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
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2018, 6:43 AM
Hindentanic Hindentanic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 51
Confirms now why the recent interior of the rebuilt Joske's Building was so starkly banal--it really was all just temporary commercial placeholder until they could redevelop it again. It's just as well, for the city shouldn't have caved on the previously proposed Joske's Tower to begin with. I wonder if Joske's owner still holds rights on the design and engineering of that tabled tower.

Hard Rock Hotel...


(Photo by Matt Miller on the Omaha World-Herald)

Wait till the critics of Tomb Raider 3D on Alamo Plaza see a new giant, light up marquee guitar spinning atop Joske's! No doubt the review boards will be weighing heavily on the developers to tone it all down--hopefully not back into something yet again banal.

Atlanta has been working on a Gensler-designed Hard Rock Hotel for their Castleberry Park redevelopment, and its general outlines are not too dissimilar in size, scale, and massing to what is being tentatively suggested here.


(Rendering by Gensler for Hard Rock International)

Just superimpose Joske's over the base. Actually, one legitimate strategy to emphasize and complement the historic architecture of Joske's is to cleanly, boldly, and distinctly contrast against it rather than slavishly trying to clone, extrude, or merge into and absorb it. So long as proportions, rhythms, scales, and functionalities are kept, materials and styles can be very different, and that can make for a more interesting architecture that better preserves the image and sensibility of the older building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2018, 8:34 PM
ILUVSAT's Avatar
ILUVSAT ILUVSAT is offline
May the Schwartz be w/ U!
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: S.A. | Nashville
Posts: 827
Personally, I'd rather see another hotel operator. Hard Rock has lost its panache/coolness. Something like an Edition or 1Hotel would be more interesting/exciting.

In other words, I'd rather see a hotel which does not have a location on the Redneck Riviera (Biloxi/Gulfport, MS). Something that puts SA on a different map.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2018, 8:44 PM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is online now
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILUVSAT View Post
Personally, I'd rather see another hotel operator. Hard Rock has lost its panache/coolness. Something like an Edition or 1Hotel would be more interesting/exciting.

In other words, I'd rather see a hotel which does not have a location on the Redneck Riviera (Biloxi/Gulfport, MS). Something that puts SA on a different map.
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2018, 9:20 PM
Runner Runner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam View Post
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.

( like button ) 👍
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2018, 9:20 PM
ILUVSAT's Avatar
ILUVSAT ILUVSAT is offline
May the Schwartz be w/ U!
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: S.A. | Nashville
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam View Post
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.

Last edited by ILUVSAT; Jul 29, 2018 at 9:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2018, 9:54 PM
Spoiler's Avatar
Spoiler Spoiler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 526
Personally, I'm hoping for a Howard Johnson's.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jul 29, 2018, 11:44 PM
ILUVSAT's Avatar
ILUVSAT ILUVSAT is offline
May the Schwartz be w/ U!
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: S.A. | Nashville
Posts: 827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoiler View Post
Personally, I'm hoping for a Howard Johnson's.
Holiday Inn Express...I can wake up as a doctor or astrophysicist.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2018, 4:34 AM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is online now
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILUVSAT View Post
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.

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2018, 12:43 PM
Fryguy Fryguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 626
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2018, 1:03 PM
JACKinBeantown's Avatar
JACKinBeantown JACKinBeantown is offline
JACKinBeantown
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 7,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hindentanic View Post


(Photo by Matt Miller on the Omaha World-Herald)



(Rendering by Gensler for Hard Rock International)
I wouldn't mind the small sign... that's branding and would be more than adequately visible. But the big pink sign or the neon guitar... that's just tacky. The building design itself is very average.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2018, 7:18 PM
PDG91's Avatar
PDG91 PDG91 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 103
I guess i'm the only one here who is opposed to this idea of putting an 18 floor hotel on top of the Joske building.

I can't see how this old relic like the joske building would compliment a modern high rise hotel on top of it, it would just look so out of place to me. I will say this though, I wouldn't be opposed to something in a smaller scale like this Hampton inn on cesar chavez blvd.


They incorporated an old building and built three extra floors on top of it. I personally would of matched the exterior of the addition to the existing building but other than that, it takes up pretty much the entire original building so that to me makes it a fine addition. The Joske building is pretty huge so to me, they can only pull off adding an addition to the building by adding more floors (3 or 4 at most) on top of the majority or all of the existing perimeter of the building and matching the exterior of the addition to existing building. That way it'll look like this addition actually belongs. That's just my opinion, but I know we all want as many new sophisticated buildings to rise from the GROUND up here in SA. Trust me, I do too. Add a new high rise on top of Joske's, and it would just stick out like a sore thumb to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jul 30, 2018, 9:43 PM
jaga185's Avatar
jaga185 jaga185 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 2,211
I feel they should incorporate the brick that used to be the old Joskes tower. If they can.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2018, 12:34 AM
Hindentanic Hindentanic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 51
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2018, 1:11 AM
chancla chancla is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 118
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2018, 4:32 AM
spoonman's Avatar
spoonman spoonman is offline
SD/OC
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2018, 4:43 AM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is online now
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonman View Post
FWIW, Hard Rock has had a hotel in Chicago for a number of years.
It’s no longer in operation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2018, 2:40 PM
Montirob Montirob is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by chancla View Post
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)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2018, 6:26 PM
PDG91's Avatar
PDG91 PDG91 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by chancla View Post
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".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2018, 5:39 AM
maxus's Avatar
maxus maxus is offline
SA 24th largest city
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: san antonio
Posts: 174
Too bad parking lots east (Denny"s) and north on Bowie of RC cannot be purchased and developed as stand alone projects. Joske's building doesn't need a top hat.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2018, 6:56 AM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is online now
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxus View Post
Too bad parking lots east (Denny"s) and north on Bowie of RC cannot be purchased and developed as stand alone projects. Joske's building doesn't need a top hat.
They can’t be purchased?
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 2:25 AM.

     

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