621 Elysian Fields Ave.

Description: Appeal of ARC denial of new construction of an 81,258 SF five-story hotel building on a vacant lot fronting Elysian Fields Avenue, Royal and Chartres Street. 

Previous ARC Recommendations: 

12/03/25: The Commission voted to deny the requested appeal of the previous ARC recommendation for denial due to the following factors:

• The proposal does not meet the HDLC Design Guidelines for new construction, which require greater compatibility and contextual sensitivity as a building’s scale and footprint increases. The massing overwhelms the nearly block-wide site and does not reflect the area’s prevailing proportions, setbacks, or horizontal and vertical datums.

• The overall building scale and massing remain substantially incompatible with the surrounding 1- and 2-story historic context. The height, bulk, and footprint significantly exceed the mid-scale that defines this wider avenue corridor and the tout ensemble of the Faubourg Marigny Historic District.

• The façade composition lacks sufficient articulation and depth. The elevations do not break down the building’s scale, and architectural features such as segmented arches and recessed loggias appear applied rather than integrated, resulting in a façade treatment that remains visually flat and insufficiently responsive to the surrounding context.

• The design fails to establish a meaningful relationship to the pedestrian scale and street rhythm. It does not reflect the pattern, texture, cadence, or streetscape proportions typical of Elysian Fields Avenue or of Royal and Chartres Streets.

• The project would have a negative impact on the historic context and key viewsheds. The oversized and weakly articulated design recalls past incompatible developments, such as the Christopher Inn, and would further erode the architectural quality and continuity of the Faubourg Marigny.

• The proposal does not demonstrate the level of design excellence expected for this prominent location. While the HDLC Design Guidelines do not require historical replication, they do require architectural quality, coherence, and contextual awareness.

• The Commission is also concerned with the applicant’s limited responsiveness and lack of iterative refinement to previous ARC recommendations and their unwillingness to continue working with HDLC staff to bring the proposal closer to compliance with the Design Guidelines and the expectations of the surrounding community.

11/04/25: Applicant requests deferral of the appeal to the December Commission meeting due to an HDLC inaccuracy in the public notice. 

09/24/25: Applicant requests deferral of the appeal to the November Commission meeting. 

08/19/25: Applicant requests deferral of the appeal to the October Commission meeting. 

07/24/25: Applicant requests deferral of the appeal to the September Commission meeting. 

07/22/25: The ARC voted to recommend denial of the application. The ARC also agreed that:

• The effort and modifications made in response to some previous ARC recommendations was appreciated; however, the program and intensity of use appears to be too much for the site. For example, the physical model clearly demonstrates the proposed building massing overwhelms the site, is not appropriate relative to the adjacent one- and two-story historic structures and does not meet the HDLC Design Guidelines for new construction. 

  • • The ARC noted that a substantial reduction in the proposed building program and size may be necessary before the design can become more appropriate for the site.

    • To date, the applicant has not made a concerted effort to break down the appearance of the massing in terms of setbacks for upper floors and in the treatment of the façade.

• The floor-to-ceiling heights of the upper stories do not appear to be related proportionally or contextually to the ground floor or the surrounding building heights and datums. The ARC noted that it appeared the upper floors were shorter in height in order to accommodate an additional floor for additional interior guestrooms.

• The move to push the building massing back and away from fronting directly onto Chartres and Royal Streets is not successful as the massing is too large in scale and does not provide an appropriate pedestrian experience.

  • • The applicant should move the building’s massing closer to both streets and should engage the sidewalk in a more urbanistic manner. This may also help the applicant to better redistribute the building massing across the site so the appearance of the scale and massing can be reduced from the street.

• The ARC does not consider the submitted detailing precedent for the Mobile, Alabama, Creole Fire Station #1 to be applicable as the size, building type, and location do not correlate with the current proposal. If the design is to refer to typological precedents they should come directly from the surrounding historic district in which it would be located, or at least, specifically from the rich historical resources of New Orleans, and not Mobile, Alabama.

