‘Just the Facts:’ A fence by any other name still smells the same

The July 23 editorial, “Deep breath, just the facts about the Alamo,” in the San Antonio Express-News shocked me.

“Just the facts?”

Perhaps the editorial board of the paper received a totally different presentation than the one about the “Alamo Comprehensive Interpretive Plan” presented to San Antonio Citizen’s Advisory Committee? Perhaps the plan the members saw is different from the one on the Alamo website?

The first “fact” claimed by the Express: “There will not be a fence around Alamo Plaza downtown.” These are the Editorial Board’s words. This sentence does not appear in the plan itself.

Planners, who initially wanted to lock up the plaza at night, now want to “organize people” when the museum is open. They refer to some of this “management” as “fences almost not seen.” The image below isolates a portion of the softly blurred rendering above depicting what the Express terms as simply “rails,” clear barriers topped off by a rail as opposed to an actual picket fence, that will prevent people approaching from Houston Street from walking straight into the plaza and disrupting the “managed” people inside.

On the left is a rendering representing a tall gate, in a fence line “hidden” in landscaping, that presumably would be open after museum hours.

On the north and west sides are 42-inch so-called “rails.” As the plan proposes to lower the floor of the entire plaza 16 to 18 inches, tourists will feel protected from San Antonio’s foot traffic by a barrier more than five feet in height. 

And on the southern edge, an actual “fence” is depicted camouflaged in the landscaping with, look closely as it is painted in a pale gray, an extremely narrow gate thrown open to allow public access… after “managed” hours.

The Editorial Board can call this anything they want, but it all looks like fencing off Alamo Plaza to me.

Presenters made it sound as though the goal during the hours the Alamo is open is to “choreograph approaches” so everyone enters the “railed-in” area through an entrance by a new museum on the west side of the plaza. This appears to be the exit as well. Presumably, this management is designed to promote museum attendance, perhaps a paid experience? This is also where the general public heading north or south will be funneled into the “Alamo Promenade.” So, with every visitor to the Alamo, including large tour and school groups, and all passersby converging, emerging and merging at this one sidewalk-width point on the “Alamo Promenade,” will we not have absurd pedestrian traffic jams? This is a serious question I would love answered.

“Fact” Number Two: “People will not be shut out from this historic and public space. Protests and assemblies will continue at Alamo Plaza. It will remain open to the public.”

Essentially, all of the non-existent fencing sketchily depicted above will sever Alamo Plaza into two parcels – the Alamo fortress footprint on the north and the smaller Plaza de Valero fronting the Menger Hotel and RiverCenter Mall on the south. Planners make absolutely no secret of the goal of attempting to keep protesters out of the northern portion. Plaza de Valero is the designated area for “public expression,”  traditionally referred to as the exercise of free speech.


Fact Number Three: “Closing Alamo Street does not mean there won’t be a north-south connection for vehicles across downtown. The plan proposes a nearby alternative for traffic.”

I sure hope they engage an amazingly talented traffic engineer to work out the automobile traffic patterns. As someone who understands what it is like today to sit through multiple lights heading north on Navarro or south on Losoya or St. Mary’s or to crawl along behind horse carriages on Presa Street, I will let this rendering demonstrating “enhanced connectivity” speak for itself.

“Fact” Number Four: “A decision has not been made about razing five buildings across from Alamo Plaza.”

I am labeling this false because these buildings have always been in the crosshairs of those who are uncompromising in their desire “to restore the Alamo footprint as much as possible.” The way the plan is presented makes it obvious the consultants have made their decision. Certainly, the Editorial Board has made itself clear during the past several years about its desire for the mission footprint to be restored.

While offering token lip-service to “tell the in-depth history of the Alamo area to the present day….;” the redesign of Alamo Plaza is all about the 1836 battle. The plan blatantly labels the five referenced buildings as “non-contributing structures” that must be “addressed.” In the rendering below, they are addressed by erasure. Historic landmarks are reduced to flattened camel-colored rectangles with no mass.

And, voila! Instead of adaptive reuse of valued historic landmarks whose worthiness is well-documented, you now have a vacant lot for the “rail” representing the original western wall of the compound and a new museum facility.

While theoretically the decision has not been made on the buildings’ fate, the planners desire to demolish is obvious. The public presentations are called “conversations,” but are they mere shams?

