SAN ANTONIO | Hard Rock Hotel | 18 FLOORS | Proposed

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam

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.

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.

[sirkingwilliam]

Originally Posted by ILUVSAT

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’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 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.

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?

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.

You make these claims, can you back them up?

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

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.

[Fryguy]

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.

[spoonman]

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam

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.

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

[GoldenBoot]

SKW,

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

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam

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.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

SKW,

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



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.

I can:


https://exp.cdn-hotels.com/hotels/10...80270de4_z.jpg

[Spoiler]

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

[ILUVSAT]

Originally Posted by Spoiler

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

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

[jaga185]

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

[Hindentanic]

Hearst Tower in Manhattan remains the familiar textbook case study.

Base by Joseph Urban originally built in 1928:


(Photo from Wurts Bros. collection of the Museum of the City of New York)

Tower by Foster + Partners finally added in 2006:


(Photo from Hearst Corporation on CTBUH)


(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.

[chancla]

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.

[Montirob]

Originally Posted by chancla

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.

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)

[PDG91]

Originally Posted by chancla

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.

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".

[Hindentanic]

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.


(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.

[JACKinBeantown]

^^ 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.

[Hindentanic]

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.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by Hindentanic

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.

Boston Common has underground parking. It's also one of America's "four unique cities."

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bo...!4d-71.0680711

[Fryguy]

Originally Posted by jaga185

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

It doesn't seem like many want this hotel for downtown San Antonio. I do. I love how colorful San Antonio downtown when dark. San Antonio downtown has a great nightlife, and this area of town would be great for this type of hotel. I have said it many times, San Antonio downtown needs more high end hotels, but this area is not a realistic area for such a high end hotel, as someone pointed out. So, a hard rock is quite fitting for this mall and area.

[Restless 1]

Originally Posted by Fryguy

It doesn't seem like many want this hotel for downtown San Antonio. I do. I love how colorful San Antonio downtown when dark. San Antonio downtown has a great nightlife, and this area of town would be great for this type of hotel. I have said it many times, San Antonio downtown needs more high end hotels, but this area is not a realistic area for such a high end hotel, as someone pointed out. So, a hard rock is quite fitting for this mall and area.

While I want to see this built, I still would rather a design along the second iteration in 2013.

What I've seen of this current design, while not final, is atrocious. The Hard Rock brand can do better.