HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2022, 11:28 PM
CWalk99 CWalk99 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2022
Posts: 151





Just thought I'd upload my own renderings here (albeit amateur) to help clarify the height a little. This was rendered at around 334 feet above ground which is roughly where the roof height is. The thing about the Marriott Riverwalk is that I'm sure its "official" height is inclusive of its Riverwalk levels, which is what makes its apparent height from street level a bit misleading. (It could be closer to 350ft when you measure from that point). Also, I think the Grand Hyatt is around 425' to its crown so this tower should measure up correctly based on the submission document.

(I rendered the hotel at around 216 feet but I still have no clue on its official height)

Last edited by CWalk99; Oct 11, 2022 at 8:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2022, 11:59 PM
JACKinBeantown's Avatar
JACKinBeantown JACKinBeantown is offline
JACKinBeantown
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 8,847
Nice! Would you mind also posting those in the San Antonio Building Renders thread?
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=251429
__________________
Hi.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2022, 1:58 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Austin <------------> Birmingham?
Posts: 57,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by starvinggryphon View Post
The listed height is 351' but this doesn't line up with the renderings at all. The neighboring Marriott Riverwalk is 350' so they should be the same height yet the rendering of the new residential tower shows a taller building closer to 400' and is more comparable in height to the Grand Hyatt.
No way is the Marriott Riverwalk 350 feet. I also remember reading years ago that it's 325 feet, but it's not even that tall. If you're relying on Emporis, don't. They're notoriously wrong on building heights and stubborn about correcting them. And recently they closed the website for good. I know that SkyscraperPage's database relies on that number, which I'm not even sure what the original source was - maybe an old issue of the World Almanac, which also had listed the Marriott Rivercenter as being 441 feet tall. I've never been able to measure the Marriott Riverwalk taller than 254 feet from street level, and 276 feet from the riverwalk via Google Earth. The Grand Hyatt is 424 feet, according to the building elevations, and 425 feet via Google Earth. I trust the Google Earth heights when we don't have heights from the building elevations. Being able to compare and confirm them so closely makes me confident that Google Earth is a trustworthy tool for measuring building heights.
__________________
Conform or be cast out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2022, 3:52 AM
Restless One Restless One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
No way is the Marriott Riverwalk 350 feet. I also remember reading years ago that it's 325 feet, but it's not even that tall. If you're relying on Emporis, don't. They're notoriously wrong on building heights and stubborn about correcting them. And recently they closed the website for good. I know that SkyscraperPage's database relies on that number, which I'm not even sure what the original source was - maybe an old issue of the World Almanac, which also had listed the Marriott Rivercenter as being 441 feet tall. I've never been able to measure the Marriott Riverwalk taller than 254 feet from street level, and 276 feet from the riverwalk via Google Earth. The Grand Hyatt is 424 feet, according to the building elevations, and 425 feet via Google Earth. I trust the Google Earth heights when we don't have heights from the building elevations. Being able to compare and confirm them so closely makes me confident that Google Earth is a trustworthy tool for measuring building heights.
Thank you Kevin. I've been saying for awhile now that those heights are not trustworthy, or close to reality. Hell, the TOA is not 750' tall to the antenna. It's 620' at best. Maybe 650' to the antenna.

ETA: I don't give a rat's ass if a new construction throws some shade on the Riverwalk, the Alamo, or you're momma's backside, I'd like to see a 7-800 footer or taller Downtown. Loose the arrows.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2022, 4:38 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Austin <------------> Birmingham?
Posts: 57,327
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.
__________________
Conform or be cast out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2022, 12:04 PM
JACKinBeantown's Avatar
JACKinBeantown JACKinBeantown is offline
JACKinBeantown
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 8,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
No way is the Marriott Riverwalk 350 feet. I also remember reading years ago that it's 325 feet, but it's not even that tall. If you're relying on Emporis, don't. They're notoriously wrong on building heights and stubborn about correcting them. And recently they closed the website for good. I know that SkyscraperPage's database relies on that number, which I'm not even sure what the original source was - maybe an old issue of the World Almanac, which also had listed the Marriott Rivercenter as being 441 feet tall. I've never been able to measure the Marriott Riverwalk taller than 254 feet from street level, and 276 feet from the riverwalk via Google Earth. The Grand Hyatt is 424 feet, according to the building elevations, and 425 feet via Google Earth. I trust the Google Earth heights when we don't have heights from the building elevations. Being able to compare and confirm them so closely makes me confident that Google Earth is a trustworthy tool for measuring building heights.
Maybe someone with admin access could take 90 seconds and correct the heights in the San Antonio diagram page.
__________________
Hi.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2022, 7:44 PM
ILUVSAT's Avatar
ILUVSAT ILUVSAT is offline
May the Schwartz be w/ U!
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
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.
I was going to say the TOA was 735'. The 750' figure has been incorrect for some time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Oct 11, 2022, 10:55 PM
Restless One Restless One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
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.
Yeah, I know the roof height is 622', just worded my post badly. That antenna doesn't look 100' tall to me, but I could be wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Oct 12, 2022, 12:28 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Austin <------------> Birmingham?
Posts: 57,327
Years ago I bought a brochure at the tower gift shop that listed a bunch of nerdy stats about the tower, including heights and measurements. It stated that the "top house" - the structure at the top, is 76 feet tall. Considering that, the antenna is easily over 100 feet tall. The tower's shaft is 45 feet in diameter, and the concrete shaft is 605 feet tall, though, some of that is concealed within the top house. 605 feet just so happens to be the height of the Space Needle in Seattle to the top of its antenna.

