The San Pedro Creek Project: Getting it Right
 

http://www.therivardreport.com/the-s...ting-it-right/
7 August, 2015 at 09:00
Authors: Robert Rivard and Iris Dimmick

It's an article about the direction of the project. The idea that it might have too much of an architectural influence as opposed to a more natural setting. I kind of of agree that it should be scaled back and have a more natural feel (in certain areas for sure with a kitsch feel [tree of life]) and link to neighborhoods. I'm not too concerned about developers concerns, they should work around a park designed for residents to enjoy.

Thoughts?

I like the designs. It gives it a different feel than the riverwalk. We need something different than the riverwalk downtown to remind people we are in the 21 century and not living in the past. We can't just scale back everything because it "doesn't fit".

The only thing I don't really like is the amphitheater. The little spire yes, but it looks like a marshmallow cut in half.

HAHA! You made me go back and take a look at the rendering of the amphitheater. It is an odd shape. Overall, looking over the images that are on page 2 of this thread, I love this project! Minus the marshmallow with a pointy stick! Perhaps a different design or scratch it and do something else like educational or interactive.

This is a great project. I'm very happy to see San Antonio improving its inner city. Every large city seems to go through its initial prime, followed by decline then rejuvenation. SA is finally in its rejuvenation phase.

Living in the past? It is beautiful to "live in the past"! We must not forget history! I was in Quebec City in Canada last month, and the city has done a wonderful job of distinguishing between old town and new town. It is an absolutely beautiful city with a booming economy! So being that San Antonio is one of the oldest cities in the country, I think the leaders here have done extremely well for modernizing the city. A little bit of modern blended in with the old and historical! A totally modern city IMO is boring! :cheers:

I agree. Modern is great when it fits or is in a brand new location. But when you have great old buildings and a lot of them in a centralized area, that takes precedent and the new buildings need to fit in with the old if the architects and companies paying for them want to respect the area that they want to be a part of.

I don't think Jaga is necessarily wrong. We have the missions and the river walk to remind us of the past, but this is something new and modern. It gives a different feel and provides variety.

So as I'm totally for making an historical and educational portion of the San Pedro Creek, I'm even more for a good portion of it being 21st century design and technology. Just as the river walk reminds us of the early 20th century, this is the 21st century linear park for the city core.

Living in the past? It is beautiful to "live in the past"!
 

So, I guess you're giving up the smart phone for rotary dial?

Yes, there is something to paying homage to the past, but this city too frequently uses the past as a bludgeon to growth.

Back in the seventies or so, there was talk of expanding SAT so as to include major hubs, and more direct flights. Didn't happen. Now we are playing catch up.

Same thing is happening, and continues to happen, with our urban core.

This bondage to history is the main reason the San Antonio "Skycraperpage" has very few skyscrapers to discuss.

No, it's not. :rolleyes:

Why does this fallacious myth/claim still have life?

Is it ignorance? Laziness?

Please provide the answer/truth.

Sadly, the answer/truth is what he thinks it isn't: San Antonio's rigid design standards drive up develop costs.

There is no one thing that has kept "skyscrapers" from being built downtown. It's a multitude of factors.

This is even worse than what restless said. I can guarantee you the HDRC (whom I am assuming you are blaming) has no effect on the height of downtown development.

The only other thing I can assume you mean is the heigh restrictions along the riverwalk and the Alamo restrictions.

This is even worse than what restless said.
 

Nothing wrong with what I said. You yourself admit there are a multitude of reasons, and like it or not, HDRC is a big part of them.

I think there's a valid point to overbuilding this and I had the same concern the first time I saw the proposals. The more natural setting for example by the Mission Concepcion Sports Complex is really great or some of the wooded areas on the Leon Creek Greenway. Having said that, I realize this runs right through the urban core, but a think a little bit of green space with trees will go a long way. All in all, I really like the proposals & am looking forward to this being built.

... ... ... clearly you don't believe that a height restriction is a design standard.

... ... ...

And yes the HDRC visual standards are also a big part of the problem, given that they do increase development costs not only because they lengthen the process and inject needless uncertainty, but also because the materials necessary to comply are substantially more expensive.

Furthermore, nothing in my original comment connected the design standards to height per se (and neither did Restless's comment, actually), but rather to the general lack of development height notwithstanding.

That doesn't mean I'm opposed to the standards, for what it's worth.

70% Design Plans
 

There were a couple of follow-up articles in the Rivard Report (one report and one commentary) that are a good read:
http://www.therivardreport.com/commi...tiques-update/
and
http://www.therivardreport.com/comme...creek-meeting/

Also, here is a link to the 70% Design Plan Views:
http://spcproject.org/design/70-design/

The HDRC is far from one of the multitude of reasons. It's not a reason, so get that out of your head because it's wrong.

None of that keeps a developer from building a high rise or skyscraper. None of it.

Unless you can source examples or quote developers who decided against a high rise or skyscraper because of those reasons, please post them.

Otherwise, you'll have to take my word for it. My word coming from the fact that I have friends and acquaintances who are involved in commercial real estate development in downtown and the urban core. I also have a pretty good understanding of the downtown market and have so for the past 8 or so years.

It's not the HDRC. Not even a little bit.

I agree with you, Sirkingwilliam 100%!!!
And IMO it is total ignorance.

OK, so we have Google Fiber, Lyft is back, development everywhere in the city, World Heritage recognition, let's see what else is happening or is going to happen that is positive for the city??

Like I said, IMO it is TOTAL ignorance.
:cheers:

But life goes on!:tup: