7 thoughts on “Key Vote on ‘The Bridge’ Apartments Delayed for Community Meeting

  1. The person who did the “opposition” rendering shouldn’t be anonymous.

    We should know who the opposition is and who they represent. I have a feeling that who did the opposition rendering works for a firm here in town that usually has big well known projects of their own and totally wouldn’t do that rendering to oppose it had it been their firm with the project.

    I don’t think that is full disclosure. I don’t think “opposition” renderings have any place and are gross. Like an architectural (political) smear campaign. I’ve never seen anything like that before and I think it’s really gross. Whether or not they are right doesn’t matter that’s a dirty move.

    Full disclosure: I work as an architect but I do not have anything to do with this conversation. Just can’t believe one architect would make a rendering to hinder the work of another architect. It’s the most smug, disgusting little cheeky move I’ve seen in our profession.

      • Todd I think you did a fine job on it don’t be so self-deprecating.

        Any architect/designer/photoshop hobbyist who takes someones PRIVATE not public intellectual property and modifies/reproduces it using their own gifts and craft of creation to sabotage and destroy the progress of someone else isn’t worthy of their gifts. That is a visual tool for creation, not to be used against other architects for your own political purposes. Disgusting.
        That’s a political move and you know it. It’s smug. It says, here we can do sketchup and photoshop too, let’s make a little graphic to put it in their faces. So gross. I wish the architect at least knew who made that picture so that we could all know who is willing to do that around town to each other. To the developer and to the architect not working on a public project, its so wrong.

        PUBLIC: they don’t have to please you. You don’t ‘deserve’ anything. Not a good design, nothing. Private property, not a historic district, bill is footed and building is designed. They’re including you as a courtesy and some jerk shows up with their own little cheeky rendering and doesn’t even have the political back bone to say who did it.

        I say again, anyone who is willing to fire the cannon should at least have the spine to raise their banner lest they be pirates or cowards.

        If their were no need to be so upset because it wasn’t a big deal, it wouldn’t have been published on this platform anonymously.

  2. I’m confused. The person who owns the property wants to develop his property, the way he wants to develop it – after all, it’s his, he paid for it. The city, who safeguards the viability and visibility of these kinds of projects finds the project acceptable. The previous owner finds the project acceptable… When did we lose our right to the use of our own property? This is an ugly old bridge, which had been moved here from somewhere else, it used to usher wagons and then cars over an ugly railroad yard – let’s not compare it to the Missions.

    • Part of the issue is that local private citizens spent many years raising private funds and securing funds from state and federal government agencies to restore the Hays Street Bridge to its current popular condition. The sale of this property has been in litigation and is still in litigation as to the city’s right to sell the property for commercial development to start with.

      This is not as black and white as one private party selling to another private party with no historic structures involved. My personal hope is that the developer will come up with a design that will showcase the entire bridge rather than the current design that hinders viewing a portion the bridge from neighborhood streets.

      In addition, the city has entered into other agreements with the developer that include using part of the bridge for private seating. While this is not part of this immediate issue, how the bridge is emphasized during this proceeding (as a community asset to be shared by all or as a backdrop for private gain) may affect later development.

  3. Please clarify why the area is “plagued by crime.” I don’t know if this is an issue the developer is using or if it’s based Rivard Report’s research and analysis. I live in the area and I do see misdemeanors occurring. I also drive on the freeways and see turn signals not being used, speeding and other infractions. Would our local freeways be characterized as “plagued by crime?”

  4. I’ve expressed this through Facebook and hope it reaches Council — the re-development of this site should really represent the BEST San Antonio can do pedestrian urban design, including as it is a property within the downtown district addressed by the City’s Downtown Design Guide (2013).

    So far, I’m not seeing with this proposed project the best or even good enough urban design, or urban design that’s in keeping with the historic East Side in regards to sidewalk conditions and pedestrian paths and amenities. Using E. Commerce west of Cherry as an example of what we should be seeing with this new high density project that will set the pattern of future urban development on Cherry and Lamar into the rest of downtown:

    – we should be seeing sidewalks much wider than 6 feet on Cherry and Lamar–including a paved utility zone at least 5 feet wide to accommodate street tree wells as required with the Downtown Design Guide (2013) and suggested with the renderings. The building envelope likely needs to be stepped back further from both Lamar and Cherry or reduced to achieve the minimum sidewalk and utility zone requirements and to create sidewalk conditions that meet the basic needs for higher density urban design.

    – we should be seeing sidewalk awnings that enclose a generous sidewalk area and provide real comfort — including connecting and sheltering pedestrian building entrances and where bikes are expected to park on Lamar and Cherry (see the Downtown Design Guide). The current awning design as rendered is practically useless, leaving various pedestrian entrances and bike parking areas exposed.

    – there should be planning for covered VIA bus stops on Cherry and Lamar, including the ample sidewalk space needed to ensure safe bus boarding and waiting that does not obstruct a minimum 6 foot wide walking area. Such design could also support ride hailing and taxis. The unprecedented request to increase density with this proposal should require better accommodation of mass transit options along with truly urban/downtown sidewalk.

    – currently there is no space for sidewalk bins or other sidewalk seating.

    – the planned pedestrian paseo/path under the Hays Street Bridge is not provided enough detail with the proposal. The path should be at least ten feet wide to serve the high level of pedestrian activity and mixed use depicted with the renderings. We also need to see how this path/paseo will cross the rail road tracks to the west and connect with the street grid and accommodate ADA requirements. If the path goes nowhere or is not ADA compliant, it’s a boondoggle and distraction from very poor pedestrian conditions planned on Cherry and Lamar.

    That the architects misspell ‘bicycle’ in the renderings suggests that the design has not been properly reviewed or considered in terms of pedestrian amenity and the City’s Downtown Design Guide. We deserve better pedestrian urban design than what has been proposed with this project to date.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *