Quote:
Originally Posted by sakyle04
Wait, so we should try to preserve it's character...?
Is that the historic character that had a streetcar line running down Alamo in the early 20th century or the modern character that has no streetcar?
This is what creates such a bad argument when we dive into historicity of cities and urban places. They are constantly changing and evolving.
Preserving history is not maintaining "what is there now" but allowing development to happen while maintaining the sense of place.
No one would argue against a new Opera House replacing a Ripley's House of Wax. But what about the history of Ripley's in Alamo Plaza?
No one is arguing about returning Hemisfair to a vibrant public space - but what about it's 40+ years of history as a dull, lifeless urban island?
Put the streetcar in a place where it will best serve the public. Do so in a way that enhances development, spurs new development, and adds to the charm and character of our great city.
|
Again, as I stated before, Conservation efforts in San Antonio did not not really begin until the mid 20th century. Streetcar was well along before this. And gone by then too. The Alamo was there well before any idea of an electric streetcar line. All I'm saying is the history, The Alamo Serving As A Major Battlefield And Thus The Site Of Hundreds (possibly as high as a thousand)Of Deaths Should Be Respected For That Matter. The surrounding streets are enough, and for some they are too much as some have called for those streets to be closed off and replaced with replicas of the old mission. I'm not arguing to close streets but instead just move the route, as the city proposed, one block away.
True that cities are changing. However, your argument of allowing development within a place leads to, as scholars describe, a false sense of place. A sort of Disneyfication, if you will. That is a place is not longer a place but instead a space.
Furthermore, I believe some would argue against an Opera House? instead of Ripley's. I'm sure some would argue against any development next to the Alamo. That was just an all-encompassing statement.
And for HemisFair part of the argument is to develop this "dull, lifeless urban island" into what it once was, a vibrant feeling of community by in part bringing back some streets that were removed for HemisFair. The effort would be to restore it to how it began, and not how it has evolved through urban renewal. HemisFair destroyed hundreds of homes and dozens of churches and stores. The effort is to restore this by removing the modernist approach to character and allowing to thrive as it potentially would have. HemisFair served as a means to remove blight, hence even the large hill at the ITC along Chavez so people visiting the World's Fair would not have to see the remaining neighborhoods.
I'm not arguing against development but instead I'm pitching that policymakers do not jump the gun and say oh it's shiny I want it now. Instead I hope policymakers take the time to understand a place and keep up with it.