[SA] Eilan - 1.8 Million Square Foot Urban Mixed-Use Planned for the La Cantera area - Page 7

UrbanTrance · #**121** Posted **Nov 3, 2009, 11:30 PM**

^Better than I expected. Hope they stick with their words.

tgannaway89 · #**122** Posted **Nov 15, 2009, 7:03 AM**

A construction permit has been approved for the $2.5 million marketing center.

It should not be long before the rest of phase 1 is under construction. Another 11 buildings and an amphitheater will be built as part of phase 1.

rrodrig34 · #**123** Posted **Aug 23, 2010, 9:19 AM**

Anyone have new pictures of the Eilan construction? I won't be back to San Antonio until Dec.

UrbanTrance · #**124** Posted **Aug 29, 2010, 4:06 PM**

On Mancini Duffy website they have profiles of several Eilan buildings. A few unseen ones.

Mancini Duffy

miaht82 · #**125** Posted **Aug 29, 2010, 4:53 PM**

Just drove by; it seems to be moving along. Work on the condos directly behind the offices are on about the 3rd or 4th floor.

UrbanTrance · #**126** Posted **Aug 29, 2010, 6:26 PM**

^Did you say the hotel was going up in the other thread? I went by there sometime last week and I saw them working, but I didn't know on what. Can't wait until that hotel is done because it looks like it is going to be nice.

satxgreen · #**127** Posted **Aug 29, 2010, 6:40 PM**

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie...02635&t=h&z=16

google maps of the place!!

Daren · #**128** Posted **Sep 2, 2010, 6:23 AM**

I think it’s great that there is going to be underground parking.

Office, retail, entertainment, hotel, residential, public transportation, a chapel. Am I missing anything?!

This place like a city within a city.

Daren · #**129** Posted **Sep 2, 2010, 6:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alice93

^

In the hotel rendering, instead of that brown lexus they have in front, they should of put a white Rolls Royce followed by a red Ferrari.

arhavel · #**130** Posted **Sep 2, 2010, 12:52 PM**

Man, this is soo fake (especially those roman-style statues on the hotel). I don't understand why anybody would want to live there.

ooo0mercury0ooo · #**131** Posted **Sep 2, 2010, 5:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by arhavel

Man, this is soo fake (especially those roman-style statues on the hotel). I don't understand why anybody would want to live there.

Even though what you are talking about is THE HOTEL.... I would wanna live there. Its better Looking than neighborhoods with lots of cars and mayor traffic to get Home...
The fact that is pretty and very convinient to shop work and play will defenedtly do it for lots of people...If i had the money I would live there.

UrbanTrance · #**132** Posted **Sep 2, 2010, 10:10 PM**

This looks more real than the Village at the Rim. I'd love to see that get built but it looks more fake than Eilan.

arhavel · #**133** Posted **Sep 3, 2010, 12:50 AM**

I understand that’s the hotel, but that’s not my point. I’m talking about this whole “community.” It’s a San Antonio disneyland version of European urbanism, complete with a tram, and its terribly sterile. It reminds me of that Italian development that was supposed to happen on the river – why can’t we embrace our unique architectural heritage and stop creating these fabricated foreign experiences? (Of course, this is not unique to San Antonio, it’s a global trend, like New York City letting Disney develop Times Square, not to mention Dubai).

The whole context doesn’t make any sense to me: it’s an urban walkable community…off of 1604. If the developers really cared about urbanity, they would be trying to promote the center-city and not strengthening the social and financial divide of our city. But then, I guess they just understand their clientele – certain people who shop at La Cantera, The Rim, from one chain retail experience to another, and would like to experience it daily.

miaht82 · #**134** Posted **Sep 3, 2010, 3:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by arhavel

The whole context doesn’t make any sense to me: it’s an urban walkable community…off of 1604. If the developers really cared about urbanity, they would be trying to promote the center-city and not strengthening the social and financial divide of our city. But then, I guess they just understand their clientele – certain people who shop at La Cantera, The Rim, from one chain retail experience to another, and would like to experience it daily.

I agree with you on the first part of your statement.
I thought about this one too; so you can walk around and get around the "campus," and then what? It's no different than the "public transportation" at Fiesta Texas.
If they were to allow a majority of the green space to be open to additional development; apartments, townhomes, etc., that would be easily walkable to the core of this development, and have that connected to the surrounding developments/neighborhoods and the rest of the city as well, then it would've been a "city within a city."

As for the social and financial divide..... what do you mean? Besides a few gated neighborhoods that claim to be exclusive (Dominion, Bently Manor, etc.) I see no problem within the metro. Gentrifiction would be a great way to allow some poorer areas to become mixed income.

arhavel · #**135** Posted **Sep 3, 2010, 5:06 PM**

Quote:

As for the social and financial divide..... what do you mean? Besides a few gated neighborhoods that claim to be exclusive (Dominion, Bently Manor, etc.) I see no problem within the metro. Gentrifiction would be a great way to allow some poorer areas to become mixed income.

