HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2016, 11:54 PM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is offline
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoiler View Post
There's no danger of flooding there. The flood diversion tunnel is one block upstream. If it really was the intent of the planners of the museum reach to exclude river level entrances to buildings, then I think that decision was a poor one.
I wholeheartedly disagree. It was a smart one, imo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2016, 2:24 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio
Posts: 3,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam View Post
I wholeheartedly disagree. It was a smart one, imo.
Agreed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2016, 2:29 AM
Restless 1 Restless 1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam View Post
I wholeheartedly disagree. It was a smart one, imo.
Never a good idea to exclude river entrances to the businesses that line it. Not for the businesses, and not for the river experience.

The river is the lifeblood of the city, soon, hopefully, from the Blue Hole all the way to the Mission Reach. It is the very fabric and history of San Antonio, and to separate that from businesses along it's banks is to separate old San Antonio from new. Not to mention the business that could be siphoned from the pedestrians on the river level looking for a bite to eat, a drink or two, access to the wares being offered by the street level businesses, or whatever.

To that end, the river taxis could be better managed as well. The taxis, the river, and the street level businesses would be better suited by working better together, not as separate entities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2016, 3:00 AM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is offline
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless 1 View Post
Never a good idea to exclude river entrances to the businesses that line it. Not for the businesses, and not for the river experience.

The river is the lifeblood of the city, soon, hopefully, from the Blue Hole all the way to the Mission Reach. It is the very fabric and history of San Antonio, and to separate that from businesses along it's banks is to separate old San Antonio from new. Not to mention the business that could be siphoned from the pedestrians on the river level looking for a bite to eat, a drink or two, access to the wares being offered by the street level businesses, or whatever.

To that end, the river taxis could be better managed as well. The taxis, the river, and the street level businesses would be better suited by working better together, not as separate entities.

I again, strongly disagree.

The Riverwalk as we know it, is a man made canal that was targeted at tourists. It has done its job wonderfully decade after decade. The is the old San Antonio you speak of. The new San Antonio is the museum reach, and San Pedro Creek. Actual linear parks targeted to residents, that will on their own merits attract tourists.

River entrances for hotels or restaurants will not make a lick of difference. The Pearl has managed to become highly (I mean highly) successful with zero river level connectivity. Yet, when I go down to the museum reach, every weekend, it's incredibly active with people walking, exercising, exploring, sight seeing, etc.

This is the new San Antonio. One where the river and and soon creek, act as companions to steet level development instead of what the current Riverwalk has done, suck most of all the steeet level life below street level.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2016, 3:14 AM
Restless 1 Restless 1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam View Post
I again, strongly disagree.

The Riverwalk as we know it, is a man made canal that was targeted at tourists. It has done its job wonderfully decade after decade. The is the old San Antonio you speak of. The new San Antonio is the museum reach, and San Pedro Creek. Actual linear parks targeted to residents, that will on their own merits attract tourists.

River entrances for hotels or restaurants will not make a lick of difference. The Pearl has managed to become highly (I mean highly) successful with zero river level connectivity. Yet, when I go down to the museum reach, every weekend, it's incredibly active with people walking, exercising, exploring, sight seeing, etc.

This is the new San Antonio. One where the river and and soon creek, act as companions to steet level development instead of what the current Riverwalk has done, suck most of all the steeet level life below street level.
Hard to act as companions without access. Residents might want to eat at those restaurants as well as the tourists. A good business accommodates both.

I'd imagine most on the river level on the Museum Reach are local residents, as well as the Mission Reach. I'd also wager that those same residents eat, drink, dance, whatever.

What's more, is they likely live in the area, and might not want to hike to the nearest street access to dine or revel. River access for the businesses would be a plus. You say the Pearl is thriving, and it is, but river access would enhance that.

I understand you're saying that the activity on the Museum Reach is mostly local, and I agree, but several locals on this board have stated a preference for river access to the businesses on this stretch. Small indicator, sure, but worthy of consideration.

