, including the angled canopy. In order to maximize ground floor active use, and transparency, eliminate the perforated panels covering ground floor glazing.
Ground floor at east elevation: the rooftop bar entrance leads to the bank of shared elevators, so why is a separate bar entrance necessary, particularly when this elevation doesn’t meet guidelines as identified by Staff? Consider extending the ground floor bar north into this area, and eliminating the rooftop bar entrance.
The project is currently scheduled to return for a second Design Review hearing on June 16th.