OFFICIAL VIDEO for NEW TESORO HQ SKYSCRAPER

matttwentyeight · #1 Posted **Oct 21, 2007, 7:22 PM**

http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f1...ndbreaking.flv

adtobias · #2 Posted **Oct 21, 2007, 10:28 PM**

nice how did you find it

21bl0wed · #3 Posted **Oct 21, 2007, 10:45 PM**

I thought everything was supposed to be bigger in texas...that thing isn't...

JACKinBeantown · #4 Posted **Oct 21, 2007, 10:55 PM**

Nice... for 1982.

westernmost · #5 Posted **Oct 21, 2007, 11:16 PM**

nobody should call anything new in SA a 'skyscraper' if it doesn't surpass the 350' mark

highrise, yes, skyscraper, no way

sirkingwilliam · #6 Posted **Oct 21, 2007, 11:44 PM**

That's not a skyscraper, why the OP used that word is puzzling, however those buildings I saw are nice and will look really good in the location they're going to be built at. BTW, the audio wasn't working for me so can anyone explain why there are two different building designs? Is that two different buildings or just design1 and design 2 for the Tesoro HQ?

matttwentyeight · #7 Posted **Oct 21, 2007, 11:45 PM**

I didn't find it, i had my sister-in-law send it to me from her work! I asked her if she had seen a rendering of the building yet and she said that they had sent out a video to everyone that worked at tesoro... so she forwarded it to me!

also, i know that it sucks that this building isn't taller or even in downtown; but at least it is all glass and tucked away in a beautiful location near 2 other condos that also are planned to built. instead of bitching all the time why don't one of y'all move to another city where the buildings are taller, maybe you then might find a building that is worth being called a "skyscraper..." i guess i am just wrong and so is wikipedia

From Wikipedia...
A skyscraper is a very tall, continuously habitable building. There is no official definition or a precise cutoff height above which a building may clearly be classified as a skyscraper. However, as per usual practice in most cities, the definition is used empirically, depending on the relative impact of the shape of a building to a city's overall skyline. Thus, depending on the average height of the rest of the buildings and/ or structures in a city, even a building of 80 meters height (approximately 262 ft) may be considered a skyscraper provided that it clearly stands out above its surrounding built environment and significantly changes the overall skyline of that particular city

sirkingwilliam · #8 Posted **Oct 21, 2007, 11:50 PM**

Matt, they released a photo of the Tesoro building to the media and the Express-News ran the picture in one of their issues a month back. I scanned and posted the picture as well.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=137961

KevinFromTexas · #9 Posted **Oct 21, 2007, 11:50 PM**

It's nice. But damn, 2,000 employees that won't be downtown shopping, eating and walking. 2,000 employees that most likely won't be living downtown. And the worst part, 2,000 employees that will be driving to work. To have a 618,000 square foot building downtown would have been huge. They spoke of future expansion. They easily could have developed their own skyscraper downtown with 800,000 square feet or more. Then they could lease out the extra space they didn't need right away, get paid back for that space, then in the future take over that space for themselves. It could have meant a new tallest for the city with a huge influx of office workers downtown and perspective downtown residents. Instead of being a giant economic shot in the arm for downtown it'll be a traffic nightmare in the suburbs.

Other than that, I like the design. It is good.

sirkingwilliam · #10 Posted **Oct 21, 2007, 11:55 PM**

I whole heartedly agree Matt, the cynicism here towards SA and what is built (as opposed to what isn't) here is frustrating. Instead of being positive about things like this and Agora Palms across the freeway with their planned high-rise condos and instead of being cheering for a project like The Landmark (which as of this moment has zero posts, and I'm not mentioning this because I posted it) people choose instead to criticize them because they not 35 stories. Enough already.

KevinFromTexas · #11 Posted **Oct 22, 2007, 12:00 AM**

I'd be chewing Austin's butt about it if had happened here too. Traffic is a nightmare here already as it is.

I just wish it had been downtown. I could have seen residential developers taking notice about it and making plans.

sirkingwilliam · #12 Posted **Oct 22, 2007, 12:03 AM**

The thing is, it's one thing to complain about it not being built downtown (which I'd be an advocate for as well) but it's another to just rip on a development/building because it's not tall enough for you. One example is the La Joya thread in which a fantastically urban looking development had a reply "where's the highrises?" or something of that nature. And to me, it's like, whether it has any or doesn't, it's a fantastic development.

BrownsvilleTx · #13 Posted **Oct 23, 2007, 7:07 PM**

Very nice. What lacks in height makes for it in beauty. It should stand out very nicely even if it's not a skyscraper.

