SAN ANTONIO │ Villita Street Tower │ 284 FEET | 24 FLOORS │ Pending

[jaga185]

It's planning for the future to create sustainable city and neighborhood. They may sit vacant for a bit until infill comes in. We can't build for the right now, we must also plan for what's to come.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by jaga185

It's planning for the future to create sustainable city and neighborhood. They may sit vacant for a bit until infill comes in. We can't build for the right now, we must also plan for what's to come.

(like button)

[Fryguy]

Originally Posted by jaga185

It's planning for the future to create sustainable city and neighborhood. They may sit vacant for a bit until infill comes in. We can't build for the right now, we must also plan for what's to come.

It's a smart move but it also has its negative consequences. As spaces remain vacant for two long, demand for its type of space becomes obsolete and less desirable. In other words, as technology develops and new trends come into play, demand for a certain type of space becomes more economically viable or less economically viable. Sooner or later, spaces will need to be remodeled without having even been used.

There is this beautiful office complex where my parents live. It was built in 2003. It has seen no tents since being built. I have no idea why, but that's just the way some areas work. I always feel bad for the people that invested into that complex. It's beautiful, but most likely outdated by now and often passed over by other investors over cost issues - the newer it is, the less needs to be further invested to make it work.

This is also reminder that some areas will never succeed with retail (and are never meant to).

[jaga185]

Originally Posted by Fryguy

It's a smart move but it also has its negative consequences. As spaces remain vacant for two long, demand for its type of space becomes obsolete and less desirable. In other words, as technology develops and new trends come into play, demand for a certain type of space becomes more economically viable or less economically viable. Sooner or later, spaces will need to be remodeled without having even been used.

There is this beautiful office complex where my parents live. It was built in 2003. It has seen no tents since being built. I have no idea why, but that's just the way some areas work. I always feel bad for the people that invested into that complex. It's beautiful, but most likely outdated by now and often passed over by other investors over cost issues - the newer it is, the less needs to be further invested to make it work.

This is also reminder that some areas will never succeed with retail (and are never meant to).

This is literally the core of downtown, not an office complex. I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't apply here.

[sirkingwilliam]

Here are the newest renderings. Should hit the HDRC soon. First quarter of 2019 ground breaking.

Credit: kmack

[Fryguy]

I want this to happen for San Antonio. If they approve this, it will show that they [HDRC] are finally willingly to accept more highrises for San Antonio, whic.h will set a great precedence for the future. If they do not, it will set us back years. It's a big move.

[KevinFromTexas]

It looks decent. Based on that, I'd say the height is probably between 350 and maybe 365 feet.

[JACKinBeantown]

Not too different than before... just more details. Looks like something you'd see on Lake Shore Drive in Chicago.

15-foot floors?

[sirkingwilliam]

Originally Posted by Fryguy

I want this to happen for San Antonio. If they approve this, it will show that they [HDRC] are finally willingly to accept more highrises for San Antonio, whic.h will set a great precedence for the future. If they do not, it will set us back years. It's a big move.

HDRC has never had issues with height or high rises. This notion that the HDRC is anti high rise has to end because it’s simply not true.

[Fryguy]

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam

HDRC has never had issues with height or high rises. This notion that the HDRC is anti high rise has to end because it’s simply not true.

In one of the comments made on the new Frost Tower: "Shouldn't the new Frost Bank skyscraper be taller?". A comment made in response to the lack of development and disapproval of the many highrises that have some to the attention of HDRC. Also, the Grand Hyatt- it went through years of development hell as a result of its hight and "glass". HDRC did not want the new hotel to supass the Tower of Americas. In addition are the many restrictions in and around the Alamo complex. If this were a research article and part of something for work, I would make time to point to the many relevant and contradicting statements (the comment section) made in many of the HDRC final reports.

[UrbanTrance]

Looks more refined. Hopefully spurs more development in immediate area.

[PDD]

I like it. I’m glad it’s still on the table.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by Fryguy

In one of the comments made on the new Frost Tower: "Shouldn't the new Frost Bank skyscraper be taller?". A comment made in response to the lack of development and disapproval of the many highrises that have some to the attention of HDRC. Also, the Grand Hyatt- it went through years of development hell as a result of its hight and "glass". HDRC did not want the new hotel to supass the Tower of Americas. In addition are the many restrictions in and around the Alamo complex. If this were a research article and part of something for work, I would make time to point to the many relevant and contradicting statements (the comment section) made in many of the HDRC final reports.

