HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #541  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2016, 9:49 PM
jaga185's Avatar
jaga185 jaga185 is offline
James
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 2,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keep-SA-Lame View Post
The meetings are at 3pm on Wednesdays, they certainly don't make it easy for people working 8-5 to attend...
For real, it's not fair! lol but at least MySA kept us informed about the approval!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #542  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2016, 2:50 AM
SAguy SAguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 535
From the Rivard Report-

HDRC Chair Michael Guarino suggested the tower be built a little taller.

“You folks are taking an opportunity to build an iconic building in San Antonio and with that right comes a responsibility,” he said. “I think the building could be a little bit better if it were a little bit taller.”

http://therivardreport.com/frost-tower-gets-preliminary-approval-pending-nitpicky-changes/

40?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #543  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2016, 4:18 AM
Restless 1 Restless 1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 437
Sheesh!!

This is the Debbie Downer attitude we have to deal with:

Carol Wood, a downtown resident, was the only citizen that signed up to speak to the commission about the project.

“Everyone is excited about adding a new tower,” Wood said, “but a glass tower is dissimilar (to other downtown structures) and doesn’t complement or connect with the historic fabric of downtown San Antonio.”


I mean really???? It's not boring, so it doesn't connect???

I agree with the HDRC chair that it could be taller, but if we sacrifice some height for some glass, then break ground already.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #544  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2016, 2:52 PM
jaga185's Avatar
jaga185 jaga185 is offline
James
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 2,529
If they were to listen to Michael Guarino, that would be a dream come true. Imagine if they added just 50ft. The different it would make. It would be as tall as the Weston. That would be awesome.

But as it is, it's only 40ft shorter... which is really nothing. So I'm not mad.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #545  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2016, 3:00 PM
WebneratSAEN WebneratSAEN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7
Developers have said the building will be around 400 feet, but the HDRC submission has it at 385 feet, which would put it at about the height of the Bank of America Plaza building. I get the impression the details aren't set in stone yet.

http://www.expressnews.com/real-estate/a...cfe4ad459372fcb026&cmpid=twitter-premium
__________________
Richard Webner, real estate and economic development reporter at the San Antonio Express-News.
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @rwebner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #546  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2016, 4:11 PM
jaga185's Avatar
jaga185 jaga185 is offline
James
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 2,529
Maybe to the roof and the little spikes make 400ft?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #547  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2016, 5:36 PM
scraperwill scraperwill is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 32
As I said on 12/11/15: it will not even be 400'. People throwing around 400' are meaning its height will be "approximately" 400', not actually 400'.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #548  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2016, 5:45 PM
SAtown SAtown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 99
Looks like the HDRC is at it again... Awnings on the exterior of the building? A more "grand" entrance--using Frost's current building as an example? Ew. What exactly is the HDRC supposed to do? Because this seems to be the only building they have ever had comments about, meanwhile ugly hotels sprout up like weeds with no "nitpicking" to be seen. Really bummed I couldn't make the meeting. I was going to take off work to speak up because I'm fearful this will be another Grand Hyatt botch by HDRC. Did anyone go?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #549  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2016, 6:35 PM
Keep-SA-Lame's Avatar
Keep-SA-Lame Keep-SA-Lame is offline
COGSADCAJA- Publicist
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAtown View Post
Looks like the HDRC is at it again... Awnings on the exterior of the building? A more "grand" entrance--using Frost's current building as an example? Ew. What exactly is the HDRC supposed to do? Because this seems to be the only building they have ever had comments about, meanwhile ugly hotels sprout up like weeds with no "nitpicking" to be seen. Really bummed I couldn't make the meeting. I was going to take off work to speak up because I'm fearful this will be another Grand Hyatt botch by HDRC. Did anyone go?
I agree with your general frustration about HDRC nitpicking on great projects like this but letting horrible things like Embassy Suites and the Solo Serve hotel through. But let's keep things in perspective. Their suggestions are pretty minimal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #550  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2016, 7:39 PM
texastarkus texastarkus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Far Sub-Urban San Antonio
Posts: 479
Just 200 feet taller

Am I the only one who is disappointed by this project? Don't get me wrong this appears to be a wonderful addition to our skyline but I really wanted this to be a couple hundred feet taller than it is gonna be. Frost Bank is a wonderful company and I know their new home will shine with class but I wanted a 600 foot tower. I'm just venting.....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #551  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2016, 8:08 PM
kornbread kornbread is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 830
I looked at the outside of the existing Frost Bank entrance (via Google ) and other than a setback at the first floor there wasn't anything spectacular or noteworthy about it.

