SAN ANTONIO | Hard Rock Hotel | 18 FLOORS | Proposed
 

Dallas developer plans 14-story Hard Rock Hotel atop Joske’s building

A Dallas developer has drawn up plans for 14-story Hard Rock Hotel that would rise above the nearby Alamo, the San Antonio Express-News reported Monday.
A follow-up Express-News story on Wednesday reports that the plans come at a time when the city and state are attempting to transform Alamo Plaza — over the objections of many Alamo enthusiasts.
The Express-News reported that the Hard Rock Hotel would be built atop the four-story Joske’s building, creating a structure 18 stories tall. Five years ago, that was the site for a similar proposal for a 23-story hotel, which was rejected “amid concerns that it would damage the ambiance around the Alamo,” the Express-News said.
The Express-News reported immediate opposition from the San Antonio Conservation Society, but noted that a 300-room hotel is quite attractive to city officials committed to tourism and modernization.


By Richard Webner and Joshua Fechter |
July 23, 2018 | Updated: July 24, 2018 10:59am

https://www.expressnews.com/real-est...photo-15909570

There was an article about this in the Houston Chronicle also:
https://www.chron.com/real-estate/ar..._medium=social

You'll find that the Chronicle and Express News share many articles... but it IS interesting that they felt there would be interest in Houston. Perhaps the Alamo redesign has caused an increase in San Antonio news.

I seriously thought that the whole "putting a high rise hotel on top of the Joske building" was put to rest years ago. I'm all for new high rise buildings in DT, but I really don't see using the Joske building as an addition/platform for a tall and modern building.

But that is what it was built for, with the intention of a future hotel in the middle of the mall. So I don't know why it has taken so long to happen, nor why people get shocked as to the height of it.

I'm not so sure about that "fact."

While I can't find an article to specifically back it up, I do believe that Fryguy is correct.

When they gutted the building in 2013 (removing 100 yr old beams), only the façade remained. A completely new foundation, structure, and roof were installed with, in my opinion, the intention that additional stories could be added later.

Basis for my opinion: The April 2013 HDRC request included both the "renovation" of the existing interior AND the tower. The tower was rejected, but since the renovation continued, I believe that the owners would not have re-engineered and revised the plans. The sketches of the Hard Rock hotel also shows the SAME L-shaped layout as the previous tower.

Correct. New support structures were built within the gutted building to support the weight of any additional building added in the future.

Here is a 2016 article that details future plans.

That hotel that should have been built back in 2016 (i think) was beautiful. I hope to God we get a hotel structure like that, similar to the Fairmont in Austin. SA needs a tall, world-class hotel downtown. But, maybe this Hard Rock Hotel will be very nice, with the added old and new of the existing structure, it could be a sight to see; something the Hemifair should have had.

Yeah, the proposed hotel was a perfect structure and we missed an opportunity back then. OH well.

As long as we are talking about the REDESIGNED one, I agree as well. Weird thing is that the second, nicer set of renderings were by the same architecture firm that is responsible for the buildings now being proposed at Hemisfair. (For reference, here is the first idea which was appropriately rejected by the HDRC: https://www.expressnews.com/business...ls-4413719.php)

I agree that it would be a shame if the Hard Rock one is just a beige (fake) stucco box.

I feel like if it had the color scheme of the brick Joske building it could be really cool.

As I am looking at the Hard Rock hotel rendering again, I am wondering what "25 key per floor" mean? Anyone?

What do you use keys to open?

25 rooms per floor.

2013.

LOL
That makes sense!:cheers:

I am curious why that was important to put, if that's what it means; 25 rooms per floor. Interesting. :frog:

It’s just a construct that’s not widely used. Cost per key and keys per floor are two examples.

Confirms now why the recent interior of the rebuilt Joske's Building was so starkly banal--it really was all just temporary commercial placeholder until they could redevelop it again. It's just as well, for the city shouldn't have caved on the previously proposed Joske's Tower to begin with. I wonder if Joske's owner still holds rights on the design and engineering of that tabled tower.

Hard Rock Hotel...

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...size=327%2C500
(Photo by Matt Miller on the Omaha World-Herald)

Wait till the critics of Tomb Raider 3D on Alamo Plaza see a new giant, light up marquee guitar spinning atop Joske's! No doubt the review boards will be weighing heavily on the developers to tone it all down--hopefully not back into something yet again banal.

Atlanta has been working on a Gensler-designed Hard Rock Hotel for their Castleberry Park redevelopment, and its general outlines are not too dissimilar in size, scale, and massing to what is being tentatively suggested here.

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...2/?format=750w
(Rendering by Gensler for Hard Rock International)

Just superimpose Joske's over the base. Actually, one legitimate strategy to emphasize and complement the historic architecture of Joske's is to cleanly, boldly, and distinctly contrast against it rather than slavishly trying to clone, extrude, or merge into and absorb it. So long as proportions, rhythms, scales, and functionalities are kept, materials and styles can be very different, and that can make for a more interesting architecture that better preserves the image and sensibility of the older building.