ETA: The transformation of the River from a ditch to world renowned destination is part of our history. Don't dismiss that so casually.

Last edited by Restless 1; Sep 21, 2016 at 3:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2016, 10:39 AM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is offline
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless 1 View Post
Hard to act as companions without access. Residents might want to eat at those restaurants as well as the tourists. A good business accommodates both.

I'd imagine most on the river level on the Museum Reach are local residents, as well as the Mission Reach. I'd also wager that those same residents eat, drink, dance, whatever.

What's more, is they likely live in the area, and might not want to hike to the nearest street access to dine or revel. River access for the businesses would be a plus. You say the Pearl is thriving, and it is, but river access would enhance that.

I understand you're saying that the activity on the Museum Reach is mostly local, and I agree, but several locals on this board have stated a preference for river access to the businesses on this stretch. Small indicator, sure, but worthy of consideration.

ETA: The transformation of the River from a ditch to world renowned destination is part of our history. Don't dismiss that so casually.
I never said there's no access to these businesses. There's literally access to The Luxury, Garden Inn, SAMA, Pearl, Etc. the connectivity I speak of is the River level entrances or patios to the hotel or restaurant or club or whatever. The things that take up a majority of space on the Riverwalk downtown.

Trust me, the way the museum reach connects to the street level is not taking away from the restaurants or businesses for the tourists or locals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2016, 1:39 PM
Keep-SA-Lame's Avatar
Keep-SA-Lame Keep-SA-Lame is offline
COGSADCAJA- Publicist
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam View Post
That's not the reason at all. Sections of the downtown Riverwalk flood and waters rise to the sidevwalk as well.
Not the same thing. The loop gets maybe an inch or two over the sidewalk during the worst floods, the museum reach can get two or three feet . The flood barriers are critical to allowing businesses on the river. It's not a coincidence that there are 0 river level businesses outside of those gates. The river tunnel is an important piece of infrastructure, but it's not enough to stop all flooding.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2016, 2:04 PM
sirkingwilliam's Avatar
sirkingwilliam sirkingwilliam is offline
Loving SA 365 days a year
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 3,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keep-SA-Lame View Post
Not the same thing. The loop gets maybe an inch or two over the sidewalk during the worst floods, the museum reach can get two or three feet . The flood barriers are critical to allowing businesses on the river. It's not a coincidence that there are 0 river level businesses outside of those gates. The river tunnel is an important piece of infrastructure, but it's not enough to stop all flooding.
Believe me, that is not the reason. The flood water intake that diverts water through a tunnel 160 feet below downtown can handle major flooding within the museum reach.

There is no city or state ordinance stating development can't have river level access because of flooding.

