SAN ANTONIO | Hard Rock Hotel | 18 FLOORS | Proposed
Dallas developer plans 14-story Hard Rock Hotel atop Joske’s building
A Dallas developer has drawn up plans for 14-story Hard Rock Hotel that would rise above the nearby Alamo, the San Antonio Express-News reported Monday. A follow-up Express-News story on Wednesday reports that the plans come at a time when the city and state are attempting to transform Alamo Plaza — over the objections of many Alamo enthusiasts. The Express-News reported that the Hard Rock Hotel would be built atop the four-story Joske’s building, creating a structure 18 stories tall. Five years ago, that was the site for a similar proposal for a 23-story hotel, which was rejected “amid concerns that it would damage the ambiance around the Alamo,” the Express-News said. The Express-News reported immediate opposition from the San Antonio Conservation Society, but noted that a 300-room hotel is quite attractive to city officials committed to tourism and modernization. By Richard Webner and Joshua Fechter | July 23, 2018 | Updated: July 24, 2018 10:59am https://www.expressnews.com/real-est...photo-15909570 |
There was an article about this in the Houston Chronicle also:
https://www.chron.com/real-estate/ar..._medium=social |
Quote:
|
I seriously thought that the whole "putting a high rise hotel on top of the Joske building" was put to rest years ago. I'm all for new high rise buildings in DT, but I really don't see using the Joske building as an addition/platform for a tall and modern building.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
When they gutted the building in 2013 (removing 100 yr old beams), only the façade remained. A completely new foundation, structure, and roof were installed with, in my opinion, the intention that additional stories could be added later. Basis for my opinion: The April 2013 HDRC request included both the "renovation" of the existing interior AND the tower. The tower was rejected, but since the renovation continued, I believe that the owners would not have re-engineered and revised the plans. The sketches of the Hard Rock hotel also shows the SAME L-shaped layout as the previous tower. |
Correct. New support structures were built within the gutted building to support the weight of any additional building added in the future.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
That hotel that should have been built back in 2016 (i think) was beautiful. I hope to God we get a hotel structure like that, similar to the Fairmont in Austin. SA needs a tall, world-class hotel downtown. But, maybe this Hard Rock Hotel will be very nice, with the added old and new of the existing structure, it could be a sight to see; something the Hemifair should have had.
|
Yeah, the proposed hotel was a perfect structure and we missed an opportunity back then. OH well.
|
Quote:
I agree that it would be a shame if the Hard Rock one is just a beige (fake) stucco box. |
Quote:
|
As I am looking at the Hard Rock hotel rendering again, I am wondering what "25 key per floor" mean? Anyone?
|
What do you use keys to open?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
That makes sense!:cheers: |
I am curious why that was important to put, if that's what it means; 25 rooms per floor. Interesting. :frog:
|
Quote:
|
Confirms now why the recent interior of the rebuilt Joske's Building was so starkly banal--it really was all just temporary commercial placeholder until they could redevelop it again. It's just as well, for the city shouldn't have caved on the previously proposed Joske's Tower to begin with. I wonder if Joske's owner still holds rights on the design and engineering of that tabled tower.
Hard Rock Hotel... https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...size=327%2C500 (Photo by Matt Miller on the Omaha World-Herald) Wait till the critics of Tomb Raider 3D on Alamo Plaza see a new giant, light up marquee guitar spinning atop Joske's! No doubt the review boards will be weighing heavily on the developers to tone it all down--hopefully not back into something yet again banal. Atlanta has been working on a Gensler-designed Hard Rock Hotel for their Castleberry Park redevelopment, and its general outlines are not too dissimilar in size, scale, and massing to what is being tentatively suggested here. https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...2/?format=750w (Rendering by Gensler for Hard Rock International) Just superimpose Joske's over the base. Actually, one legitimate strategy to emphasize and complement the historic architecture of Joske's is to cleanly, boldly, and distinctly contrast against it rather than slavishly trying to clone, extrude, or merge into and absorb it. So long as proportions, rhythms, scales, and functionalities are kept, materials and styles can be very different, and that can make for a more interesting architecture that better preserves the image and sensibility of the older building. |
Personally, I'd rather see another hotel operator. Hard Rock has lost its panache/coolness. Something like an Edition or 1Hotel would be more interesting/exciting.
In other words, I'd rather see a hotel which does not have a location on the Redneck Riviera (Biloxi/Gulfport, MS). Something that puts SA on a different map. |
Quote:
The two hotels you mentioned would fit in the Pearl or maybe as part of the Hemisfair development or near Southtown, possibly part of Grey Street’s large SAISD land development. Heck, near the new Frost HQ in the tech district would work better than on top of the Shops at Rivercenter. |
Quote:
( like button ) 👍 |
Quote:
For me, this is the wrong direction to go. SA needs to step up with the times. Riding on our laurels is going to kill us. As a whole, we need to realize (and accept) that what we had in the past no longer exists. Tourism has changed. Example: the HRH in San Diego is in a perfect spot...but, it's dead. The Onmi across the street has more hop to it! Plus, there are numerous more, hip options, from which to choose in the immediate area - The Gaslamp District. The most "touristy" spot in downtown San Diego. The Hard Rock brand's time has run its course. |
Personally, I'm hoping for a Howard Johnson's.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Something similar to what is pictured above would work perfectly atop the Joske's building; mixing old with flashy new. I love it! And across the street, we have a mix of cheap eats (McDonald's) and high-end (Ruth Chris) to super high-end restaurants (Fig Tree; this place is truly great, as not great as Bella on the River, though). Downtown San Antonio needs more centralized diversification in architecture and pro-social activities; the building of this hotel may help with this need, least from an exterior presence.
