I mean’t hear, not here. But I coulda mean’t hear here, or read here.

Once again, the owners of the Murano Hotel are seeking to thwart the development of another hotel in downtown Tacoma.

A representative of downtown Tacoma’s largest hotel, the Hotel Murano, told the design committee Wednesday that the hotel still opposes the new development

Hopefully, with a new City Council and mayor, Tacoma will think bigger than simply giving one or two hotels a monopoly downtown on hotels leaving the downtown anemic.

Another hotel downtown will add needed competition and bring more people to the area.

The hotel site and the waterfront have set largely blighted and vacant for years. Private investment needs to be encouraged and this is the only developer who was will to proceed with the loss of Russell.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I say build the damn thing just to make the hotel murano richy riches unhappy.

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.

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.

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.