SAN ANTONIO | Urban Core Development Thread - Page 31

Complex01 · #**601** Posted **Dec 20, 2007, 10:00 PM**

LOL, I swear if I ever need a good laugh i just have to look around the SSP Forum, there are some stories that play out on here...

Happy Christmas Ya'll...

alexjon · #**602** Posted **Dec 20, 2007, 10:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam

I wasn't trying to be smug with my last comment. Though you're overrating a bit Jon, as this is simply a discussion, though 21o is getting heated, on a medium that allows for it.

It's possible to be civil in any discussion.

KevinFromTexas · #**603** Posted **Dec 21, 2007, 3:10 AM**

Wow! I mean, wow! If we had any doubt before that the Hyatt was shorter than the Marriott, then this single photo will squash that question. The Hyatt's mechanical penthouse is clearly higher than the Marriott's roof. Since Seije here on the forum was able to view the blueprints and get the heights for the Hyatt for us, that must mean that the Marriott is shorter than 441 to the roof.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam

Frost just leases a majority of space in that building which is why it has its name on top. Frost had nothing to do with the design or building of that building. This is like a regional urban high rise myth now. lol

Very true. Frost Bank never developed the building or even had any kind of involvement with Cousins Properties (the developer of the building) in the development phase. The building was developed mostly on speculation. The market was calling for space, but they hadn't named an anchor tenant until a year and a half into construction. Originally the building was going to be called Congress at Fourth, referring to its location. The building broke ground on November 27, 2001 (my 21st birthday). Frost Bank signed on sometime in April of 2003 to take 52,000 square feet of space. With that they became the largest tenant in the building, which earned them the rights to the building's name.

Here's the article I wrote on May 13, 2003 when the story broke that Frost Bank would be a tenant in the building.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emporis

News: Major tenant signs at Congress at Fourth

Austin: Frost National Bank of San Antonio has taken 52,000 square feet of office space at Congress at Fourth in downtown Austin. The bank is now the anchor tenant for the building, which will change its name to Frost Bank Tower. The building, which will be the tallest building in Austin, is scheduled to be occupied in the first quarter of 2004.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ydoc14

Yes I do. Look at this picture. The restaraunt level of Tower of the Americas is supposed to be around 550'. If the spires were 546', then they should be lining up with the restaraunt level on the Tower. They're not even close, and heck the Tower is even farther back in the picture. Imagine if it was moved forward and adjacent to the Marriott. That would only make the Tower get bigger, and the Marriott seem even smaller.

That is really interesting. It certainly looks like you're right about that. Here are the heights that I've seen listed for the Tower of the Americas. These were listed in a very extensive booklet that was sold in lobby of the Tower of the Americas a few years ago.

750 feet to the top of the antenna.
622 feet to the top of the roof.
579 feet to the indoor observation floor.
560 feet to the outdoor observation deck.
550 feet to the restaurant level.

Now, I took these back in July from the Tower of the Americas outdoor deck, and as you can see the Marriott is clearly shorter, even to the spires.

What I'm curious to see now is the view from the Tower of the Americas with the Hyatt topped out and comparing it to the Marriott nextdoor.

ydoc14 · #**604** Posted **Dec 21, 2007, 3:59 AM**

Original by Cobaltski @ Flickr

ScizzoTX · #**605** Posted **Dec 21, 2007, 6:59 AM**

I'm back in SA for the holidays and had some time around 2PM to take this photo from Alamo stadium. I cropped it and blew it up to get a close-up view of the Hyatt, Marriott and tower together... Clearly the mechanical penthouse on the Hyatt is higher than the roof of the Marriott. It also looks like a lot of the color panels have been added to the facade.

Sorry for the washed out/low-res photo. Hopefully I'll get a chance to go out during better lighting to take some updated photos of the Hyatt with my good camera.

Also, I drove by the Broadway site earlier today and it looks like they've started excavation of some sort, or at least site prep (there appeared to be a 10 foot deep hole). Does anyone have an update on that building?

ydoc14 · #**606** Posted **Dec 21, 2007, 7:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScizzoTX

I'm back in SA for the holidays and had some time around 2PM to take this photo from Alamo stadium. I cropped it and blew it up to get a close-up view of the Hyatt, Marriott and tower together... Clearly the mechanical penthouse on the Hyatt is higher than the roof of the Marriott. It also looks like a lot of the color panels have been added to the facade.

Sorry for the washed out/low-res photo. Hopefully I'll get a chance to go out during better lighting to take some updated photos of the Hyatt with my good camera.

Also, I drove by the Broadway site earlier today and it looks like they've started excavation of some sort, or at least site prep (there appeared to be a 10 foot deep hole). Does anyone have an update on that building?

It looks like all of the windows are now multicolored, they must've put up multicolored curtains. Looks good I think

KevinFromTexas · #**607** Posted **Dec 21, 2007, 7:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScizzoTX

Also, I drove by the Broadway site earlier today and it looks like they've started excavation of some sort, or at least site prep (there appeared to be a 10 foot deep hole). Does anyone have an update on that building?

Cool pic. The Hyatt is definitely taller then, at least to the roof.

As for the work at the Broadway, that sounds like they may have been taking soil samples. Were these just drilled holes? If so, then that's what that sounds like.

JACKinBeantown · #**608** Posted **Dec 21, 2007, 5:22 PM**

It's too bad (and maybe it was intentional) that the tallest part of the Hyatt completely blocks the Marriott as far as its effect on the skyline from this angle and the reverse.

ydoc14 · #**609** Posted **Dec 21, 2007, 5:42 PM**

It looks like the top of the cabana structure is the same height as the Marriott's roof, which would make the Marriott around 387' to the roof?

