SAN ANTONIO | Hemisfair Residential Tower | 351 FEET | 28 FLOORS | Cancelled

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by theOGalexd

I haven't been able to measure the Marriott on google. Not sure if it's 100% correct but I've seen other buildings being pretty spot on. Just from that angle though you can see it's a fair bit taller than the mechanical roof on the Hyatt. I've seen 434 for that too before.

400 ish to the roof of the Marriott sounds about right, maybe a little less, like 390. The roof of the Marriott is about even with the pool deck of the Grand Hyatt, then you have the mechanical screen + spires. Those spires are definitely pushing 80-100 feet.

Maybe someone with a drone could do some measurements?

Originally Posted by ahealy

Very random, but does anyone know if the proposed towers will block the Tower Life from Alteza roof? My mom just bought a place there and I am reallllly hoping that view remains.

I'll be sure to post lots of pics when dirt starts turning

Unfortuneately it looks like there's a pretty good chance it could block the view. Either that, or the view of Tower Life will appear right next to the new building.

[theOGalexd]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

Maybe someone with a drone could do some measurements?




Unfortuneately it looks like there's a pretty good chance it could block the view. Either that, or the view of Tower Life will appear right next to the new building.

Yeah a drone could definitely get some accurate measurements for sure.

From what I have on google earth it does look like it's going to block most of the building except for the top. I guess it depends how the final design ends up looking though. If they slim the building down it might not.

[SproutingTowers]

Originally Posted by theOGalexd

I'd still say 470-480 range to the top of the antenna.

Right below the Marriott sign is the roof where you can walk on. IIRC there's a few levels below the antennas on both sides you can go up.

This is a video screengrab that (someone who isn't me lol) took at eye level from the roof level looking at the Grand Hyatt.

Marriott needs to turn this space into a rooftop bar.

[KevinFromTexas]

456 feet from street level is the tallest I can measure it using Google Earth.

I do trust the Google Earth imagery and numbers. I've even noticed that some of the building elevations I have for Austin buildings have the same numbers that I get in Google Earth. I don't know if that means they're relying on Google Earth somewhat, or if it just means both are accurate and so are coming up with the same numbers.

Measuring the Marriott Rivercenter in Google Earth, I get:

456 feet to the top of the spires.

422 feet to the top of the pyramidal structures.

395 feet to the bottom of the pyramidal structures.

381 feet to the top of the roof parapet above the Marriott sign.

380 feet to the roof slab above the Marriott sign.

379 feet to the top of the 8 decorative lights below the pyramidal supports.

375 feet to the roof slab inside the pyramidal structure supports.

370 feet to the top of the parapet of the highest setback.

362 feet to the top of the main roof parapet.

359 feet to the main roof slab.

314 feet to the top of the parapet of the 2nd highest setback.

255 feet to the top of the parapet of the 3rd highest setback.

193 feet to the top of the parapet of the lowest setback.

Google Earth also shows you two numbers in the bottom right of the screen. One is the elevation where your cursor is placed. That's how you can measure building heights. Take the number you get from the roof top and then subtract the street level number from that. There is a second number next to it that shows what your eye altitude is letting you know high off the ground your point of view is. All of those numbers are sea level heights. The top of the Grand Hyatt measures at 1,077 feet above sea level. So, you can take the eye level height and lower it so that it's level with the roof height of the Grand Hyatt. Here's what that looks like with the Marriott spires poking above the Grand Hyatt.

So, the numbers I got when I measured to the top of those pyramids was 422 feet. The height that I received at the time the Grand Hyatt was being developed, and this came from someone at Hyatt who was working on the project, was 424 feet 3 inches tall to the top of the parapet/screen wall (the big grey box). These images show those two points on those two buildings to be pretty close to those numbers I just posted.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by ahealy

Very random, but does anyone know if the proposed towers will block the Tower Life from Alteza roof? My mom just bought a place there and I am reallllly hoping that view remains.

I'll be sure to post lots of pics when dirt starts turning

I would be thinking it would block the view. The yellow line is to the center of the Tower Life Building and Grand Hyatt. The position of the new tower atop its podium puts it closer the Tower Life Building - almost due west from the Grand Hyatt. If you were in a unit in the Grand Hyatt, either on the north side of the building or the south, I think the view of the Tower Life Building would still be at least somewhat blocked by the new building. I think it be worse if you were on the south side of the building. If you're on the north side of the building, you'll *maybe* be able to see around at least some of the new building, affording you a partial view of the Tower Life Building. Even if you're on the top floor of the Grand Hyatt - best case scenario in hopes of seeing over the top of the new building, it would still block the view of the base and lower floors of the Tower Life Building. And even then, the top floor of the Grand Hyatt is only 370 feet up according to what the guy at Hyatt told me, so while that is technically taller than what this new building will be, it's still not high enough to clear most of the building in your line of sight from most of the west side of the building.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

456 feet is the tallest I can measure it from in Google Earth from street level.

