HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted May 29, 2007, 6:30 AM
S.A. S.A. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 28
News 4 woai just had a piece on the San Antonio skyline changing. They showed pictures of the Hyatt, the Vistana, the Vidorra, and a couple of others that didn't have names one looked like the 27 story building being talked about here. The thing i found curious was the pictures they used of the Vidorra, they showed the old renderings the ones with the giant fins. I wonder if they just made a mistake or they switched back to that.
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted May 29, 2007, 6:36 PM
Complex01's Avatar
Complex01 Complex01 is offline
Endless Moments...
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Texas...
Posts: 2,927



Here is the link to the site. WOAI- SA Skyline.


They are just all over the place with the story. Maybe someone from here should have wrote it for them and provided the pictures...

     
     
  #63  
Old Posted May 29, 2007, 6:54 PM
sakyle04's Avatar
sakyle04 sakyle04 is offline
COGSADCAJA, VP and CGO
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Frozen Swamps of Ohio
Posts: 1,369
Quote:
Here is the link to the site. WOAI- SA Skyline.

They are just all over the place with the story. Maybe someone from here should have wrote it for them and provided the pictures...
That was even more lame than I expected. And the twin-fin Vidorra Towers?
__________________
PAVE PARADISE, PUT UP A (HIGH-RISE ON A) PARKING LOT...
Kyle on Twitter
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted May 29, 2007, 7:23 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
I love how we're all in the know thanks to the forum, often finding stuff out long before even the media knows about it. Meanwhile your average joe is totally shocked and surprised by the news.
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted May 29, 2007, 8:15 PM
BSofA04's Avatar
BSofA04 BSofA04 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 372
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
I love how we're all in the know thanks to the forum, often finding stuff out long before even the media knows about it. Meanwhile your average joe is totally shocked and surprised by the news.
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted May 29, 2007, 8:54 PM
texboy texboy is offline
constructor extrodinaire!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,614
You know, Ive never been a big fan of the San Antonio Housing Authority, especially after the Stone Oak Fiasco with them pulling the wool over people's eyes. But in this case, Im very glad to see that they are planning a development that by the looks of it is a very nice addition to downtown (refering to the WOAI video). Thats actually more of the type of development I would like to see downtown...AFFORDABLE. How do we expect to stop sprawl if we aren't appealing to the price range of suburbia?
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted May 29, 2007, 9:33 PM
AndresAndujar AndresAndujar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 43
We should know soon if the developer closes on the deal. if he does, we'll have to see if he signs the flag. Both these hurdles are monumental, so cross your fingers.
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted May 29, 2007, 10:27 PM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is offline
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,887
WOAI Images.

Houston Street Projects:


SAHA Downtown Development
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted May 29, 2007, 10:29 PM
Mopacs's Avatar
Mopacs Mopacs is offline
Austinite
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Austin.TX.USA
Posts: 4,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by sakyle04 View Post
That was even more lame than I expected. And the twin-fin Vidorra Towers?
Did you notice also that they showed the 'current' street-level rendering of Vidorra...immediately following the graphic of the original "Twin Fin" towers?!?! Talk about inconsistencies!
__________________
Austin.Texas.USA
Home of the 2005 National Champion Texas Longhorns
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted May 29, 2007, 11:35 PM
jaga185's Avatar
jaga185 jaga185 is offline
James
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 2,462
What a horrible news broadcast, factually speaking. It's great to let people know what is going on, but to show wrong information is embarassing. They called the Hyatt a 23 story hotel with 9 floors of condos. Isn't it 34 stories? Plus the renedering they have of Houston Street isn't Houston street at all! Oh well, at least the Vistana was accurate
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted May 30, 2007, 8:50 AM
TXlifeguard TXlifeguard is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by texboy View Post
You know, Ive never been a big fan of the San Antonio Housing Authority, especially after the Stone Oak Fiasco with them pulling the wool over people's eyes.
I worked for SAHA for a couple of years in media relations. It was long before any of the stone oak stuff went down, but the public housing issue is way more complicated than a bunch of fart-knocker retirees in Stone Oak think. Don't be mad at SAHA, be mad HUD who created new mandates in the mid 90's that said public housing developments (we never called them projects) could no longer be concentrated in the urban core. There's percentages and prescriptions for how they have to be spread around town. All SAHA is doing is following federal mandates. And honestly, you'd rather have them purchase an apartment complex in the neighborhood than build something from scratch in it, because they wont pour a bunch of cash into new, non-highly visible developments - case in point - the former Mirasol Homes project with the craptastic KB homes that are only 8 years old, but are already falling apart, and full of mold (who knew there was a sub-standard version of a KB home, but I guess there is.)

