Deco San Antonio
Many years ago I did a lecture on WPA Projects in San Antonio, which were legion. From Brackenridge Park to Stinson Field and Alamo Plaza, the WPA left a large imprint on the city. Much of that imprint took the form of Art Deco styling, with its smooth contours, speed lines and continuous surfaces. I recently did a couple of San Antonio tours for friends and relatives, and many of our major downtown skyscrapers feature the Art Deco Style, with a difference.
Similarly, the Nix Memorial Hospital (1929 Henry Phelps) has Gothic and Classical details. It is also being converted into residential. I was born in this National Register landmark, although I hasten to point out it was listed under Criterion C, not Criterion A. It also has grotesques.
The Emily Morgan Hotel, which started life as a medical arts building in 1926 (Ralph Cameron), is similarly shaped and detailed.
Just next door, one of the great San Antonio WPA projects was the Federal Building and Post Office (1937, Cameron and Cret). Here, the contours of Art Deco were tempered by Classicism rather than Gothic.
Stinson Municipal Airport, founded as a flying school by Katherine and Marjorie Stinson in 1915, is a more stripped-down version of Art Deco.
Much of Art Deco was inspired by trains and the newish technology of the automobile, so it is not surprising that gas stations and houses of the late 1920s and throughout the 1930s made use of this speedy, dynamic style. Columns became stacked pylons and raised brick coursing suggested steamliners or aeroplanes….
While we are talking about Art Deco – two things: First, it is 100 years old! The Exposition internationale des arts decoratifs et industriells opened in Paris in April 1925! And secondly….
I was named an expert in a Redfin article! Check it out here: Vintage 1920–1940 Design Ideas You Can Use Now | Redfin(Parent company of ApartmentGuide and Rent.))
Here is a fun quote from Victoria Charles’ book Art Deco:
“Some twenty countries participated in the exhibit. Germany was not invited because of its role in World War I, but Austria and Hungary were invited, as was the new Soviet Union, though it was not yet officially recognized by France. Many countries had exhibits of furniture and decoration within the Grand Palais, and also built pavilions to illustrate new ideas in architecture. Britain, Italy, Spain, Belgium and the Netherlands all had substantial pavilions, as did the Scandinavian countries, Poland, and Czechoslovakia. Japan had an important pavilion, while China had only a modest representation. The United States, not entirely understanding the purpose of the exhibit, chose not to participate.”
Conservation Society sues to halt demolition of Texas Pavilion but it goes on
April 26, 2025 the Conservation Society of San Antonio filed a lawsuit to halt demolition of the 1968 Texas Pavilion in downtown San Antonio. The only downtown building by a Mexican-American architect, the pavilion was home of the Institute of Texan Cultures and Texas Folklife Festival for over 50 years. Owned since 1973 by the University of Texas at San Antonio, the building was listed on the National Register of Historic Places AND as a State Antiquities Landmark last year. And it is being demolished.
LEARNING MOMENTS:
- Yes, you can tear down buildings on the National Register of Historic Places. How could a federal designation get in the way of a local building permit?
- The National Historic Preservation Act gets triggered if there is a federal undertaking (which includes funding) to demolish a National Register property, which the City claims there isn’t. Except their public statements say there is, so … lawsuit.
- State Antiquities Landmark designation CAN stop a demolition by the State, unless the Texas Historical Commission approves it, which they did. Without a hearing. Not even by the Texas Historical Commission. So …. lawsuit.
We have spent the last two and a half years trying to get these two designations for this building, ergo you can read about the background here, here, and here. As with most preservation cases, the odds are stacked against us, a mere David standing across from the goliaths of UTSA and the City, who have recently joined with the County to discuss the implementation of Project Marvel, which envisions an expanded Convention Center, new hotel, Spurs (NBA) stadium, revamped Alamodome, revitalized Confluence Theater, and a land bridge over I-37. I covered Project Marvel and all one of its illustrations here in December.
We have received a lot of supportive comments and President Lewis Vetter has been interviewed in many media. As we have said for years, we support the downtown Spurs stadium and Project Marvel. BECAUSE the Texas Pavilion is a Marvel-ous building to use as part of the project! Check out our website for updates and membership information here!
AND, A WEEK LATER it seems they may be accelerating the demolition. They have ripped down (not removed, done with a backhoe) several of the iconic concrete panels from the building. We went to court to get a TRO and UTSA is claiming that they are only doing remediation and removed the panels to access things they had to remediate. Ummm, that doesn’t jive with the visuals:
APRIL 16 UPDATE
On Monday, April 14 UTSA and the City had ten lawyers in the courtroom as they successfuly convinced Judge Tina Torres that both entities had “sovereign immunity” and that the court had no jurisdiction to even HEAR the suit. The Conservation Society filed a notice of appeal to the 15th Court of Appeals on Wednesday. Meanwhile, destructive demolition has continued without pause.
MAY 16 UPDATE
The 15th Court of Appeals denied our motions for an emergency relief and an injunction. With a heavy heart and recognizing the effects of three months of demolition, the Conservation Society decides to end its pursuit of a hearing on the merits of the case. Goliath won.
The return of digital billboards
Another recrudescence! Almost a year ago, a company called Outfront Media tried to circumvent the newly minted Sign Ordinance by proposing “Urban Entertainment Districts.” It is part of this blog from last May. By fall, the outsider effort had been renamed “Digital Arts Media Pilot Project” and was promising not only that revenues go to the Department of Arts and Culture, but that the digital billboards would be accompanied by permanent artworks stuck on the side of buildings or parking garages. A survey found 75% of people against the proposed pilot program, and a City Council hearing was delayed five times but then finally held last Friday and shockingly, voted forward.
Blade Runner, here we come!
What was most surreal about the City Council Planning and Community Development Committee meeting was the crazy reason the Council Members came up with to vote for it. Lighting and Public Safety. I kid you not. This is at least five kinds of stupid.
Stupid #1 – Lighting?
If downtown has a problem with lighting, shouldn’t it be solved by, I don’t know, streetlights? The “pilot” project will have up to two (2) billboards per district, and downtown is a maximum three districts. So, maximum six digital billboards, none of which stays on all night. Seven new streetlights downtown beats that nonsense.
See how the Crockett Hotel neon illuminates the Alamo?
Stupid #2 – “Pilot”
Even Centro, which was in favor of the “pilot” program, testified that if a pilot fails, you need to remove it. The media company said they would not, and our experience with the digital kiosks six years ago was the same. Once they go up, they stay up.
Even in front of the oldest unrestored stone church in North America
Stupid #3 – San Antonio
Not too disparage the cities that have taken up this craven combination of culture and advertising, but none of them (Denver, Cincinnati, Atlanta) have the two biggest tourist attractions in the state (the Alamo and the River Walk). None of them have World Heritage status. We have a concentration of historic buildings and sites that exceeds most cities and will be actively and financially harmed by having little Times Square wannabes blinking around the corner.
Move along, nothing to see here….
Stupid #4 – Revenue
The johnny-come-too-lately company proposing this is promising revenue sharing of up to 20% and screen sharing (for arts or city postings) of up to 20%. Again, like the kiosks. Word on the street is that Denver saw no revenue for years and when it finally came it was a fraction of the millions promised. Atlanta reported $760,000 in 2021 of which $330,000 went to artists and that is with 14 signs downtown. The revenue is not enough for a budget line in Cincinnati.
Stupid #5 – Art
San Antonio has recently added a lot of mural art to downtown, thanks to new technologies that allow you to do so without permanently affecting brick walls and the like – removable film. If you walk from Houston and Losoya two blocks west you will encounter three or four of these. I can’t imagine any of them not harmed by having a digital billboard attached to them.
JUNE UPDATE:
The lame duck City Council approved the pilot of up to 10 digital billboards last week in a 7-3 vote. Thanks to D1 Sukh Kaur, D5 Teri Castillo and D7 Marina Gavito for voting against this travesty. Now we will see what actually happens and where – since landmarks are off-limits and downtown will require HDRC approval. Maybe the digital demidemons will be limited to Port San Antonio and the Ferris Wheel/Alamodome district.
Heritage Conservation in 2025
In chaotic times, one might think that the preservation of historic sites might be a respite from chaos, but as with all firehoses, the current recrudescence has soaked all sectors. I was in Washington DC last week for our annual Preservation Action Advocacy Week, which seemed like many of the others, despite the steady drumbeat of the 24-hour news cycle trying to make sense of the firehose. We met with six congressional offices and were well received in all, because for a long time historic preservation (heritage conservation) has had bipartisan support. Texas has had a very good state historic tax credit for the last decade, so our pitch to retain the federal one hit home for the Texas congressional delegation.
The firehose of course refers to the huge quantity of executive actions that have affected most domestic and foreign sectors. In terms of “preservation” the obvious initial impacts are loss of staff at historic sites of the National Park Service, overriding of Section 106 review due to a declared energy emergency, and loss of preservation staff in many other federal agencies, including the GSA which oversees real estate, USDA, Transportation and others. Given that the firehose has been on for less than two months, and given that some firings or overridings are reversed, it is very hard to assess the damage at this time. Of greater concern would be any permanent dismantling of federal review processes, most of which are carried out by states and other sovereign entities.
The role of heritage conservation is to preserve the histories of all communities that make up a place. And the act of heritage conservation is a process by which a community determines what elements of its past it wants in its future, and how those elements are preserved. This process can exist at any and all levels but it only really is effective at the community level. And, as one of our speakers (Valerie Grussing of NATHPO) noted: “Community moves faster than government.”
I have worked in the heritage conservation field for 42 years, working for non-profits the whole time. I have occasionally been hired for specific projects by government entities, mostly at the municipal level. So it is at the level of the blessed community that we must continue our efforts to uncover and conserve the history we find in our local places.
How to demolish a MCM landmark, clumsily.
The surprising thing about the impending demolition (they have started on remediation, the most expensive part UNLESS you are keeping the building) of the Texas Pavilion/Institute of Texan Cultures Building is not that the Texas Historical Commission issued a demolition permit without public comment less than two months after listing the building as a State Antiquities Landmark. That was certainly NOT surprising since they had just done the same thing with University Junior High in Austin – landmark it and then six weeks later allow it to be demolished.
It is also not surprising that the demolition permit came just a month after the City finally revealed Project Marvel, a singular rendering centered on a potential Spurs stadium. The Spurs have the superstar of the decade and their current venue is more than 20 years old, which is what, 100 in professional sports years? What IS surprising is the recent revelation that Project Marvel started – and could easily finish – without a Spurs stadium. Or a UTSA hotel program. Turns out those were late additions to the project, according to City Council members at a public meeting this week. And the project could go without them.
That explains why there is only one rendering. The hotel even looks like a late cut-and-paste.
UTSA’s rush to demolish seems a little odd, as does their deal last year to sell, lease or “give” the building to the City. Yes, the city wants it back after giving it to the state in 1967 for a permanent museum. But UTSA kept saying they wanted to “monetize” the site – why would they “give” it to the city? Especially after a really expensive remediation and demolition?
That is 1963 US Gypsum building in Chicago when it was about 10. It was demolished three decades ago, costing $4 million, of which $3 million was for remediation.
Well, one reason is that UTSA as a state agency doesn’t have to bother with demolition permits from the city. If the city owned it, there would be a public hearing, and one thing UTSA has avoided assiduously for the last eight years is any public hearing. I remember going to the public meetings about their master planning six years ago – which included every parcel they owned EXCEPT the Texas Pavilion/ITC.
Since the new President of UTSA arrived, they have wanted to get rid of the building. They pulled back a Request for Proposals that had been issued in 2016 for developers interested in the site. Odd, because “monetization”? Then COVID came to the rescue and within months they cut staff by 80%. The Texas Folklife Festival, which had been the lifeline for the ITC, ended, and soon other events were moved to other locations. They convened task forces and the ULI to study the building so that everyone knew it needed $80 million – except the 2023 engineering report on their website that said $7 million. And last Memorial Day they closed it and moved the collections out. So now it is just a Brutalist hunk.