They also have that info on the tower's website now.
https://www.toweroftheamericas.com/history/
__________________
Conform or be cast out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2022, 12:49 PM
JACKinBeantown's Avatar
JACKinBeantown JACKinBeantown is offline
JACKinBeantown
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 8,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post

They also have that info on the tower's website now.
https://www.toweroftheamericas.com/history/
They could really use some better photos on that website.
__________________
Hi.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2022, 12:59 PM
Rynetwo Rynetwo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown View Post
They could really use some better photos on that website.
No kidding!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2022, 10:54 PM
Restless One Restless One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown View Post
They could really use some better photos on that website.
Yup. Almost looks as if they just used some rejected Hemisfair promo pics.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2022, 1:30 AM
LSP's Avatar
LSP LSP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Posts: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
Years ago I bought a brochure at the tower gift shop that listed a bunch of nerdy stats about the tower, including heights and measurements. It stated that the "top house" - the structure at the top, is 76 feet tall. Considering that, the antenna is easily over 100 feet tall. The tower's shaft is 45 feet in diameter, and the concrete shaft is 605 feet tall, though, some of that is concealed within the top house. 605 feet just so happens to be the height of the Space Needle in Seattle to the top of its antenna.

They also have that info on the tower's website now.
https://www.toweroftheamericas.com/history/
Not for nothing, but you could just use the measurement tool in Google Earth to get height and/or elevation. San Antonio also has LIDAR data, so accurate elevation for buildings shouldn't be too difficult to get.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2022, 1:32 AM
theOGalexd theOGalexd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 446
According to SABJ this one goes to HDRC on the 19th.

If they talk about Alamo/Riverwalk shadows I just might lose it lol.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2022, 1:34 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Austin <------------> Birmingham?
Posts: 57,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSP View Post
Not for nothing, but you could just use the measurement tool in Google Earth to get height and/or elevation. San Antonio also has LIDAR data, so accurate elevation for buildings shouldn't be too difficult to get.
Yep. Been doing that for years when getting building heights has been tricky or the ones we have are iffy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
No way is the Marriott Riverwalk 350 feet. I also remember reading years ago that it's 325 feet, but it's not even that tall. If you're relying on Emporis, don't. They're notoriously wrong on building heights and stubborn about correcting them. And recently they closed the website for good. I know that SkyscraperPage's database relies on that number, which I'm not even sure what the original source was - maybe an old issue of the World Almanac, which also had listed the Marriott Rivercenter as being 441 feet tall. I've never been able to measure the Marriott Riverwalk taller than 254 feet from street level, and 276 feet from the riverwalk via Google Earth. The Grand Hyatt is 424 feet, according to the building elevations, and 425 feet via Google Earth. I trust the Google Earth heights when we don't have heights from the building elevations. Being able to compare and confirm them so closely makes me confident that Google Earth is a trustworthy tool for measuring building heights.
__________________
Conform or be cast out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Oct 14, 2022, 2:08 AM
JACKinBeantown's Avatar
JACKinBeantown JACKinBeantown is offline
JACKinBeantown
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 8,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
Yep. Been doing that for years when getting building heights has been tricky or the ones we have are iffy.
So can someone PLEASE correct the errors in the San Antonio diagrams page? Specifically both Marriotts and the old Frost building. Thanks in advance.
__________________
Hi.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2022, 6:34 PM
jaga185's Avatar
jaga185 jaga185 is offline
James
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 2,470
From the HDRC Packet:

