A Little Embarassing (Dallas, San Antonio, Austin: real estate, lofts, condos)

[oldmanshirt]

Hi, this is my first post and thread on here. I've been reading these forums for a couple of months, and I now come to this forum every day to read about the newest happenings in my home city.

I got a chance to drive through San Antonio a few times last weekend, and though I'm generally impressed with the developments going on (410 & 281, north of 1604, and the Live Oak, Schertz, Selma areas especially), I have to say that it's a rather embarassing state of affairs that companies like AT&T and Valero are headquartered here, and yet we have no impressive skyscrapers (none over 500' anyway), and our tallest buildings are hotels. The AT&T buildings in particular are pretty pathetic, as you can barely even see them from I-10! They should tear those ugly suckers down and put up a real skyscraper.

I know there's the preservation society that has it's say and traditions and aesthetics to consider, but if that's so important than why not build a second downtown as the business district and leave the existing one up for the hotels and older buildings? Yeah, I know, pie in the sky idea, but it's not like there isn't a ton of undeveloped land within the city limits, on the southside or the east side, or even places on the northside. I just find it sad that companies like Frost were founded in SA and yet it's Austin that has the fancy Frost building or Minneapolis with it's huge glass AT&T building. I mean, how tall would the USAA building be if it was vertical instead of all spread out? I'm all for maintaining the small town feel in SA, but it's just pathetic to have these big Fortune 500 companies based here and yet still have such a short skyline.

I'm sure I'm missing a ton in all of this getting caught up in civic pride and whatnot, so if some of the more experienced veterens on here can set me straight, I'd appreciate it : ) Again, glad to be a part of this forum.

[Chimpie]

I don't want to sound mean or hateful here, I'm just missing the logic here. Are you saying that these companies should tear down their buildings and build skyscrapers so it is more pleasant to your eyes?

[oldmanshirt]

My logic is, shouldn't the city that is the headquarters of companies like AT&T and Valero have skyscrapers that reflect that fact?

Obviously, I don't expect them to tear down their buildings just because I say so. I just don't understand why other cities get taller, fancier buildings that carry the names of companies based in SA, while SA's are comparitively rinky dink. That's all.

[chipsndip]

I think you'll find that a lot of businesses that are moving to San Antonio are doing so because of the wide expanse of open space, and the fact that they DON'T have to build big skyscrapers. The economies of skyscrapers are very poor, and the main reason for them is over-congestion in a land-limited area. When land is cheap, it's much cheaper to build a maintain a 2-5 story building as opposed to a 50 story building, and safer to boot. A firefighter once told me that he won't stay above the fifth story of a building because that's as high as a ladder truck can reach...

[210]

Originally Posted by oldmanshirt

I just don't understand why other cities get taller, fancier buildings that carry the names of companies based in SA, while SA's are comparitively rinky dink. That's all.

In terms of Frost, it's only the name of that building because it owns the most amount of space in that building, that's it. Frost didn't build it, just bought space in it.

In SA they built their building, and yes it's old and not "tall", but who cares.

[NOTAM]

omg i cant believe what i am reading?
big sky scrapers? if you want to see that, go to New York City or somewhere.
you know, there is appeal to those cities, big towns that dont build up and up...look at SANTA FE NEW MEXICO, Savannah GA, two examples

[210]

What are Las Vegas' tallest buildings? Hotels and condos.

[wCat]

Hello OMS.....I'm glad you decided to post finally! Actually, you should be very proud of these companies....not that I'm endorsing them for business, but AT&T (formerly SBC) has had a huge economical impact on this city. I don't know how long you've been here, but if you were here when SBC decided to move their HQ here, it was a MAJOR plus for the SA economy.

A step further than that.....they took over THIRTEEN very large buildings that were dying in downtown and outlying areas, so that strengthened the infrastructure of the city in a monumental way. I'm all for beautiful buildings, but I completely disapprove of the mindset that has developed to "dispose" of good real estate to build bigger and better than another city. SBC/ATT saved a great deal of money in acquiring available real estate and bringing life back to areas that needed it. I know because I was in commercial design and worked directly with this company.

The built environment is currently moving toward "sustainabilty" ....it's preservation, conservation and recycling old into new. The by products of building demo is the largest percentage of waste going into our landfills. There is truly logic behind renewing the old....even if it's not so "pretty".

Look at Europe.....a very small space compared to the size of this country, yet most of it has existed for many centuries before this country. Paris is one example of being anti skyscraper. The panorama of the city from various places has been preserved beautifully. Big bright and new doesn't mean "smart". If we try to understand the planning behind some of the choices, we might appreciate what we have.

Lastly.....compared to just 40 years ago, there really is very little space left to develop in Bexar County, and the price of unimproved land is beginning to skyrocket here. I hope our city planners keep as much vacant land as possible to promote parks and lessen the burden on draining our natural resouces. Unfortunately, developers don't always care about what's good for the environment. The community doesn't complain until it's too late. It really is possible, however, to have progress while preserving the old.

We have a GREAT building down town that is a classic Mid Century Modern building on St. Mary's, but it's an aesbestos nightmare! It's been sitting vacant for years with the city planners not getting off of square one with progress on it. Just tearing it down would be an ecological nightmare.....so there it sits. Very awesome structure that could be turned into lofts or a multiuse building for offices and businesses.

Anyway....hope this helps some. You have reason to be proud of SA for not being a copy cat city when it comes to commercial construction.

[oldmanshirt]

Thanks everyone, I was hoping to come off as not too opinionated or narrow-minded, but apparently I failed. I do appreciate SA's culture and atmosphere, but I've also been a sucker for big buildings my entire life (going up to the observation deck of the Sears Tower and looking out over Chicago will always be one of the highlights of my life). I appreciate the info, especially from wCat. I don't really understand the comparisons between SA and LV (which is nothing like SA), Savannah and Santa Fe (??), but cost, resource consumption, and the inefficiencies of skyscrapers make sense.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want SA to turn into some soulless metropolis, ala Dallas, but I believe the city is culturally versatile and vibrant enough to "survive" the addition of a couple of impressive-looking corporate HQs. But thanks for the info, all the same.

[smuboy86]

Dallas is defiantly what San Antonio doesn't want to become. Downtown Dallas is full of beautiful, but empty towers. The few new business towers that are being built in the victory area and arts area are relocations from downtown. Most large corporations in the Dallas area have large corporate campuses in Las Colinas, Plano, Frisco. Dallas' skyscrapers maybe beautiful and shiny, but are hollow.