San Antonio Skyscrapers (merged threads) (Houston, Portland: apartment, how much, house)

[SweethomeSanAntonio]

Originally Posted by imaterry78259

Need I say more San Antonio!!!!

Benchmark Development has supposedly begun sales of the planned 155 condos in what they are now calling "The Austonian" (the website is now up). The current plan is a 700 foot tall, 55 story tower of condo power above what appears to be (and had better be) ground floor retail on the corner of Congress and Second Street (across Congress from the current location of Las Manitas - BTW, word is that Las Mas will be moving into the landmarked structure nearby owned by the current proprietors, with a healthy retro-fit subsidy from the newly created Congress Avenue Retail Retention and Enhancement Fund).

The Austonian is ... tall and has a funny shape. The materials look nicer than they were in the prior iteration, but judging materials by these renderings is a dicey proposition. To the developer: glass is good. Preferably with some UV filtering, cuz those top floors are going to be right up against the sun. The planned "illuminated architectural feature" for the top sounds scary, but it might make it easier for the aliens to find us from space, so that's nice. The developers appear to have squeezed an additional seven stories into the plan (previous indications were that the tower would be 48 stories), while maintaining a height of 700 feet,

Glad to see more talls for Austin.Still downtown Austin no match for downtown S.A.'s vibrancy and ammenties.

[Hyun-Soo]

San Antonio's skyline is quite boring to be honest.
I believe that skylines are the face of the city, as someone else already mention. Skylines are put on the postcards that people look at and buy.

San Antonio's skyline is quite puny for its population.

Look at Dallas' skyline. When you look at it, you automatically think of Dallas as a huge city and how impressive it is.

[urbsan]

i understand the beauty in super tall skyscrapers and skylines and i must admit i kinda do want san antonio to get a few, but living in downtown san antonio has really taught me the beauty of the low rises they seem to create a more intimate setting and add a different feel which helps make san antonio a "unique american city" i like dallas' skyline but i dont feel that san antonio needs to go in that direction imho density is more important and sometimes more aesthetically pleasing than height

[JDawgboy]

Originally Posted by SweethomeSanAntonio

Glad to see more talls for Austin.Still downtown Austin no match for downtown S.A.'s vibrancy and ammenties.

Actually Austin is more vibrant especially at night than San Antonio's downtown. I honestly don't see much vibrancy in downtown San Antonio outside of the Riverwalk area and yet in downtown Austin, you can go from the eastside of downtown to the West End and find alot of stuff happening. Don't get me wrong San Antonio is a cool city with alot of historical places but Austin's downtown is poised to become one of the most dense vibrant downtowns in the Southern US.

[Insomniac]

Which downtown is more vibrant is going to be a matter of opinion not fact. With that said the Riverwalk area isn't the only area of downtown that is vibrant at night. There's great vibrancy on Houston Street, in Southtown and in the future River North.

[Guerilla]

How do you know there is great vibrancy in River North, when it doesn't exist yet?

[Insomniac]

Originally Posted by Guerilla

How do you know there is great vibrancy in River North, when it doesn't exist yet?

Well, River North does exist, but I'm sure you saw the River North thread I posted. River North is modeled after the Pearl District in Portland. Have you ever been there? That is why I said in the future River North will definitely be vibrant.

[Guerilla]

Originally Posted by Insomniac

Well, River North does exist, but I'm sure you saw the River North thread I posted. River North is modeled after the Pearl District in Portland. Have you ever been there? That is why I said in the future River North will definitely be vibrant.

Oh okay. I have heard that the Pearl District (or some other area of Portland with a lot of new development) is sitting vacant. The city has been giving out large grants for the developers to build, but once they do, the developments sit empty.

Portland is touted as some big transit city, but the city is actually not.

[Insomniac]

Man, seriously, what is your deal with trashing any and every city that isn't Houston and I guess Atlanta, seeing as how you run some Atlanta forum. Portland is probably the number one model for urban and dense development in the US. They not only have street cars but light rail. As for your Pearl District claim.. lol lol lol lol is all that can be said. Developers sitting empty on lots? Have you seen what's going on in the Pearl?

[Guerilla]

Originally Posted by Insomniac

Man, seriously, what is your deal with trashing any and every city that isn't Houston and I guess Atlanta, seeing as how you run some Atlanta forum. Portland is probably the number one model for urban and dense development in the US. They not only have street cars but light rail. As for your Pearl District claim.. lol lol lol lol is all that can be said. Developers sitting empty on lots? Have you seen what's going on in the Pearl?

First, name the cities that I "bash". You are just making outlandish claims that are not true.

Second, about Portland. The Texas Transportation Institute publishes their mobility study annually. The Urban Mobility report provides data on the performance of the transportation system in over 80 urban areas through research performed in cooperation with state transportation departments to include Oregon.

Findings for Portland in 2005:

The average commuter in Portland spends 39 extra hours in traffic annually. Portland's rank was 26th in the nation (out of 85 metro areas) for the annual delay per traveler.

The travel time index for the Portland metro area was 1.37 with a ranking of 14. This means a 20-minute free-flow trip took over 30 minutes during peak travel times.

We consumed 21,857,000 extra gallons of fuel because we were stuck in traffic (ranking of 25) and the congestion cost was over $5 million.

Roughly 73 percent of Portland-area residents drove alone by car or motorcycle - the same as in Los Angeles.

And:

Before building light rail, Portland transit was gaining market share from the auto. Since building it, Portland transit has steadily lost market share and now carries only about 2 percent of Portland-area trips.

Ten years after Portland's first light-rail line was built, the city was so disappointed about lack of development along the route that it offered ten years of property tax waivers to anyone building near rail stations. One major development along the light rail, Beaverton Round, received $9 million in infrastructure subsidies and tax waivers. But no one wanted to move in, so the developer faced foreclosure. The city recently put up another $3.4 million to keep the project alive.

Portland also restricted itself to increasing landwise. This resulted in forced zoning.

Planners required Portland and 23 suburbs to meet population targets through re-zoning. To meet those targets, cities are re-zoning neighborhoods of single-family homes for apartments. In these areas, if a house burns down, the owner must replace it with an apartment building. Cities are also re-zoning golf courses, 10,000 acres of prime farm land, and other open spaces to high-density development. Low densities are forbidden in these zones.

In 1990, 92 percent of Portland-area trips were by car. Planners calculate that density, rail, and transit-oriented development will reduce this only to 88 percent. When combined with predicted population increases, the end result is actually 67 percent more miles of auto driving.

Residents say they want less, not more, congestion, but planners claim that "congestion signals positive urban development" and predict their plan will triple congestion. With congestion comes pollution: Planners admit their plan will increase smog by 10 percent.

Great model huh?

Look, I didn't even "bash" Portland. Just stating things that I have heard before about Portland.