RECOMMENDATION:
1. Staff recommends conceptual approval of item #1, the construction of a 3-story retail structure to feature 2
stories above street level and 1 level at river level based on findings 1a through 1e with the following
stipulations:
i. That traditional structural bays be introduced on the river façade to break up expanses of glass based on
finding 1b. Structural bays should be articulated or clad with traditional materials such as brick or stone.
ii. That all windows that are not part of a storefront system be recessed within wall openings at least two
(2) inches, as noted in finding 1e.
iii. That a detailed lighting plan should be submitted for review and approval when returning to the
Commission for final approval, as noted in finding 1f.
iv. That all service and mechanical equipment be screened from view from the right of way, and that the
project comply with city noise ordinances, as noted in finding 1g.
2. Staff recommends conceptual approval of item #2, the construction of a 29-story structure to feature residential
and retail space based on findings 2a through 2h with the following stipulations:
i. That a distinctive, architectural building top be further enhanced through additional articulation or
variation based on finding 2c.
ii. That the applicant study additional variation in building massing, as noted in finding 2f, such as
introducing additional tiers that allow the tower to become more slender as it ascends, or by introducing
more varied massing that provides relief in scale.
iii. That all windows that are not part of a storefront system be recessed within wall openings at least two
(2) inches, as noted in finding 2h.
Staff recommends additional stipulations relating to site design and the overall development:
i. That additional design elements be incorporated to ensure safe pedestrian interactions such as the incorporation
of an additional traffic median to the immediate left of the valet drop off within the building footprint as noted
in finding e. Landscaping, planters, and special paving treatments should be introduced to enhance the
pedestrian experience.
ii. That a detailed lighting plan should be submitted for review and approval when returning to the Commission for
final approval, as noted in finding i.
iii. That all service and mechanical equipment be screened from view from the right of way, and that the project
comply with city noise ordinances, as noted in finding k.
iv. ARCHAEOLOGY – An archaeological investigation is required. HABS level documentation, laser scanning,
archival research, and signage of the acequia is required, per the Texas Historical Commission letter. The
project shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations regarding archaeology, as
applicable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2022, 8:01 PM
theOGalexd theOGalexd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaga185 View Post
From the HDRC Packet:

RECOMMENDATION:
1. Staff recommends conceptual approval of item #1, the construction of a 3-story retail structure to feature 2
stories above street level and 1 level at river level based on findings 1a through 1e with the following
stipulations:
i. That traditional structural bays be introduced on the river façade to break up expanses of glass based on
finding 1b. Structural bays should be articulated or clad with traditional materials such as brick or stone.
ii. That all windows that are not part of a storefront system be recessed within wall openings at least two
(2) inches, as noted in finding 1e.
iii. That a detailed lighting plan should be submitted for review and approval when returning to the
Commission for final approval, as noted in finding 1f.
iv. That all service and mechanical equipment be screened from view from the right of way, and that the
project comply with city noise ordinances, as noted in finding 1g.
2. Staff recommends conceptual approval of item #2, the construction of a 29-story structure to feature residential
and retail space based on findings 2a through 2h with the following stipulations:
i. That a distinctive, architectural building top be further enhanced through additional articulation or
variation based on finding 2c.
ii. That the applicant study additional variation in building massing, as noted in finding 2f, such as
introducing additional tiers that allow the tower to become more slender as it ascends, or by introducing
more varied massing that provides relief in scale.
iii. That all windows that are not part of a storefront system be recessed within wall openings at least two
(2) inches, as noted in finding 2h.
Staff recommends additional stipulations relating to site design and the overall development:
i. That additional design elements be incorporated to ensure safe pedestrian interactions such as the incorporation
of an additional traffic median to the immediate left of the valet drop off within the building footprint as noted
in finding e. Landscaping, planters, and special paving treatments should be introduced to enhance the
pedestrian experience.
ii. That a detailed lighting plan should be submitted for review and approval when returning to the Commission for
final approval, as noted in finding i.
iii. That all service and mechanical equipment be screened from view from the right of way, and that the project
comply with city noise ordinances, as noted in finding k.
iv. ARCHAEOLOGY – An archaeological investigation is required. HABS level documentation, laser scanning,
archival research, and signage of the acequia is required, per the Texas Historical Commission letter. The
project shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations regarding archaeology, as
applicable.
Hey I'm all for a more slender revision lol.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Oct 17, 2022, 5:00 AM
Spoiler's Avatar
Spoiler Spoiler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 919
It's not a good-looking building, it's kind of in a spotlight location, so I understand the HDRC's stipulation that it look a little more interesting and a little less utilitarian.

Meanwhile, the location and shape of the other residential development has been revealed:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Oct 19, 2022, 12:26 PM
CWalk99 CWalk99 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2022
Posts: 151
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).
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 12:08 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.