SAN ANTONIO | Urban Core Development Thread

[car2004]

Originally Posted by tgannaway89

I don't think it was fair for anyone to call you a joke. Your opinion is just as valid as everyone else on this forum. I don't think you should pay any attention to forum grammar. Most of us usually are not our best spellers when quickly typing a response. I am currently in college and DO NOT make it a point to correct others. We all have different education levels and too insult anyone based on that is cowardly.

[car2004]

Originally Posted by jaga185

Why is everything Car says wrong? All this constant belittling is frustrating me. I agree with him to a certain extent.

Our highways are great, but not that great. We do have to do quite a bit of lane switching. I still think that more work on freeways will lead to sprawl, which I don't like, but have accepted it. His comment about Austin is accurate to an extent, they have the plans for their highways, they have to crosstown freeways, two going north-south, and are working on their loop, seems efficient to me. Austin's system just isn't build out yet.

Anyway, he seems to know what he is talking about, regardless if you think he's right or not. He's not making direct opinions either, he's just stating from his experience.

Again, stop all this petty arguing, have a real discussion and try to see where he is coming from.

Good discussion. Yes, thank you. I never once said our highway system is horrible, but it needs a lot of work compared to other cities of the same size. I just do not see where one can state our highway system is made for pop. of 2.2 million and up. Well, our metro pop. is higher and we really do need to consider people traveling from the west, east, north and south with us being in the middle of Texas. Denver, as said before, is no where near what we have in a highway system, but it does not need it. On another note, I have to say: I am not right nor wrong. You are not right nor wrong. Some of the issues are hard to discuss because they fringe on a city we all love. After all, we are on a forum about SA.

[Daren]

There are a few large properties up for sale on the east side of downtown.
Great for mixed-use

Friedrich Building
1617 E. Commerce Street
$8,000,000
Approximately 533,000 sf of buildings on approximately 5.84 acres,


Merchant's Ice Building
1305 E. Houston St.
$3,300,000
Approximately 145,000 sf of buildings on approximately 4.86 acres,

http://www.fredlofts.com/

I am not yet a developer, but I would just love to do something with the Friedrich building. My imagination is running wild!

[miaht82]

Originally Posted by car2004

So, in that example, small (or average) highways= less traffic? Guess what? Those cities had highway plans and thought well into the future for future expansion and city growth. If those cities are considered 'disgusting’ (which are not) what city in North America is 'nice' or ‘clean'? I would like to think places like Chicago and Dallas and Houston are great places to live. Okay, let me give you a smaller city as an example of a better more efficient highway system that was build for the future and as well as for city development into the future---Austin. Someone gave stated that our highway system has this and that and this, but then by that statement and with yours, I thought we had a big and efficient highway system?

Yes it does equal less traffic, although it might not mean less congestion. But that is where mass transit comes into play, and that is why I don't want SA to expand highways; it isn't always the answer.
I never said the cities are not 'clean' or 'nice,' I just think that sprawl is a disgusting manifestation of policy that encourages large highways to always be the answer to the question of "how are we going to move people around the city?," and these cities have ALOT of sprawl. I believe that compact/efficient infrastructure built to human scale is a better option than building HUGE superhighways.

Have you driven through Houston recently? Highways encourage sprawl and traffic. Congestion leads to the want for expanded highways. During construction, congestion gets worse; it also leads to increased development in anticipation of the "expansion" so by the time the highway is completed, it is already congested and maxed out by the newer vehicles that hit the road. Its what would happen if we expanded 1604 or 281. It will not make a difference if we put 3 or 4 lanes each way. Expanding would just encourage more developers to build out.

And Dallas, Houston or Chicago might be great places to live but I doubt "great highways/traffic" is on the top of peoples lists when they name positives for their cities. However, the alternative, mass transit, probably does make it on their list. When I lived in DC, traffic and the highways were the things I hated about living there, Metro was one of the reasons I liked it there.

Our highways are efficient ENOUGH. They could be NEWER but as far as more efficient? I don't know of many U.S. cities that have exits at evey road that intersects the freeway. Sometimes I think that it would be more efficient to divert traffic to the larger exits and then disperse traffic from there, as I think you mentioned earlier.

[car2004]

Originally Posted by miaht82

Yes it does equal less traffic, although it might not mean less congestion. But that is where mass transit comes into play, and that is why I don't want SA to expand highways; it isn't always the answer.
I never said the cities are not 'clean' or 'nice,' I just think that sprawl is a disgusting manifestation of policy that encourages large highways to always be the answer to the question of "how are we going to move people around the city?," and these cities have ALOT of sprawl. I believe that compact/efficient infrastructure built to human scale is a better option than building HUGE superhighways.

Have you driven through Houston recently? Highways encourage sprawl and traffic. Congestion leads to the want for expanded highways. During construction, congestion gets worse; it also leads to increased development in anticipation of the "expansion" so by the time the highway is completed, it is already congested and maxed out by the newer vehicles that hit the road. Its what would happen if we expanded 1604 or 281. It will not make a difference if we put 3 or 4 lanes each way. Expanding would just encourage more developers to build out.

And Dallas, Houston or Chicago might be great places to live but I doubt "great highways/traffic" is on the top of peoples lists when they name positives for their cities. However, the alternative, mass transit, probably does make it on their list. When I lived in DC, traffic and the highways were the things I hated about living there, Metro was one of the reasons I liked it there.

Our highways are efficient ENOUGH. They could be NEWER but as far as more efficient? I don't know of many U.S. cities that have exits at evey road that intersects the freeway. Sometimes I think that it would be more efficient to divert traffic to the larger exits and then disperse traffic from there, as I think you mentioned earlier.

The simple thing is--we need to move back inward and not outward. However, that is not the case right now. Thus, we need a more efficient highway system that is capable of moving people across downtown in an efficient way that decreases car accidents. I would love to see SA have a mass transit/subway/ etc. Driving 20 miles to work is nonsense, unless we choice that, but we need to deal with this as current situation is now. Why build out at E 1604 when people are living mostly on the W of San Antonio, or make housing affordable for those that work downtown and have them not drive 20 miles to work. Waste of time, more car crashes, and just a plan mess. I just hope cities start to move inward again as we did before cars were around (with the expectation of farms). Wouldn’t it be nice to have one big tall building where you can eat, shop and live? It would be going back to the way communities once were just modernized- upward. I believe that is the next step for places like Japan where land space is becoming far more limited as the population grows exponentially. See, with the United States, we have a lot of habitable living lands than any other place on Earth. Thus, we feel we can move about and own has much land as our finances can afford. But, for the most part, I do agree with you. However, we are already to spread out as it is and we need to fix that with a bigger and more efficient highway system or fast track a downtown living and office community and not middle size living and office buildings. An example of this progressive movement would be Dubai. Although, considering the vast array of laws we have on labor, such work in Dubai would never be duplicated in America. Sometimes, a life is worth it all in the long-term. Lives have to be lost to have a historical, progressive movement in the way we live. Think of all those people that died for the love of science. *changing subject* another example, the Egypt pyramids. Were the Pyramids in Egypt built for absurd reasons, to an extent, yes, but is a testament to what mankind can do, and sadly, will outlast any structure on this planet well after we, our specifics has moved on.

[necropolis]

Originally Posted by car2004

The simple thing is--we need to move back inward and not outward. However, that is not the case right now. Thus, we need a more efficient highway system that is capable of moving people across downtown in an efficient way that decreases car accidents. I would love to see SA have a mass transit/subway/ etc. Driving 20 miles to work is nonsense, unless we choice that, but we need to deal with this as current situation is now. Why build out at E 1604 when people are living mostly on the W of San Antonio, or make housing affordable for those that work downtown and have them not drive 20 miles to work. Waste of time, more car crashes, and just a plan mess. I just hope cities start to move inward again as we did before cars were around (with the expectation of farms). Wouldn’t it be nice to have one big tall building where you can eat, shop and live? It would be going back to the way communities once were just modernized- upward. I believe that is the next step for places like Japan where land space is becoming far more limited as the population grows exponentially. See, with the United States, we have a lot of habitable living lands than any other place on Earth. Thus, we feel we can move about and own has much land as our finances can afford. But, for the most part, I do agree with you. However, we are already to spread out as it is and we need to fix that with a bigger and more efficient highway system or fast track a downtown living and office community and not middle size living and office buildings. An example of this progressive movement would be Dubai. Although, considering the vast array of laws we have on labor, such work in Dubai would never be duplicated in America. Sometimes, a life is worth it all in the long-term. Lives have to be lost to have a historical, progressive movement in the way we live. Think of all those people that died for the love of science. *changing subject* another example, the Egypt pyramids. Were the Pyramids in Egypt built for absurd reasons, to an extent, yes, but is a testament to what mankind can do, and sadly, will outlast any structure on this planet well after we, our specifics has moved on.

So I'vr been following this whole argument/discussion but that point up there kinda threw me off track. That's a bit harsh if, as I read it, you say that it's ok to lose lives for the sake of the city while at the same time you press for improved infrastructe to limit car crashes. Saying that lives lost isn't such a horrible thing is ludacrous.

I believe what you are referring to throughout ur pieces tho is a mixture of smart growth, new regionalism and new urbaism. You want a walkable community. This is what many cities are looking towards now. However this is a difficult task to accomplish because most US municiaplities have no limits to growth. Many European cities offer limits to growth by formulating plans before new communites are developed. These cities also enforce fines for those wishing to extend beyond the rules as well as stating what type of development can be built and where it goes. Though most US cities do have land restrictions there are few limits that go as far as what European cities impose. This is not to say US cities can't end sprawl but it's a much more difficult task to do here. Sprawl has been going on since the birth of the modern suburbs and with land easily available people choose to build further out. Highways are just one contribution to sprawl, chaning the mindset of the people used to large houses, large yards, big cars, and relatively cheap gas (say 2.50 per gallon vs. 7.50 in Europe).

[car2004]

Originally Posted by necropolis

So I'vr been following this whole argument/discussion but that point up there kinda threw me off track. That's a bit harsh if, as I read it, you say that it's ok to lose lives for the sake of the city while at the same time you press for improved infrastructe to limit car crashes. Saying that lives lost isn't such a horrible thing is ludacrous.

I believe what you are referring to throughout ur pieces tho is a mixture of smart growth, new regionalism and new urbaism. You want a walkable community. This is what many cities are looking towards now. However this is a difficult task to accomplish because most US municiaplities have no limits to growth. Many European cities offer limits to growth by formulating plans before new communites are developed. These cities also enforce fines for those wishing to extend beyond the rules as well as stating what type of development can be built and where it goes. Though most US cities do have land restrictions there are few limits that go as far as what European cities impose. This is not to say US cities can't end sprawl but it's a much more difficult task to do here. Sprawl has been going on since the birth of the modern suburbs and with land easily available people choose to build further out. Highways are just one contribution to sprawl, chaning the mindset of the people used to large houses, large yards, big cars, and relatively cheap gas (say 2.50 per gallon vs. 7.50 in Europe).

What I meant is that building sturtures such as that in Dubai would never happen due to the lose of life that would inevitability happen--super communities, which is what we need. Nonetheless you add any interesting point.

[car2004]

Originally Posted by ydoc14

http://www.marriott.com/hotels/hotel...r&pageID=HWHOM

I tell you, I think it's one of the best buildings downtown. Its a very nice building, indeed!

