On-Site Measurements

[marklemon]

This may only be of limited interesat to most forum members, but during the last High Holy Days, after all the hoopla died down, I had occasion to make some measurements of some features which had been traditionally involved in some confusion and controversy. Here are my findings, all of which were derived from actual measurements taken with a 100 ft tape measure:

West Wall length: 525 feet (from SW corner of the reconstructed Charli carpenter shop, north to the vertical marker post, just off the NE corner of the Gibbs Building. (Note: This length, has historically been notoriously hard to get exact, since there was nothing left standing when Giraud did his survey, except low mounds of weed-choked dirt and rubble. So, in reality, the ACTUAL real length of the wall could be anything from 520 feet, to 530 feet, but 525 was actually measured to the standing north wall marker.)

South Wall: 191 ft 2 inches (measured from the SE corner of the above-ground "planter" on the site of the Low Barrack, west to the SW corner of the reconstructed Charli carpenter shop.

Long Barrack: 191 feet 6 inches (Measured from the NW edge of the Granary portion of the LB, south to the SW edge, or corner, of the LB, at the Convento portion.

These numbers have historically wandered all over the place, apparently depending on who did the measurements, and how they were taken. I was accompanied by Rick Range, who used his measuring wheel as a backup, but it soon became clear that the wheel was grossly inaccurate, compared to the tape.
Anyway, these numbers are presented here for those of you who may be interested.
Mark

[Rich Curilla]

Mark, thanks. I'm afraid I am one of the members to whom this information has great significance, if only because I just *wanna know.* I did make some comment on one of these boards about the gap between your 521 foot west wall measurement in the book and the 537 foot measurement I had before (source unknown). So now I will settle on 525 as being as accurate as we can get at this point in time. Phyew! I feel better already.

By the way, I had dinner at Chili's in Del Rio this evening, and the guy who waited on me looked so much like you it was uncanny. I kept expecting him to put a map in front of me instead of a beer.

[Jim Boylston]

Mark, you get my vote too for keeping this info here on the open forum. You're not boring anybody.
Jim

[stuart]

I'll second that, with just one query. The reconstructed Charli shop is clear enough, but where did the north wall marker come from?

[Herb]

I have another question, Giraud's survey shows the "notch" in the NW corner, is it possible that the North Wall marker by the Gibbs Building used his survey and is in the wrong spot? In other words is it short the northernmost room of the Northern Castenada House where the NW battery was?

[marklemon]

stuart said:

I'll second that, with just one query. The reconstructed Charli shop is clear enough, but where did the north wall marker come from?

According to Jake and other information I have obtained, the site for the marker was, and is, based on the survey done by Giraud in 1849. The trouble with this fact is, that we have to really envision the area that Giraud was trying to measure, and when he got to the northwest corner, he saw not a well-defined building, but rather, a heap of weed-choked rubble, lying on top of the wall footings and overgrown with brush. The accuracy of his mark is totally dependant on how much, if any, trace of the old, original, Northern Castaneda House footings remained for him to take a mark on. However imprecise his mark may have been, it was certainly in the ballpark.

[marklemon]

wolfpack said:

I have another question, Giraud's survey shows the "notch" in the NW corner, is it possible that the North Wall marker by the Gibbs Building used his survey and is in the wrong spot? In other words is it short the northernmost room of the Northern Castenada House where the NW battery was?

Wolf,
According to what I saw, and where the marker (the vertical post with finial) was, it looks very clear to me that the marker is on the spot of the top corner edge of the notch. In other words, envision the notch as a bacwards "L" and the marker then is at the top of the "L." This then means that the marker is actually not on the exact nothwest corner, which is missing when Giraud saw it, but rather on the northwest corner of the notch.
Mark

[cantador4u]

"the marker is actually not on the exact northwest corner, which is missing when Giraud saw it, but rather on the northwest corner of the notch."

Mark, Because I'm a little confused I drew a crude diagram. I hope it comes out OK when it is posted.

Points A, D represent the North wall of the Castaneda house that was still standing when Giraud did is 1849 survey. Points B, C, represent the north wall of the Castaneda house that was missing when Giraud did the survey and the actual location of the north wall of the Alamo.