06/17/25: ARC meeting cancelled due to lack of quorum. 

03/25/25: The ARC voted to defer the application for additional review.  The HDLC also required a physical massing model be prepared for the next review so the ARC can better evaluate the proposed massing relative to the existing surrounding context. The ARC also agreed that:

• Elysian Fields Avenue:

  • The reduction in building height from 7-stories to 5-stories is a positive improvement, however, the proposed building program and density still overwhelm the site and the overall building massing still appears too large to be compatible with the surrounding historic context or to meet the HDLC Design Guidelines for new construction. 

  • While the ARC supports a contemporary approach to traditional architecture, the design, proportions, detailing, etc. of the building massing and detailing must be consistently deployed, must replicate historic proportions as closely as possible, and must be compatible with the existing building and FTC heights, roof forms, fenestration, scale, and proportion of the existing adjacent historic context. 

    • • The applicant should also continue to develop and provide typical wall section details for elements such as doors, windows, and stucco relief areas to ensure that these elements are sufficiently recess mounted and appropriately detailed, so the building has depth, texture, reveals, shadow line, etc. like the surrounding historic context. 

  • The proportion of stories appears too squatty and is not yet considered appropriate. For example, the proposed building has 3 floors levels within the area that adjacent historic buildings only have 2 floor levels. If this is necessary to accomplish necessary programmatic requirement, exterior architectural elements should work to disguise this condition whenever possible. The proposed floor-to-ceiling heights should be reconsidered and refined to coordinate better with the adjacent context (or) the design of the façade should be revised so these proportions appear more compatible with the adjacent buildings. 

    • • These FTC proportions also appear too large and acontextual with the existing historic building context as shown along Royal and Chartres Streets.  

      • The applicant should continue to study and explore alternative strategies and options for redistributing the building massing on the site. For example, the massing of the portion of building fronting Royal Street should be reduced and redistributed to the Chartres Street side, and particularly to the Elysian Fields side where the width and scale of the Avenue can support increased height and density.

  • The proposed arches do not yet appear to be convincing as a historically or architecturally appropriate organizing principle for the building elevations, and the applicant should continue to study and refine these elevations and details. It is not appropriate to strive to mimic tropes of historic New Orleans architecture without a comprehensive rationale or cohesive use of such an architectural language (e.g. the use of broad arched windows that do not relate to how such windows would have been used technically or historically.)

    • • The dimension of the area directly above the ground-floor arches appears too thin and should be increased in thickness (or) the arches should be reconsidered and/or removed.

  • The location of the primary building entrance is not clear and should be further emphasized. Urban hotel entrances are generally the most recognizable feature of the ground floor primary façade. This is particularly important in the context of this location. Having the vehicular entrance be more prominent, as currently shown, is more indicative of a suburban condition.

  • The applicant should consider detaching the ground-floor arch columns or shifting the storefront system further back so that a simple covered pedestrian colonnade can be provided, which could enhance the quality of the pedestrian experience at this area.

• Royal Street:

  • The proposed 5-story massing located directly next to a 1-story historic structure is not considered appropriate and does not meet the HDLC Design Guidelines. This portion of the building also has FTC heights that appear too squatty and arches that do not appear to relate to the adjacent surrounding historic context. Similar revisions to the Elysian Fields side should also be made at this elevation, including a redistribution of this portion of the building’s massing to other locations on the overall site. 

• Chartres Street:

  • The move to shift the building massing and program away from the street to accommodate the pool at this area does not appear to be as successful as the previous iterations. The applicant should relocate additional building massing to this area to better engage with the street, and so some of the overall massing at the Royal Street side can be reduced.

• General:

  • More complete context drawings should be included for the proposed Royal and Chartres Street block faces for the next review.