According to an article in the Rivard Report by Iris Dimmick, City Councilman Roberto Trevino, who serves on the Alamo Management Committee and co-chairs the Citizens Advisory Committee, a study will be commissioned to determine the merit of preserving the structures. As though their history and condition is an unknown.

Dimmick reports Council RepresentativeTrevino:

…said it’s unlikely that other major components of the plan would change.

The design team “picked up where the master plan left off,” Trevino said. “Continuing the debate (about road closures and managed access), I don’t think that’s in line with the guiding principles.”

However, he said, pedestrian access, in general, is something on which the team is still working.

While the plan does indicate the buildings’ fates have not yet been sealed, the plan offers no alternative pedestrian routes than the ones illustrated. Fencing off the footprint is the only option presented for consideration.

The Editorial Board of the Express-News terms much of the opposition raised to the plan “hyperbole:”

Yes, the plan does include landscaping, rails and some hidden fencing to control pedestrian flow to the site. That’s far different from “restricting access” as the San Antonio Conservation Society has asserted. It’s about crowd control and guiding visitors during daytime hours when the Alamo itself is open to the public. Outside of those hours, people can still visit the plaza and admire the church.

I vehemently disagree. Call a fence a fence.

And the time to disagree is now. Because if San Antonians are quiet, the next version of the plan will pick up where this plan left off. Much like Trevino indicates road closures somehow already are a done-deal, the fencing closing off Alamo Plaza, a dedicated city park, will get cemented into the plan. And, if you value the historic landmarks lining the west side of the plaza, the time to express that is now.

Both my opinion and that of the Editorial Board of the Express-News are biased. I urge you to read the plan to make an informed decision about the “facts.”

If you have concerns about the plan, please consider signing the online petition the San Antonio Conservation Society has made available: Save Alamo Plaza! at change.org.

Forging consensus for the Alamo Comprehensive Interpretive Plan: Don’t fence us out

The Alamo will indeed be saved.

Although verbal and sometimes litigious warfare over how best to treat the surrounding grounds has been ongoing almost continually since the Battle of the Alamo itself, there seems to be little, if any, disagreement about the need move forward to conserve the Alamo Chapel. There also is much enthusiasm about a new museum to house existing Alamo collections and the incredible donation of Alamo-related items from Phil Collins.

Last week, the design team for an Alamo re-do presented an updated Comprehensive Interpretive Plan to the San Antonio’s Citizens Advisory Committee. The consultants from Reed Hilderbrand of Cambridge, Massachusetts; PGAV Destinations of St. Louis, Missouri; and Cultural Innovations of London, England, did seem to have listened to some of the passionate cries that arose following the unveiling of an earlier version.

That’s right; they are not from here. And, for many Texans, that automatically is a strike against them. They might as well have put a jar of salsa made in New York City in the middle of the table. Plus, even greater, is that San Antonio thing. While the Battle of the Alamo is the most important component of this project to outsiders, many San Antonians have an equal attachment to the plaza itself. The consultants must sense this underlying mistrust the moment they walk into the room.

Designers now acknowledge San Antonio is hot and that removal of trees would leave a sizzling comal of a plaza. “Shade” seems their favorite word when referencing the plan.

To view a pdf file of the entire plan on the General Land Office site, click here (Be patient; the pdf file is large so slow to download.). The renderings below are all from that plan. To watch/listen to the entire June 7 presentation via NowCastSA, click here.

The team offered a compromise concerning the restoration and relocation of the Cenotaph, removing it from the footprint of the mission walls while keeping it in the neighborhood. The consultants suggested transferring the massive memorial monument to the adjacent Plaza de Valero in front of the Menger Hotel (rendering above), about where the soon-to-be-banished bandstand currently is located. Just the mere mention of a potential move brought a chorus of boos from some descendants of defenders in the audience, but, as no feedback from the general public was allowed at this meeting, future hearings will reveal whether this new proposal lessens their objections.

Several major skirmishes loom on the horizon. The unpopular concept of a glass wall blocking access to Alamo Plaza, a dedicated public park owned by San Antonio, has been removed. But that has not eliminated erecting barriers “to enable flexible management options” of much of the area within the original footprint.

An “almost-not-seen” four-foot fence would be “hidden” in planting beds on the south side and would take the form of 42-inch high glass rails (no longer termed walls) on the museum side on the west. These would be penetrated by four gateways (certainly appearing taller than four-feet high in the rendering below).

According to the presentation, access inside the controlled enclosure would remain free but would be restricted during the hours the Alamo is open, mainly via the southside gate. During those hours all non-Alamo-destination pedestrians would be funneled north/south along a promenade on the west side, behind the glass rails. The current proposal would open all four gates for unlimited pedestrian access in the plaza after hours.

The strangest unanswered part of this new “solution” is that, during the prior phase, the argument was made that the space needed to be glassed in and locked to protect the Alamo after hours. Now, the need is expressed to control access during the day for programming purposes, and it is evidently fine to leave it all open throughout the night.

If San Antonians are to be persuaded to cede control of their public park, someone needs to develop more persuasive rationale. This unexplained flip-flopping makes fencing in what is now an open public plaza appear completely unnecessary, even capricious. It flies in the face of one of the plan’s guiding principles, “to enhance connectivity.”

Here is the existing site plan of the proposed “open-air museum:”

Included in the “Vision” of the plan is to “tell the in-depth history of the Alamo area to the present day….” One presenter said the plan proposes to “peel off layers of the 21st century.” Their desire appears to peel deeper, though, back through layers of the 20th century and even 19th century. There is the matter of several pesky buildings termed “non-contributing structures.”

The designers are aware that some consider these structures as valuable parts of the area’s history, particularly Alfred Giles’ Crockett Block and the former Woolworth’s, its lunch counter playing a key role in San Antonio’s relatively peaceful path toward integration. Proposed options include complete demolition of all of these structures over a portion of what would have been the western wall of the Alamo; facadomy, leaving their front walls standing; or reuse.

Most of the renderings presented in the plan show retention of the facade, at a minimum, of the historic Crockett Block; although designers seemed reluctant to endorse retention of any of the buildings recently purchased by the state. Clearly, their preference is for what they view as the creation of a “unified and coherent place.”

Committee member Frank Ruttenberg expressed the desire to “try to not take down history to focus on a certain aspect of history.” While it is easier for architects to have an empty piece of land on which to design a new Alamo history museum, repurposing the historic structures there would support the plan’s stated vision. The structures are handsome, and creative architects could repurpose them. With the San Antonio Conservation Society looming as a force opposing demolition, committee member Dave Phillips cautioned, “Demolishing historic buildings is a fight we don’t need to take on.”

And he probably is correct because reconfiguring traffic to create the coherent space above has major repercussions well beyond the plan’s boundaries. The plan’s desired level of “pedestrianization” requires closure of numerous streets to automobile traffic. Perhaps the most controversial part of the plan is the concept of moving traffic from Alamo Street to already-congested Losoya, making it two-way. With businesses on the west side of Losoya hemmed in by the river and those on the east side backing up to Alamo, how in the world would they receive deliveries? Phillips labeled the Losoya concept downright “scary.”

Untangling the web of ramifications from the closures into a workable rerouting of traffic certainly will require a team of immensely talented and creative engineers. Then they have to convince San Antonians the “improvements” will work.

The time of the year that more locals visit Alamo Plaza than any other is without a doubt during the 11 days of Fiesta San Antonio for wreath-layings, coronations and parades. While the women in the audience who traditionally don their yellow hats to stage the Battle of Flowers Parade in the location it has taken place for more than a century were too polite to boo, they are unlikely to be timid in pushing to keep the parade routes open.

The plaza is far from a blank slate; there are meaningful layers of San Antonio’s history there. Several landmines still must be defused in formulating and implementing the plan.

Overall though, there seemed a sense of optimism in the room among the committee members. A can-do attitude and a determination to find workable solutions and compromises.

The presenters emphasize that the plan would “change the understanding of the Alamo as a building to the Alamo as a place.” For San Antonians, however, Alamo Plaza has always been a “place.” Our place. The plaza is not just the Alamo’s front yard, it is our front yard. And you are going to have a hell of a hard time convincing us to let you fence us out.

If the City of San Antonio decides to cede control of the plaza to the state, I am pulling for an agreement with deed restrictions ensuring ongoing free public access backed by a powerful reversionary clause.

June 19, 2018: The San Antonio Conservation Society has launched a petition drive concerning the fate of Alamo Plaza via change.org. Please consider signing this appeal to San Antonio City Council. The petition can be found here.

https://www.change.org/p/san-antonio-city-council-save-alamo-plaza

Postcard from Mexico City: A mountainous amount of history reflected in Chapultepec Palace

In 1725, the commanding Chapultepec hilltop rising steeply 200 feet above Mexico City was the site chosen by Viceroy Bernardo de Galvez (1746-1786) for his manor house. During the Mexican War of Independence, the site was abandoned. The Mexican government then remodeled it for use as a military academy.

