SAN ANTONIO | Hemisfair Residential Tower | 351 FEET | 28 FLOORS | Cancelled

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by CWalk99

https://saheron.com/hemisfair-reside...retail-center/

Here's another helpful article going over some of the numbers on the project in more detail. There are even a few renderings used which I hadn't seen yet.



Also, this graphic was used to put the new building heights to scale, which helps visualize how inaccurate both of the Marriott Hotels official heights are. Besides that though, I do think this scales correctly with everything else (and does confirm an approximate height on the hotel).

Unfortunately both heights of the Marriotts are wrong, which gets to the need for someone to correct them on the SA diagram page. Ironically, this diagram's height of the Marriott Rivercenter looks correct, being slightly shorter than the Great Wall of San Antonio. But Marriott RC is listed at 441 feet to the roof while The Great Wall is listed at 420. I'm pretty sure the Marriott RC is 441 to the spires.

[Keep-SA-Lame]

Never heard of the "Grant" Hyatt before

[Carlos Reyes]

I don't think this will ever be built due to "being to tall". If they don't accept it I hope they atleast they built the 17-story one. But we do need more 300+ buildings in downtown, we are behind alot.

[sirkingwilliam]

Originally Posted by Carlos Reyes

I don't think this will ever be built due to "being to tall". If they don't accept it I hope they atleast they built the 17-story one. But we do need more 300+ buildings in downtown, we are behind alot.

It will be built.

[CWalk99]

This was just granted conceptual design approval by the HDRC. Speaking on the posts about the buildings height, there was an amendment requested by a couple of the members to recommend a reduced height but that motion ended up failing. I missed a bit of the earlier discussion but the main stipulations were centered around the pedestrian access not the height.

[theOGalexd]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

Unfortunately both heights of the Marriotts are wrong, which gets to the need for someone to correct them on the SA diagram page. Ironically, this diagram's height of the Marriott Rivercenter looks correct, being slightly shorter than the Great Wall of San Antonio. But Marriott RC is listed at 441 feet to the roof while The Great Wall is listed at 420. I'm pretty sure the Marriott RC is 441 to the spires.

As someone who (may or may not lol) have been on the rooftops of both buildings, the shorter Marriott is definitely in the 250-270 ft range. The Marriott Rivercenter roof is a little shorter than the mechanical penthouse of the Grand Hyatt but the antennas are significantly taller. If I had to guess, somewhere in the 480-500 ft range. I think I have a picture that is looking up at the antennas from the roof of the Marriott with the GH in the back but not sure how much that would show with lens distortion and what not. I have a hunch that the mech pent of the GH is a little taller than 424' but I can't seem to get a reading on Google Earth for whatever reason.

[jaga185]

Design panel approves plans for 29-story residential tower in Hemisfair’s Civic Park

Plans for a 29-story residential and retail tower at Hemisfair moved forward Wednesday with initial design concepts approved by a city panel.

The Historic and Design Review Commission gave the thumbs up for the project plans being developed by Post Lake Capital Partners of Austin in a public/private partnership with the Hemisfair Park Area Redevelopment Corporation.

The buildings will face East Market Street across from the River Walk and be adjacent to the Henry B. González Convention Center.

The first planned structure at the site of the 1968 World’s Fair is a three-story retail building with two stories at street level and a third at river level. The other is a tower with 360 residential units and a 7-story parking garage.

At least nine people called or appeared before the commission to voice their concerns about the design style and the height of the building at what Kathy Rhoads, president of the Conservation Society of San Antonio called “the most important corner” in the city.

“Would you expect to see this building at the entrance of the French Quarter? I don’t think so,” Rhoads said.

Another seven expressed support for the design, including one woman who said she is a longtime downtown resident. “I look forward to being able to take advantage of all the opportunities that these two buildings, when they get approved and constructed, are going to provide for local residents, as well as for tourists,” Lisa Nungesser said.

The proposed buildings are the second of three major construction projects planned for Civic Park, which is currently under construction on a 5-acre parcel in the northwest section of the 96-acre Hemisfair development. Civic Park is expected to open in summer 2023.

Construction continues on Civic Park at Hemisfair which is scheduled to be partially completed in Fall 2023.

In September, the commission granted conceptual approval for the 17-story Hemisfair Hotel at 222 S. Alamo St., a Zachry Hospitality project delayed several years by the pandemic and changing market conditions.

Design plans by the Overland Partners architecture firm revealed a curving tower structure with 200 hotel rooms and a tunnel connecting the hotel to the Post Lake structure to expand parking access.

Construction is set to be complete in 2025 in time for the NCAA Men’s Final Four basketball tournament.

A third Civic Park development is planned by San Antonio developer Area Real Estate, which built The ‘68 apartments in Yanaguana Garden, a play-oriented park space that opened in 2015 as part of the first phase of Hemisfair.

Post Lake Capital Partners is comprised of developer John Trube, founding partner of Austin-based Johnson Trube, and the commercial real estate company Newmark Group of New York.

In design review meetings leading up to the recent approval of the tower, staff and commissioners advised Chicago-based FitzGerald Associates Architects to ensure massing wasn’t “heavy and bulky,” and building materials met requirements for the historic district.

They also commented on garage screening and vehicle and pedestrian access and safety.

Staff with the city’s Office of Historic Preservation recommended conceptual approval for FitzGerald’s designs on the condition that the architects improve the building facade along the river to break up the expanse of glass.

They also stipulated that the tower should have a distinctive architectural top and that additional design elements are incorporated to ensure pedestrian safety. A lighting plan must also be submitted for review and approval.

On Wednesday, most of the commissioners generally agreed with one another that they approved of the design and said they would support the request for conceptual approval with staff stipulations.

“I just think it just needs a little bit more baking on some of the material choices and the character-defining features of it, but in general, I think it’s a very successful project,” said Commissioner Scott Carpenter.

Commissioner Monica Savino suggested adding a stipulation that would have required the applicant to consider ways to reduce the height of the building. But the motion did not pass and the panel went on to unanimously approve the request.

“Residential development in the Hemisfair District is key as we prepare for San Antonio’s population growth,” said Andres Andujar, Hemisfair CEO, in a statement released shortly after the vote. “We are replacing the density of the population that lived in the District before HemisFair ’68 to bring back the neighborhood and the vitality that comes from people living next to open spaces.”

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by CWalk99

https://saheron.com/hemisfair-reside...retail-center/

Here's another helpful article going over some of the numbers on the project in more detail. There are even a few renderings used which I hadn't seen yet.



Also, this graphic was used to put the new building heights to scale, which helps visualize how inaccurate both of the Marriott Hotels official heights are. Besides that though, I do think this scales correctly with everything else (and does confirm an approximate height on the hotel).

No way the spires on the Marriott Rivercenter actually appear that tall, but I suppose that's what they would look like if they did top out at 546 feet. To see it portrayed here, really shows how wrong that height is. And also, there's no way the Marriott Riverwalk looks like that in real life. Again, that 350 foot height is wrong. Not to mention the one I remember reading in the World Almanac many many years ago was 325 feet.

The interesting thing is those images of the Grand Hyatt, D2 Mixed use and D3 hotel appear to be their original building elevations. It's too bad they weren't able to dig up the elevations for the other buildings. I would LOVE to see the elevations for the Marriott Rivercenter just to see it in great detail. I absolutely love that building. It sucks we don't have better info about it.

[theOGalexd]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I would LOVE to see the elevations for the Marriott Rivercenter just to see it in great detail. I absolutely love that building. It sucks we don't have better info about it.

Me too, definitely one of my favorites in the city. I love the lighting scheme on it. It can make the building go from elegant to menacing depending on the color lol.

Glad to see this building got the green light though. Hopefully they do end up giving it a little more character. I'd love to see a spire/crown. Regardless I'm happy to get something with height to fill in that gap in the skyline. Curious as to when the details for the other development are going to come out.

[SproutingTowers]

What does the red line mean? Is this a max height limitation so can see the tower from a distance?

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by SproutingTowers

What does the red line mean? Is this a max height limitation so can see the tower from a distance?

Only if there's a microscopic black hole above downtown San Antonio. Otherwise the line would be straight. Maybe it's the trajectory a bird needs to fly to clear the antenna.

[SproutingTowers]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

Only if there's a microscopic black hole above downtown San Antonio. Otherwise the line would be straight. Maybe it's the trajectory a bird needs to fly to clear the antenna.

San Antonio viewsheds.

viewsheds

[Restless One]

Originally Posted by SproutingTowers

San Antonio viewsheds.

viewsheds

Yeah, I know some here claim there isn't a height restriction based on the TOA, and they are correct, it is not written in stone, but to resist the fact there is a de facto restriction is just naive.