This is how you demolish a Mid Century Modern landmark. I call it the POLYESTER PANTS method because I first saw it at work in 1980s Chicago with a lovely 1930 building called Hillman’s. Hillman’s had a ground floor “grocery” called Stop and Shop that was the classiest thing in town – the ultimate upscale bodega, a unique experience and a beloved place. If they had announced they were demolishing Stop and Shop there would be an uproar.
So they got rid of that use and put in a place that sold two pairs of polyester pants for $12. Within a year or too, the polyester pants have successfully distanced the building from its fan base and Boom! down it goes.
So, no more Folklife Festival, no more staff, just those pesky Conservation Society folks loading up the old Institute of Texan Cultures building with landmark titles. Sadly, as I explained late last year, those titles only provide a review – nothing guarantees preservation. And when you have one state entity regulating another, well, you can see that there is no independent arbiter here.
Aw heck, transparency and oversight are out of fashion anyway, right? Want some polyester pants?
World Heritage Center – 10 years of World Heritage in Texas.
In 2015, the San Antonio Missions were inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage list, becoming the only World Heritage site in Texas and making San Antonio one of three U.S. World Heritage cities. I celebrated this event in my blog at the time – not knowing I would move to San Antonio a year later. I had made a point of touring the missions carefully in 2010, and I am pleased that my blog from that visit remains accurate. I still tour them – took three visitors out last week. Never boring. This is a landscape with deep cultural resonance.
Mission Espada at night.
Last week, the City of San Antonio’s World Heritage Center opened near Mission San Jose, and over 500 people turned out to celebrate. The Mayor said the turnout was twice what they had for the new airport terminal! San Antonians LOVE to celebrate culture. A lot of those in attendance were Mission descendants whose families have been here for many, many generations.
The effort to achieve World Heritage status began in 2006 at a Conservation Society Board Meeting when it was suggested by former President Virginia Nicholas. Soon the Society had engaged the services of author/historian Dr. Paul Ringenbach, who wrote and rewrote (and rewrote) the World Heritage nomination. Experts were brought in and we coordinated with World Heritage USA (then called US/ICOMOS).
The inscription took nine years from start to finish, but that is actually pretty quick in World Heritage time. The Frank Lloyd Wright sites also began to work on World Heritage inscription in 2006, but did not achieve it until 2019 – four years after San Antonio. I did not move to San Antonio until 2016, but having spent years working on World Heritage sites worldwide, and having toured the missions in detail, I was excited and impressed. Which is why I blogged about it. I’m still impressed.
The new World Heritage Center has a screened veranda by Adriana Garcia that takes its motifs from the flowers, waterfowl and nopales of the San Antonio River. The interior features specially commissioned works of art and provides many layers of people-based interpretation. Many Conservation Society leaders are included in the first exhibit area, which focuses on the voices that helped make this special place happen. A large video details not simply the significance of the mission in world history, but the experiences of those who have lived here for generations and generations. Indeed, a “gift box” exhibit focuses exclusively on the voices of the mission descendants.
Unlike many World Heritage sites, the San Antonio Missions are not archaeological ruins. Not only are all five mission churches still extant, but four of them are active Catholic parishes! While the mission walls have vanished at the Alamo and Mission Concepcion, they survive in part at the other three missions, having been rebuilt at Mission San Jose 95 years ago. The landscape is still there, with two of the mission acequias still operating as working irrigation systems.
Labores at Mission San Juan, last week. Irrigated by an acequia built in the 1740s.
Most importantly, the people are still there. And they are at the center of the exhibits in the new World Heritage Center. At the opening, many wore badges identifying them as mission descendants, and throughout the exhibits there are opportunities to hear and see their stories. In the missions the indigenous Pajalache and others joined with the Spanish Franciscans to create a confluence of cultures that is legible to this day.