It was a stretch to call it stone oak anyhow, because Blanco and 1604 is at the best, the edge of SO, unlike say a property at Stone Oak at Hardy Oak or something, and lies outside the actual SO platted development, but thats another argument.

But the deal was for SAHA to own the property and only 10% or something nominal would be dedicated to non-market rate rents. SAHA already has 22,000 familes (thats probably close to 75,000 folks assuming each family consists of 3 people) in the section 8 program- meaning they can rent a home or apartment pretty much anywhere in town. Cause federal law says that if you took out a loan to purchase the property that was from a FDIC insured bank, then you have to accept section 8 renters. So if an apartment complex was purchased and a bank provided the financing for it, or a landlord purchased a property with a mortgage, then they have to accept section 8 renters. What does this mean for SA? With 1million in the city limits (not MSA & burbs) about 1 in 13 folks here are in the section 8 program, and it's probably a good bet they are your neighbors. So if you live in the city of San Antonio proper, you more or less dont live too far from a federally subsidized renter. I can promise you they were all over town; including the then-annexxed areas of Stone Oak. For those of you all in Bexar County proper, there's a parallel but seperate agency (the Bexar County Housing Authority) that provides the same thing to about 1,000 families in areas outside SA city limits).

Finally, don't think that this deal to buy Talavera was unique. SAHA is a quiet apartment owner all over town. They've owned apartment complexes for years, all over town that are operated exactly as Talavera would have been run, including Burning Tree on Jones-Maltzberger, Towering Oaks in the Med Center and ironically enough, Churchill Estates Apartments in Churchill Estates , less than two miles from Talavera.

Blame SAHA for being inept. Blame them for being stupid enough to buy a bill of goods from KB Homes. Blame them for allowing a corporate culture if ineptitude to develop. But dont blame them for following federal regulations. Blame Jack Kemp (HUD Secretary under Bush 41) and Andrew Cuomo (HUD Secretary under Clinton).

Back to the topic. I've just heard lots of people throwing some inaccuracies around on here and wanted to put some facts out there.
__________________
"We marched five leagues over a fine country with broad plains, the most beautiful in all of New Spain. We camped on the banks of an arroyo. This I called San Antonio de Padua, because we reached it on the day of his festival." - General Domingo Teran de los Rios, June 13, 1691, in a letter to the King of Spain on the occasion of the founding of San Antonio.
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted May 30, 2007, 1:11 PM
sakyle04's Avatar
sakyle04 sakyle04 is offline
COGSADCAJA, VP and CGO
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Frozen Swamps of Ohio
Posts: 1,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXlifeguard View Post
I worked for SAHA for a couple of years in media relations. It was long before any of the stone oak stuff went down, but the public housing issue is way more complicated than a bunch of fart-knocker retirees in Stone Oak think. Don't be mad at SAHA, be mad HUD who created new mandates in the mid 90's that said public housing developments (we never called them projects) could no longer be concentrated in the urban core. There's percentages and prescriptions for how they have to be spread around town. All SAHA is doing is following federal mandates. And honestly, you'd rather have them purchase an apartment complex in the neighborhood than build something from scratch in it, because they wont pour a bunch of cash into new, non-highly visible developments - case in point - the former Mirasol Homes project with the craptastic KB homes that are only 8 years old, but are already falling apart, and full of mold (who knew there was a sub-standard version of a KB home, but I guess there is.)

It was a stretch to call it stone oak anyhow, because Blanco and 1604 is at the best, the edge of SO, unlike say a property at Stone Oak at Hardy Oak or something, and lies outside the actual SO platted development, but thats another argument.