Personally, I'd rather see another hotel operator. Hard Rock has lost its panache/coolness. Something like an Edition or 1Hotel would be more interesting/exciting.

In other words, I'd rather see a hotel which does not have a location on the Redneck Riviera (Biloxi/Gulfport, MS). Something that puts SA on a different map.

Hard Rock is the epitome of touristy brand. The Rivercenter is a touristy mall. It makes sense to pair them. It makes ZERO sense to psirba luxury/pseudo luxury brand with a tourist trap mall.

The two hotels you mentioned would fit in the Pearl or maybe as part of the Hemisfair development or near Southtown, possibly part of Grey Street’s large SAISD land development.

Heck, near the new Frost HQ in the tech district would work better than on top of the Shops at Rivercenter.

( like button ) 👍

Well, that's your opinion. And all I can say is that I'm sorry that you think Hard Rock, in 2020 (the earliest date this thing would open), is the "epitome" of tourist hotels. I fail to see them ranked anywhere on any list of Top "tourist" or Top "family" hotels. They are definitely not on any list of Top "millennial" hotels.

For me, this is the wrong direction to go. SA needs to step up with the times. Riding on our laurels is going to kill us. As a whole, we need to realize (and accept) that what we had in the past no longer exists. Tourism has changed. Example: the HRH in San Diego is in a perfect spot...but, it's dead. The Onmi across the street has more hop to it! Plus, there are numerous more, hip options, from which to choose in the immediate area - The Gaslamp District. The most "touristy" spot in downtown San Diego.

The Hard Rock brand's time has run its course.

Personally, I'm hoping for a Howard Johnson's.

Holiday Inn Express...I can wake up as a doctor or astrophysicist. ;)

I’m not sure why you’re sorry I believe this. The Hard Rock Cafe and Hard Rock Hotel are brands literally synonymous with being geared hard towards the leisure tourist. Hard Rock Hotel isn’t going into a market that doesn’t have a high volume of leisure tourism. Orlando, San Diego, Las Vegas, Tampa, Atlantic City. They don’t have one in Dallas or San Francisco or Seattle or Chicago. Those markets don’t have strong liesure tourism.

I’m not even sure what this even means. You’re telling me, you don’t see the Hard Rock Hotel brand and don’t immediately think of gimmicky tourism brand?

You make these claims, can you back them up?

Can you prove this with facts? Or is this your opinion? Because HRH in the US alone is expanding to New York, Atlanta, New Orleans just to name a few. Not including North American cities like Vancouver. These are markets that one wouldn’t normally identity with being mostly known as leisurely tourism destinations aside from New Orleans. Maybe Hard Rock is trying to change their image and perception.

Something similar to what is pictured above would work perfectly atop the Joske's building; mixing old with flashy new. I love it! And across the street, we have a mix of cheap eats (McDonald's) and high-end (Ruth Chris) to super high-end restaurants (Fig Tree; this place is truly great, as not great as Bella on the River, though). Downtown San Antonio needs more centralized diversification in architecture and pro-social activities; the building of this hotel may help with this need, least from an exterior presence.

I wouldn't mind the small sign... that's branding and would be more than adequately visible. But the big pink sign or the neon guitar... that's just tacky. The building design itself is very average.

I guess i'm the only one here who is opposed to this idea of putting an 18 floor hotel on top of the Joske building.
https://s26.postimg.cc/3pu5szh89/joske.jpg
I can't see how this old relic like the joske building would compliment a modern high rise hotel on top of it, it would just look so out of place to me. I will say this though, I wouldn't be opposed to something in a smaller scale like this Hampton inn on cesar chavez blvd.
https://s26.postimg.cc/7jnm25dzt/Cap...13-42-01-1.png
https://s26.postimg.cc/ij8tdq9jt/Cap...13-42-47-1.png
They incorporated an old building and built three extra floors on top of it. I personally would of matched the exterior of the addition to the existing building but other than that, it takes up pretty much the entire original building so that to me makes it a fine addition. The Joske building is pretty huge so to me, they can only pull off adding an addition to the building by adding more floors (3 or 4 at most) on top of the majority or all of the existing perimeter of the building and matching the exterior of the addition to existing building. That way it'll look like this addition actually belongs. That's just my opinion, but I know we all want as many new sophisticated buildings to rise from the GROUND up here in SA. Trust me, I do too. Add a new high rise on top of Joske's, and it would just stick out like a sore thumb to me.

I feel they should incorporate the brick that used to be the old Joskes tower. If they can.

Hearst Tower in Manhattan remains the familiar textbook case study.

