|
Post by bmoses on Jan 8, 2008 16:52:15 GMT -5
With the utmost respect and admiration for Gary Foreman and his terrific plan for Alamo Plaza, I would like to share an article that recently ran in a local San Antonio biweekly newspaper. This story, from the San Antonio Current, details the DRT’s $60-million makeover plan which is slated to begin between two and five years from now. As the article notes, the plan will include the addition of museum-caliber facilities including a new auditorium, a TV studio, and additional curatorial space as well as funds for upgrading existing buildings and infrastructure. Properties along Houston Street have yet to be acquired, but the article reports that negotiations are underway with property owners. The plan will close Houston Street and create a cul-de-sac near the Emily Morgan Hotel. The DRT reports that they have been in contact with members of the city council about the street closure and that, “Everyone’s been favorable.” Here is a link to the San Antonio Current Article which ran in early December: www.sacurrent.com/news/story.asp?id=67941. Also, here's a link to the earlier San Antonio Express News article that ran August 5, 2007 which contains information not included in the Current article: www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA080507.01A.Alamo_Plan.3422ed4.html. Finally, Gary Foreman's response to the DRT plan can be viewed at the bottom of this Alamo Studies Forum page: www.alamostudies.proboards58.com/index.cgi?board=alamohistory&action=display&thread=1184776713&page=2. Below is a clean copy of the Master Site Plan provided to me by a state officer of the DRT who is a true friend of Alamo archaeology. I also received plans showing the basement, first, and second floors of the proposed structure.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Jan 8, 2008 17:49:14 GMT -5
My first impression is, if this plan goes through, the immediate area of the Alamo is going to be getting a whole lot more congested with structures, with the new complex and addition to Alamo Hall. I assume there is no plan to dismantle existing, 20th-century structures. Thus, if the new complex gets a "bookstore" "exhibit space," "library," and "Alamo collection," where does that leave the old souvenir shop/museum and library/DRT hall?
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Jan 8, 2008 22:37:20 GMT -5
These new facilities may be very nice for the DRT and bus tour type tourists but what about the Alamo...what about historical preservation?? I've seen this plan before and it still seems to me that the Alamo is being factored out of the equation in preference for visitor accessibility. The battle cry appears to have changed from "Remember the Alamo" to "Forget the Alamo."
I respect, admire, and appreciate all the DRT has done for the Alamo to date. But I can't help but feel their priorities are slightly askew.
I'd like to see the DRT adopt an "Alamo First" philosophy which clearly is Gary's plan. Restore the Alamo first and then add the tourist facilities. Were it not for the Alamo there wouldn't be any tourists to cater to. And were it not for the 1836 battle the Alamo wouldn't be famous at all....it might not even be standing.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 8, 2008 22:49:34 GMT -5
It seems to me, if I understand Gary's proposal correctly, that his plan uses space much more ingeniously than does the DRT. Instead of having amphitheaters, bookstores and auditoriums cluttering up and sprawling around the grounds, Gary's plan uses the plaza itself, for special events, festivals, and the like. As for indoor space, his Museum of Texas History, up at the north wall (in the old Post Offfice building) neatly and comprehensively contains these things, and more.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 9, 2008 1:42:46 GMT -5
My first impression is, if this plan goes through, the immediate area of the Alamo is going to be getting a whole lot more congested with structures, with the new complex and addition to Alamo Hall. I assume there is no plan to dismantle existing, 20th-century structures. Thus, if the new complex gets a "bookstore" "exhibit space," "library," and "Alamo collection," where does that leave the old souvenir shop/museum and library/DRT hall? That was my thought exactly on looking at the plan. Although those buildings are not within the original confines of the Alamo perimeter they are certainly standing on the battlefield where the Texians fought Sesma's lancers - well ok any actual fighting probably took place further out but that land is still to my mind part of the battlefield and should be opened up rather than encroached upon. As it happens I've been involved in something very similar over here. A complete re-think of the Culloden battlefield has included the demolition of the existing visitor centre sitting on it, and its replacement by a new one adjacent but not actually encroaching on to the battlefield.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 9, 2008 10:59:38 GMT -5
Gary went over this issue on the thread dealing with his plans for the Alamo. I got the impression that he sees the two projects as complimentary, rather than competing. I also wonder what will happen to the current gift shop. If it is to be demolished, the land could be utilized to recreate more of the battlefield character to that area, which is just beyond the two courtyards. The DRT seems to be looking at development "off-site" so to speak, although Stuart is right in pointing out that this area, too, is quite relevant to the battle, while Gary is focusing more on the plaza area and restoration of some of the original compound.