03/20/24: The ARC voted to defer the application until such time as the applicant has obtained all necessary requested waivers and conditional uses for the proposed new construction. The ARC also agreed that:

• Elysian Fields Avenue:

  • The “stepped” approach of setting back the building massing as the height increases (shown in the Alternative Option) is more successful than the previous iteration. However, as seen in the 3D perspectives provided, the overall building massing and form is still too large, appears out of scale with the site, and is thus incompatible with the surrounding historic context of primarily one and two-story structures.

  • The applicant should consider concentrating the massing along the Elysian Fields side where a larger scale and more commercial attitude may be more appropriate. 

    • • The 2’ and 3’ setbacks shown along the Elysian Fields side are insufficient to visually break down the building massing as seen from the street.

  • The applicant should continue to study and refine the proposed FTC heights, so building relates better to the existing adjacent building heights, datums, and proportions more closely. For example, the top of the 2nd floor is shown to align with the height of the corner building on Royal, but the amount of wall area above the openings is too thin to proportionally match the historic reference and should be reconsidered.  

• Royal Street:

  • The move to shift the building massing deeper into the site on this side is not successful. This massing should be brought forward to the property line so there is more of a presence and connection to the street. Additionally, this may also allow for a slight reduction in massing at other parts of the building.

• Chartres Street:

  • The ARC appreciated the proposed historic building form but noted that the details and its relationship to the surrounding context is not yet successful. For example, the overall building height and its FTC heights should be reconsidered so they more closely relate to the immediate adjacent historic buildings. 

• General:

  • The applicant should continue their efforts at outreach to relevant neighborhood stakeholders, including the Faubourg Marigny Improvement Association (FMIA).

06/20/23: The ARC voted to defer the application for additional review. The ARC agreed that:

• The bulk and massing of the proposed new construction may not be appropriate for the site and how it keys into Chartres and Royal Streets, which are lower-scale and more residential in character than the Elysian Fields side and the applicant should further refine the proposed massing and overall site arrangement.

• Most of the adjacent existing context is only one or two-stories tall and the applicant should consider alternative proposals which set the massing further back as the height increases to better integrate with the adjacent heights and scale.

• The proposed floor-to-ceiling heights and proportions should be reconsidered so they better relate to the existing surrounding historic context.

• There appears to be too much emphasis on car access in terms of the proposed elevations and first-floor layout. For example, the applicant should consider relocating the main lobby from the center of the building closer to Elysian Fields Avenue to provide more activity at the sidewalk and to better relate the building and its program to the surrounding context. The current planning is inappropriately suburban in nature for this important, dense historic, predominantly residential context. 

• The Royal and Chartres Street elevations do not appear to have a pedestrian connection or access and should be reconsidered. The ARC recommended the applicant study the unique character of each block face, including its roof forms, building heights, materials, and textures, to assist with redesigning these elevations.

• There should be more public exterior space and the applicant could consider creating two or three independent buildings with a courtyard or other exterior space provided between.

• The ARC recommended including several alternative massing studies of the proposal for the next review and requested that additional 3-D perspective views be included and taken closer to street-level and include views at the existing adjacent 1-story structures.

Context Photos:

City Planning Commission & City Council Conditional Use Approved Site Plan/Footprint:

Current Proposed Building Footprints for Comparison (Post-ARC Submission Drawings):

Current Drawings - Post-ARC Submission by Applicant:

Current Drawings - 07/22/2025:

Previous Drawings - 03/25/2025:

Previous Drawings - 03/20/2024:

Previous Drawings - 06/20/2023:

City Council Motion M-25-150 - 02/27/2025:

City Council Ordinance 30290 - 03/13/2025:

Sanborn Maps:

Street View:

Written Public Comment:

Received before the 12/03/2025 CMM Meeting:

Received before the 11/05/2025 CMM Meeting:

Received before the 07/22/2025 ARC Meeting:

Received before the 03/20/2024 ARC Meeting: