SAN ANTONIO │ Joske's Tower │ 31 FLOORS │ 410 FEET │ Proposed

[sirkingwilliam]

Originally Posted by 21bl0wed

Lol how so? There are more ingredients and factors in the three areas I mentioned that make them all better candidates for a real skyscraper(s) vs downtown. We shall see but I think I'm pretty spot on with my assumptions. Yes I would love to see our downtown skyline catch up to the rest of cities our size but I just don't see it happening there are more obstacles in the way opposed to resources that would encourage potential highrises. Hmm lets see the three big drawbacks that are thwarting more high rises downtown are HDRC, still slow/lackluster growth in residential demand look at Vidorra (hey wasn't there supposed to be two of em!?). Lastly does anyone even do business downtown? Since the 1980s I feel jobs have fled downtown to other areas of the city. The huge bulk of jobs downtown are hotel jobs. :/

I'm not going to get into it with you as you're obviously baiting with the tone you use.

But I'll just address your three "big drawbacks."

The HDRC doesn't have as much influence as you think it does with regards to limiting or stunting downtown high rise developments. Not even close.

The residential market for downtown is actually pretty damn hot. There are thousands of residential units under construction in the urban core.

Your third point is valid but it's not why there isn't high rise development.

[Boquillas]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Besides, I would not count on a really tall building far outside of downtown. San Antonio's tallest outside of downtown now is Broadway San Antonio at 279 feet. It's unlikely that there would be something twice that height built anytime soon. I wonder what the opposition to a tall building outside of downtown would be. San Antonio has far more tall buildings outside of downtown than Austin does, and here, we can't seem to get anything built without heavy opposition to it - even when it is in downtown. It's pretty ridiculous.

Is the Broadway taller than the Towers at Park Lane? I thought Park Lane was over 300 feet.

I'd be interested in comparing the heights of the other ~20 story towers outside downtown but we don't know them all. The Enclave at 1550 is 22 stories, there's the Wurzbach Tower at 23 stories and the Omni Hotel in the Med Center area at 20 (that's 184 feet).

As far as opposition to highrises outside of DT, I don't think anyone would care, especially in the Medical Center area(not that I think that would happen.) Outside of the historic districts, developers can run roughshod over most NIMBYs, though apathy is so widespread in SA that I doubt anyone but those in the wealthiest neighborhoods would even mount an objection.

The presence of NIMBYs can be a good thing-- it's a sign of an engaged and active community that has an interest in the future of their neighborhood and won't be dominated by the whims of a developer, even if sometimes NIMBY energy is misplaced (i.e. opposition to smart density or urban projects). San Antonio could use some community activism and NIMBYism every now and then. Especially when it comes to Wal-Marts.

[sirkingwilliam]

NIMBY's tried to stop the Broadway and failed. Nimby's in Helotes and Cibolo tried to stop Walmart and failed.

Just because you nimby, doesn't mean you'll be successful.

[STLtoSA]

Originally Posted by Boquillas

Is the Broadway taller than the Towers at Park Lane? I thought Park Lane was over 300 feet.

I'd be interested in comparing the heights of the other ~20 story towers outside downtown but we don't know them all. The Enclave at 1550 is 22 stories, there's the Wurzbach Tower at 23 stories and the Omni Hotel in the Med Center area at 20 (that's 184 feet).

As far as opposition to highrises outside of DT, I don't think anyone would care, especially in the Medical Center area(not that I think that would happen.) Outside of the historic districts, developers can run roughshod over most NIMBYs, though apathy is so widespread in SA that I doubt anyone but those in the wealthiest neighborhoods would even mount an objection.

The presence of NIMBYs can be a good thing-- it's a sign of an engaged and active community that has an interest in the future of their neighborhood and won't be dominated by the whims of a developer, even if sometimes NIMBY energy is misplaced (i.e. opposition to smart density or urban projects). San Antonio could use some community activism and NIMBYism every now and then. Especially when it comes to Wal-Marts.

The Towers at Park Lane is between 280 and 290. The 367 listed on Emporis and 368' in Diagrams 'here' is completely false (unless of course they include footing)

[miaht82]

Originally Posted by Boquillas

San Antonio could use some community activism and NIMBYism every now and then. Especially when it comes to Wal-Marts.

Thank you...

Glad I'm not the only one that feels that way.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by Boquillas

Is the Broadway taller than the Towers at Park Lane? I thought Park Lane was over 300 feet.

I'd be interested in comparing the heights of the other ~20 story towers outside downtown but we don't know them all. The Enclave at 1550 is 22 stories, there's the Wurzbach Tower at 23 stories and the Omni Hotel in the Med Center area at 20 (that's 184 feet).