AW
|
|
|
Post by glforeman on Jan 15, 2008 22:42:28 GMT -5
One thing we are seeing around the world for historical sites is that "less is more." In other words, let's consolidate rather than duplicate. Let's focus on quality rather than quantity. For many Americans who have been nurtured by our "All You Can Eat" mentality, this can be a hard sell. Another designer from Jake Ivey's town (Santa Fe) recently wrote: "Any space will be more effective if clutter is minimized, if fewer objects compete for attention and you are free to really appreciate highly intentional details. In any given room [space], the feature that stands out and speaks to you is probably doing so precisely is because it is NOT blending in with anything else."
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Jan 16, 2008 1:43:51 GMT -5
Imagine standing at about where the fire house is now and looking across an open park towards the church and long barracks...
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jan 17, 2008 16:43:08 GMT -5
Well, personally I think the DRT's Alamo plan sucks. It's all lopsided and concentrates most of the new buildings on what I call the back 40, outside the confines of the original mission and fort. How in the ever-lovin-blue-eyed-world is this supposed to give an ignorant visitor a sense of the actual size of this shrine to freedom. The DRT's renovation also fails to push back the circus-like encrouchment from Alamo Plaza, which is a blight on this most hollowed ground. This is truly a bad deal for the Old Alamo in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jan 17, 2008 16:52:23 GMT -5
I agree that it's a misguided use of resources, which would be better spent on restoration in the compound area and buying out/off the sleaze merchants. Some of the stuff they're doing would be OK later on, after restoration is achieved, but, as you say, they're putting all their marbles on this stuff. It's more of a distraction from the Alamo than an enhancement of it.
AW
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 17, 2008 17:28:18 GMT -5
Many people, myself included, sometimes have a hard time visualizing what a plan will look like from ground level. Look again at the illustration above. This will be a HUGE building complex, which will take up the same amount of real estate that the WHOLE Alamo complex now occupies. Long barracks and courtyards included. While once being swallowed up by the city, the Alamo (under this plan) will now be slowly swallowed by interpretive buildings.
|
|
|
Post by glforeman on Jan 17, 2008 20:05:29 GMT -5
Again, Native Texan Fess Parker's 1994 quote (amplified by Bill Chemerka on another thread) really says it all: "My feeling is that this city and this state should be large enough, wise enough, and creative enough to pull back away from the Alamo and give it space."
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Jan 18, 2008 17:35:53 GMT -5
Words of wisdom from Fess Parker. Of course Crockett said it best, when he stated that he didn't like to be hemmed in. I think the Alamo Fort needs a bit of breathing room, not a bunch of breath-taking buildings to detract from the stone mission. In my opinion G. Foreman's concept is more pleasing to the eye and respectful to the memory of those who fought and died at the Alamo.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Jan 18, 2008 22:01:21 GMT -5
Without question, Gary's plan not only makes the best use of available space, but creates MORE space, installing a "green" zone around the compound to buffer it from the intrusive look of late nineteenth and twentieth century buildings, at least as much as it is possible to do so. You don't do the Alamo any favors by bumping up against it with a sprawling new complex interpretive buildings, however "instructive" their purpose is supposed to be. That benefit is outweighed, in my opinion, by the detrimental effect of the "crowding" factor of even MORE buildings. One needs to step back a little from the compound to get a correct feel for its original boundaries and a sense of it as a whole entity. Jamming a cluster of new structures up against it only blurs that sense of space. Gary's plan is both historically sensitive and appropriate, as well as the plan which best gives us an accurate view of the real Alamo.
|
|