The TOA is on the Southeast corner of DT, and any taller buildings would be North and Northwest of it, and yes, would block views of that area and even to the hills North and Northwest of it. It would still give views of the West to South and East. I don't want to lose the flavor of the TOA, but it can't be some limit to height in an ever increasing cost of building DT.

ETA: Come to think of it, the last time I went to the observation deck, you couldn't see much of the hill country from the Tower anyway, as even the low height construction is just far enough away, as to block those views. The only expansive views, even now, are to the West, South, and East. I don't see taller construction in these areas anytime soon.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

No, the Tower of the Americas is 622 feet to the roof. The 750 foot height is the height to the top of the antenna, though, the FCC says it's now 729 feet. I'm not sure if or when they made any changes to the antenna. The tower itself, though, is 622 feet to the roof. The top floor, which is where the observation deck is, is at 579 feet. The restaurant level is at 560 feet.

There seemed to be some sort of height barrier in San Antonio going back years where a lot of the buildings were 250 feet to 280 feet. I'm talking about buildings from the late 1920s through the 80s. Some of those may have been because of the river. There are a lot of discrepancies when it comes to some of San Antonio's buildings. One height I saw going back years was 375 feet for the Nix Professional Building, but there's no way it's that tall either. That height was on the same list as the Alamo National Building being listed as 280 feet, and the two are pretty close in height. I can only measure the Nix to 289 feet. It's possible the 375 foot height may have been to the top of the flagpole, which seems to be around 100 feet tall. With them planning to turn it into apartments, there are bound to be new building elevations of it out there somewhere. Does anyone have a link to the Historic Design Commission page that showed the meetings with presentations made to them? Those sometimes had plans attached. I lost my link since they're on another computer.

If I may go back to the Marriott heights for a moment while we're waiting...

This photo by Raul shows pretty clearly that the Marriott Rivercenter is clearly shorter than the others. Maybe its roof is 400 feet. And it looks like the spire heights are probably very close to, if not exactly, 441 feet.


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/79/12...a182748182.jpg

[KevinFromTexas]

For me, it's seeing the Tower of the Americas in the background and knowing the observation deck (top level) is at 560 feet, and the Marriott Rivercenter not being anywhere near that height. And that's while considering the tower is behind it, and still appearing higher at that point.

[theOGalexd]

I'd still say 470-480 range to the top of the antenna.



Right below the Marriott sign is the roof where you can walk on. IIRC there's a few levels below the antennas on both sides you can go up.

This is a video screengrab that (someone who isn't me lol) took at eye level from the roof level looking at the Grand Hyatt.


Edit: Found actual photos for those interested lol. This is looking up at the antenna. It's a good 40-50 ft from the main roof up to the point where it crosses and then another 40-50ft above that.

[JACKinBeantown]

Originally Posted by theOGalexd

I'd still say 470-480 range to the top of the antenna.

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but how do we know Google has the heights correct?

I'll believe it's 456 to the spires and someone just accidentally transposed the numbers years ago, with the height of the roof at 401 instead of 441. SSP Diagrams has the Great Wall listed as 420 to the top of the mechanical roof, and Weston as 420 the the roof and 444 to the table top thingy.

[theOGalexd]

Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown

Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but how do we know Google has the heights correct?

I'll believe it's 456 to the spires and someone just accidentally transposed the numbers years ago, with the height of the roof at 401 instead of 441. SSP Diagrams has the Great Wall listed as 420 to the top of the mechanical roof, and Weston as 420 the the roof and 444 to the table top thingy.

I haven't been able to measure the Marriott on google. Not sure if it's 100% correct but I've seen other buildings being pretty spot on. Just from that angle though you can see it's a fair bit taller than the mechanical roof on the Hyatt. I've seen 434 for that too before.

400 ish to the roof of the Marriott sounds about right, maybe a little less, like 390. The roof of the Marriott is about even with the pool deck of the Grand Hyatt, then you have the mechanical screen + spires. Those spires are definitely pushing 80-100 feet.

[ahealy]

Very random, but does anyone know if the proposed towers will block the Tower Life from Alteza roof? My mom just bought a place there and I am reallllly hoping that view remains.

I'll be sure to post lots of pics when dirt starts turning

[jaga185]

Likely depends on which place is your moms and where the views are.