HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > San Antonio

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 9:54 PM
jaga185's Avatar
jaga185 jaga185 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 2,221
Yeah, I've been keeping track. Well, if we want to organize tomorrow, I can try and get off work, what times are these meetings at? I'm a student who works at Chester's Hamburgers, its hard for me to do these meetings, I didn't expect them to be meeting so fast, so I didn't take off tomorrow...big mistake... If I can't get off will others still be able to go?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2009, 10:34 PM
jaga185's Avatar
jaga185 jaga185 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 2,221
3 pm tomorrow afternoon, anyone available? Maybe getting there around 230ish?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 5:15 AM
jaga185's Avatar
jaga185 jaga185 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 2,221
So I guess thats a no...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 5:17 AM
adtobias adtobias is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 285
To be the tallest building in sa. How many stories would that building have to be
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 5:42 AM
jaga185's Avatar
jaga185 jaga185 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 2,221
Probably about 45.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 2:39 PM
sakyle04's Avatar
sakyle04 sakyle04 is offline
COGSADCAJA, VP and CGO
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 78201
Posts: 1,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaga185 View Post
So I guess thats a no...
sorry. it is a no.
__________________
PAVE PARADISE, PUT UP A (HIGH-RISE ON A) PARKING LOT...
Kyle on Twitter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 4:32 PM
jaga185's Avatar
jaga185 jaga185 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 2,221
That's ok, it was short notice, I didn't even think I was going to be able to make it. We will just have to keep track of future projects and such, and keep tabs of them much better. Let's hope something works in our favor today.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2009, 11:37 PM
BigBird9 BigBird9 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 667
Wow! That's a great looking tower. Can someone who's knowledgeable about San Antonio politics tell me why this thing wouldn't be built? I love the thin, tall design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2009, 12:08 AM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
^It's not 4 stories and made out of stucco
__________________
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion." -- George Washington & John Adams in a diplomatic message to Malta
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2009, 1:28 AM
miaht82's Avatar
miaht82 miaht82 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Triangle
Posts: 1,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBird9 View Post
Wow! That's a great looking tower. Can someone who's knowledgeable about San Antonio politics tell me why this thing wouldn't be built? I love the thin, tall design.
For lack of better reasons why; this tiny hurdle vvv

