HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted May 14, 2013, 2:09 AM
JACKinBeantown's Avatar
JACKinBeantown JACKinBeantown is offline
JACKinBeantown
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 7,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by adtobias View Post
Is there no land downtown that can be developed rather than using older building to revamp them?
Not in that specific location.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted May 14, 2013, 3:07 AM
oldmanshirt's Avatar
oldmanshirt oldmanshirt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SATX > KCMO > DFW
Posts: 1,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by NBTX11 View Post
I'm more of a lurker. Haven't posted in a long time. However this is huge news. I am surprised no one has posted this. This project has received tentative approval from the city manager, who has final say over the HRDC. This project is moving forward it seems.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/...pt-4508657.php

Blasted by critics and the city's historic review board, the Joske's hotel project has been given new life by City Manager Sheryl Sculley, who came out in support of the project late last week.

Sculley's backing, however, is contingent on reducing its scale, as envisioned by the developer: a hotel and time share that would reach more than 20 stories above the historic Joske's building at Rivercenter mall.

On Friday, Sculley informed the mall's owner, New York-based Ashkenazy Acquisition Corp., that she approves of the concept of a hotel at the site but that its architects must return to the Historic and Design Review Commission for another go-around.

In a 6-2 vote May 1, the commission denied plans for the high-rise at Alamo and Commerce streets, calling its height inappropriate, given its proximity to the Alamo.

As city manager, Sculley has the final say on the HDRC's recommendations.

---

In her letter of approval, Sculley sided with the second option, which would reduce the smaller tower by two stories and increase the larger tower by one story. It also stipulates that the additions be set back 16 feet from the Joske's cornice line.
----

So it looks like the tower may actually INCREASE in height in it's final design. This is the option the city manager, who has final approval, favors. This would push the project to over 400' in my opinion. This is truly a game changer for SA.
But just to be clear, she hasn't given the project final approval yet.

"On Friday, Sculley informed the mall's owner, New York-based Ashkenazy Acquisition Corp., that she approves of the concept of a hotel at the site but that its architects must return to the Historic and Design Review Commission for another go-around."

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...#ixzz2TETnJmtt

If I'm parsing correctly, she approves the concept (one of the excuses given by the Commission for denial) but is leaving the HDRC free to tweak the design as they see fit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted May 14, 2013, 3:14 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 oldmanshirt View Post
But just to be clear, she hasn't given the project final approval yet.

"On Friday, Sculley informed the mall's owner, New York-based Ashkenazy Acquisition Corp., that she approves of the concept of a hotel at the site but that its architects must return to the Historic and Design Review Commission for another go-around."

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...#ixzz2TETnJmtt

If I'm parsing correctly, she approves the concept (one of the excuses given by the Commission for denial) but is leaving the HDRC free to tweak the design as they see fit.
She's the final say. Her approving of the project and recommending the alternative one design speaks volumes. Basically, the developer will submit the 31 story design, more than likely get approval, if not, it then falls to Sculley who will then in all likelihood, approve it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted May 14, 2013, 4:59 PM
NBTX11 NBTX11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Posts: 299
Like I said a game changer for SA. Could this be the best new building for SA since the Weston or Marriott? The east side of DT is going to look like an actual DT with the Marriott, GH, TOA, and this building all over 400'.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted May 14, 2013, 5:07 PM
NBTX11 NBTX11 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldmanshirt View Post
But just to be clear, she hasn't given the project final approval yet.

"On Friday, Sculley informed the mall's owner, New York-based Ashkenazy Acquisition Corp., that she approves of the concept of a hotel at the site but that its architects must return to the Historic and Design Review Commission for another go-around."