I do trust the Google Earth imagery and numbers. I've even noticed that some of the building elevations I have for Austin buildings have the same numbers that I get in Google Earth. I don't know if that means they're relying on Google Earth somewhat, or if it just means both are accurate and so are coming up with the same numbers.

Measuring the Marriott Rivercenter in Google Earth, I get:

456 feet to the top of the spires.

422 feet to the top of the pyramidal structures.

395 feet to the bottom of the pyramidal structures.

381 feet to the top of the roof parapet above the Marriott sign.

380 feet to the roof slab above the Marriott sign.

379 feet to the top of the 8 decorative lights below the pyramidal supports.

375 feet to the roof slab inside the pyramidal structure supports.

370 feet to the top of the parapet of the highest setback.

362 feet to the top of the main roof parapet.

359 feet to the main roof slab.

314 feet to the top of the parapet of the 2nd highest setback.

255 feet to the top of the parapet of the 3rd highest setback.

193 feet to the top of the parapet of the lowest setback.

Google Earth also shows you two numbers in the bottom right of the screen. One is the elevation where your cursor is placed. That's how you can measure building heights. Take the number you get from the roof top and then subtract the street level number from that. There is a second number next to it that shows what your eye altitude is letting you know high off the ground your point of view is. All of those numbers are sea level heights. The top of the Grand Hyatt measures at 1,077 feet above sea level. So, you can take the eye level height and lower it so that it's level with the roof height of the Grand Hyatt. Here's what that looks like with the Marriott spires poking above the Grand Hyatt.

So, the numbers I got when I measured to the top of those pyramids was 422 feet. The height that I received at the time the Grand Hyatt was being developed, and this came from someone at Hyatt who was working on the project, was 424 feet 3 inches tall to the top of the parapet/screen wall (the big grey box). These images show those two points on those two buildings to be pretty close to those numbers I just posted.

Nice reporting, Kevin. I believe those numbers.

What are the criteria for someone making the changes in the SSP database/diagrams?

[KevinFromTexas]

Anyone who is an editor can do it. I'm an editor, but I'm reluctant to solely relying on Google Earth for heights. I trust them, but I usually only do it whenever there is no other data available or when I'm wanting to doublecheck the heights I already have.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Anyone who is an editor can do it. I'm an editor, but I'm reluctant to solely relying on Google Earth for heights. I trust them, but I usually only do it whenever there is no other data available or when I'm wanting to doublecheck the heights I already have.

What happens when you double check and the results aren’t the same or within an acceptable margin of error?

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

What happens when you double check and the results aren’t the same or within an acceptable margin of error?

Yes, and where did those original numbers come from?
(FYI, they're clearly wrong, and the 456 spire height seems like a simple typo someone made that ended up as 546.)

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

What happens when you double check and the results aren’t the same or within an acceptable margin of error?

Google Earth's numbers are usually pretty spot on, and they've gotten more accurate over the years as the imagery has become more defined. Microsoft's live maps also used to have a tool that let you measure building heights. I don't think they offer that feature anymore, though. I tend to go with whatever the building elevations say, but there are times when a design change has clearly been made, either a floor count change or some other minor detail that affects the overall height. In Austin, I've noticed some changes in roof design to 360 Condos and Windsor on the Lake, and that was during their construction after the plans had been released. The changes that happened were minor - only slight design changes to the mechanical penthouses, but it was enough to make them slightly taller. In those cases, I've relied on Google Earth to measure those structures.

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

Yes, and where did those original numbers come from?
(FYI, they're clearly wrong, and the 456 spire height seems like a simple typo someone made that ended up as 546.)

When I first started collecting building heights, I saw two different heights out there for the Marriott Rivercenter. It was 441 feet that was listed in the World Almanac from the early 1990s, and then the more widely known 546 feet that was spread all over the internet. Back then, I wasn't familiar enough with judging heights to critique them enough to feel comfortable with making a change, but I did have doubts about the 546 foot height, even if I really didn't want to believe it since it might mean it could be the shorter number.

The best way to solve the mystery would be to find out from the city what it would take to be allowed to view those original building elevations. In doing that, we'd know for sure what the height is, and we'd likely be able to find them for countless other buildings. The age of a building isn't really an issue either, except for much older buildings, and even then if any of them have had restoration work done or have been converted from their original use, it's likely there has been new plans drawn up. I have copies of the original plans for some buildings in Austin from the 1980s. I requested from the city that they be pulled, and I was able to view them and have copies made for about 5 bucks each.

