Busy Palo Alto intersection could see new hotel | December 16, 2011 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |

Palo Alto Weekly

News - December 16, 2011

Busy Palo Alto intersection could see new hotel

City board members generally like Hilton Garden Inn, but some residents critical

by Gennady Sheyner

The latest addition to Palo Alto's dynamic hotel scene could soon go up near one of the busiest intersections on the south part of the city.

This story contains 559 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Staff Writer Gennady Sheyner can be emailed at gsheyner@paweekly.com.

Comments

Posted by KP, a resident of South of Midtown
on Dec 16, 2011 at 10:42 am

Just what we need...another frickin hotel!?!


Posted by Frank, a resident of Ventura
on Dec 16, 2011 at 10:56 am

Hotels are fine with me - they pay more taxes than other businesses and have less negative impacts (traffic and noise) that other businesses.

The ironic thing here is the old Rickey's Hyatt should still be a hotel.


Posted by TriptB, a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 16, 2011 at 12:12 pm

I would encourage everyone on the board to visit the intersection of Arastradero/Charleston and El Camino on a weekday morning. This area is congested with cars to the point where a major intersection is bottlenecked in the morning rush hour. If we have to have new development, large scale high density is not the way to go.


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 16, 2011 at 12:18 pm

Don't build up to the street!!

I don't like the way the JCC and the Elks have done it as well as Arbor Real and it looks like we are having the same issue with the new development on Alma Plaza.

Let's keep the streets looking pleasant and open with parking near the street and the buildings set back.


Posted by maditalian, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Dec 16, 2011 at 11:05 pm

The Elks Club didn't want to situate where it currently sits. The City wanted the building there.


Posted by tbromine, a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 17, 2011 at 12:21 am

Set back! (Common sense, particularly on a main thoroughfare.) If this is not an ARB requirement, what else matters?


Posted by anon, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 17, 2011 at 1:41 am

Unfortunately the general plan requires limited setback from El Camino, with the stated intention of limiting parking lots in front of buildings. This is supposed to encourage "interaction" with pedestrians via inviting storefronts and vistas, but it doesn't seem to be working out that way.

Wait until you see the hotel that will be replacing the bowling alley - it, too, will be close to the street, towering over people walking by.


Posted by viper, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Dec 17, 2011 at 6:07 am

Higher density is just fine with me - better than dispersed, unattractive sprawl retread. The tax revenue from the hotel will be welcome. The street offset complaints are silly and area likely coming from the same place all "I fear change" complaints come from in Palo Alto - annoying baby boomers who resist EVERYTHING. Please go away. The world has had enough of the "selfish" generation.


Posted by musical, a resident of Palo Verde
on Dec 17, 2011 at 7:25 am

I have a 7:01am breakfast habit. How will this affect my favorite Hobee's?


Posted by Douglas Moran, a resident of Barron Park
on Dec 18, 2011 at 10:37 pm

Douglas Moran is a registered user.

The urban design theory is having stretches of _retail_ buildings close to the street -- rather than behind parking lots. Part of it is making it easier to walk from one to the other. But a big part is that large store windows and the activity on the other side creates a "welcoming" environment for pedestrians. What the theory warns strongly against is having primarily residential buildings in such stretches because they negate the desired effects. They create stretches where there is nothing of interest, thereby discouraging pedestrians. But more importantly, the sound walls (free standing or integral to the housing) create a forbidding feeling, and increase, rather than reduce, the perceptual mass of the buildings.

Unfortunately, we live in an age when reasonable guidelines get reduced to simplistic slogans and then treated as unquestionable principles.


Posted by Jake, a resident of another community
on Dec 19, 2011 at 1:53 pm

PA City Council first promotes and buys off on reductions in number of traffic lanes on streets all over the City, Arastradero and East Charleston included. And now they want tax money, so lets approve a hotel now but I'm sure it will be after spending hundreds of thousands or more on traffic studies and EIR reports.
Common sense would tell anyone that reducing traffic lanes and then increasing the number of car trips in an area will have a impact in a negative way.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields