SAN ANTONIO │ Official Alamo Plaza Redevelopment Thread
 

One word. UGLY!

I'm all for it. I love the glass covering the old walls and being able to look down at it. The museum moved into those tourist traps. The old Plaza being made to look like how it did 200 years ago. The closing of alamo st from Commerce to Houston. I feel it's going to be a beautiful pedestrian space.

All images taken from The Rivard Report Article

https://therivardreport.com/wp-conte...Vision_Day.jpg

https://therivardreport.com/wp-conte...ision_Dusk.jpg

https://therivardreport.com/wp-conte...ftop_after.jpg

https://therivardreport.com/wp-conte...nade_after.jpg

https://therivardreport.com/wp-conte...sure_after.jpg

https://therivardreport.com/wp-conte...pace_after.jpg

https://therivardreport.com/wp-conte...laza_after.jpg

https://therivardreport.com/wp-conte...rrival_Day.jpg

https://therivardreport.com/wp-conte...ival_Night.jpg

https://therivardreport.com/wp-conte...lock_after.jpg

Yikes. I'm all for the redevelopment of Alamo Plaza but this is some pretty tacky looking stuff.

The huge glass "gate" is horrid, in my opinion. Cheesy attempt at trying to recreate the entrance or an entrance to the plaza. I think it encloses the plaza too much. It needs to be open in my opinion. Allow the breezes to go through. I know the original Alamo was walled off but the wall is gone now and I don't think it should be rebuilt in any way. I like the idea of at least honoring the fact that there was a wall originally, but I think it should be done in a much more subtle way. Maybe a low bench wall with landscaping inside all along where the original walls were.

Secondly trying to rebuild the creek that ran through the Alamo. I think this could be done in a much more elegant way than cheesy landscaping in front of the museums. I think there's something charming about the wide limestone sidewalks in front of the buildings right now, openly facing rest of the plaza without obstruction. Perhaps building a purposefully man-made looking canal, maybe a 3-ft wide channel with modern design and clean lines throughout and minimal landscaping - is enough to honor the original creek without trying to directly reconstruct it. I think trying to reproduce anything exactly as the original with the context of the 20th century cityscape all around just looks terrible.

Not sure how I feel about the big trees along the north side of the plaza either - kind of makes it feel too enclosed again. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe we love trees, i dont know.

Fourthly are they really proposing for the paving to just be dirt? No brick or stonework like the plaza is currently? I think that's a mistake too. A grand plaza should't be paved in dirt!

My three cents...I think the idea of this design is honorable but the execution is horrible and needs some big changes.

Oh and lastly - trees on the roof? Really!? When's the last time you've seen a beautiful rendering of a building with plants and trees all over the roof and they actually did that when they built the building. The answer is almost never. Another silly attempt at over-designing this rendering.

All said this honestly looks like a freshman architecture student's attempt at a design project, someone who clearly has never visited the Alamo and has no understanding of the urban context or history of the place.

I think this is a beautiful design!:tup:
Green spaces, no more tourist stores around the perimeter, love the museum and garden rooftop overlooking the whole plaza, beautiful trees, and perfect eating and drinking spaces.....:cheers:
The design is EXCELLENT and BEAUTIFUL!!!!

Again, this IS SAN ANTONIO......Historical, mysterious, unique, and diverse:yes:
Not how many highrises it has, how many young people it has, and how many direct flights it has....:slob:

A skyline does NOT make a city!:cheers:


So to sum this design in one word:


FANTASTIC!!!!!


And GO SPURS GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Are they getting rid of those amusement places like Ripleys ect across the street?

Yep. Turning them into a museum.

Worst design ever!! :slob:

It took a few minutes for this plan to grow on me, but I like it. I think making the below-ground remnants of the plaza walls visible is the most authentic way to create a sense of the original plaza. The glass walls might be a bit much, I'll have to wait and see how it looks in person. I do think the plaza should be open to the public 24 hours, and I do think pedestrian traffic should be able to enter from the north (the plans say only exiting the plaza to Houston Street is allowed), this is in the middle of a city, for crying out loud, people need to walk places. But best of all about this plan is that nothing about it has to be permanent. If something needs to change, it would be easy to do so.

I hardly post any comments on here but I felt the need to log in to say that i'm ok with this project except for the glass wall. A glass wall just doesn't make any sense. As someone mentioned in this thread, the plaza should be open without any glass barriers. I also want to add that it looks like they're getting rid of that little street that runs from the side to front of the menger...might bring an inconvenience to hotel visitors who are trying to load/unload their belongings from their vehicle at the front entrance. Now the more I am writing about this, the more I think they should go back to the drawing board.

I agree, it could do without the glass wall. But they are still keeping the street next to the Menger open on the northern side. Cars would just turn around in there. I think it could work. They have the valet station on that side anyway.

I believe the glass wall is to emulate the actual "wall enclosure" around the Alamo mission back in the day. It is supposed to give visitors the "feel" of the enclosed wall around the mission. I believe it is exactly the same height as the "enclosure wall" back then. So, it is kind of an interesting concept IMO.:yes:
Anyhow, I think the glass enclosure will look beautiful at night, when lit up with the ground lights.

I like the trees on the roof. We live in Texas. Trees are good. That rooftop deck is going to be a very popular viewing spot of the Alamo. The view of it at night should be especially beautiful.

I do agree about the sand in the plaza. I'd mostly be thinking of mud when it rains and the possible dust issue in the dead of summer from all the foot traffic. Do they really want that getting inside the Alamo? I don't.

I don't know what to think of the glass wall. I can't say I'm a fan. I'd rather see the walls rebuilt with stone as original as possible if they're going for historical accuracy, or as Sigaven suggested, design a low wall for a seating area under the shade of the trees on the perimeter. Also, I worry the glass wall will become dirty from fingerprints/smudges and also the dust. I can't stand the glass they put up on the Tower of the Americas observation deck. It pretty much ruined the view because it's always covered in fingerprints and snot. I always tell myself I'm going to bring a bottle of windex and a roll of paper towels the next time I visit it. I also think it would be lost on a lot of people the significance of the glass wall - that it's intended to be a replica of the original stone wall. Most people will likely just assume it's a modern wall made of glass. They no doubt chose glass because it's cheaper and has a modern twist, but it also serves to increase the visibility of one of Texas' most important landmarks, and as a consequence, a major tourist destination.

Overall I like it. They cleaned it up, got rid of the touristy crap, etc. But I agree with others that the glass wall is a yuuuge mistake. It separates people for no reason, blocks the breeze in a city that consistently reaches 100º throughout the summer months, it will get dirty and look yucky. So many reasons to not have it. Otherwise a nice improvement though.

One last thing. Without the memorial cenotaph, Ozzy will have to pee out in the open in the middle of the plaza.

I like it. The glass wall is fine with me. It appears to only be on the one side. That's not going to really block wind all that much.

This will help with the transplants and Texans who didn't pay attention in school to realize the men didn't fight inside the chapel the whole time. I've heard that question so many times.

It is naïve to think cities are not defined by their skylines. When I drive to Houston, I see a prominent skyline 30 miles before even arriving in the city's urban core. Looking at Houston downtown, my initial thoughts are: "powerful, economically viable, progressive, and architecturally mastered". Arriving in San Antonio, after having been in Houston (a simple example of how close more diversified cityscapes can be, not a comparison of the cities) I see a "backward thinking and architecturally stunted city". Hopefully, however, this will change in two- 3 years time, and comments by people going to the hysterical council meetings should be considered, not taken at full merit in the decisionmaking process of whether a high rise is approved. Comments such as, "I worry this new high rise will increase traffic" - you mean "growth and development and success?" or "There is too much glass! We need to have grey and brown" - you mean you want to "degrade the architectural significance of the few uniquely build structures that still stand by making them most similar to other buildings, resulting in a much more ubiquitous cityscape?" only emanate ignorance, backward thinking, selfish, narcissistic perspectives. Because the only way to more forward is to NOT embrace the past but lean on it. A great city of architectural significance always embraces the past by moving forward in their architecture, as once did in those historical structures, thereby creating a more diversified cityscape of prominent and unique structures (i.e., Chicago, New York City, and Austin).
-CDM

The "opinion" police will be coming for you
 

I sense the stench of opinion in your post. Seek refuge.

Seriously, I agree with you, although "defines a city", is a stretch. It surely identifies a city, but defining a city is much more broad than the buildings that make up the urban core.

If AwesomeSAVeiw, or whatever his name is, would be less rude, and more willing to honestly engage with the other posters here, he might find we, (all of us), have more in common than not.

Right, because every silhouette photo of San Antonio (both as recognition of city, tourist attraction, and news sources) never uses that damn UFO restaurant that, was only built for one single event, has become platitudinal. Every other city used their world fair tribute to brace a better skyline, not limit its potential.
-CDM

*If I sound confrontational, I don't mean to be. I am just frustrated. And when I speak (write) about San Antonio's downtown and it's potential, my frustration can be strongly illustrated. I have lived here for a third of my life and, what, one building over a significant height has been built, longer for others. It's sad.

Again, I don't disagree with you.
 

I still don't believe buildings "define" a city, but rather identify it. It is a first impression, but those can be false impressions much of the time.

I share your frustration, as do many here, that it's been 25 years since an office building of any importance has been built, but it's not solely a problem of urban core planning. It extends beyond that, to levels of education, the amount of prominent businesses headquartered/operating here, the amount of money those that are here are willing to spend and many other things.

The hope is, that with the Frost Tower, while not as tall as many hoped, will spur a more modern thinking in building design here. Time will tell.

Have you ever traveled across Europe? Because your skyline theory would be shot to absolute ____!

Haha. No one is comparing the most historal cities in the world. But...have you seen Paris lately?

Enough useless bickering. Back to the topic of this thread. First and final warning.

Wow. This is so bad I don't even know where to start. We are turning one of our liveliest public spaces into a half assed gated sand pit. And when are we going to realize that auto, bike, and bis transit can be designed well info a public space? This design needlessly closes an important north south connection to traffic and mobility of all kinds, which will further fragment and disjoint downtown mobility. If you think this plaza is full of only tourists now, wait until it is effectively sealed off from the rest of the city. And the logic of choosing the battle era to reflect while ignoring all other history in the plaza is questionable. If it is not to be historically replicated (which it shouldn't) can we at least have an engaging design that enhances the city? Obviously a pretty big error in design team selection if you ask me. Please completely scrap this and start over.

The design does not seem to be to the taste of everyone, but really...nothing ever will be.
C'est la vie!

I personally love it, especially the glass walls. The night time renders seal the deal on them. They convey the sense of enclosure of the original structure without feeling confined, and help maintain north/south sight lines through the plaza. I feel that the glass will age well and not feel dated in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years. The glass South Gate has the potential to become an icon in its own right.

Overall, this is a solid design. It is respectful of the past, while still being modern.

I like the glass, but have some concerns over safety. And the sand needs to go. It is going to create serious issues in all types of weather outside sunny, with no winds.
-CDM

Yes it is. Simple physics. Breeze hits glass... breeze doesn't go through glass... breeze doesn't reach person on other side of glass.

It's a big, open plaza. Have you ever been in the middle of a football field surrounded by walls and stands? You can still feel a breeze. Wind can flow over a wall just like it flows over a car as you drive.

I'll grant you that if you stand right next to the wall, then you likely won't feel a breeze unless it's coming from the other direction.

Let's stay on topic. Thank you.

I think we're on topic. We're talking about the design of the plaza, and the glass wall is clearly (no pun intended, but I'll take it) a big part of the design.

I respect your opinion, Izppjb, but I'd say I agree only with the part about standing next to the wall. The shape of an aerodynamically designed car or the gradual rise of a stadium are very different from a vertical wall at ground level in a very hot city. The wall looks to be at least 10 feet tall if not taller. I think it have quite an effect on the breeze.

Don't worry about it, they're hypersensitive about anything that they don't agree with. I'll be creating same topic pages so all opinions related to design, development, and structures of downtown will be welcomed. We are in America, opinions are of the upmost importance. Differentiating opinions, and especially those achieved, propel our understandings and our own perspectives in achieving unmasked advancements. Only children throw temper tantrums over ideas and statements they cannot comprehend, much less use to advance their own understanding.

If the topic is about downtown and it's surrounding structures, it's on topic. I do not see anyone commenting on stamps, movies, or The Simpsons.
-CDM

Talking about the main design element of this project is most definitely on topic.

Just because Jack and I don't necessarily agree doesn't mean we are going to devolve into personal attacks.

Seconded.

That isn't what I am referring to. I've removed the off topic comments that led to my comment you quoted.

Aaaah. OK then. Thanks, sirkingwilliam. Much respect.

THIS is off topic (yet still on topic): try saying ANYTHING that a guy in NY who is a moderator doesn't agree with. Large sections of the NY threads get removed on a seemingly daily basis. It's very frustrating.

I've emailed my city councilman about my reservations for this design concept. Might not have any effect but it's worth a shot...I encourage anyone else who oppose this plan to do the same!

I just hope that the glass covering the old walls stays intact. They have to close Alamo street in front in order for that to work though... so it's like ???

My opinion on this design is evolving. I'm hoping that a more versatile design will be adopted, maybe one with movable walls and barriers that can be configured a few different ways, that will allow civic activities, occasional vehicle transit, etc. I think a very important part of Alamo Plaza's history has been its use as a city square, where lots of different events happen for the benefit of locals, not tourists. That function is still needed downtown, and I can't think of another appropriate place. The new Hemisfair Park, maybe, when it's finished.