[ahealy]

Thanks, Kevin, Jack and Jaga. I’m really more worried about the roof than anything. I’ve always loved Tower Life and think Alteza has such a unique vantage point for the skyline. It seems like it’ll be cutting it very very close.

I’ve never ever wished this, but perhaps they’ll trim a few floors off the apartment tower 🤭 or better yet, slim it up

[theOGalexd]

Welp looks like we need a "real" 500 footer then lol. I know this contradicts what I said before but I wouldn't be mad if there was 1 or 2 Hanover style buildings here. 515 ft would make a big dent in the skyline and help modernize it a bit.

Or something like these in Houston

[texboy]

Wow.... this went off the rails. lol

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by jaga185

From the HDRC Packet:

RECOMMENDATION:
1. Staff recommends conceptual approval of item #1, the construction of a 3-story retail structure to feature 2
stories above street level and 1 level at river level based on findings 1a through 1e with the following
stipulations:
i. That traditional structural bays be introduced on the river façade to break up expanses of glass based on
finding 1b. Structural bays should be articulated or clad with traditional materials such as brick or stone.
ii. That all windows that are not part of a storefront system be recessed within wall openings at least two
(2) inches, as noted in finding 1e.
iii. That a detailed lighting plan should be submitted for review and approval when returning to the
Commission for final approval, as noted in finding 1f.
iv. That all service and mechanical equipment be screened from view from the right of way, and that the
project comply with city noise ordinances, as noted in finding 1g.
2. Staff recommends conceptual approval of item #2, the construction of a 29-story structure to feature residential
and retail space based on findings 2a through 2h with the following stipulations:
i. That a distinctive, architectural building top be further enhanced through additional articulation or
variation based on finding 2c.
ii. That the applicant study additional variation in building massing, as noted in finding 2f, such as
introducing additional tiers that allow the tower to become more slender as it ascends, or by introducing
more varied massing that provides relief in scale.
iii. That all windows that are not part of a storefront system be recessed within wall openings at least two
(2) inches, as noted in finding 2h.
Staff recommends additional stipulations relating to site design and the overall development:
i. That additional design elements be incorporated to ensure safe pedestrian interactions such as the incorporation
of an additional traffic median to the immediate left of the valet drop off within the building footprint as noted
in finding e. Landscaping, planters, and special paving treatments should be introduced to enhance the
pedestrian experience.
ii. That a detailed lighting plan should be submitted for review and approval when returning to the Commission for
final approval, as noted in finding i.
iii. That all service and mechanical equipment be screened from view from the right of way, and that the project
comply with city noise ordinances, as noted in finding k.
iv. ARCHAEOLOGY – An archaeological investigation is required. HABS level documentation, laser scanning,
archival research, and signage of the acequia is required, per the Texas Historical Commission letter. The
project shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations regarding archaeology, as
applicable.

Does anybody know when they might go back to the HDRC for next approvals?

[CWalk99]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

Does anybody know when they might go back to the HDRC for next approvals?

No, unfortunately I haven't seen anything new about this besides an article I read that mentioned a final design would be brought to the HDRC that met their stipulations, but it did not list a meeting date (couldn't find that article either sorry). I would like to think that something got submitted before yesterdays deadline for the meeting on the 21st because it looks like they take a 1 month break afterward. Construction was supposed to start early spring too

[CWalk99]

Sorry if this is a silly question I'm still new to this but how would I be able to correct the thread title I wrote ? This is now considered an approved project and it is actually 29 stories instead of 28.

[theOGalexd]

Originally Posted by CWalk99

Sorry if this is a silly question I'm still new to this but how would I be able to correct the thread title I wrote ? This is now considered an approved project and it is actually 29 stories instead of 28.

Nice is there a doc for the new update? A mod probably has to edit the title.

[CWalk99]

Originally Posted by theOGalexd

Nice is there a doc for the new update? A mod probably has to edit the title.

I don't have anything new unfortunately but I think some articles erroneously put 28 stories when the architect actually has 29 listed in their proposal.

https://www.fitzgeraldassociates.net...ual-approval/\

But thanks, hopefully a mod will see this and adjust that for us!

[theOGalexd]

Originally Posted by CWalk99

I don't have anything new unfortunately but I think some articles erroneously put 28 stories when the architect actually has 29 listed in their proposal.

https://www.fitzgeraldassociates.net...ual-approval/\

But thanks, hopefully a mod will see this and adjust that for us!

Ahh I gotcha, I wasn't sure if it went back to the HDRC or something. I saw on the hotel information that construction/site work was supposed to start this month. I'm assuming if that happens this wouldn't be far behind since I think I remember the city saying they want them both done before the Final Four in 2025.

[AwesomeSAView]

Unfortunately, this tower has been whittled down to 10 floors due to many complaints about the original height of 28 floors. An article in today's San Antonio Report ( sanantonioreport.org ) is saying.