Even the preservation history of the San Antonio Missions goes back a century! The first item that the Conservation Society purchased in order to save it was the embossed wooden door to the Mission San Jose Granary, which you can see on display at the Mission today. We saved it 99 years ago, in 1926.
From a preservation point of view, the Missions are a lesson in persistence. The ladies of the Conservation Society managed to purchase and restore the Mission San Jose Granary (above) in the early 1930s. This led to the reconstruction of the entire Mission San Jose complex and to the Archdiocese deciding to restore the church, which had been without a roof for a century.
The Conservation Society persisted. In 1941 the four southern missions became a State Historical Park thanks to our efforts. In 1978 the Conservation Society lobbied tirelessly behind the scenes to get the missions listed as a National Historical Park. In 2006 we led the World Heritage effort. That is persistence.
Besides persistence, the other word I keep coming back to when I think about the missions is partnerships. How do you get entities as diverse as the National Park Service, Archdiocese of San Antonio, City of San Antonio, Bexar County, State of Texas and at least four not-for-profits (Conservation Society, Mission Heritage Partners, Los Misiones and the Alamo Trust) to work together to create a singular World Heritage Site? Partnerships. And practice. San Antonio has been practicing these partnerships for most of a century and the Conservation Society has been at the center of it the whole time. You can see the annual reports of this multi-level partnership here.
Matachines celebrating the Virgen at Mission Concepcion, 2017.
Public money and real estate
When the City received its first official briefing on Project Marvel six weeks ago, there was constant reassurance that no public money would go into a private sports stadium. That mantra vanished within a month when the Spurs admitted they were polling taxpayers about using Bexar County funds. They even wanted to get it on the May ballot. The public funded Hemisfair (first Spurs stadium), the Alamodome (second Spurs stadium) and Frost Bank Center (third Spurs stadium) and now they are on Spurs IV (A New Hope.) They have the most exciting NBA player, so you can’t fault their timing.
The reality is that most real estate development has public funding. And it has always been that way.
Go back almost two centuries to the era of steam railroads and canals. How were those financed? Usually by land sales, and generally those were pure raves of speculation where people would sell the same parcel multiple times in a day. Look at the sale of canal lands in Chicago in the 1830s. Absolute madness. Railroads – whether intercontinental or local – were funded the same way. You got land to finance the railroad and that land became more valuable because it would be connected to rail so you could sell it to finance the railroad construction. Not much different to tax-increment financing (we call it TIRZ in SA). You borrow against the increased value you will realize when you finally build. Neat, eh?
There is almost no example of real estate development that is not seeking a public subsidy. In the early 20th century it took the form of amenities like streets and sewers and sidewalks and fire and police and even schools (Remember public schools? Good times!)
In the last 75 years the subsidy has usually been in the form of highways and zoning. You will recall that zoning emerged in the 1910s after the truck and automobile suddenly rendered the location of the railroad tracks irrelevant. Zoning guaranteed that you stayed on the right side of the tracks. Zoning is a form of financing as well, as I explained here in 2008.
Hey, historic preservation has been in the public subsidy game for a half century. Every March we go to Washington to argue for historic preservation tax credits, which are another form of financing. The basic idea in 1976 was: Even the playing field. Bankers preferred to finance new construction because there was less uncertainty. So, you give rehabilitations of historic buildings a tax credit (taxes you don’t have to pay, not a check from the government) after they finish. 10-25 percent covers most uncertainties.
Wait – how does that work? You get the tax credit afterwards? No, you sell the tax credit at a slight discount and turn it into equity at the front end. So…it becomes a form of financing. The clever thing about land sales, tax increment financing, tax credits, highways and zoning is that they are public subsidies that do not require you to write a check. So, no tax dollars involved…directly.
And you can always sell the stadium to a casino. (Caesar’s Superdome, New Orleans)
This is not to say that real estate developers are rent-seeking lampreys (we’ll leave that to the insurance industry). In my current role on the Board of the National Trust Community Investment Corporation (NTCIC), I see first-hand the complexity and fragility of putting together a real estate deal. Quite frankly, tax credits and tax increments DO make projects happen. And there are plenty of small developments that happen in conurbanities without a public subsidy – aside from roads and sewers and water and utilities and garbage collection.