I mean that developments like this are essentially open gated-communities. You can only live there/experience there if you can afford it, as it is going to be a very pricey place. It promotes this luxurious, rich, and extravagant kind of image, and I don't think it will translate to a mixed-income development. In my opinion, stuff like this says "you can have all the benefits of an urban lifestyle (albeit very sterile versions), but you should have it in the 'safe' north side, because downtown is unstable, dangerous."

That's an interesting idea -- if they had left green spaces and open lots for future, different-contractor buildings. That would make it more urban, more open. But, I don't see that as their goal, all the buildings are branded with this image -- it even has its own symbol. It reminds me of what the builders of Pearl were saying, that they didn't want to build out the development all at once or too inorganically, because it would be in danger of being campy and kitsch.

miaht82 · #**136** Posted **Sep 3, 2010, 8:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by arhavel

I mean that developments like this are essentially open gated-communities. You can only live there/experience there if you can afford it, as it is going to be a very pricey place. It promotes this luxurious, rich, and extravagant kind of image, and I don't think it will translate to a mixed-income development. In my opinion, stuff like this says "you can have all the benefits of an urban lifestyle (albeit very sterile versions), but you should have it in the 'safe' north side, because downtown is unstable, dangerous."

... and thats where the connectivity comes in. If it were connected to mass transit and accessible to others, they could experience the development, even if it only means window shopping and wishful thinking.
There is very rarely a single neighborhood that caters to the full spectrum of incomes, but the key is connectivity to other neighborhoods and walkability to/from the areas surrounding the neighborhood, which are usually more affordable than the areas located directly around mass transit or the core location.

While it is imperfect, I think that we should be applauding the fact that it does contain some elements of urbanism. If your are against suburban-style building in urban areas, you shouldn't be against builidng urban style developments in suburban areas. Isn't that the whole point? Urbanism isn't something that should be contained to downtown or city center core areas. Higher density building, walkability/connectivity and a mix of uses (an not allowing one time use only buildings to be built) are all things that should be taken into account in almost all projects anywhere in the city.

The price you pay for living anywhere usually has something more to do with location and convenience. For example: the price of real estate in downtown will usually net the highest rates in the city because it will (at some point) contain everything... a mix of uses, not a mix of incomes. People like to live around others that are just like them...that's just a fact, we can't change that. If you can't afford to live in center city, the 22 acres of the Pearl Brewery or the Eilan, look outwards (from the develompent) and start walking until you qualify or can afford a spot. Most cities work that way. Ours doesn't yet (which is why I don't get your argument,) but at some point it will. Right now, a homeless guy sleeps on the most expensive piece of real estate in the city, and 90% of that piece of land is a parking lot.

oldmanshirt · #**137** Posted **Sep 3, 2010, 10:35 PM**

Couldn't agree more ^^^

arhavel · #**138** Posted **Sep 4, 2010, 2:33 AM**

I don't really have an arguement; I'm just venting because I find it super phony and wish that more urban-style developments were already financially viable to build around the downtown area. And I dislike this lack of connectivity -- I don't know how many people on the north side have had many experiences in the south, east, or west sides of SA, and visa-versa, but I imagine its pretty low. To me, the city seems very segregated by class. There's a clear divide in the the amount of money to be made in developing the north instead of other areas of town; some are trying to change this, of course, but its a long ways to go.

Of course having developments that mirror new urbanism ideals should be something considered in all areas of town, I didn't mean to make a connotation of the oppiste. I guess the truth is that I just would not like to see a kind of north-side downtown center (La Cantera, RIM, Eilan) flourish.

I have a tendency to put my foot in my mouth here a lot because a lot of what I say is not necessarily based on logic; for that, I apologize.

arhavel · #**139** Posted **Sep 4, 2010, 2:35 AM**

But, I will stick with my original point -- that this is Italian disneyland in San Antonio.

miaht82 · #**140** Posted **Sep 4, 2010, 1:34 PM**

Maybe this is the Disney resort everyone was talking about.

but you're right... then again, everything in suburbia is/seems fake. Just the other day, I thought I was walking through a German village, but then I walked up to the Superman.

I just keep thinking about the amount of traffic that this development along 10 will bring. If people are affected by it, by spending an additional 30-60 minutes in traffic a day, they will begin to take a bit more interest in what is being built where. People wil begin to demand smarter developments, they will start to think about living close(r) to where they work, and taking mass transit (and see the lack of options.)

I know it is slow, but be patient. In the next couple of months there will be ~750 units under construction around downtown. There is already a demand to live downtown (as can be seen with Vistana's waiting list,) and when developers can demand higher rents per sq. ft., then the projects will start to come. I'm sorry to say, but it won't happen by getting affordable projects built.