Mopacs · #**610** Posted **Dec 21, 2007, 5:45 PM**

The official heights of the ToA always seemed off to me. Perhaps its my perception or the slenderness of the tower, but it appears significantly taller than the surrounding Marriott and even Weston. We're talking from both the observation level and from distant perspectives.

ydoc14 · #**611** Posted **Dec 21, 2007, 5:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mopacs

The official heights of the ToA always seemed off to me. Perhaps its my perception or the slenderness of the tower, but it appears significantly taller than the surrounding Marriott and even Weston. We're talking from both the observation level and from distant perspectives.

That'd be cool if it was 750' to the roof and not the antenna haha, but it probably is 622'. Even so that's almost 200' taller than the Weston.

ScizzoTX · #**612** Posted **Dec 21, 2007, 10:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

As for the work at the Broadway, that sounds like they may have been taking soil samples. Were these just drilled holes? If so, then that's what that sounds like.

No, the entire site is now a 10 foot deep hole with 2 dirt ramps leading down from surface level. I also saw a couple of people surveying in the pit as well... I think it's safe to say the Broadway is officially under contstruction.

I went by the site today and took a couple of pictures. I'll post them in the other SA thread in a minute.

KevinFromTexas · #**613** Posted **Dec 22, 2007, 12:37 AM**

^ Oh, well then that does sound like they've started work. If they've already dug out then yes.

kornbread · #**614** Posted **Dec 22, 2007, 5:13 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScizzoTX

No, the entire site is now a 10 foot deep hole with 2 dirt ramps leading down from surface level. I also saw a couple of people surveying in the pit as well...

That's one hell of a soil sample!

KevinFromTexas · #**615** Posted **Dec 22, 2007, 8:51 AM**

I was in San Antonio on the 9th and took about 60 pics around downtown. We walked around downtown and of course headed down to the Riverwalk. It was beautiful.

Here's a few shots I took of the Grand Hyatt.

The very top.

sirkingwilliam · #**616** Posted **Dec 22, 2007, 9:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kornbread

That's one hell of a soil sample!

lol

Complex01 · #**617** Posted **Dec 22, 2007, 4:38 PM**

I will be back in SA starting tommorw. I have lots of free time so i will have to check out all these updates and what not. That and i will be at the bar, he he...

ydoc14 · #**618** Posted **Dec 22, 2007, 5:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Complex01

I will be back in SA starting tommorw. I have lots of free time so i will have to check out all these updates and what not. That and i will be at the bar, he he...

Take some daytime pics of the Grand Hyatt if you can por favor

ICEVET · #**619** Posted **Dec 23, 2007, 6:20 PM**

After reading the reluctance of the powers-that-be (review boards, etc) to sign off on certain high-rise projects downtown, I thought I'd share with the forum an old story.

Back in the 60s (when I was a teen) we had a family friend who worked downtown at the local office of a nationwide stock brokerage firm. While she was not an executive or a manager, she did rub elbows with the senior members of the firm on a daily basis. She and I shared an interest in local affairs, especially discussing possible reasons why Dallas and Houston had roared past San Antonio in terms of population, business activity and industrial development.

Some of the managers had told her that the Exxon corporation (it may have been Humble refining at the time) were actually thinking of locating their corporate HQ in SA. They were supposed to be extremely interested in a parcel of property south of downtown somewhere in the vicinity of Mission Conception and the old Mission ballpark. It was further reported that the parcel allegedly belonged to the city. The city dads saw a golden opportunity, but not the kind you would expect them to see today. Instead of donating the parcel outright to the oil company with a generous package of tax incentives, they jacked up the price to more than three times its market value. Exxon (or whatever it was called at the time), decided to pick up their toys and go play somewhere else. Of course, they built an incredible tower in downtown Houston.

Whether the prime motive of the city at that time was just to make a killing on the parcel or to dissuade the company ffrom locating here, their actions were a reflection of their mindset at the time, which was to keep the town a sleepy tourist destination with the military/fed as the only other economic generator. This also was the result of the city historically being in the stranglehold (both politically and economically) of about a half-dozen or so wealthy families. I'm interested to know if any members have also heard this story, and whether they can confirm it. I personally have no reason to think it is apocryphal.

I think we've come a long way since then (Toyota, Valero, Tesoro, USAA, AT&T, Clear Channel, etc.) but I also think there is still evidence that some of the old kind of thinking is alive and well with regard to downtown. Other forum members have indicated that the real estate in downtown SA is now the most expensive in the state. Tourism is responsible for that. So now about the only kind of businesses that can comfortably afford to locate and build downtown are hotels and other nationwide chains that thrive on tourism, and actually make their money by doing business downtown. I don't think the only motive in promoting tourism (and limiting the height of buildings) at the expense of everything else is to preseve the flora on the river. I actually believe that the city does not want major businesses putting up office towers downtown for fear that increased traffic and pedestrian congestion would drive away tourists. (Have they ever heard of New York?) It's probably the number one destination for tourists in several categories. It's a shame, but they've created a huge disincentive for major businesses to put towers downtown. I think the forum members who state we will not see more major office towers for 10-15 years are, unfortunately, right on.

Meanwhile, we give the green light to condo and apartment towers, which is O.K., in terms of maintaining the vitality of the area. By the way, whatever happened to the Kress project at 319 E. Houston? That would have made a nice little addition to our skyline. It was supposed to have closed more than six months ago, and we've heard not a peep.

Start off every day with a smile, and get it over with.

Complex01 · #**620** Posted **Dec 24, 2007, 4:58 PM**

That is a very good story. Thank you ever so much for sharing it. I agree with it fully. It does make a lot of sence. I have heard something along those lines as to why the city is the way it is. Good stuff...