SAN ANTONIO │ Villita Street Tower │ 284 FEET | 24 FLOORS │ Pending - Page 14

Dan In Real Life · #**261** Posted **Dec 9, 2018, 1:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fryguy

well, that's healthy news. Let's hope we get anothe 400 footer. We need it.

+1

Spoiler · #**262** Posted **Dec 17, 2018, 1:27 AM**

HDRC hates it!

https://saheron.com/24-story-villita...ar-courthouse/

MABottz · #**263** Posted **Dec 17, 2018, 2:25 AM**

"Among its concerns is the lack of a 'solar access study,' which would show the high-rise’s impact on the River Walk."

Apologize in advance if this is a dumb question, but does this section of the River Walk even have substantive organic material that requires solar access???

txex06 · #**264** Posted **Dec 17, 2018, 2:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoiler

HDRC hates it!

https://saheron.com/24-story-villita...ar-courthouse/

The Riverwalk right above Nueva Street Dam is a barren concrete ditch. That area needs life so bad to connect downtown to King William/Southtown.

wwmiv · #**265** Posted **Dec 17, 2018, 2:55 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MABottz

"Among its concerns is the lack of a 'solar access study,' which would show the high-rise’s impact on the River Walk."

Apologize in advance if this is a dumb question, but does this section of the River Walk even have substantive organic material that requires solar access???

It’s not about nature, it’s about the normative desire to allow humans on the River level to have access to sunlight.

Fryguy · #**266** Posted **Dec 17, 2018, 3:30 AM**

That sh*t at Heimfair gets approved without question and yet this may not?! Whether they like it or not, it has no bearing on their right to build. This is why SA downtown is so outdated. That area of the River needs life, and it needs modern life, not the same old that we see everywhere... Abandoned and dilapidated that no one wants, as evidenced by their unused spaces.

If you have not even walked in that area in the last 10 years, then don't even give your opinion. I was last in that area in 2008. My hang out was at the Hotel Canessta in the day, and would park near by. I wouldn't even walk in that part of the River. Putting residential, and a restaurant, would bring life to that area.

MABottz · #**267** Posted **Dec 17, 2018, 3:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

It’s not about nature, it’s about the normative desire to allow humans on the River level to have access to sunlight.

Thank you for the insight--can't argue with that! I would say though, it'd sure be nice to get some humans down there to at least be impacted.

wwmiv · #**268** Posted **Dec 17, 2018, 5:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fryguy

If you have not even walked in that area in the last 10 years, then don't even give your opinion. I was last in that area in 2008.

Why are you giving your opinion, then?

Fryguy · #**269** Posted **Dec 17, 2018, 9:20 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Why are you giving your opinion, then?

Reading comprehension...

As stated, "Whether they like it or not, it has no bearing on their right to build". My opinion is formed on the situation, not the building or area, because it doesn't matter. There are no laws stating this development can or should not happen. It's like telling someone they cannot live in San Antonio because they don't like how they look. I'll tell you this, if this building doesn't get approval, SA maybe years away from anything taller than 250 ft downtown.

KevinFromTexas · #**270** Posted **Dec 17, 2018, 11:57 AM**

I hate to be the bringer of bad news on this one, but since I was able to view the building elevations in the site plan on the city's website, it's clear that this won't be 384 feet tall as we thought it would.

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned the height was 384 feet 2 inches to the top of the cooling tower.

Building elevations always use one of three different methods of listing the base number for the ground level height. Some building elevations will list the actual sea level elevation of the ground level point, and then every height above that adds the floor height, roof height and so on. With those elevations, you have to subtract the roof elevation above sea level from the ground level sea level elevation to get your actual building height. Other building elevations simply use 0 feet as the base number, and every height above that is the exact height. So, if the 2nd floor is listed as 24 feet, then that's the number. The same would be true for the roof. If it says 351 feet, then that's the actual height. Other building elevations also will sometimes list the ground elevation as 100 feet. In this case, you have to subtract that number from every elevation height on the building. So, in this case, as the parapet for the mechanical penthouse roof is listed as 384 feet 2 inches, you have to subtract 100 feet from that number. That means the actual height of the Villita Tower is 284 feet 2 inches.