The museum reach is s linear park, its that simple. The Riverwalk is not and has evolved into a major tourist trap. There's nothing wrong with either as they both serve different purposes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2016, 6:27 PM
JACKinBeantown's Avatar
JACKinBeantown JACKinBeantown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Er uh...
Posts: 6,272
I can understand if the Riverwalk in this area is or is not purposely made for the locals. That's actually a nice thought. My main point is that the new 10-story building is fugly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2016, 9:36 PM
Fireoutofclay's Avatar
Fireoutofclay Fireoutofclay is offline
Weapon of Mass Creation
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keep-SA-Lame View Post
Not the same thing. The loop gets maybe an inch or two over the sidewalk during the worst floods, the museum reach can get two or three feet . The flood barriers are critical to allowing businesses on the river. It's not a coincidence that there are 0 river level businesses outside of those gates. The river tunnel is an important piece of infrastructure, but it's not enough to stop all flooding.
So true. Fortunately for us, the bypass tunnel was completed just before the 98 flood. Even still, the flood channel overflowed and flooded the Riverwalk, as it will often do during times of flash flooding. Ever been down the flood channel of the Riverwalk after a flash flood? It's a disaster and reeks of fish The bypass tunnel was designed to divert the majority of flood water, not all of it. The Riverwalk flood channel, which used to handle all of it, now only handles the rest. Those folks at SARA sure did know what they were doing when they designed the Museum Reach. And yeah, occasionally the loop will flood a little overnight if the floodgates are not raised fast enough.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2016, 10:16 PM
txex06 txex06 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirkingwilliam View Post
I wholeheartedly disagree. It was a smart one, imo.
Ditto. I live a block from the river in the King William area and my family walks/jogs up the river to the Pearl on almost a weekly basis. If the Museum Reach was lined with patio cafes/bars they would clog the Museum Reach with tourists and you would not see us or the many other locals who enjoy that stretch of river. The Museum Reach is lined with access points to all the bars, restaurants, hotels, apartments, museums, office's, etc on street level.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2016, 12:24 AM
Spoiler's Avatar
Spoiler Spoiler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 241
Okay, this is way offtopic, but I think it's time for the stretch of riverwalk that connects the river to Hemisfair and Rivercenter Mall to be redeveloped with buildings. It's about three blocks long and while it's nice to have a quiet, parklike river setting, the recent expansions have provided lots of space for that sort of thing north and south of downtown, not to mention the civic park being built right next to it. It is a stretch of river located inside the floodgates, in the heart of downtown between Commerce and Market streets, outside the Hugman restrictions, flowing east-west which means blocking sunlight with tall buildings is not so much an issue, and in my opinion it begs for serious, attractive urban redevelopment, with lots of big, beautiful buildings (no hotels please).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Sep 22, 2016, 5:09 PM
JACKinBeantown's Avatar
JACKinBeantown JACKinBeantown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Er uh...
Posts: 6,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoiler View Post
Okay, this is way offtopic, but I think it's time for the stretch of riverwalk that connects the river to Hemisfair and Rivercenter Mall to be redeveloped with buildings. It's about three blocks long and while it's nice to have a quiet, parklike river setting, the recent expansions have provided lots of space for that sort of thing north and south of downtown, not to mention the civic park being built right next to it. It is a stretch of river located inside the floodgates, in the heart of downtown between Commerce and Market streets, outside the Hugman restrictions, flowing east-west which means blocking sunlight with tall buildings is not so much an issue, and in my opinion it begs for serious, attractive urban redevelopment, with lots of big, beautiful buildings (no hotels please).
I respectfully disagree and I'll sum it up in two words (plus the equivalent of 2,000 more in the form of two pictures):

1) Serenity
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sa...!4d-98.4936282

2) Trees
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.4225...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sa...!4d-98.4936282

OK, three pictures.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2016, 1:32 AM
Spoiler's Avatar
Spoiler Spoiler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown View Post
I respectfully disagree and I'll sum it up in two words (plus the equivalent of 2,000 more in the form of two pictures):

1) Serenity
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sa...!4d-98.4936282

2) Trees
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.4225...7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sa...!4d-98.4936282

OK, three pictures.

There are and will be many serene spots along the banks of the river that do not have the opportunity this spot has.

Although I didn't mention it above, the cypresses would stay in my idea, with buildings built around them. The street level trees could well be moved across the street into the new immediately adjacent gigantic civic park.

That stretch was created in 1968 for the world's fair. Many buildings were demolished to create it. The street level today is a waste. Those streets are called Commerce and Market for a reason. They should be re-commerced and re-marketed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted May 26, 2017, 4:40 PM
PDG91's Avatar
PDG91 PDG91 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 20
Check out this article that includes inside images of the completed cellars building!

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantoni...velopment.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted May 26, 2017, 4:45 PM
texboy texboy is offline
constructor extrodinaire!
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDG91 View Post
Check out this article that includes inside images of the completed cellars building!

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantoni...velopment.html
Wow, what an incredible development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted May 26, 2017, 8:06 PM
AwesomeSAView AwesomeSAView is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDG91 View Post
Check out this article that includes inside images of the completed cellars building!

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantoni...velopment.html


It's Silver Ventures/Kit Goldsbury doing what they do best!

Pure elegance and awesomeness!
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:43 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.