13 thoughts on “Proposed Housing Development in Tobin Hill North at a Standstill

  1. Ridiculous. San Antonio will never have a strong urban core like Houston or Dallas if higher density projects like this are not allowed.

  2. High density projects are allowed, they just don’t belong in the middle of a historic neighborhood. See the other story about another apartment complex coming to the Pearl, it’s close to the Tobin Hill area and an appropriate location for high density residences. It’s really about balance and preservation, I think this was a good ruling.

  3. Turner’s statement about the duplexes being boarded up and vacant is patently false. There were tenants in the duplexes when they were purchased. We knew the folks that lived there. They were considerate, quiet neighbors. Whether they were evicted or not, I don’t know, but I do know they were compelled to moved before Terramark demolished their homes.
    At the hearing I did not hear any fears about property values rising, but I did hear Turner claim they planned to sell these 1300+ SF units for $250k each. I truly doubt they plan to sell these for less than market value.
    Terramark’s proposal included eight two-story condos on a 100 x 160 foot property, with a only a driveway down the middle for access. The two units facing the street included a mere 10 foot front setback; a full 15 feet closer to the street than any of the surrounding homes, which are all one-story. We in Tobin Hill North are grateful the commissioners recognized how inappropriate this particular project is for this location.

    • If you care more about front lawns than increasing the number of nice places to live in the middle of San Antonio, maybe you’re better suited for Stone Oak or one of the other endless and soul crushing suburban enclaves that envelope the city and slowly choke the life out of it.

      These are the kinds of housing forms that used to be legal in San Antonio, back when it was truly unique and historic community. NIMBY’s ruin everything. And yes, this the literal definition of NIMBY-ism.

  4. I think it’d be fun to ride my bike around Tobin Hill, shop boutiques, eat at neighborhood joints, and host work meetings at coffee shops that are a 10 minute walk away. I’d rather spend my money on entrepreneurs and friends than more front lawn.

  5. Based on Terramark’s track record of non-conforming designs and shoddy construction — buyers of their townhomes have taken to referring to them as “Terrormark” as they have been dealing with the need for significant repair of their new, high dollar homes — the neighborhood is correct to be concerned. While in-fill is needed to keep the city core vibrant and alive, crap design and construction that will itself become blight in 20 years is not the answer.

    • If by non-conforming designs, you mean building housing forms the way it used to be done, before our idolation of the suburban house. Then sign me up for one of those. The lack of irony of central city residents declaring these inappropriate, when their own home is probably non-conforming to current rules, is truly spectacular.

  6. it’s ashame people who never cared or showed interest in this area suddenly are poping up showing interest. bit there interest is in making money, not improvements. developers need to b stoped and our neighborhoods need to start to band together to stop the potential distraction of our neighborhoods. i don’t see the city standing behind its long property owners concerns, this city wants more tax money from this area! we can win if we all band together and help one another and fight against Any future development b-4 it’s too late.

  7. Why do people cling to old crappy homes and get in the way of progress. Just because they are old doesn’t mean they deserve to be designated as historic. People complain about the new proposed homes sticking out like a sore thumb but anything is better than what is currently there.

  8. I can’t believe people are complaining about this…that vacant lot reduces property values and is an eyesore to the community. The proposed development includes plenty of parking and is not an eyesore and would improve property values and city tax income. The city should not stand by people opposing developments such as this, if anything the city should make it so the developer needs to add more units/density to improve affordability. The city needs to honor its own comp plan and visioning that has been done.

Leave a Reply

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