Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you know that Austin is your major competitor or Trojan Horse ready to take all it can get from you and overthrow you. I recently got back from California and the impression most resident have is that Austin is the third largest city in Texas. The comment was " We just don't hear that much about San Antonio"
Atlanta is a prime example of a city that has nice progressive skyline that multi national business are headquarted there
Why would anyone in Texas concern themselves with what CA thinks? San Antonio should take it as a badge of honor if CA doesn't think highly of us.
San Antonio has the sixth largest downtown population in the U.S. according to the U.S. Census and the Brookings institute. It might not have that many modern residential high rises, but, more converted historical structures. San Antonio has the most active downtown in Texas with the most ammenties. More residential will spur from the river expansion and lively new emerging districts. Downtown San Antonio is setting the stage for great new developments.
Can you show me where it says SA's downtown population is the 6th largest in the US? The report I found had it around 16 but maybe you have a newer report?
Do you know that Austin is your major competitor or Trojan Horse ready to take all it can get from you and overthrow you. I recently got back from California and the impression most resident have is that Austin is the third largest city in Texas. The comment was " We just don't hear that much about San Antonio"
Atlanta is a prime example of a city that has nice progressive skyline that multi national business are headquarted there
Austin is not more known than San Antonio? no way. If Austin were more popular it would recieve more visitors. San Antonio attracts millions..... more.
San Antonio's has well known major sporting events, it has it's own brand, Austin really doesn't. The longhorns is more known as a Texas thing than a Austin one. It's the Texas Longhorns, not Austin Longhorns.
San Antonio has the Alamo Bowl, which is now one of the most watched bowls, annual U.S. All American Bowl, four world NBA championships, 5 Final Fours, the Alamo, Riverwalk, etc. All this puts San Antonio on the map! Austin being a music capital, isn't really known by the masses, compared to Nashville. People may have heard of SWSX but don't know were it takes place.
California of all places, the rivarly between the Lakers and the Spurs is intense!
Economy wise both cities are equally touted in the national media these days.
Austin has a lot of growing up to do, so maybe in 30 years it will be on San Antonio's level, the level it was in 2009.
Can you show me where it says SA's downtown population is the 6th largest in the US? The report I found had it around 16 but maybe you have a newer report?
It is listed at 25,000 or so in the early part of this decade, so there may be a newer list. Do you have info on that 16th rank?
Paul, why do you keep throwing out the 25,000 number when we both know that's not true.
Whatever boundary definition used to come up with that 25,000 number is wrong. It's not downtown. I know how you like to think that King William, Lavaca, etc are "downtown" but they're not.
I wish we had 25,000 downtown but we don't. The downtown alliance itself estimates the population at 3,000-4,000. Anyone and everyone should go by those numbers over whatever long ago source had 25,000.
DASA districts are outlined in red and is divided into the following disctricts: University District (UD), Market Square District (MSD), Historic Civic Center (HCC), Houston Street District (HSD), La Villita District (LVD), Convention Center District (CCD), River Bend District (RBD), North River Disctrict (NRD), and Alamo District (AD).
River North is the area marker to the North which includes the new Museum Reach of the Riverwalk.
There is certainly not 25,000 residing in the area shaded blue. 4,000 is actually probably a bit too high of an estimate.
And to what end are we creating "wonder" or "passion"? Do you really think that skyscrapers are going to convince a suburbanista to move downtown? We should be concerned about creating livable, vibrant neighborhoods where people actually want to live (as opposed to skylines that people want to look AT). When we create neighborhoods like that, there will be plenty of interest, and not solely from people who want to look at shiny buildings in the distance.
I don't think skyscrapers change the choices or living preferences of individuals who already reside in the city, for the most part. What they do accomplish, however, is increase the cities image and visibility outside the confines of that particular city.
I agree that there needs to be further development and gentrification of various areas downtown, however, a few tall buildings could also go a long way in the entirety of the revitalization.
Perhaps, in addtion to making corporate capitalism more attractive to big business, the city government could provide incentives to various small and mid-sized companies in exurban San Antonio to move downtown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvlpr
Right. These are the 3 largest cities/metro areas in the country, so they're going to have lots of tall buildings.
Yes, because, being the three largest metro areas in the country, LA, Chicago, and New York are the only cities with tall buildings dominating their central business districts.
You don't like those? How about Seattle, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Charlotte, and Minneapolis? These cities all have more developed downtowns than San Antonio, in addition to more density and taller buildings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvlpr
But the best neighborhoods (where people actually live) in these places generally don't have lots of skyscrapers. More often, they feature human-scaled buildings and mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods (and lots of historic architecture).