As far as opposition to highrises outside of DT, I don't think anyone would care, especially in the Medical Center area(not that I think that would happen.) Outside of the historic districts, developers can run roughshod over most NIMBYs, though apathy is so widespread in SA that I doubt anyone but those in the wealthiest neighborhoods would even mount an objection.

The presence of NIMBYs can be a good thing-- it's a sign of an engaged and active community that has an interest in the future of their neighborhood and won't be dominated by the whims of a developer, even if sometimes NIMBY energy is misplaced (i.e. opposition to smart density or urban projects). San Antonio could use some community activism and NIMBYism every now and then. Especially when it comes to Wal-Marts.

I had emailed the building manager of the Towers at Park Lane many years ago. They told me the building is 368 feet with 23 floors. I always doubted that height, especially recently. I got the heights for Broadway San Antonio straight from the elevations that had been posted on the forum. I also think I remember emailing them for the heights at some point. Broadway is 279 feet tall. I've been putting together a building height list for San Antonio by using Google Maps. Google Earth has a feature that lets you measure building heights. I've been able to measure the Towers at Park Lane at 278 feet. That height seems more accurate to me. At 368 feet with 23 floors that would mean each floor would be a whopping 16 feet. Pretty much no residential building has floor heights like that. Even office buildings don't, and that's nearing numbers for courthouses which have really high ceilings typically. 278 feet with 23 floors would mean 12 foot floor heights, and that seems more accurate.

Anyway, I'm still working on that list. I'm also trying to figure out a way to post it on the forum as one image. It's long. So far I have 179 buildings listed, and I can't figure out how to transfer it from the Google spreadsheet into a single image file. I'm having the same problem with the Austin list.

I'd actually be really surprised at any opposition to towers in San Antonio outside of downtown. You guys have a TON of buildings outside of downtown, and a lot of those are residential. You guys have way more residential buildings outside of downtown than Austin does, and I would guess it puts you at least equal to us for the number of residential highrises. I haven't tallied up the score between the two cities, just because that's not why I'm doing this list, and I'm not finished yet tracking them down and listing them.

[jeffreininger]

Maybe it's me, but I'm not so sure why everyone is so focused on the height of a building. To me, the height has nothing to do with the beauty of a facade...in fact, often time it has the opposite effect. If you look at many of our buildings downtown, it seems that the taller they go, the less character they have. Also, there are great recent developments in San Antonio (The Pearl, HemisView Village, etc.) that have much greater design qualities and adaptations to the local architecture that taller buildings (The Broadway, etc.) will never have. So, I know we all want the next "tallest building in San Antonio" to be built (me included usually), but I think we focus too much on the overall height of a building rather than the beauty of the details.

*Also, I know this thought may run contrary to the name of this site "Skyscraper Forum", but I'm okay with that! ha

[UrbanTrance]

I agree jeffreininger. I'm afraid of everyone wanting high rises so bad that we get things like SkyHouse and The Broadway all over and lose uniqueness and beauty in our downtown. It might be too much to ask for, but I'd take just a few high rise buildings if they were all unique and had character whether modern or historic in design over a bunch of 'anywhere' buildings.

As for Joske's Tower, I'd like to see it get built but I won't hold my breath. Although I still can't wrap my head around the idea that this tower would disgrace the plaza and those tacky businesses already there don't.

I do hope we see some high rise action in other parts of downtown soon where hopefully there'd be less debate.

[Fireoutofclay]

I agree with jeffreininger as well. Visiting this forum as often as I have, looking at other cities' buildings, I had developed a wicked case of Skycraper Envy. OMG how it would be awesome to get a new one, watch it get built. But I went to New Orleans for the first time several months ago and fell in love with the French Quarter. And although downtown is right next to it, with all those tall buildings & Canal Street, I preferred the Quarter. There was a personal feeling of life in that area, and it gave me a better perspective of small scale and appreciation for my city's preservation efforts. I can certainly now appreciate the density (and intimacy) that small scale can bring. Southtown, Irish Flats, Cattleman Square, St. Paul Square, Little Italy, El Mercado, La Villita, SoFlo, Hemisfair, UTSA DT Campus,...developing these areas will certainly do alot more for downtown than any skyscraper would.

[Boquillas]

Originally Posted by jeffreininger

Maybe it's me, but I'm not so sure why everyone is so focused on the height of a building. To me, the height has nothing to do with the beauty of a facade...in fact, often time it has the opposite effect. If you look at many of our buildings downtown, it seems that the taller they go, the less character they have. Also, there are great recent developments in San Antonio (The Pearl, HemisView Village, etc.) that have much greater design qualities and adaptations to the local architecture that taller buildings (The Broadway, etc.) will never have. So, I know we all want the next "tallest building in San Antonio" to be built (me included usually), but I think we focus too much on the overall height of a building rather than the beauty of the details.

*Also, I know this thought may run contrary to the name of this site "Skyscraper Forum", but I'm okay with that! ha

I also agree. I really don't care if San Antonio gets another tall, though I do wish to see a stronger commercial as well as residential presence downtown, and in many situations that would mean building up. But dense urban districts are def more appealing than simply "tall" districts. I'd rather live in SoHo or the Village than Midtown Manhattan, as least when it comes to neighborhood vibrancy and color. That's why Austin's got the edge over SA-- it's not their new talls, but the vital and connected urban neighborhoods close to the city center. SA's downtown is great, and Southtown and now River North/Pearl, but I'd like to see other areas fill in the gaps.

[kornbread]

It's different when there is more of a unified front towards policy and planning. Austin was able to lay the ground work for much of their development because the council members do not represent a geographic part of town; they are elected at large. There was more of an interest for everyone to see developing the inner core as something for the city instead of questioning why one district may be getting all of the dollars.

That is not to say that is the only difference or reason why Austin took off, but it certainly helps in removing roadblocks. Now whether that is a good thing or not can be debated. Long time residents in some neighborhoods probably feel like the city has not looked after their concerns as much as the wishes of developers, but who can they hold accountable?

As far as height, I would agree with jeffreininger, build something that is smart, aesthetically pleasing and creates a comfortable environment. Don't chase all development dollars for the sake of getting something; have a plan, stick to that plan. It's all about quality. Somewhere people want to be, and I can see it starting to take hold north and south of downtown by the activity in those areas when I visit. I wouldn't call it bustling (although it does at times), but it certainly isn't comatose any more.

At the same time, there are huge dead zones in and around downtown. So, long way to go, but hopefully the city's current and future leaders stay committed. One thing I would do is stop annexing, maybe even give some territory up, and focus on a more manageable area.

So way off topic. As far as the Joskee's building, I think there has to be a better use of that space than what they have proposed. I don't really have a lot of faith in the current owners. I didn't like the changes they made to the look of the mall. It didn't make sense with the supposed changes they were going to make to Joskees building. They don't seem to really know what they want to do at this point.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam

NIMBY's tried to stop the Broadway and failed. Nimby's in Helotes and Cibolo tried to stop Walmart and failed.

Just because you nimby, doesn't mean you'll be successful.

But it doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

(But I'm all for this tower.)

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by jeffreininger

Maybe it's me, but I'm not so sure why everyone is so focused on the height of a building. To me, the height has nothing to do with the beauty of a facade...in fact, often time it has the opposite effect. If you look at many of our buildings downtown, it seems that the taller they go, the less character they have. Also, there are great recent developments in San Antonio (The Pearl, HemisView Village, etc.) that have much greater design qualities and adaptations to the local architecture that taller buildings (The Broadway, etc.) will never have. So, I know we all want the next "tallest building in San Antonio" to be built (me included usually), but I think we focus too much on the overall height of a building rather than the beauty of the details.

*Also, I know this thought may run contrary to the name of this site "Skyscraper Forum", but I'm okay with that! ha

I'm only interested in building heights because I'm a statistics geek. I started to become interested in architecture and skyscrapers as a young teen, and one of the first things I remember was being obsessed with finding out how tall they were. It was really just fascination that something so big could be built.

And agreed on height not having anything to do with beauty. It's all how the building is designed, though, taller buildings are usually more attractive since they tend to be more expensive and of better quality material/construction. It's hard to build really tall airport hotel quality buildings and not get laughed out of the industry. Some of the ugliest buildings to go up in Austin recently have been the smallest ones. And height has nothing to do with character. What's most important is how it meets the street. Does it invite pedestrians in or does it act like a barrier and scare them away? Even the Empire State Building, which is a huge building, is extremely approachable. It's lined with street level diners and retail that invites people in.

And the Broadway is a terrible example. It doesn't even have street level retail and is set back from the street with a lawn dividing it from the street. The design of the tower is ok, but it's not very inviting to pedestrians at the street level. It feels too suburban, which is fine I guess, because it never was meant as an urban development. The fact that it is tall has nothing to do with it being urban. What makes a building urban is how it interacts with the city and the street and pedestrians.

And my favorite new building in Austin is our 2nd tallest. The detail they put into that building and the way it interacts with the street in addition to the way it appears on the skyline have made it my favorite new building. It's those details that I look for when I'm taking photos of buildings. Sometimes even the smallest detail can make a big difference.