But the deal was for SAHA to own the property and only 10% or something nominal would be dedicated to non-market rate rents. SAHA already has 22,000 familes (thats probably close to 75,000 folks assuming each family consists of 3 people) in the section 8 program- meaning they can rent a home or apartment pretty much anywhere in town. Cause federal law says that if you took out a loan to purchase the property that was from a FDIC insured bank, then you have to accept section 8 renters. So if an apartment complex was purchased and a bank provided the financing for it, or a landlord purchased a property with a mortgage, then they have to accept section 8 renters. What does this mean for SA? With 1million in the city limits (not MSA & burbs) about 1 in 13 folks here are in the section 8 program, and it's probably a good bet they are your neighbors. So if you live in the city of San Antonio proper, you more or less dont live too far from a federally subsidized renter. I can promise you they were all over town; including the then-annexxed areas of Stone Oak. For those of you all in Bexar County proper, there's a parallel but seperate agency (the Bexar County Housing Authority) that provides the same thing to about 1,000 families in areas outside SA city limits).

Finally, don't think that this deal to buy Talavera was unique. SAHA is a quiet apartment owner all over town. They've owned apartment complexes for years, all over town that are operated exactly as Talavera would have been run, including Burning Tree on Jones-Maltzberger, Towering Oaks in the Med Center and ironically enough, Churchill Estates Apartments in Churchill Estates , less than two miles from Talavera.

Blame SAHA for being inept. Blame them for being stupid enough to buy a bill of goods from KB Homes. Blame them for allowing a corporate culture if ineptitude to develop. But dont blame them for following federal regulations. Blame Jack Kemp (HUD Secretary under Bush 41) and Andrew Cuomo (HUD Secretary under Clinton).

Back to the topic. I've just heard lots of people throwing some inaccuracies around on here and wanted to put some facts out there.
Thanks, TX...I'm glad someone "in the know" finally put that out there.
__________________
PAVE PARADISE, PUT UP A (HIGH-RISE ON A) PARKING LOT...
Kyle on Twitter
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted May 30, 2007, 2:45 PM
jaga185's Avatar
jaga185 jaga185 is offline
James
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 2,462
Thanks for that input TX.
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted May 30, 2007, 5:09 PM
texboy texboy is offline
constructor extrodinaire!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,614
Quote:
a bunch of fart-knocker retirees in Stone Oak think.
Ill make sure to remind my parents thats what they are.

Anyways, I was presenting an opinion, I didn't like how the entire situation was handled. Yes I understand that there are government regulations as to where SAHA has to have housing. But the way this was dealt with (at least how the media presented it) was less than stellar. Instead of looking like they were doing a good deed to the public, they looked like they were speculating real estate. there are PLENTY of apartment communities in that area of town that Im POSTIVE would sell for less than 5 million. The two communities that SAHA had chosen were in the upper crust of apartment communities in that area...

And I know there are alot of people on this forum who have a distaste for people with more money than lord knows what to do with, but if you put yourself in their shoes just for a second, you could at least begin to see why all the so called "fart knocker retirees" would be pissed. Who wants to buy a half million dollar to million dollar home and then find out that a public housing project is going in not even a mile away? Yes it may sound very greedy and insensitive....but honestly would you want to buy in an area where your property value was put at risk bc the federal government feels the need to police diversity of housing?

Im all for affordable housing. This is not something I am against. I believe that everyone who works hard to pay their bills and provide a good life for their family should have the opportunity to live in a decent living environment. But the fact of the matter here is that housing projects are notoriously known to bring down property values of the neighborhoods that they are by.

This is my opinion, you can yell and scream at me all you want now, but this is the last I will say on this subject, bc its already WAY off topic.
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted May 31, 2007, 8:35 PM
matttwentyeight matttwentyeight is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 372
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mopacs View Post
Did you notice also that they showed the 'current' street-level rendering of Vidorra...immediately following the graphic of the original "Twin Fin" towers?!?! Talk about inconsistencies!
thankyou... i noticed that myself as well!

since this is WOAI, we should call the "troubleshooters" hotline and tell tanji patton to get on the case of her inept coworkers! i don't know "what's driving you crazy," but jeff coyle's lack of research and ability to correctly report the facts in a 60-80 second news segment is driving me crazy!
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2007, 5:51 AM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is offline
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,887
Anything new to report Andres?
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Jun 8, 2007, 6:23 PM
21bl0wed's Avatar
21bl0wed 21bl0wed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 627
Oh i just noticed its no longer june 1st..
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2007, 1:20 AM
AndresAndujar AndresAndujar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 43
Closing postponed, not dead. Believe me, I'm checking daily.
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2007, 4:16 PM
adtobias adtobias is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 285
are there going to be any condos with this w hotel
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2007, 6:09 PM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is offline
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,887
Andres, any new information?
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

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 10:37 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.