Affordable housing always requires a subsidy because a million bucks only buys four units at any level.
To be fair, many of the hundred-plus unit sprawl developments actually operate at such a scale that municipalities have – on occasion – been able to ask THEM TO PAY for things like sewers and utilities and even roads. These were originally called “impact fees” and were passed on to the consumer. On the other hand, the current upzoning movement is actually adding another subsidy – for increased density in mature urban communities.
We tend to idolize the private market because it seems to reward individualism, a key aspect of American character. In truth, the smart money is always chasing the public subsidy. Real estate is the only asset whose value is entirely externalized, and the shape and value of those externalities lies within the public sector.
Whan That Aprille
In medieval Europe, one of the drivers of economic development was the practice of pilgrimage to holy shrines. The practice began in the 4th century when the Emperor Constantine developed pilgrimage sites in Jerusalem which remain successful today. While pilgrimages to Jerusalem were largely ended with the Fall of Acre in 1291, Rome remained a popular pilgrimage site, as did Santiago de Compostela in Spain, which began in the 9th century with the discovery of the tomb of St. James the Great. The pilgrimage famously began at the Tour St. Jacques in Paris, and was an economic boon to sites, hostelries and businesses en route.
Tour St Jacques, Wikimedia Commons, Cormac 2008
Adrian Bell and Richard Dale have written about the economics of the medieval pilgrimage for years, and they describe the rivalries between various pilgrimage sites seeking to profit – spiritually and economically – from their respective relics. Canterbury was of course a great pilgrimage site made famous by Geoffrey Chaucer, but it had its competitors. Shortly after Thomas Becket was murdered there it became a site of miracles and marvels, leading to “St. Cuthbert performing a sudden spate of miracles at his rival shrine in Durham.”
Statue of St Cuthbert, Durham, 1987
Each of these sites had to have a relic – a piece of the body of a saint, perhaps a piece of the true cross. Similarly, Buddhist stupas and viharas often are centered on a tooth or jawbone of Sakyamuni or perhaps the bones of a boddhisatva.
Unidentified saintly skeleton, Stift Melk, Austria, 2005.
Canterbury found the most economical solution to the relic issue, since they had some of Becket’s blood, which they could almost infinitely dilute with water without reducing its miraculous capacities. Reading Abbey had a hand of St. James and was in competition with Canterbury. Bell and Dale describe how a woman who went to Canterbury for a cure was “confronted” in a dream by St. James who said she would not be cured at Canterbury but had to go to Reading, which she dutifully did. And got cured.
Holycross Abbey, Ireland, 2000
I took the three photos above, which means I also contributed to the economy of these pilgrimages during the late 20th century. I even recall having a St. Cuthbert t-shirt from Durham. I saw St. Thomas the Apostle’s forearm in Chennai when it was still called Madras. Heck, Cologne Cathedral has the bones of the Three Kings behind the altar. Pilgrimages are still an economic boon today, from Mecca to San Antonio, where the World Heritage Mission churches have been promoting El Camino de San Antonio Missions.
“Rose Window,” Mission San Jose. Actually they are pomegranates.
If it was a fight for relics in the medieval era, the competition between cities today tends to revolve around things like convention centers and sports stadiums. As reported everywhere, San Antonio recently released the miraculous Project Marvel, which includes not one, but two sports stadia, an expanded convention center, a new theater in an old theater, and perhaps a park on top of the highway.
Most aspects of Project Marvel had been rumored for a year and a half, and of course the big arena in the center is meant to be for the San Antonio Spurs and implies the demolition of the Texas Pavilion/Institute of Texan Cultures building (CRS, 1968) as I reported last month here.
The good thing about Project Marvel is that it is an example of Daniel Burnham’s “Make No Little Plans” comment. A big plan “stirs men’s blood,” according to Burnham, even if it doesn’t get realized in full. His 1909 Plan of Chicago did exactly that – the majority of it never happened, but some pieces did and it continues to influence urban decisions.