Valid points but only valid in their specific situations, not for all of downtown San Antonio. Grand Hyatt's original design was in the neighborhood of 550 feet and in very close proximity to the Tower of the Americas. The Alamo is a 300-year-old UNESCO World Heritage site and the height restrictions are for the nearby area only so as to not interfere visually for visitors. The comment about Frost seems to be one from a forumer, not a member of the HDRC. In your research article you would probably point those things out. If you ever do write it, I would be interested in reading it.

[kmack]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

It looks decent. Based on that, I'd say the height is probably between 350 and maybe 365 feet.

Roof elevation: 368'-2
Top of cooling tower @ Roof elevation: 384'-2

[Dan In Real Life]

Glad to see this is finally moving forward. I still wish it was the original height and I would have liked a more bold design personally, but given the proximity to the TL I understand taking a more conservative approach.

That said, I really hope it gets approved and construction starts as planned. This would be great for downtown and keep the development momentum rolling.

[Fryguy]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

Valid points but only valid in their specific situations, not for all of downtown San Antonio. Grand Hyatt's original design was in the neighborhood of 550 feet and in very close proximity to the Tower of the Americas. The Alamo is a 300-year-old UNESCO World Heritage site and the height restrictions are for the nearby area only so as to not interfere visually for visitors. The comment about Frost seems to be one from a forumer, not a member of the HDRC. In your research article you would probably point those things out. If you ever do write it, I would be interested in reading it.

I do not have time to write for free, but every document that comes through, I read.

As for the comment made, it was by an HDRC commissioner. Here is the link:https://m.sacurrent.com/the-daily/ar...aper-be-taller

If I have time, I will point to many official documents. I remember everything I read and even the page numbers, its how I was published, though data analysis is most important in my business.

Also, restrictions on Alamo Plaza area properties on buildings casting shadows or obstructing views (e.g., Hayes St., Bridge) have significant effects on many other properties in and around the core of downtown San Antonio, often putting restrictions on all developments of interest. Coupled with the former is additional restrictions on Riverfront or River area properties (1603 Broadway), which pretty much consist of several locations of interest for developers outside of San Antonio.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by kmack

Roof elevation: 368'-2
Top of cooling tower @ Roof elevation: 384'-2

Sweet. In that case, I'd say those renderings aren't showing the height very well. The Tower Life Building is 400 feet tall as measured with Google Earth to the top of the tower below the flagpole. The main roof parapet, not counting the height of the finials, is 332 feet. I actually forgot the crown of the Tower Life Building was that tall. I was thinking it was more like 50 feet tall, which is why I thought this new tower was shorter.

[Keep-SA-Lame]

Thanks for posting those new renderings! Still somewhat skeptical this project will happen, but we'll see! Fairly generic, but ultimately not a bad looking building (except for that blank side with the odd windows, but I guess they're counting on something else eventually being built on that side to block the view. That rooftop penthouse thing looks dope as hell, though. Doesn't feel very San Antonio, but sometimes that can be a good thing.

Edit: Lol @ the copy and pasted gratuitous trees they've put up in their neighbors' parking lots.

[Montirob]

Originally Posted by Fryguy

I do not have time to write for free, but every document that comes through, I read.

As for the comment made, it was by an HDRC commissioner. Here is the link:https://m.sacurrent.com/the-daily/ar...aper-be-taller

If I have time, I will point to many official documents. I remember everything I read and even the page numbers, its how I was published, though data analysis is most important in my business.

Also, restrictions on Alamo Plaza area properties on buildings casting shadows or obstructing views (e.g., Hayes St., Bridge) have significant effects on many other properties in and around the core of downtown San Antonio, often putting restrictions on all developments of interest. Coupled with the former is additional restrictions on Riverfront or River area properties (1603 Broadway), which pretty much consist of several locations of interest for developers outside of San Antonio.

While there are a few design restrictions downtown, they are not as onerous as you describe (source: I've had projects reviewed by HDRC including some in the various RIO overlays). We need only look at the multiple boring hotel boxes as proof. Yes, the river area properties are reviewed for shadow casting, but it makes perfect sense to avoid a dark canyon that prevents sunlight from reaching the plants down below.

Point of Clarification: there is NOT any current restriction regarding the obstruction of views of the Hays St. Bridge. The ONLY view restriction downtown is a single one directly in front of the Alamo (again, which makes perfect sense). Right now, Austin has THIRTY view corridors in their downtown, so it's not like San Antonio is trying to prevent development.

[texboy]

Really glad to see this one moving forward for SA! Hopefully this helps kick the existing momentum into high gear for downtown!