The Historic and Design Review Commission voted unanimously Wednesday to give conceptual approval to plans for a downtown 17-story residential building situated along the River Walk.
The design of the structure has changed since local developer Keller Henderson first proposed the Floodgate in April 2016 as a 10-story building. The 17-story, 64-unit building, which features automated on-site parking and four penthouses, would be built between the Witte Building and the Esquire Tavern on Commerce Street.
Commissioners requested that segments of a historic flood wall and a fig tree be protected and utilized by the development. Henderson will return to HDRC, possibly later this summer, for final approval of the project.
Brett Rhode, director of Rhode Partners, told commissioners that a restaurant would be established on the ground floor of the building and continue down to the River Walk. The next two stories of the building are designed to be used for the 56 on-site parking spaces, the fourth floor will feature outdoor amenities, and the remaining levels will be used for the apartments. A rooftop garden will top the building on the 17th floor.
“Our idea is … to create a building that has more of an iconic presence from the River Walk,” Rhode said.
Henderson told the Rivard Report after the vote that units would be leased at market rates decided upon at the completion of the project. He described previous reports of pricing at $4 per square foot rates as a “misnomer.”
Commissioners requested that Henderson and Rhode aim to incorporate more of a historic stone flood wall that acts as a border for the River Walk-level restaurant in the redesign of the project. They made a similar request for a fig tree that’s described in HDRC documents as being situated inside the stone wall.
San Antonio Conservation Society First Vice President Patti Zaiontz was the only person to speak against the project, describing the changes to the plan as “going in the wrong direction.”
“While the original design related to the River Walk and the adjacent historic buildings, the new plan performs poorly in both regards,” Zaiontz said.
Two historic single-story properties at 139 and 141 Commerce Street will be demolished for the tower’s construction if it receives final approval.
Commissioners also voted to give conceptual approval to a five-story multifamily structure named the Augusta at McCullough.
Stillwater Capital designed the development to be situated on a block surrounded by McCullough Avenue, Dallas Street, Brooklyn Street, and Augusta Street. According to HDRC documents, the complex will feature a courtyard with a pool and an on-site parking garage, along with other amenities.
The documents also state that final approval for the project will not be given until the Claudius House at 819 Augusta Street and the Nesbitt House at 723 Brooklyn receive final approval for relocation.
Is it really possible to move the limestone house at 819 Augusta? Where are they proposing to move it?
— One other question about that neighborhood: What are the plans for the two towers on Ave B and Brooklyn (across from Pete’s Tako)?
I see they are being stripped. Will they be renovated or is demolition proposed? What are the plans?
The 2 towers SBC/AT&T used to occupy on McCullough were purchased by CPS Energy for their new headquarters. Read more: https://therivardreport.com/cps-energy-board-approves-150m-price-for-new-headquarters/
That design looks so out of place – it really distracts from the historic features of our town. They need to go back to the drawing board on this one.
I couldn’t agree more that this looks entirely out of place. We’ve recently stripped that sort of facade design from an old bldg and now we’re going back decades with this, but not enough decades to make it fit in. Horrible!
The design does not complement the river walk or any of the historical buildings . This is San Antonio , new buildings should add to the ambience of the city not create discord.
Ah yes, this project really detracts from the ambience of the payday loanshark and quick mart that occupy the current buildings. That’s what we really need, more of those!
Have any of you actually left San Antonio? Hey geniuses, there’s this thing called progress. It happens with design and architecture as well. Grab a book. Become enlightened. Or don’t, and gripe that not everything looks like it did in 1920.
This project should fit it perfectly on the Riverwalk. Instead of your beloved payday loan store, there’s going to be a restaurant both on Commerce and the river side of the building. Think of all the foot traffic that will add to Commerce. It will also add a bunch of residents living right on the Riverwalk—more people living in that liveliness and atmosphere whose honor you apparently need to defend.
If we ever want to move forward as a city, we need more projects like this, not fewer.
Aaron’s misplaced and snippy comment aside…is the concept seen above the newer version cited by the dissenting voice (SA Conservation) or the previous concept? I would like to see the plans in more detail. Yes, there is progress, but not at the cost of unaffordable housing and quite frankly, ugly facade. Just because the current occupying building is not pleasing to the eye, doesn’t mean it should be a free for allon architecture. Progress indicates there is thinking and discussions involved in keeping the spirit of downtown, which seems to be old meets new in that there isn’t a great disparity between the two. I think they need to rethink the design, surely they hired a competent architect that is up to the challenge.
The design is welcome in my opinion. SA cannot move forward if it cannot accept a new facade from time to time. Many of the greatest cities have plenty of old corresponding with new. I think they should rethink how the street level interacts with the surroundings but aside from that, it’s great.