The bad thing about Project Marvel is that it is an example of Daniel Burnham’s “Make No Little Plans” comment. BIG planning grew to maturity in the 1960s and by the 1980s the hubris of big design was already being felt. That hubris is that not even the smartest architect can fully predict the future, so the big plans will have flaws. Also, their bigness can be a hindrance to functionality, an issue that came up today when the Express-News noted that Project Marvel is about 10,000 parking places short of functional.
Hemisfair site with ITC circled on left. Current East Side Spurs stadium, right. Which has more parking?
Beyond parking there is traffic. A big concert in the Alamodome today will quickly back up Cesar Chavez Boulevard for a mile and a half. A big plan putting everything in the center may be bold, but it is redolent of 1960s High Modernist planning. Nowadays we prefer a more iterative, incremental approach. Why put all your eggs in one congested basket? We have a proposed baseball stadium on the northwest side of downtown, the Alamodome itself downtown, and an unused 35 acres at Lone Star. That would give you three major venues in three very well connected locations that aren’t on top of each other.
Chicago has that – a northside baseball stadium, a football stadium five miles south, a basketball-hockey stadium two miles west and another baseball stadium four miles south. Distributes the traffic, you see.
It also contributes economically to the local community, at least on the north side.
Part of the challenge of Project Marvel is that it is trying to do many things. 1. Save the Alamodome, which was a bold “build it and they will come plan” a quarter century ago but needs work. 2. Expand the convention center, because we are losing pilgrims who are choosing Reading Abbey instead. I mean conventioneers going to Austin, but same idea. 3. Do something with the Confluence Theater. 4. Build a new Spurs stadium since they have a genuine superstar. 5. Connect the East Side and St. Paul Square with a land bridge. 6. UTSA hospitality school.
What would St. Cuthbert do? It could all be done, but it might take a miracle or six.
DECEMBER 19 UPDATE:
The Texas Historical Commission has approved a demolition permit for the Texas Pavilion/Institute of Texan Cultures building. The approval has a stack of stipulations before the permit can be issued, so still plenty of time for an injunction. The requirements of owner University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) include HABS documentation, interpretation, the potential rehab of another neglected Hemsifair ’68 building and an executed Memorandum of Understanding with the THC. Bad news always arrives during the holidays! Over, not over.
Duda Forum on Historic Preservation and Sustainability
Next weekend San Antonio will host the Second Annual Duda Forum on Historic Preservation and Sustainability with a reception Friday evening November 15 and a daylong program on Saturday November 16 at Plaza des Armas behind City Hall. You can register and get info HERE. The subject is the design of infill in historic areas and additions to historic buildings. This is an issue that has been discussed by some of the participants for over twenty years, especially given the potential conflict between Secretary of the Interior Standard #3 which says in part “changes that create a false sense of historic development…will not be undertaken.” and Standard #9 which says in part “new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible.”
When the Standards were first adopted almost fifty years ago, the tendency was to use contemporary, modern design for additions and infill, as in this famous Brooklyn Heights Jehovah’s Witness Building, wherein highly compatible Georgian and Victorian designs were rejected for a dramatically different modernism. By the early 1990s, the pendulum had swung the other way and historically styled additions nearly indistinguishable from the original became popular.
The section on the left is c. 1990 while the section on the right is c. 1890.
In a city with a century and a half of preservation history, the topic of infill and additions has many examples, like the restoration of the Pearl Brewery, which includes new designs and replications of lost buildings.
Restored, along with all of the equipment in the brewery, repurposed into the landscape.
Replica of brewery building destroyed by fire in 2003. Some rubble reused.
The event is sponsored by the Texas Historical Foundation and the University of Notre Dame. Notre Dame Professor Steven Semes is part of the panel, and I have been following him for 18 years, as you can see by this 2006 blog I wrote, and this one from five years later with lots more photographic examples. We have worked together on a number of things, from a late 2006 panel in Milwaukee for the National Trust to the Castroville survey last summer. I know he will ask me about the new Alamo museum in the repurposed Woolworth and Crockett buildings, since our 2019 suggested design (really a massing study by Alamo Architects) does indeed seem to suggest the current design.