My apologies, skw.

I get the reasoning behind having the gravel/sand in the courtyard. They want it to be an authentic experience. But I agree with the poster that said it would not be good for it to blow into the chapel.

Couldn't they just use large pavers that look/feel like sand on the surface? You get the look without the dust storms.

I agree with you--when looking at this design, you can very much see the intent of the designers with the glass and the dirt. It's an interesting concept, but in my opinion, it shows a lack of understanding of the realities of Central Texas, day-to-day wear and tear and the connection with the overall neighborhood...

What I Like:
-NO MORE RIPLEY'S
-The in-ground glass showing the original walls underground. It gives a great sense of place to the original bounds of the Alamo in an authentic way
-ROOFTOP RESTAURANT!

What I Don't Like:
-Dirt Plaza--this will create a sandstorm and/or mud. Not practical.
-Glass barrier wall--unnecessary given the in-ground glass showing the original walls. To me, that is enough. The glass unnecessarily walls off the area instead of creating connectivity to the neighborhood. Plus, this will get dirty as heck with grubby hands against it, said dirt/mud blowing, etc. Not practical
-Fake river--again, I get the intent, but it just feels manufactured to me and is another way to bar connectivity to the plaza.
-NO TREES!--no trees in the barren plaza tells me that these designers never visited San Antonio in the summer... It's going to become a sauna!

I did some research and did not realize the Alamo was so named because of a huge grove of cottonwood trees on the site. "Alamo" means cottonwood in Spanish (according to Google). If the aim of this redevelopment is to put back a sense of authenticity to the place, then making a tree-less, dirt plaza is not representative of that vision. Just my two cents!!!

It's definitely an improvement, but let's hope it's a work in progress!!!

Probably the best response with pros and cons. ^^^

I like the idea of the creek. We'll see how it's executed.

Adding a grove of cottonwood trees would be cool. They can be messy at times, but the sound of a big cottonwood's leaves rustling in the wind is so soothing. It'd be great for a memorial space.

It's neither a creek nor a fake river. It's a recreation of a previously existing acequia. The plan shows trees in the plaza, near the acequia.

I think the purpose of the glass walls is to control people's movement. This is especially true along Houston, where they don't even have the excuse of recreating a former wall.

I like the idea of lowering the ground level to its original level, but the dirt will cause problems. Maybe some type of permeable paver?

I'm less concerned about the loss of trees in the plaza. The plan includes lots of new shady spots along Alamo and Crockett streets. Also, the garden behind the Alamo will become a city park (iirc) and the walls around it will be torn down.

Not trying to be confrontational--asking a legit question. Where did you read there was an existing acequia where they have proposed putting that creek? The primary source of water and irrigation for the Alamo was the Alamo Madre acequia. That's the only acequia I have read about that is on the Alamo site. The Alamo Madre runs east of the Alamo (behind it) and continues under the Menger Hotel, not where the creek is planned.

I apologize if it seems like I'm splitting hairs, but I would be fine if it was a recreation of an existing acequia. Not fine with breaking up flow and connectivity for a creek that has no historic relevance, when the Riverwalk is ten steps away.

Do a Google image search for Alamo compound and you will see several illustrations showing a branch of the acequia running inside the walls.

Here's a fun thread: http://www.johnwayne-thealamo.com/fo....php?f=9&t=182

I stand corrected! Thank you for sending--such a cool thread and happy to learn something new today!!!

I also have some likes, and dislikes for the design. I like the rooftop restaurant. Glass wall is ok, because I think at night it will be way cool! I like removing the street in front of the Menger Hotel. That patio restaurant in front of the hotel reminds me of New Orleans. I actually want Alamo street to stay! It is one of the nicest stretch of road in downtown beside Houston Street. I also don't want to see that huge memorial in front of the old post office to go away. I feel it has been there long enough to stay. I love the glass on the ground with the wall shown below. That is cool. We shall see if they go back to the drawing board. SAVE ALAMO STREET!!!!!!!!

Reimagine The Alamo: GLO Seeks Consultant for Interpretive Plan
 

The General Land Office has begun a search for a development team that will be tasked with creating an Interpretive Plan for the Alamo and the lands that comprise its historic boundaries.

https://www.virtualbx.com/constructi...tive-plan.html

You may not be able to read the attached article but the relevant portion is:

Assuming the Confederate memorial is going away, wouldn't putting the Cenotaph there be a good idea?

http://www.expressnews.com/militaryc...photo-13748207