HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #141  
Old Posted May 27, 2013, 7:36 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
friends don't lie
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the upside down
Posts: 49,377
*Hemisfair Park. I do believe that is the first time I have misspelled it.

Anyway, I forgot to mention the other day, I think the Joske hotel tower could make a bigger impact than the Grand Hyatt does in some ways. By my rough estimate using that rendering I posted, it could be 410 to 420 feet. 420 would be just 4 feet shorter than the Grand Hyatt, and the Joske hotel tower would maintain that height over a larger area than the Grand Hyatt does. Only the mechanical penthouse of the Grand Hyatt reaches 424 feet. The main roof of the Grand Hyatt on the east end of the building is 389 feet.
__________________
In America, today, it's not that truth has lost, it's that political bias has been accepted as a legitimate answer to every issue one struggles with.

Last edited by KevinFromTexas; May 27, 2013 at 8:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #142  
Old Posted May 28, 2013, 1:08 AM
JACKinBeantown's Avatar
JACKinBeantown JACKinBeantown is offline
JACKinBeantown
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 7,437
Unless their ground floors are at very different elevations, the Grand Hyatt and the Marriott seem to be pretty much the same height to the roof. If so, then the rendering of the Joske hotel seem out of scale.


http://www.city-data.com/forum/membe...io-skyline.jpg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #143  
Old Posted May 28, 2013, 5:07 AM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is offline
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,713
The misspelling of Hemisfair comment was directed towards Adtobias.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #144  
Old Posted May 29, 2013, 5:01 AM
miaht82's Avatar
miaht82 miaht82 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Triangle
Posts: 1,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by adtobias View Post
Downtown parks are a haven for the homeless. How with this hemisphere park be any different.
You don't build something in hopes that a certain group doesn't end up using it, you build parks for human beings to use. Urban parks end up being a product of their immediate surroundings which is why Travis Park is how it is. It would be like going to Alamo Plaza and expecting to not see any tourists.

The way to avoid (as much as possible) undesirable outcomes is to address the source. In this case, an extreme mix of uses in the 3 surrounding lots would make foot traffic a bit higher, making the ratio a bit different producing a more desirable outcome. There is nothing wrong with Travis Park's design; the best thing to do is address necessities organically. For instance, if office space is built on one lot and there are restaurants nearby and people are posting up and eating, provide additional seating or tables. A "magic bullet" design is a waste of money at this point in the life of Travis Park.

HemisFAIR is a different category altogether.

http://blog.mysanantonio.com/downtow...air-park-plan/


I say again: HemisFAIR.
__________________
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
     
     
  #145  
Old Posted May 29, 2013, 3:39 PM
STLtoSA's Avatar
STLtoSA STLtoSA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
I'm not really sure what they're trying to show here, but this lists the height as 336 feet and 346 feet. It's comparing the heights on whether or not they reduce the podium setback.


http://therivardreport.com/hemisfair...or-bold-steps/
The scale of this is way off if the heights shown are correct.

Marriott River Center is ~365' to the roof of the top floor, ~413' to the top of mechanical, and ~481' to the pinnacle.

Now if the height shown 336' or 346' for the addition to the existing building (~65'), the total height would be ~401' or 411'.

This would cover up the 'MARRIOTT' sign.

The rendering shown appears to be 67' or 77' shorter than what the data describes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #146  
Old Posted May 29, 2013, 8:32 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
friends don't lie
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the upside down
Posts: 49,377
My thinking is they grabbed the incorrect height of 546 feet for the Marriott Rivercenter that's been floating around the internet. I have never trusted that height since I started diving into researching building heights. I wish it was that tall. Even the rendering of the Marriott Rivercenter in that rendering seems strange. Look at how high that first setback is vs the actual photo above that JackinBeantown posted. The rendering seems to show that first setback higher than it actually appears. In that rendering it even shows the setback being higher than the Marriott Riverwalk to the right. But when you view the photo Jack posted, the setback is clearly lower than the roof of the Marriott Riverwalk. In the photo Jack posted, the Marriott Riverwalk shows up between Weston Centre and the Grand Hyatt.
__________________
In America, today, it's not that truth has lost, it's that political bias has been accepted as a legitimate answer to every issue one struggles with.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #147  
Old Posted May 30, 2013, 9:43 AM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is offline
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,713
Thinking the titled should be changed. Organize the SA forum a bit, at least a bit cleaner for certain projects. I'm thinking just adapting the standard forum template used in multiple subforums.

Joske's Tower │ 31 Stories │ 410FT │ Status: Proposed

If any of the mods reading this want to make me the SA forum MOD, I would def like that. lol
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #148  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2013, 2:17 AM
JACKinBeantown's Avatar
JACKinBeantown JACKinBeantown is offline
JACKinBeantown
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 7,437
It could also be that the building is actually designed to be 336/346 feet but they mismarked the bottoms of the heights of the two roof levels of the building. Maybe they're supposed to go all the way to the ground instead of starting at the Joske's roof. Regardless, I really like this design and hope it goes through.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #149  
Old Posted Jun 4, 2013, 6:24 AM
STLtoSA's Avatar
STLtoSA STLtoSA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown View Post
It could also be that the building is actually designed to be 336/346 feet but they mismarked the bottoms of the heights of the two roof levels of the building. Maybe they're supposed to go all the way to the ground instead of starting at the Joske's roof. Regardless, I really like this design and hope it goes through.
That really isn't that likely when looking at the first information coming out for the proposals to the HDRC was showing just short of 400'. It would only make sense that an additional 2 floors would get it over 400'.