I couldn't believe that was the case, and I had to do a doubletake. You might not believe it either, but an easy demonstration that it's true is to look at the height they have listed for the 2nd floor. It lists the height for the 2nd floor as 120 feet, and there's no way the 2nd floor of the building is 120 feet off the ground.

https://sanantonio.legistar.com/Legi...tions=&Search=

KevinFromTexas · #**271** Posted **Dec 17, 2018, 12:10 PM**

By the way, it also lists the leasing center as being on the 23rd floor, which means anytime you're wanting to go check out their units, you'd be guaranteed to at least see the 2nd from the top floor. That's pretty sweet. I'd imagine you'd have to schedule an appoinment ahead of time. I can only imagine what the views will be like from up there of the Tower Life Building.

UltraDanPrime · #**272** Posted **Dec 17, 2018, 12:23 PM**

"Dont even give your opinion" wow... no, please give your opinions people. That's why were here.

JACKinBeantown · #**273** Posted **Dec 17, 2018, 2:26 PM**

In this case I'm happy it's shorter. It won't block the Tower Life Building. SA's skyline will be better off as a result.

Montirob · #**274** Posted **Dec 17, 2018, 3:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoiler

HDRC hates it!

https://saheron.com/24-story-villita...ar-courthouse/

HDRC doesn't hate it.

STAFF is recommending denial AT THIS TIME, that's it. In fact, they are hinting that TALLER may be better (to make it more "slender"), and even note that there are no height restrictions. That said, I wouldn't like to see it block the Tower Life Building either.

All of the recommendations, except for the massing, are relatively minor. Many projects have to come back to the commission with modifications... even the ugly beige hotels.

This is not the same as the Joske Tower, and I bet it will eventually be approved.

UrbanTrance · #**275** Posted **Dec 17, 2018, 3:45 PM**

I hope so. It seems like a lot of developments in SA are afraid to go slender, which would make them taller. I’m sure there are lots of engineering changes that can make that difficult, but it would make some projects look better if possible.

Fryguy · #**276** Posted **Dec 17, 2018, 7:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montirob

HDRC doesn't hate it.

STAFF is recommending denial AT THIS TIME, that's it. In fact, they are hinting that TALLER may be better (to make it more "slender"), and even note that there are no height restrictions. That said, I wouldn't like to see it block the Tower Life Building either.

All of the recommendations, except for the massing, are relatively minor. Many projects have to come back to the commission with modifications... even the ugly beige hotels.

This is not the same as the Joske Tower, and I bet it will eventually be approved.

Well, we will know for sure tomorrow night.

jaga185 · #**277** Posted **Dec 17, 2018, 8:08 PM**

I'm here for this suggestion,

The city preservation staff also has issues with the demolition of the one-story brick building, which was built in 1916 by the Maverick-Clarke Litho Company and was a Western Auto Store in the 1930s. It’s not a locally designated landmark, but OHP says it’s eligible. OHP also says the garage should have “ground-level uses, windows or display space.”

I'm glad they are pushing them to make the space retail appropriate.

JACKinBeantown · #**278** Posted **Dec 17, 2018, 8:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaga185

I'm here for this suggestion,

The city preservation staff also has issues with the demolition of the one-story brick building, which was built in 1916 by the Maverick-Clarke Litho Company and was a Western Auto Store in the 1930s. It’s not a locally designated landmark, but OHP says it’s eligible. OHP also says the garage should have “ground-level uses, windows or display space.”

I'm glad they are pushing them to make the space retail appropriate.

(like button)

Spoiler · #**279** Posted **Dec 17, 2018, 9:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Montirob

HDRC doesn't hate it.

Please forgive me for being slightly hyperbolic.

Also forgive me for projecting, because I certainly hate the building as it is. It's incredibly plain. It looks like a public housing project from the '70s, not like how a new riverwalk residential building should look.

And they should definitely incorporate the existing building into the parking garage.

Montirob · #**280** Posted **Dec 17, 2018, 9:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoiler

Please forgive me for being slightly hyperbolic.

Also forgive me for projecting, because I certainly hate the building as it is. It's incredibly plain. It looks like a public housing project from the '70s, not like how a new riverwalk residential building should look.

And they should definitely incorporate the existing building into the parking garage.

After seeing the innovative octagonal apartments, this design is a bit... less, though I don't absolutely hate it. The most interesting part of the project is, strangely enough, the garage.

It IS a missed opportunity, however. A few tweaks to reduce the "great wall" affect (breaking up the massing or revising the balconies), may be the solution that city staff is looking to see to make it appear more "slender".