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...#ixzz2TETnJmtt

If I'm parsing correctly, she approves the concept (one of the excuses given by the Commission for denial) but is leaving the HDRC free to tweak the design as they see fit.
It will be tweaked but not radically changed. Remember the hdrc was actually split 4-4 on the previous design so they only need one more yes vote. Plus the city manager is in favor of it and has actual final approval not the hdrc. The smaller tower will be reduced and the larger one increased most likely. Done deal. Again can not be emphasized enough. The hdrc doesn't have final approval the city mgr does and she approves the project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted May 25, 2013, 5:50 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
friends don't lie
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the upside down
Posts: 49,367
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/
__________________
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
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted May 25, 2013, 9:00 PM
whatdoyouwantandwhy whatdoyouwantandwhy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 66
So they reduced the height? thats unfortunate, I was really hoping they would have scaled back the timeshare portion and increased the height of the tower... On the bright side this building will still be a great addition to SA and may even be the start of more high rise development near the Alamo area, especially the area behind the Alamo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted May 25, 2013, 9:26 PM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is offline
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,713
Those heights are of the building/hotel itself. Not the total height.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted May 25, 2013, 9:29 PM
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 whatdoyouwantandwhy View Post
So they reduced the height? thats unfortunate, I was really hoping they would have scaled back the timeshare portion and increased the height of the tower... On the bright side this building will still be a great addition to SA and may even be the start of more high rise development near the Alamo area, especially the area behind the Alamo.
No. Those renderings are the alternative plans they submitted to HDRC two weeks ago. Sculley choose option 2, which as shown is the smaller building is reduced two stories and the taller tower is increased 1 story.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted May 25, 2013, 9:38 PM
whatdoyouwantandwhy whatdoyouwantandwhy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 66
Alright thats great.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted May 25, 2013, 9:58 PM
jaga185's Avatar
jaga185 jaga185 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 2,223
Ok now I see it. It will be 346, possibly, plus the height of the joskes/dillards building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted May 25, 2013, 10:14 PM
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 jaga185 View Post
Ok now I see it. It will be 346, possibly, plus the height of the joskes/dillards building.
Yes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted May 26, 2013, 3:25 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
friends don't lie
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the upside down
Posts: 49,367
Ok, I see. I was kind of confused myself. I didn't believe that was the overall height either. I also measured with a piece of paper. If you click on the link below that rendering I posted above, the link has a slightly larger version of it. There's several setbacks that have their lengths measured. I used those to measure since they're the same scale. One is 32 feet and another is 11 feet. I measured, and the timeshare/podium section seems to be about 74 feet tall. So applying that number to the 336 foot height would be 410 feet and it would be 420 feet if they went with the 346 foot height for the tower section. 420 feet would make it just 4 feet shorter than 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
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted May 26, 2013, 4:24 PM
whatdoyouwantandwhy whatdoyouwantandwhy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 66
So a tower that is as tall as the Grand Hyatt, but much more appeasing to the eye sounds great to me! Now I wonder what the time line for this project is...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted May 26, 2013, 5:18 PM
Spoiler's Avatar
Spoiler Spoiler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 542
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatdoyouwantandwhy View Post
the start of more high rise development near the Alamo area, especially the area behind the Alamo.
You can't build tall buildings behind the Alamo. It's not allowed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted May 26, 2013, 6:26 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
friends don't lie
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the upside down
Posts: 49,367
^It's too bad they couldn't extend the riverwalk and punch it through/under the Rivercenter garage and then turn that parking lot east of the Alamo into a park with a lagoon similar to Discovery Green in Houston and Butler Park in Austin. It would "bookend" downtown with two parks at either end - Milam Square being the other one on the other side of downtown.
__________________
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
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted May 27, 2013, 9:31 AM
whatdoyouwantandwhy whatdoyouwantandwhy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 66
haha my bad, I meant urban development in general. Though I forgot that high rise development wasn't allowed. Honestly, I would love to see that entire area behind the alamo develop with similar architecture to the crocket hotel or the emily morgan... Maybe add a little square in the middle.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted May 27, 2013, 10:59 AM
adtobias adtobias is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 285
Downtown parks are a haven for the homeless. How with this hemisphere park be any different.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted May 27, 2013, 7:26 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
friends don't lie
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the upside down
Posts: 49,367
I think that area probably wouldn't be a homeless hangout. I've never seen any in Hemisphere Park. But you're right, I have seen them in Milam Square for sure.
__________________
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
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted May 27, 2013, 7:27 PM
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 adtobias View Post
Downtown parks are a haven for the homeless. How with this hemisphere park be any different.
If that statement were true, Hemisfair (you can't even spell it correctly?) Park would already be a haven for the homeless. It's not. There's only one downtown park that is a hot spot for homeless, we all know which one it is, and the city is taking steps to change that.
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 9:09 AM.

     

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