Quote:
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff does not recommend approval of the proposed demolition. The structure at 161 E. Commerce is a local
Historic Exceptional landmark. The applicant has not provided staff with the requirements for Unreasonable
Economic Hardship or Unusual and Compelling Circumstances. Staff would like to point out that permits for
demolition and construction shall be issued simultaneously if requirements of section 35-609, new
construction, are met, and the property owner provides financial proof of his ability to complete the project.
Also, after the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, permits must be pulled within 180 days.
The following section of the UDC describes the requirements.
Sec. 35-614. Demolition
(1) Exceptional Historic Landmark. No certificate shall be issued for demolition of an exceptional historic
landmark unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the historic and design review commission
clear and convincing evidence that an unreasonable economic hardship would be imposed on the applicant if
the application for a certificate is disapproved.
The applicant has not provided evidence of unreasonable economic hardship as described below:
(b) Unreasonable Economic Hardship.
(1) Generally. The historic and design review commission shall be guided in its decision by balancing the
historic, architectural, cultural and/or archaeological value of the particular landmark or eligible landmark
against the special merit of the proposed replacement project.
(2) Burden of Proof. When a claim of unreasonable economic hardship is made due to the effect of this
article, the owner must prove that he cannot realize a reasonable rate of return upon the value of his property.
(3) Criteria. The public benefits obtained from retaining the cultural resource must be analyzed and duly
considered by the historic and design review commission. The historic and design review commission shall
apply the test utilized by the Supreme Court of Texas in construing Article I, Section 17 of the Constitution of
the State of Texas, 1876, as amended, in determining the existence of an unreasonable economic hardship.
The owner shall submit, by affidavit to the historic preservation officer for transmittal to a constituted committee of the historic and design review commission for evaluation and recommendation to the full
historic and design review commission, at least the following information:
A. The assessed value of the land and improvements thereon according to the two (2) most recent
assessments, including any appeal adjusting value temporarily;
B. Real estate taxes for the previous five (5) years;
C. The date of purchase of the property or other means of acquisition of title, such as by gift or inheritance,
and the party from whom purchased or otherwise acquired;
D. Annual debt service, if any, for the previous five (5) years;
E. All appraisals obtained within the previous five (5) years by the owner or applicant in connection with his
purchase, financing or ownership of the property;
F. Any listing of the property for sale or rent, price asked and offers received; if any;
G. Any consideration by the owner as to profitable adaptive uses for the property;
H. Replacement construction plans for the landmark in question;
I. Financial proof of the ability to complete the replacement project which may include but not be limited to
a performance bond, a letter of credit, a trust for completion of improvements, or a letter of commitment from
a financial institution;
J. The current fair market value of the property, as determined by at least two (2) independent appraisals
made by appraisers with competent credentials.
K. In the event that any of the required information is not reasonably available to the applicant and cannot be
obtained by the applicant, the applicant shall file with his affidavit a statement of the information which
cannot be obtained and shall describe the reasons why such information cannot be obtained.
(4) Additional Criteria for Income Producing Properties. In addition, if the property is income producing:
A. Annual gross income from the property for the previous five (5) years;
B. Itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous five (5) years, including proof that
adequate and competent management procedures were followed;
C. Annual cash flow, if any, for the previous five (5) years; and
D. Proof that efforts have been made by the owner to obtain a reasonable return on his investment based on
previous service.
(c) Unusual and Compelling Circumstances and Demolition of a Significant Historic Landmark. When an
applicant fails to prove unreasonable economic hardship in the case of a significant historic landmark, the
applicant may provide to the historic and design review commission additional information which may show
unusual and compelling circumstances in order to receive historic and design review commission
recommendation of approval of the certificate as to the demolition of the significant historic landmark. The
historic and design review commission, using criteria set forth in this article, shall determine whether unusual
and compelling circumstances exist and shall be guided in its recommendation in such instances by the
following additional considerations:
(1) The historic or architectural significance of the building, object, site, or structure;
(2) The importance of the building, object, site, or structure to the integrity and character of a historic district;
(3) The importance of the building, object, site, or structure as part of a cluster within the historic district;
(4) The difficulty or the impossibility of reproducing such a building, object, site, or structure because of its
design, texture, material, detail, or unique location;
(5) Whether the building, object, site, or structure is one (1) of the last remaining examples of its kind in the
neighborhood, the city, county, region, state, or nation;
(6) Whether there are definite plans for reuse of the property if the proposed demolition is carried out, and
what effect such plans will have on the architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological, social, aesthetic, or
environmental character of the surrounding area as outlined in subsection 35-803(b) of this chapter as well as
the economic impact of the new development;
(7) Whether reasonable measures can be taken to save the building, object, site, structure, or cluster from
further deterioration, collapse, arson, vandalism or neglect; and
(8) Whether reasonable measures can be taken to relocate the building, object, structure to a new site.
For property located within a historic district, the historic and design review commission shall be guided in its
decision by balancing the contribution of the property to the character of the historic district with the special
merit of the proposed replacement project.
(d) Documentation and Strategy.
2009-053
CASE COMMENTS:
(1) Applicants that have received a recommendation for a certificate shall document buildings, objects, sites
or structures which are intended to be demolished with 35mm slides or prints, preferably in black and white,
and supply a set of slides or prints to the historic preservation officer.
(2) Applicants shall also prepare for the historic preservation officer a salvage strategy for reuse of building
materials deemed valuable by the historic preservation officer for other preservation and restoration activities.
(3) Applicants that have received an approval of a certificate regarding demolition shall be permitted to
receive a demolition permit without additional commission action on demolition, following the commission's
recommendation of a certificate for new construction. Permits for demolition and construction shall be issued
simultaneously if requirements of section 35-609, new construction, are met, and the property owner provides
financial proof of his ability to complete the project.
(4) When the commission recommends approval of a certificate for buildings, objects, sites, or structures
designated landmarks, permits shall not be issued until all plans for the site have received approval from all
appropriate city boards, commissions, departments and agencies.
(e) Issuance of Permit. When the commission recommends approval of a certificate regarding demolition of
buildings, objects, sites, or structures in historic districts, permits shall not be issued until all plans for the site
have received approval from all appropriate city boards, commissions, departments and agencies.
(h) Scope of Approval. A certificate of appropriateness shall authorize only those modifications to a building
or structure requested in the application and approved as provided herein. Following commission approval of
final design, defined as eighty (80) percent working drawings, and issuance of a certificate, an applicant must
secure permits within one hundred eighty (180) days and start work within one hundred eighty (180) days of
issuance of permits or the certificate becomes null and void and of no force or effect. Thereafter, the applicant
must reapply for reissuance of a certificate to the historic preservation officer. The historic preservation
officer will determine whether significant changes have occurred to the final design. If the historic
preservation officer determines that significant changes have occurred, then plans must be resubmitted to the
commission for rehearing and action.
2009
__________________
The Raleigh Connoisseur
It is the city trying to escape the consequences of being a city
while still remaining a city. It is urban society trying to eat its
cake and keep it, too.
- Harlan Douglass, The Suburban Trend, 1925
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2009, 4:46 AM
BigBird9 BigBird9 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 667
Soooo...it may not get built because some sh!ty building with some sort of minimally marginal historical significance stands in the way with the protection of unbelievably strict guidelines?

Yeah, God forbid they use the land that the vacant building currently sits on to build something that will generate business and tourism, not to mention improve the skyline.....

Oh well, hope it gets built!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2009, 4:58 AM
adtobias adtobias is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 285
not only that but that area seems to be a sess pool of vagrants because the building is NOT being used for anything
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2009, 2:21 PM
sakyle04's Avatar
sakyle04 sakyle04 is offline
COGSADCAJA, VP and CGO
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 78201
Posts: 1,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by adtobias View Post
not only that but that area seems to be a sess pool of vagrants because the building is NOT being used for anything


I guess OLD = HISTORIC...

What if I went and tore the thing down myself? And the landowner refused to press charges?

We could all bring sledgehammers and pick-axes and just do the job. And the property owner could fake being all upset and horrified. And then he would refuse to press charges after we apologized for ruining such an historic structure and he would promise to uphold its memory in his new 24 story hotel.

__________________
PAVE PARADISE, PUT UP A (HIGH-RISE ON A) PARKING LOT...
Kyle on Twitter
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2009, 7:29 PM
J.Dskyhigh's Avatar
J.Dskyhigh J.Dskyhigh is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: san antonio
Posts: 98
Thats a lil' off the charts don't u think?? now plus if anything does happen we all know who to congratulate i mean blame 4 the incident. . .HA
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2009, 2:30 PM
tgannaway89 tgannaway89 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Midland/San Antonio
Posts: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by miaht82 View Post
For lack of better reasons why; this tiny hurdle vvv
This is why companies like Tesoro and Valero build so far out. The legal wranglings to build in d/t San Antonio are bureaucratic and takes too long. In the time it took Tesoro to build their new hq I doubt they would have been able to even break ground had it been d/t.

I'm liking the idea of 2nd high-rise business district everyday
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2009, 3:27 PM
Dom"n"Converse's Avatar
Dom"n"Converse Dom"n"Converse is offline
Hmmm....
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 159
So out of curiosity, how many big buildings has San Antonio lost in the downtown area because of the HDRC? (Other than the Convention Center Hotel.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2009, 3:39 PM
Scottolini Scottolini is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,491
Although a high-rise district away from the CBD will get you some nice shiny new highrises, it won't be anything particularly good unless it's built in an urban form, which is possible outside of downtown. But if it's just single-use highrises on the side of a freeway, with surface parking lots, and it's mandatory to drive to and from work, drive to a restaurant for lunch, etc. it isn't really a positive.

I hope the San Antonio leadership can find a balance between preservation, and the ability to redevelop underused properties in it's downtown; because downtown SA is already a great place, and with some nice, modern office buildings adding to downtown employment the residential and retail will sure to follow (more than already is occurring). Plus the skyline will become more impressive, which is always a plus.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2009, 3:43 PM
texboy texboy is offline
constructor extrodinaire!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,350
Has anyone emailed these clowns on the HDRC?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2009, 5:09 PM
Scottolini Scottolini is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,491
So I asked in another thread, but didn't get an answer. Doesn't the San Antonio City Council have the final word? I thought the HDRC only gave a recommendation to the council. If not, are members of the HDRC elected officials? I can't imagine non-elected officials having the kind of authority to determine what gets built, or not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2009, 8:37 PM
sakyle04's Avatar
sakyle04 sakyle04 is offline
COGSADCAJA, VP and CGO
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: 78201
Posts: 1,369
^^

I don't think we know the answer.

I could see the HDRC being the final word if they were appointed by elected officials (the city council)...
__________________
PAVE PARADISE, PUT UP A (HIGH-RISE ON A) PARKING LOT...
Kyle on Twitter
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > San Antonio
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:16 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.