I am understanding you to say that you think the marker is at point A. rather than at the "real" NW corner, i.e. point B.

A. B.
]
]
]
]
]_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C.
D.

--->North

If my understanding is correct then we would have to add another 24 feet BEYOND the official marker to get to the actual NW corner of the Alamo. In other words rather than 525 ft the west wall was really 549 ft in length.

- Paul Meske, Sun Prairie, WI

[marklemon]

Paul,
I didn't quite see what you were trying to describe by your diagram. Here's my version:

A ]B
]
]
]
]
]
C________ ]D

This represents the "notch" as drawn by Giaruad. It is oriented north-south on the page. The marker just off the northeast corner of the Gibbs building is, I think, where B is on the diagram above. So you see, there is no need to add any north-south distance, as B-D is the same length as A-C. We do need to add some distance to the north wall (east to west)measurement- about 24 to 26 feet, to make up for the missing portion (A-B).
Mark

[marklemon]

OK, I see after posting this diagram, that somehow it got reversed. Looks like you drew the same diagram that I tried to do. Anyway, no, there is no need to add north-south length to the west wall. It should be 521, to 525 or thereabouts, give or take a foot or two.
Mark

[Don Allen]

Mark, where does that put the north wall, in relation to the old federal building? I was there a few weeks ago and entered the federal building and looked out the front windows to get an on-site perspective of what the compound might have looked like from the top of a north wall battery. However, I wasn't totally sure that I was in the right place.

[Don Allen]

Mar 26, 2008 17:51:29 GMT -5 @marklemon said:

This may only be of limited interesat to most forum members, but during the last High Holy Days, after all the hoopla died down, I had occasion to make some measurements of some features which had been traditionally involved in some confusion and controversy. Here are my findings, all of which were derived from actual measurements taken with a 100 ft tape measure:

And no Mark, it is not of limited interest. Much like you, I am interested in the footprint of the compound, to the point of obsession. It most specifically manifests itself when I am visiting the Alamo. I constantly seek, in my mind, to place the 1836 compound in relation to what exists there today.

[marklemon]

Jun 12, 2008 1:09:47 GMT -5 Don Allen said:

Mark, where does that put the north wall, in relation to the old federal building? I was there a few weeks ago and entered the federal building and looked out the front windows to get an on-site perspective of what the compound might have looked like from the top of a north wall battery. However, I wasn't totally sure that I was in the right place.

Don, I have never measured the depth of the north wall inside the facade of the Federal Building, but the next time are there, walk to the northeast corner of the old Gibbs Building (under renovation) and locate the vertical iron post standing just about a foot or so off the corner of the building. It has a cap and decorative finial on top of it. It is my understanding that that is an old marker that is supposed to jive with the Giraud plat from 1849, and is supposed to be the northern corner (of the "notch" seen in Giraud's plat). So, if you stand there, and look across Alamo street to the Federal Building, you can gauge for yourself how far into the building the north wall went. I would guess about 40 or so feet, at least.
Mark

[billchemerka]

A relatively easy way to instruct San Antonio visitors and assorted Alamo neophytes to the uniqueness of the Federal Building's relationship to the original Alamo's outer defenses is to simply point out that a few feet inside the lobby was the location of North Wall. It provides a quick and generally accurate representation of the size of the Alamo compound, especially from the top of the Federal Building front steps. The view from the top of those steps gives visitors a very good view of the large area that was the 1836 mission-fortress. More importantly, if Gary Foreman's Alamo Plaza Project is completed, wheelchair access to the revamped building could actually be constructed at the far left of the Federal Building's current front steps which would essentially coincide with the original position of the Fortin de Teran's gun ramp!

[Don Allen]

One can't help but be intruiged by what may exist under the street at the intersection of Alamo and Houston Streets, and under Houston Street where the Long Barracks/Granary ran.

You would assume that a fair amount of destruction has occurred due to roadwork and pipes and the like, but if the destruction is not complete and there is even a fragment, here and there to work with, it would still be highly instructive.

Like Mark mentions in his book, I think a very good dig site (and a minimally invasive one at that) would be just to the south of "The Wall" that Mark surmises was the wall to the original church. This could be cleared up, almost conclusively, with a very easy, very quick dig.