SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   San Antonio (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=447)
-   -   SAN ANTONIO │ Official Alamo Plaza Redevelopment Thread (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=227831)

SAtown Apr 18, 2017 2:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lzppjb (Post 7775796)
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!!!

jaga185 Apr 18, 2017 3:13 PM

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

lzppjb Apr 18, 2017 6:56 PM

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.

Spoiler Apr 18, 2017 8:16 PM

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.

SAtown Apr 18, 2017 9:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoiler (Post 7776686)
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.

Spoiler Apr 18, 2017 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SAtown (Post 7776763)
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

SAtown Apr 19, 2017 2:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoiler (Post 7776808)
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!!!

The Model Apr 19, 2017 3:54 PM

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!!!!!!!!

deeger Aug 9, 2017 5:39 PM

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

Spoiler Aug 18, 2017 4:23 AM

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

Quote:

Long before the present controversy over the statue’s fitness for public display, there was a challenge to its location in Travis Park. While the Alamo Cenotaph was being built, some Texas Centennial officials wanted it to be in Travis Park, but “to locate the large memorial (there) would necessitate moving of (the) Confederate monument,” says the Light, April 24, 1936. “Such a move (was) strenuously opposed by the Daughters of the Confederacy,” who got their way when the newer monument was installed in Alamo Plaza.
Assuming the Confederate memorial is going away, wouldn't putting the Cenotaph there be a good idea?

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

Restless 1 Aug 18, 2017 4:58 PM

Well, yeah that, and
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoiler (Post 7896726)
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

I know, I'm being really radical here, but a Statue of Travis seems a good fit at Travis Park. Just spitballing here.

Spoiler Aug 18, 2017 5:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Restless 1 (Post 7897170)
I know, I'm being really radical here, but a Statue of Travis seems a good fit at Travis Park. Just spitballing here.

I think he's on the cenotaph.

jaga185 Aug 18, 2017 5:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Restless 1 (Post 7897170)
I know, I'm being really radical here, but a Statue of Travis seems a good fit at Travis Park. Just spitballing here.

I actually thought this too. Why isn't Travis in Travis park, or move the cenotaph there! It's actually perfect.

Restless 1 Aug 18, 2017 8:07 PM

I get that, but
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoiler (Post 7897209)
I think he's on the cenotaph.

It's not called "Cenotaph Park".

Spoiler Aug 18, 2017 8:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Restless 1 (Post 7897424)
It's not called "Cenotaph Park".

Nor is it called Confederate War Memorial Park, but it has existed as such for 118 years. Besides, if Travis Park got a statue of Travis, wouldn't Maverick, Madison Square and Milam parks feel left out?

Restless 1 Aug 18, 2017 9:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spoiler (Post 7897439)
Nor is it called Confederate War Memorial Park, but it has existed as such for 118 years. Besides, if Travis Park got a statue of Travis, wouldn't Maverick, Madison Square and Milam parks feel left out?

You're seriously worried about the feelings of parks?

I didn't say to not move the Cenotaph there, but the addition of a Travis statue where the Lee statue is now wouldn't kill anyone, now would it?

Now, stop bickering and stay on topic. :runaway:

Spoiler Aug 18, 2017 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Restless 1 (Post 7897529)
You're seriously worried about the feelings of parks?

No.

Quote:

I didn't say to not move the Cenotaph there, but the addition of a Travis statue where the Lee statue is now wouldn't kill anyone, now would it?
It's not Lee. If it was Lee, there might be a stronger reason for it to stay, as Lee was stationed in SA (before betraying his country) and was a founder of St. Mark's, which is on the north side of the park. It's a statue of a generic Confederate soldier.

Quote:

Now, stop bickering and stay on topic. :runaway:
:poke:

Restless 1 Aug 19, 2017 11:05 PM

Either way
 
"It's not Lee. If it was Lee, there might be a stronger reason for it to stay, as Lee was stationed in SA (before betraying his country) and was a founder of St. Mark's, which is on the north side of the park. It's a statue of a generic Confederate soldier."

We both know it's coming down. Whether we replace it with the Cenotaph, or some other statue, is fine with me.

(BTW, I don't necessarily agree with it coming down, but reality being what it is these days, I'm sure it's days are numbered.)

chancla Jun 8, 2018 7:08 AM

Alamo plan presented to the public:
https://therivardreport.com/alamo-ma...for-the-plaza/

And some criticism, support:
https://therivardreport.com/some-san...plan-concepts/

Fryguy Jun 8, 2018 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chancla (Post 8214300)

So the glass sidewalks and lighting under the sidewalks is gone? Pfft.


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.