We will also have a panel talking about infill in historic districts, a challenge that has been met quite well in several San Antonio communities, like King William.
Looks to be a good event so if you are in town next weekend, sign up!
Texas Pavilion gets State Antiquities status!
And a demolition permit six weeks later….
The big news is the recent Texas Historical Commission vote to approve State Antiquities Landmark status for the Texas Pavilion/Institute of Texan Cultures building (Caudill, Rowlett and Scott, 1968). The building is managed by the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) and earlier this year they announced their plan to demolish the Brutalist wonder in summer, 2025. The building was successfully nominated to the National Register of Historic Places earlier this year. The museum has moved out, so the building is eligible for 45% of rehab costs as an investment tax credit.
What now? The big question is the State Antiquities Code, which has special provisions for public institutions of higher education, like UTSA. Although this section of the code has never been implemented or tested, it does allow institutions of higher education to claim an educational need that can outweigh the landmark status. Given that UTSA’s public position is they want to demolish the building and sell the land, it is hard to see them making a relevant argument.
The city also has a secret plan for this area which has been named “Project Marvel”. Yes, really!
Interestingly, the University of Texas system allowed a junior high in Austin to be designated a State Antiquities Landmark, only to have its demolition approved administratively a month later. In that case, it was for a sports facility for the university, which is a better argument than land sale because it actually involves the university occupying the space.
A few things to remember:
- The State doesn’t need a demolition permit to tear down its own property.
- State Antiquities Landmark status – like any landmark status, does not prevent demolition – it only requires a review process. Which technically happened with the Austin building.
- UTSA is an HSI and they are tearing down the only downtown building by a Mexican-American architect. Ouch!
- All of the media coverage discusses the site as a new Spurs stadium. This has been going on for twenty months with precisely NO COMMENT whatsoever by the Spurs. Nada. zilch. zero.
No one is clear what happens next – do we get a hearing on the educational institution exemption? Does the THC get a demolition permit to review? Will UTSA wait until the new year to officially ask for demolition? Is Project Marvel part of the MCU? Stay tuned!!!
NOVEMBER 22 UPDATE!
Yesterday City management updated the City Council about Project Marvel and revealed renderings showing a new Spurs arena where the Texas Pavilion is currently. Project Marvel also includes an expanded Convention Center, a renovated Alamodome, more hotels, and a bridge or tunnel over I-37. Interestingly, the Austin project to bridge I-35 apparently hit a snag (60% cost increase) just a day earlier. Project Marvel also envisions a new 5,000 seat venue in the former Wood Courthouse, returning it to its 1968 role as a theater.
The enthusiastic press coverage quoted the Mayor, most of the City Council, the County Judge and various city officials. The Spurs, consistently, said nothing.
Oh, and the city promised that no taxpayer money would go to a sports stadium. The infrastructure maybe, but not the stadium. That is what they said. Yes, really.
(Well, that lasted a month – now they are gauging how much public money – see latest blog)
Overall the news simply confirms what “the news” has been speculating about for nearly two years. The Conservation Society response? We are still proceeding to defend Texas’ newest State Antiquities Landmark. Hey, it could be part of the plan – given ingenuity and imagination.
We are also not letting the excitement over a $4-$5 billion 15-year dream affect what we do in the next couple of months.
DECEMBER 19 UPDATE:
The Texas Historical Commission has approved a demolition permit for the Texas Pavilion/Institute of Texan Cultures building. The approval has a stack of stipulations before the permit can be issued, so still plenty of time for an injunction. The requirements of owner University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) include HABS documentation, interpretation, the potential rehab of another neglected Hemsifair ’68 building and an executed Memorandum of Understanding with the THC. Bad news always arrives during the holidays! Over, not over.
FEBRUARY 2025 UPDATE – Turns out Project Marvel has had some rewrites….