It's not real clear from the few renderings I've seen what the entrance will look like with this new building, but when an awning was mentioned I thought it would be like putting socks on a statue.
The site doesn't really lend itself to that, and even if they add something sculptural on that one corner it would feel like it was just done for the sake of doing it.

The comments by the commission were mostly useless with the exception of the comments regarding the garage (they have to dress it up), and how the site interfaces with the creek. It's basically retail space on the street other than the one corner with the sidewalk. So the site is a giant parking garage that just happens to be next to the creek as opposed to any real kind of link which is very disappointing.

The one person who spoke made some good points. There is really nothing about this building that makes me think of San Antonio, it doesn't seem like it would be energy efficient, it seems like it would cause worse glare than other buildings and be more of a risk for birds to crash into (maybe there's way to avoid either of these?).

I think what we have here is a building designed and constrained by its budget. No difficult curves or atrium. Nothing really intricate on the exterior, just clean lines and a different crown, and it's blue glass. It's going to stand out (or look out of place) until something gets built around it.

It still kind of looks like a shark bit off the top of the building. Maybe they need to rework the crown? Flattening it takes away the drama. I tried adding concentrically smaller offset and steeper additions and it seemed to either look similar to Frost Austin, a drill bit, or an asparagus spear. (one of the fat ones that snaps way up high!)

It's tough to please everyone
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #552  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2016, 8:52 PM
RyanfromTexas's Avatar
RyanfromTexas RyanfromTexas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by texastarkus View Post
Am I the only one who is disappointed by this project? Don't get me wrong this appears to be a wonderful addition to our skyline but I really wanted this to be a couple hundred feet taller than it is gonna be. Frost Bank is a wonderful company and I know their new home will shine with class but I wanted a 600 foot tower. I'm just venting.....
"you are not alone"...Michael Jackson voice
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #553  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2016, 2:50 AM
Christianmx Christianmx is offline
San Antonio, TX
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 419
Thumbs down

this a solidly average building. Can't believe I waited for long for this. This thread was the only reason I still checked SSP. I have been trolled.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #554  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2016, 3:39 AM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is online now
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,941
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAtown View Post
Looks like the HDRC is at it again... Awnings on the exterior of the building? A more "grand" entrance--using Frost's current building as an example? Ew. What exactly is the HDRC supposed to do? Because this seems to be the only building they have ever had comments about, meanwhile ugly hotels sprout up like weeds with no "nitpicking" to be seen. Really bummed I couldn't make the meeting. I was going to take off work to speak up because I'm fearful this will be another Grand Hyatt botch by HDRC. Did anyone go?
You honestly have no clue what you're talking about.

Firstly, the HDRC gives critiques to all developments that come before them. The most recent example being the Solo Serve hotel recently proposed. It seems you don't care enough to track those developments in the say way you care enough to track this one.

Secondly, the Grand Hyatt design had nothing to do with the HDRC and everything to do with the builder of the project.

Lastly, the design will not change, sans maybe some minor changes to the parking garage.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #555  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2016, 4:53 AM
TexHorn TexHorn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam View Post
You honestly have no clue what you're talking about.

Firstly, the HDRC gives critiques to all developments that come before them. The most recent example being the Solo Serve hotel recently proposed. It seems you don't care enough to track those developments in the say way you care enough to track this one.

Secondly, the Grand Hyatt design had nothing to do with the HDRC and everything to do with the builder of the project.

Lastly, the design will not change, sans maybe some minor changes to the parking garage.
One thing that's frustrating is when they wander into the realm of subjective critiques that really have nothing to do with maintaining adherence to historic guidelines. For instance, what does the height of the building or the presence of awnings have to do with historic guidelines?

Their comments are purely about the HDRC members' subjective stylistic opinions. With due respect, none of them are members of elite national architectural or design firms. Why should their opinions matter on non-historic aspects of a building?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #556  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2016, 6:22 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Austin<--->Birmingham<--->Atlanta
Posts: 55,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by WebneratSAEN View Post
Developers have said the building will be around 400 feet, but the HDRC submission has it at 385 feet, which would put it at about the height of the Bank of America Plaza building. I get the impression the details aren't set in stone yet.

http://www.expressnews.com/real-estate/a...cfe4ad459372fcb026&cmpid=twitter-premium
Who knows? The person I contacted at PCP (the architects) about the height didn't respond. The person I was contacting had contacted me earlier this year asking for permission to use some of my photos of the site. They even wanted me to take more, but I couldn't because I don't live in San Antonio. Anyway, I get the feeling the design we're seeing is the one they're sticking with since the renderings really are of good quality and don't seem to be too vague. And it's unlikely they would add more height unless the market suddenly demanded it.
__________________
My girlfriend has a poodle named Kevin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #557  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2016, 5:45 PM
NOLAmike's Avatar
NOLAmike NOLAmike is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam View Post
You honestly have no clue what you're talking about.
Can we keep the discussion a little less confrontational?