And using the design styles and urban design of buildings from decades past is a poor method of judging tall buildings. Tall buildings are not the problem, it is how they are designed that makes them great or horrible. Blank walls, no doors, stairs, sunken plazas or even street level plazas fronting a street are all barriers. They're all things that are meant to keep people away. They're like a moat. Unfortunately there was a lot of that from the 1960s up through the 1980s and into the 90s. It's only been the last 15 years that things have changed some in how buildings have been designed to actually be part of their city instead of looking like a corporate rocket landed.

[jeffreininger]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

And agreed on height not having anything to do with beauty. It's all how the building is designed, though, taller buildings are usually more attractive since they tend to be more expensive and of better quality material/construction.

KevinFromTexas, thanks for the reply, and I get the statistical desire for knowing building heights. But, in my opinion (for whatever it's worth), I would have to disagree with you about taller buildings being more attractive. They may be more daunting and imposing, but I certainly wouldn't say more attractive. I would liken the Tower Life Building and The Pearl in a similar category before I would lump Tower Life and the Marriott RiverCenter together. Yes, both are highrise buildings, but the Tower Life has detail and character that Marriott greatly lacks. Thus, Pearl and Tower Life were developed with character closer to the forefront of its design, while Marriott was designed with a dollar figure hanging in front of everyone.

If we're being honest, great architecture in America rarely happens anymore, because design details are typically cut once initial construction bids hit the developers desk. Project budgets are cut, designs are tweaked and what results is the best design to most likely result in the developer recouping construction fee losses as quickly as possible. That's why The Pearl really is an anomaly in this day and age. A great project that's visually pleasing. And the reason for that is not because the developer really wanted to building something beautiful, but because they knew the market existed for people to pay a lot of money for very little square footage at that location. History and nostalgia can open consumers wallets quite quickly sometimes.

Also, taller buildings may cost more $ to construct than smaller buildings (simple economics there), but the cost per square foot is much cheaper to go taller. In no way are the materials of higher quality, and building codes (or ensuing lawsuits) maintain that the quality of construction never changes, no matter the height.

Sorry, I know that this thread was about the Joske's Tower. Not sure how it because an anti-skyscraper link. Ha!

[KevinFromTexas]

Facility infrastructure is one thing that does not make skyscrapers cheaper to build. There is a building nearing completion in Bernidorm, Spain that has half the necessary number of elevators because the developer and architect overlooked it. You can read about it here.

[sirkingwilliam]

The bad news:

The owner of the historic Joske's building downtown has scrapped a proposal to stack a nearly 400-foot hotel and timeshare tower atop the former department store, people familiar with plans for the site say.

The good news:

But Ashkenazy instead soon will unveil new plans that would move the tower to the east — along Commerce Street and further from Alamo Plaza — and feature residential units at the corner of Commerce and Alamo streets, say sources who asked to remain anonymous because they aren't authorized to discuss the plan.

The best news:

and feature residential units at the corner of Commerce and Alamo streets, say sources who asked to remain anonymous because they aren't authorized to discuss the plan.

So, it'll be moved east and (more than likely) be built over the parking garage. Also, not sure if the residential units will be built as part of the new tower or if they'll be separate and built on top of Joske's.

link

[UrbanTrance]

I'm very glad that they have moved the project and decided to add residential units. Can't wait to see the new project. Hopefully they don't have to worry about trying to be historic with this design, but as long as it looks good I'll take it.

[21bl0wed]

I'm stunned!

I look forward to seeing the renderings of the residential building if that ever comes to fruition. 6-10 story low rise apartments anyone?

Original site is literally the worst possible area in San Antonio to build a skyscraper. What were they thinking?!

[sakyle04]

And in the most San Antonio move in the history of San Antonio, the tower appears dead.


Joske's Owner is Axing Tower for Hotel via MySA

If you need me, I'll be figuratively grumbling over a bad cup of coffee at the bar at Jim's with the other old codgers.

[sirkingwilliam]

Originally Posted by sakyle04

And in the most San Antonio move in the history of San Antonio, the tower appears dead.


Joske's Owner is Axing Tower for Hotel via MySA

If you need me, I'll be figuratively grumbling over a bad cup of coffee at the bar at Jim's with the other old codgers.

Did you not read my post a few up from yours?

The original hotel tower is dead. The hotel tower itself is not. It will be relocated eastward and closer to Commerce St. away from Alamo Plaza.

However, on top of the Joske building where the original tower was to go, an a residential structure is now planned. It also will be built closer to Commerce, unlike the original hotel tower.