Base by Joseph Urban originally built in 1928:

http://collections.mcny.org/Doc/MNY/.../MNY237028.jpg
(Photo from Wurts Bros. collection of the Museum of the City of New York)

Tower by Foster + Partners finally added in 2006:

http://images.skyscrapercenter.com/b...rporation1.jpg
(Photo from Hearst Corporation on CTBUH)

https://cdn.archpaper.com/wp-content...t_tower_02.jpg
(Photo from Simon King on Flickr via The Architect's Newspaper)

The howls on our city's review committees for even just a less daring, 14-floor version would never cease, but we see that it can be done successfully. The relevant wing of Joske's is not really that much different in scale, style, or type than Hearst's base, such that you can very easily photoshop Joske's into the image above. I fear, however, that only the most conservative, unassuming, and conventional add-on atop Joske's would make it through the process, and even Hard Rock, for all its brand imagery, will play it safe.

Somebody on here who's more educated than I can correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that the HDRC required additions to historic buildings to look distinct. The reason for this was so that the casual observer could readily distinguish what is historic from what isn't.

FWIW, Hard Rock has had a hotel in Chicago for a number of years.

It’s no longer in operation.

Correct. The idea is to avoid creating a "false sense of history." The addition doesn't have to be completely different (glass vs. brick for example), just identifiable as a later addition. The appropriate WAY it is differentiated has been debated in architecture circles (and amongst the HDRC) for as long as I can remember. (source: am architect)

That is a good point and makes sense. There's that famous saying: "if something isn't broken, don't fix it" so at an architecture standpoint and my point of view, I think: "If a historical building doesn't need an addition, don't build it".

Too bad parking lots east (Denny"s) and north on Bowie of RC cannot be purchased and developed as stand alone projects. Joske's building doesn't need a top hat.

They can’t be purchased?

It seems as so. Since it has been decades that no mention has come of it. I do not recall any speculation for those parcels. With so much going on in the middle of the city, you would think there would be some interest shown.

They can most certainly be sold and purchased.

Let me clarify for you again. They can be purchased, but why haven't they?

Because whoever owns them hasn’t sold them. It’s pretty much that simple.

If you’re going to ask me why they don’t sell, I don’t have an answer for you.

No. You do not have the answer. But the question posed is not to seek a dry answer. There are those whom repeatedly offer colorful replies. To get back- HRC is wanting to top the Joskes Building. Why might no one try for the other properties mentioned? Are they not prime real estate as well?

You’re asking questions that there are no answers to. But what I was questioning was your statement that those parking lots couldn’t be sold. That was what piqued my ears, because you stated it as fact when it most certainly wasn’t and was untrue for that matter.

I can’t tell you why those lots haven’t been developed, but they haven’t. Also, JMJ obviously want to build onto of the Joske’s. I thought they want to have to buy a surface parking lot that will be incredibly expensive when they can simply build atop a structure.

There is also the Alamo Viewshed Protection district, VP-1, which extends in an arc eastward from a point at the front of the Alamo and limits structures that would rise up behind the Alamo. Development in the parking lots behind the Alamo to the east are seriously constrained by this viewshed district.

http://www.esri.com/~/media/Images/C...alamo_4-lg.jpg
(Image from Esri)

I do not know how much flexibility by way of waivers and grandfathering is allowed within the viewshed protection overlay district, but I suspect it is not enough to sway Hard Rock or many other developers that they can be successful proposing major development within its coverage area. This is too bad, as a sweltering sea of ugly parking lots extending to I-37 is its own urban blight that hardly ennobles the Alamo or strengthens the vitality of downtown.

^^ Another way to look at it (a positive way) is that this provides an excellent opportunity to create a rather large urban park where those parking lots are. All it would take is some money. The city could easily afford it and it would be very beneficial for tourists and downtown residents. The question is: does anybody with the power to make it happen care about doing something that's not immediately fiscally profitable, but would be over the long term? The name writes itself: Alamo Park.

I had the same thought and fully agree. Just imagine if the Alamo garden could be extended eastward as a park all the way to I-37 and be given detailed treatment similar to the courtyards and arcades of the current garden. An Alamo Park would completely change the image of that area and rehabilitate that sector of downtown. For want of a single parking garage, a city park and a large swath of downtown are being lost.

There was official concern during the Joske's Tower proposal of the impact of the tower on the beauty and historical integrity of the Alamo as a World Heritage Site, but hardly a peep about the oil-saturated, concrete and asphalt heat island already behind the Alamo.

Suggestions have been made to use the parking lot area for the planned Alamo museum rather than gutting the Crockett Block of historic buildings facing the Alamo across Alamo Plaza. That can be okay, but a park would be better, and the museum would be better placed inside current Federal building at the north end of Alamo Plaza.

SKW,

Just to be fair...can you back the following claim up with "facts:"

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam (Post 8265897) Hard Rock is the epitome of touristy brand.

Just curious. I'm not quite disagreeing with you. But, the word - epitome - is (can be) quite subjective.

Hey, I too am one which believes the Hard Rock would fit in great with the Ripley's Believe it or Not/Tomb Raider 3D/Guinness Book of World Records Museum AND Texas' beloved Alamo Mission.