Then you throw in that the Joske bulding is currently 65'. Subtract that from the 410' figure and it leaves you with 345' (for the remainder 27 floors). Lets just say that the 6th floor is 20' (probably high) and that there appears to be a 20-25' crown on the building that bring s the remaining floors to 26 for the remaining 300'.

I hope I am wrong, but when looking at the information that I have seen so far it looks like the total height of the building will be in the 350' to 375' range, not 410'.

I would rather be wrong, but there is nothing wrong with a +350' addition to downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #150  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2013, 2:28 AM
JACKinBeantown's Avatar
JACKinBeantown JACKinBeantown is offline
JACKinBeantown
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 7,437
Let's just hope they got the height for the Marriott Rivercenter wrong, as Kevin said, and proportioned their rendering incorrectly from there. Whatever the height, I like this design, but I'd rather see 410 than 346. Plus, 410 is a good number for San Antonio (loop 410).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #151  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2013, 8:51 PM
BSofA04's Avatar
BSofA04 BSofA04 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 372
I keep hoping for some news on this. Let's get this tower approved!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #152  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2013, 10:11 PM
kornbread kornbread is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 807
This is very much in jeopardy due to the city trying to get the Alamo and missions listed as a World Heritage Site. There was a suggestion that having a hotel like this nearby might prevent the designation. There are some figures from the city listed in this article that sound exaggerated to me; especially the jobs number. This is certainly going to have some effect on whether or not the city supports this project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #153  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2013, 4:14 AM
jaga185's Avatar
jaga185 jaga185 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 2,223
I really do think the tower can co-exist with the site, I mean does the fact it's not even on the site make any difference at all?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #154  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2013, 4:07 PM
cole world11 cole world11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SAT
Posts: 102
I really don't understand how having another hotel would affect the Alamo/Missions becoming a Heritage Site. There must be 20 hotels within a half mile radius, why would one more affect it? Does it have something to do with the possible shadow the tower would cast on the Alamo during part of the year?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #155  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2013, 11:01 PM
21bl0wed's Avatar
21bl0wed 21bl0wed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 627
As a native I know this wont get built. I've kind of given up on DT for any substantial high rises. We will see our first real modern skyscrapers in medical center, la cantera/rim area, or in stone oak. Bank on it!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #156  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2013, 2:21 AM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is offline
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21bl0wed View Post
As a native I know this wont get built. I've kind of given up on DT for any substantial high rises. We will see our first real modern skyscrapers in medical center, la cantera/rim area, or in stone oak. Bank on it!
You're completely incorrect with those assumptions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #157  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2013, 4:05 AM
21bl0wed's Avatar
21bl0wed 21bl0wed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam View Post
You're completely incorrect with those assumptions.
Lol how so? There are more ingredients and factors in the three areas I mentioned that make them all better candidates for a real skyscraper(s) vs downtown. We shall see but I think I'm pretty spot on with my assumptions. Yes I would love to see our downtown skyline catch up to the rest of cities our size but I just don't see it happening there are more obstacles in the way opposed to resources that would encourage potential highrises. Hmm lets see the three big drawbacks that are thwarting more high rises downtown are HDRC, still slow/lackluster growth in residential demand look at Vidorra (hey wasn't there supposed to be two of em!?). Lastly does anyone even do business downtown? Since the 1980s I feel jobs have fled downtown to other areas of the city. The huge bulk of jobs downtown are hotel jobs. :/

All three of those things need to change before we get a good climate for skyscraper construction downtown. It's not complicated, but unfortunately sometimes the easiest things to notice are the hardest to fix.

Sorry to derail. I do hope this building gets built hopefully with some redesign but its virtually impossible to be positive about proposals after decades of disappointment

Last edited by 21bl0wed; Aug 8, 2013 at 4:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #158  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2013, 6:05 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
friends don't lie
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the upside down
Posts: 49,377
Besides, I would not count on a really tall building far outside of downtown. San Antonio's tallest outside of downtown now is Broadway San Antonio at 279 feet. It's unlikely that there would be something twice that height built anytime soon. I wonder what the opposition to a tall building outside of downtown would be. San Antonio has far more tall buildings outside of downtown than Austin does, and here, we can't seem to get anything built without heavy opposition to it - even when it is in downtown. It's pretty ridiculous.
__________________
In America, today, it's not that truth has lost, it's that political bias has been accepted as a legitimate answer to every issue one struggles with.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #159  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2013, 6:16 AM
Spoiler's Avatar
Spoiler Spoiler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 542
Verticality is a result of scarcity of space. San Antonio has too much cheap space to make building a high-rise economically practical.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #160  
Old Posted Aug 8, 2013, 9:24 AM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is offline
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoiler View Post
Verticality is a result of scarcity of space. San Antonio has too much cheap space to make building a high-rise economically practical.
Not at all true.

Dallas has and had cheap land during the 70's, 80's, 90's and 00's.

That city alone kills your claim.

Houston, Denver, etc.
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 3:29 PM.

     

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