Two hundred cadets, some as young as 13, were among the 1,000 Mexican soldiers guarding the citadel when General Winfield Scott (1786-1866) set his eyes on the target as a strategic asset facilitating the capture Mexico City during the Mexican-American War (1846-1848.) Following intensive shelling, American troops were able to scale the fortress and engage in bloody hand-to-hand combat with the defenders.

The costly victory for participating Marines is engrained deeply in the corps’ tradition, “From the halls of Montezuma….” For Mexicans, the battle heroes remembered are six brave cadets who refused to surrender. Fighting until the bitter end, one wrapped himself in the Mexican flag before leaping off the precipice so the flag would not be captured. Virtually every city in Mexico has an avenida memorializing the valor of the cadets, los ninos heroes.

Captured flags arouse countries, and the aging silk banner of the New Orleans Greys seized by General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (1794-1876) during the 1836 Battle of the Alamo is displayed in Chapultepec Castle today despite continual efforts to negotiate its return to San Antonio. History always is subject to the interpretation of the teller, and it is not surprising that the slant given the Mexican-American War in the United States differs slightly from the version presented in the museum housed in Chapultepec Castle.

For the United States, the war represented the fulfillment of its Manifest Destiny. As explained on the San Jacinto Monument, the Texians’ victory at the Battle of San Jacinto laid the foundation for the next violent chapter of relations between the neighbors:

Measured by its results, San Jacinto was one of the decisive battles of the world. The freedom of Texas from Mexico won here led to annexation and to the Mexican War, resulting in the acquisition by the United States of the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Utah and parts of Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas and Oklahoma. Almost one-third of the present area of the American nation, nearly a million square miles of territory, changed sovereignty.

With the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, the United States paid the Mexican government $15 million, or about $15 per square mile, for the land it now claimed.

The treaty meant Mexico lost half its territory for the same amount of money paid the French for the Louisiana Purchase. The interpretation at Chapultepec records the war as a land grab by its greedy neighbor, a war that cost many their lives. At the very bottom of the signage is a quotation from President Ulysses S. Grant, expressing shame for the “wicked” war.

Grant’s words, however, were not taken out of context. Here is a longer portion from an 1879 interview given by Grant:

I do not think there was ever a more wicked war than that waged by the United States on Mexico. I thought so at the time, when I was a youngster, only I had not moral courage enough to resign…. I considered my supreme duty was to my flag. I had a horror of the Mexican War, and I have always believed that it was on our part most unjust. The wickedness was not in the way our soldiers conducted it, but in the conduct of our government in declaring war…. We had no claim on Mexico. Texas had no claim beyond the Nueces River, and yet we pushed on to the Rio Grande and crossed it. I am always ashamed of my country when I think of that invasion.

Another intrusion into Mexico’s sovereignty occurred soon after. The $15 million received from the United States did little to alleviate the debt Mexico incurred during the expensive war. President Benito Juarez defaulted on Mexico’s loans from France. A conspiracy between out-of-power Mexican conservatives and Napoleon III resulted in an 1862 invasion by France. The French were defeated in the Battle of Puebla on May 5, the reason for the annual Cinco de Mayo celebrations.

But that was one battle, not the entire war. While the United States was occupied fighting the Confederacy, France succeeded in installing Maximilian I, a Hapsburg prince, as Emperor of Mexico. Emperor Maximilian transformed the castle into his residential palace with a grand boulevard, now known as Paseo de la Reforma, leading into the heart of the city.

Not surprisingly, many in Mexico were not fond of having a foreign monarch with no command even of the Spanish language, and forces loyal to Benito Juarez executed him in 1867.

During the extended off-and-on terms of President Porfirio Diaz from 1876 to 1911, the castle served as his palatial headquarters as well. Amazingly, during the following tumultuous years of the Mexican Revolution that followed, much of the opulent décor contributed by Maximilian and Diaz remained unscathed.

Chapultepec was declared a national museum in 1939.

Masterful murals depicting the revolutionary period were commissioned in the late 1950s to 1970s. Juan O’Gorman’s (1904-1982) murals commemorating Mexican independence were begun in 1960. Work by David Alfaro Siqueiros (1896-1974) was interrupted when he was imprisoned followed anti-government protests in 1960, and he completed his 175-foot mural after his release in 1964.