[UrbanTrance]

So, what do you all think about this article?
http://www.mysanantonio.com/business...os_future.html

[kornbread]

Originally Posted by Alice93

So, what do you all think about this article?
http://www.mysanantonio.com/business...os_future.html

It's a nice article. There are a lot of good ideas mentioned, but It also doesn't sound like San Antonio on it's current path. He seems to know this and is making a call for leadership to move the city in a better direction.

He is looking 30 years into the future so anything can happen. The city should focus on improving the quality of life for its residents. Fix what is broken and when it is a better place for the people of San Antonio others will notice.

Stop getting distracted by golf courses and football; increase tax revenues with rising property values instead of annexation; insist on quality instead of settling for low bids, and always consider cost vs. benefits.

I would get rid of the member district council, it always leads to trade-offs and rarely focuses on what's best for the city as a community. If you don't get rid of it, at least base spending on what a district contributes.

A couple of final thoughts. I don't think the area can support a doubling of population with the current water resources and SAWS has run out of time to solve this problem, it's time to act. And, there are a few projects that will show if the city has the guts to change business as usual: Camp Bullis, River North, Hemisfair Park, and Southside development. It really is time to learn from past mistakes.

[tgannaway89]

I'm glad so many on this forum hope for an urban San Antonio someday.

Reality check.

It's not going to happen in 20 years. Street-car will be a catalyst in development... if it ever gets built. Our largest gainers in population is still areas OUTSIDE of 1604. New developments stretching to Seguin and New Braunfels will only help increase the sprawl. SH130 and the I-35 corridor will be nothing but disgusting DFW-like sprawl cities. High-end single-family subdivisions and roundabouts will continue to be the norm in San Antonio.

[car2004]

Originally Posted by tgannaway89

I'm glad so many on this forum hope for an urban San Antonio someday.

Reality check.

It's not going to happen in 20 years. Street-car will be a catalyst in development... if it ever gets built. Our largest gainers in population is still areas OUTSIDE of 1604. New developments stretching to Seguin and New Braunfels will only help increase the sprawl. SH130 and the I-35 corridor will be nothing but disgusting DFW-like sprawl cities. High-end single-family subdivisions and roundabouts will continue to be the norm in San Antonio.

It would be so great to get go back to complete community living; where we work, eat, play, live, and only seek out the use of cars for vacation needs (which should not be the way most rich people do it; every week! I know we need to live to the fullest, but calm down a bit). The only difference I would like is the construction of super communities; that is, super tall mix-use buildings. The other problem is, why must these super tall buildings be for the super rich? We are all the same (human being) and those that build these structures or take part in building them should be first in line. It is the only fair and rational choice to make.

[sirkingwilliam]

First in '10!

[Paul in S.A TX]

A few pics I took on New Years!

[Onward]

Thanks for the pics ^^^

Makes me so homesick

[Paul in S.A TX]

Came across these thought you guys might enjoy them!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lancech...ia/4080043614/

[necropolis]

So I'm watching the History Channel's special on 2012 and they had a time lapsed view of downtown SA shot from The UTSA Downtown Campus. Thought that was interesting since most of the time they talk about the end of the world they tend to solely show scenes from major cities such as NY, Rio, Tokyo, etc.

[car2004]

Originally Posted by Paul in S.A TX

A few pics I took on New Years!

I missed this again this year. I bet it was some show! Thanks for posting these!

[car2004]

Originally Posted by Paul in S.A TX

Came across these thought you guys might enjoy them!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lancech...ia/4080043614/

Thanks so much! These are great pictures! You can see the beautiful new courtyard!

[UrbanTrance]

Originally Posted by necropolis

So I'm watching the History Channel's special on 2012 and they had a time lapsed view of downtown SA shot from The UTSA Downtown Campus. Thought that was interesting since most of the time they talk about the end of the world they tend to solely show scenes from major cities such as NY, Rio, Tokyo, etc.

What did it look like?