|
Quote:
|
I guess i'm the only one here who is opposed to this idea of putting an 18 floor hotel on top of the Joske building.
https://s26.postimg.cc/3pu5szh89/joske.jpg I can't see how this old relic like the joske building would compliment a modern high rise hotel on top of it, it would just look so out of place to me. I will say this though, I wouldn't be opposed to something in a smaller scale like this Hampton inn on cesar chavez blvd. https://s26.postimg.cc/7jnm25dzt/Cap...13-42-01-1.png https://s26.postimg.cc/ij8tdq9jt/Cap...13-42-47-1.png They incorporated an old building and built three extra floors on top of it. I personally would of matched the exterior of the addition to the existing building but other than that, it takes up pretty much the entire original building so that to me makes it a fine addition. The Joske building is pretty huge so to me, they can only pull off adding an addition to the building by adding more floors (3 or 4 at most) on top of the majority or all of the existing perimeter of the building and matching the exterior of the addition to existing building. That way it'll look like this addition actually belongs. That's just my opinion, but I know we all want as many new sophisticated buildings to rise from the GROUND up here in SA. Trust me, I do too. Add a new high rise on top of Joske's, and it would just stick out like a sore thumb to me. |
I feel they should incorporate the brick that used to be the old Joskes tower. If they can.
|
Hearst Tower in Manhattan remains the familiar textbook case study.
Base by Joseph Urban originally built in 1928: http://collections.mcny.org/Doc/MNY/.../MNY237028.jpg (Photo from Wurts Bros. collection of the Museum of the City of New York) Tower by Foster + Partners finally added in 2006: http://images.skyscrapercenter.com/b...rporation1.jpg (Photo from Hearst Corporation on CTBUH) https://cdn.archpaper.com/wp-content...t_tower_02.jpg (Photo from Simon King on Flickr via The Architect's Newspaper) The howls on our city's review committees for even just a less daring, 14-floor version would never cease, but we see that it can be done successfully. The relevant wing of Joske's is not really that much different in scale, style, or type than Hearst's base, such that you can very easily photoshop Joske's into the image above. I fear, however, that only the most conservative, unassuming, and conventional add-on atop Joske's would make it through the process, and even Hard Rock, for all its brand imagery, will play it safe. |
Somebody on here who's more educated than I can correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that the HDRC required additions to historic buildings to look distinct. The reason for this was so that the casual observer could readily distinguish what is historic from what isn't.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Too bad parking lots east (Denny"s) and north on Bowie of RC cannot be purchased and developed as stand alone projects. Joske's building doesn't need a top hat.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
If you’re going to ask me why they don’t sell, I don’t have an answer for you. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I can’t tell you why those lots haven’t been developed, but they haven’t. Also, JMJ obviously want to build onto of the Joske’s. I thought they want to have to buy a surface parking lot that will be incredibly expensive when they can simply build atop a structure. |
There is also the Alamo Viewshed Protection district, VP-1, which extends in an arc eastward from a point at the front of the Alamo and limits structures that would rise up behind the Alamo. Development in the parking lots behind the Alamo to the east are seriously constrained by this viewshed district.
http://www.esri.com/~/media/Images/C...alamo_4-lg.jpg (Image from Esri) I do not know how much flexibility by way of waivers and grandfathering is allowed within the viewshed protection overlay district, but I suspect it is not enough to sway Hard Rock or many other developers that they can be successful proposing major development within its coverage area. This is too bad, as a sweltering sea of ugly parking lots extending to I-37 is its own urban blight that hardly ennobles the Alamo or strengthens the vitality of downtown. |
^^ Another way to look at it (a positive way) is that this provides an excellent opportunity to create a rather large urban park where those parking lots are. All it would take is some money. The city could easily afford it and it would be very beneficial for tourists and downtown residents. The question is: does anybody with the power to make it happen care about doing something that's not immediately fiscally profitable, but would be over the long term? The name writes itself: Alamo Park.
|
I had the same thought and fully agree. Just imagine if the Alamo garden could be extended eastward as a park all the way to I-37 and be given detailed treatment similar to the courtyards and arcades of the current garden. An Alamo Park would completely change the image of that area and rehabilitate that sector of downtown. For want of a single parking garage, a city park and a large swath of downtown are being lost.
There was official concern during the Joske's Tower proposal of the impact of the tower on the beauty and historical integrity of the Alamo as a World Heritage Site, but hardly a peep about the oil-saturated, concrete and asphalt heat island already behind the Alamo. Suggestions have been made to use the parking lot area for the planned Alamo museum rather than gutting the Crockett Block of historic buildings facing the Alamo across Alamo Plaza. That can be okay, but a park would be better, and the museum would be better placed inside current Federal building at the north end of Alamo Plaza. |
SKW,
Just to be fair...can you back the following claim up with "facts:" Quote:
Just curious. I'm not quite disagreeing with you. But, the word - epitome - is (can be) quite subjective. Hey, I too am one which believes the Hard Rock would fit in great with the Ripley's Believe it or Not/Tomb Raider 3D/Guinness Book of World Records Museum AND Texas' beloved Alamo Mission. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 4:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.