I am pretty excited with this development. Most exciting for me is the location next to the park and removal of surface parking. I think with the other renovations in the area, the influx of people will really make that park lively. Hopefully the surface parking lot on Main and Houston either gets developed or turns in to a park. Although this building may not be as tall as some of you want, maybe it turns the tide and really starts attracting more folks downtown.

As far as the HDRC is concerned, they are always going to comment on these developments, and their comments were within the expectations of the consortium that is developing this building. So I think it is a win-win, these stakeholders are going to be pleased and the Frost building's design will probably only be minimally changed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #558  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2016, 6:01 PM
arkitekte's Avatar
arkitekte arkitekte is offline
Preds/Titans/Grizz
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 2,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexHorn View Post
One thing that's frustrating is when they wander into the realm of subjective critiques that really have nothing to do with maintaining adherence to historic guidelines. For instance, what does the height of the building or the presence of awnings have to do with historic guidelines?

Their comments are purely about the HDRC members' subjective stylistic opinions. With due respect, none of them are members of elite national architectural or design firms. Why should their opinions matter on non-historic aspects of a building?
You do understand that is why it's the Historic AND Design Review Commission, don't you? They're purview isn't only to how a building applies to historic design guidelines.
__________________
I built it ground up. You bought it renovated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #559  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2016, 6:21 PM
JACKinBeantown's Avatar
JACKinBeantown JACKinBeantown is offline
JACKinBeantown
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 9,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexHorn View Post
One thing that's frustrating is when they wander into the realm of subjective critiques that really have nothing to do with maintaining adherence to historic guidelines. For instance, what does the height of the building or the presence of awnings have to do with historic guidelines?

Their comments are purely about the HDRC members' subjective stylistic opinions. With due respect, none of them are members of elite national architectural or design firms. Why should their opinions matter on non-historic aspects of a building?
My dad went to an elite college, got his degree, got commissioned into the U.S Air Force and became a colonel. He had great credentials and was very good at what he did. He was also a wise manager. He always asked the sergeants for their opinions on matters because he knew they were the ones with specific knowledge of the tasks he assigned them and their men to perform (at the time there were very few women in the military).

My analogy is to point out the fact that just because an architect may have stunning credentials, a degree from an elite faraway school and the respect of their peers, that doesn't mean they have the best knowledge of the details and history of a city such as San Antonio. Maybe some members of the HDRC are life-long San Antonians and remember things about the city that those elite national architects would have no clue about. If so, then their opinions are much more important than those of someone flown in from another place to look impressive, make some comments about the building's plans, and then hop on a plane and leave town with no stake in the outcome of the final design.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #560  
Old Posted Jul 25, 2016, 4:16 PM
SAtown SAtown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam View Post
You honestly have no clue what you're talking about.

Firstly, the HDRC gives critiques to all developments that come before them. The most recent example being the Solo Serve hotel recently proposed. It seems you don't care enough to track those developments in the say way you care enough to track this one.

Secondly, the Grand Hyatt design had nothing to do with the HDRC and everything to do with the builder of the project.

Lastly, the design will not change, sans maybe some minor changes to the parking garage.
With all due respect, much more "clueless" comments have been posted without the poster being disparaged for sharing their opinion. My comment was more that the subjective recommendations by the HDRC were sophomoric and just flat out bad.

Firstly, while I follow other projects, the only published comments by the HDRC on the Solo Serve hotel were that it blends in nicely with other developments on the River Walk (LOL). I have been following that project, there just hasn't been as much press on it or discussion on the forum. Additionally, as others have mentioned, most of us can't take off work to attend these meetings, so we rely on what's published. If you have more knowledge of their comments on that one, I'd love to hear them, especially if they're negative.

Secondly, the Frost Tower article in the EN expressly (pun intended) states that the HDRC fretted over design elements of the Grand Hyatt and ultimately nitpicked it to the uninspiring deisgn we have today.

Quote:
The Grand Hyatt’s original design was unveiled in 2004 as an innovative, playful, contemporary building. But HDRC fretted over elements large and small, such as changing the color of metal panels on the exterior from vibrant yellow and orange to beige and brown. It expressed dissatisfaction that the building was not “uniquely San Antonio,” if such a style exists.
http://www.expressnews.com/real-estate/a...-Urban-proposes-cutting-edge-8348799.php

Lastly, I never said I thought the design would change as a result.
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:02 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.