Most buildings on the outer edge of SA are about that hieght anyways so why have a skyscraper way the hell out there where it shouldn't belong? It looks good and will be a fine addition to SA's skyline on the edge.

westernmost · #14 Posted **Oct 23, 2007, 8:30 PM**

I'm taller than that building

I'm a skyscraper

Paul in S.A TX · #15 Posted **Oct 23, 2007, 10:13 PM**

Yawn...Tesoro and Valero could have done better.I guess they are more concearned about how the building will fit company's needs and their employess than how their new Hq's will adorn the San Antonio sky.

matttwentyeight · #16 Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 12:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownsvilleTx

Very nice. What lacks in height makes for it in beauty. It should stand out very nicely even if it's not a skyscraper.

that's nice of you to say, i agree with that totally...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownsvilleTx

buildings on the outer edge of SA are about that hieght anyways so why have a skyscraper way the hell out there where it shouldn't belong? It looks good and will be a fine addition to SA's skyline on the edge.

not to sound rude by correcting you, but there actually isn't another building above 10 floors anywhere along 1604 right now; so this one is gonna stand out pretty well for sure...

and even though there are plans to build condos at THE RIM and residential/condo/office @ THE LANDMARK, this project is already under construction and not just proposed! i love when something finally takes place after being talked about for so long, instead of just dying and being forgotten! i hope the rim's hotel/condo isn't dead (i'll believe it when i see it) !

sirkingwilliam · #17 Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 5:36 AM**

Just re-watched the video, now with sound, and it's the same complex but at different angles. Also, it looks to be a 15 story structure.

MichaelB · #18 Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 1:47 PM**

Please don't be surprised that folks who come to a site named "Skyscrapperpage.com" advocate for skyscrappers! THis is not an advocay site for a particualar city, or the environment, or a "responsible urban density" site. It is a site about skyscrappers! While I also love to advocate for my city on here.... and I am an environmentalist.... and I totally hate many of the subbuban poorlyplaned developments..... What I have most in common with folks on here... and why I come here is my love of skyscrappers! Please don;t be surprised, offened or, worse, critical when folks ask "where's the height?"! I don't think it is meant ot offend..... just like going to a theme park for big roller costers and, well....I'm sure you get the point.

BrownsvilleTx · #19 Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 2:18 PM**

Quote:

Please don't be surprised that folks who come to a site named "Skyscrapperpage.com" advocate for skyscrappers! THis is not an advocay site for a particualar city, or the environment, or a "responsible urban density" site. It is a site about skyscrappers!

You post an interesting question because over the last few years that I've been a member I've seen threads just about anything and a lot of it had nothing to do with skyscrapers. What was the original intent of SSP anyways if this forum allows threads not relating to skyscrapers? Kevin, do you have an answer?

Because if, as MichaelB says is true, then 90% of what's in the forum shouldn't be here. I really believe that SSP has changed a lot over the years, and though I'm not as an active participant I have been reading many of the threads over the years and believe that SSP has evolved to allow more material to be added other than just skyscrapers.

Am my wrong in this assumption? If I'm not, then MichaelB is wrong in his assumptions about what this forum is all about. In either case, one of us is wrong. can someone please clarify the purpose of this forum?

KevinFromTexas · #20 Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 2:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrownsvilleTx

You post an interesting question because over the last few years that I've been a member I've seen threads just about anything and a lot of it had nothing to do with skyscrapers. What was the original intent of SSP anyways if this forum allows threads not relating to skyscrapers? Kevin, do you have an answer?

Because if, as MichaelB says is true, then 90% of what's in the forum shouldn't be here. I really believe that SSP has changed a lot over the years, and though I'm not as an active participant I have been reading many of the threads over the years and believe that SSP has evolved to allow more material to be added other than just skyscrapers.

Am my wrong in this assumption? If I'm not, then MichaelB is wrong in his assumptions about what this forum is all about. In either case, one of us is wrong. can someone please clarify the purpose of this forum?

I would say discussions that directly affect your city are fine. Even if it doesn't involve skyscrapers. Transportation, crime, city health, parks, and just about everything having to do with cities. It's true that in the old days of the forum the main focus was just skyscrapers. I think that just had more to do with the fact that skyscrapers are ultimately what get people interested in the subject of cities in the first place. They were for me. Sometime next year I will mark the 10th year I've been visiting the forum, and believe me, it has changed tremendously over the years. It's gone from maybe 5 or 6 different sections with just 100 or so members, to being a huge forum with over 50 sections and over 15,000 members.

So yeah, it's not all about skyscrapers anymore.