Yes, but I thought we were talking about the revitalization of San Antonio's downtown, not areas outside of downtown. For instance, Dallas has Uptown just north of its high density downtown, that's very popular, but yet, the city still maintains a strong central business district.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvlpr
Paris only has one skyscraper, and it's generally considered a pretty decent place to live.
A number of European cities are predominated by strictly mid-rise/low-rise structures, whereas in the US, and to some extent Eastern Asia, many cities of larger population have much taller buildings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvlpr
By your standards, West Village in NYC (or Logan Square in Chicago, or Belltown in Seattle, or Nob Hill in SF, or Pearl District in Portland) are "dull", "outdated", and not "progressive". You don't really believe that, do you?.
Not exactly. None of those areas are located in those cities downtowns, but rather are neighborhoods within the city limits. I'm talking about downtown development, and all of those cities have more developed downtowns than San Antonio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvlpr
And I really don't think there's anything wrong with SA's "spirit". There are plenty of people who are happy to be here (both in our urban neighborhoods and in the suburbs), and who think that this city has great prospects for the future. It's far from perfect, and has LOTS of room for improvement (though the same could be said for most cities in the US).
We're all entitled to our opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvlpr
But 10 new skyscrapers won't change that. Compact, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods will. And skyscrapers are simply incompatible with those kinds of neighborhoods.
Yes, but again, we're talking about downtowns, not neighborhoods within city limits. While I don't necessarily think skyscrapers by themselves would change the climate of downtown San Antonio, I think that if those skyscrapers were inhabited by various corporate businesses, certainly, the symbiotic dynamics of downtown San Antonio would change drastically.
The corporate activity would prove to be effective in the overall revitalization, bringing in more money, and increase the presence of restaurants, shops, and businesses that cater to the increased liveliness.
Downtown could be a mix of tourists, corporate suits, and mid-level workers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvlpr
Uh, what about Dell's corporate campus? Or Freescale? Or Temple-Inland? Whole Foods is the only Fortune 500 company in Austin with a downtown office. This is not a problem that is unique to SA, and there's only so much our city can do (I mean "bribe") to get big companies into the center city.
I thought you couldn't care less what Austin is doing? In any case, Austin still has more skyscrapers (that happen to be residential), and is building more at an alarming rate. There's a grocery store in downtown Austin, and a number of mixed-use developments, low and mid-rise residential properties, restaurants, and nightlife all concentrated in a relatively small area.
Plus, there's vibrancy, something San Antonio's downtown is notoriously lacking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvlpr
First, Austin has roughly the same amount of tract home subdivisions as SA. And Dallas and Houston (with their fancy skylines) have roughly triple the amount of tract home development of Austin & SA. So one has nothing to do with the other.
The tract housing comment was in response to a poster who stated that San Antonio, through its annexation policies, has the ability to expand in all directions, endlessly. I made the statement that when one gets a post card from a notable city, it is not tract housing, but that cities landmarks or symbols of identity which is represented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvlpr
And I agree that we need (and will probably see) much more development in our center city. But that doesn't have to mean more skyscrapers. It can mean lots and lots of 3-5 story buildings, but in an urban form, and connected to one another by multiple transit options (including walking).
I won't disagree with the comment regarding density and that low to mid-rise buildings will contribute to downtown's density. However, what other "multiple transit options" are available in San Antonio other than the bus, or private vehicle?
Unlike Dallas, Houston, and now Austin, San Antonio does not have a lightrail system which serves its downtown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvlpr
You still haven't made a case why skyscrapers make a city more "relevant". They're extremely expensive to build, consume more energy, require much more parking, concentrate densities disproportiantately, eliminate natural light, disrupt established building patterns and scales, and (generally) make use of materials and design styles that don't age gracefully.
Blah, blah, blah. The bottom line is that San Antonio continues to get left further and further behind in terms of development, skyscrapers notwithstanding.
Go to Austin, see all of the development and building that's going on in its downtown, and come back and tell me that San Antonio is not being surpassed.
The first sentance is completely and totally false. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
Actually, it's not. San Antonio's workforce is predominately made up of low-to mid level, non-degreed individuals in the military, medical, information technology, and service industries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvlpr
But I agree that SA needs to work hard and make some changes to continue to be an attractive place to do business. But skyscrapers just don't matter to these companies. They seem to matter an awful lot to a very narrow segment of people who, as I've said, just think it's fun to look at shiny buildings in the distance.
Skyscapers are often a product of a city that embraces corporate capitalism - the city government provides an environment thats conductive to such business, and as a result, skyscrapers are built.
I don't think skyscrapers change the choices or living preferences of individuals who already reside in the city, for the most part. What they do accomplish, however, is increase the cities image and visibility outside the confines of that particular city.
Translation = Higher cost of living.
Besides, I rather have nice parks and schools than an amazing skyline with a bunch of buildings that I'm not allow to go in them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
