[SA] HDRC protecting downtown eyesore

[chadpcarey]

Kevin makes an excellent point. Demo of the building is not neccessary for the redevelopment of that site. Frankly, the greatest value of the property is the portion on the Riverwalk. Of course, if they want to build new structures along the Riverwalk and use the balance of the site for surface parking...

Preservation of significant buildings shouldn't be influenced by current economics. And that building is a classic building that merits preservation (I doubt that the rehab would be prohibitavely expensive, in any event). There are very few buildings like this in SA, which is why it is important to save them.

Sakyle04: I'm normally on the other side of this issue, as HDRC has a tendency to be quite myopic and fight for the preservation of rather unremarkable buildings. I understand quite well how hard it is to "push" owners to either develop or sell their property, paticularly in our downtown.

But your "in the other corner" argument is a false choice. "New", "usable", "non-historic", and "tourist magnet" aren't things that make places (like downtown SA) special. This city doesn't desperately need another tourist hotel without architectural pedigree and a proper relationship to the rest of the neighborhood. SA's downtown is famous for a reason, mostly because of classic architecture (pre-war buildings along the river) placed in a proper relationship with a phenomenal civic amenity (the Riverwalk).

We have every right to demand that developers to make beautiful, sustainable contributions to our city, don't you think?

[sakyle04]

Originally Posted by chadpcarey

Kevin makes an excellent point. Demo of the building is not neccessary for the redevelopment of that site. Frankly, the greatest value of the property is the portion on the Riverwalk. Of course, if they want to build new structures along the Riverwalk and use the balance of the site for surface parking...

Preservation of significant buildings shouldn't be influenced by current economics. And that building is a classic building that merits preservation (I doubt that the rehab would be prohibitavely expensive, in any event). There are very few buildings like this in SA, which is why it is important to save them.

Sakyle04: I'm normally on the other side of this issue, as HDRC has a tendency to be quite myopic and fight for the preservation of rather unremarkable buildings. I understand quite well how hard it is to "push" owners to either develop or sell their property, paticularly in our downtown.

But your "in the other corner" argument is a false choice. "New", "usable", "non-historic", and "tourist magnet" aren't things that make places (like downtown SA) special. This city doesn't desperately need another tourist hotel without architectural pedigree and a proper relationship to the rest of the neighborhood. SA's downtown is famous for a reason, mostly because of classic architecture (pre-war buildings along the river) placed in a proper relationship with a phenomenal civic amenity (the Riverwalk).

We have every right to demand that developers to make beautiful, sustainable contributions to our city, don't you think?

I couldn't argue with you if I tried. Well said.

I guess I would just say that from a development perspective (and that is what I am most concerned with here) this HDRC decision stunts the growth potential of this site. I do believe that one day I will walk by this building (or, gasp, live in it) and it will be restored and wonderful. I just don't want to wait until the current owner dies 30 years from now to see that come to fruition.

Also, in principal, I am not thrilled with the decision to make something historic based on who worked in the building. Its just a dumb reason to establish significance.

Lastly, can someone tell me if the brick in the photo in the first post is really grey or is it painted in some way? Because, honestly, a grey brick building, no matter how well restored, would be a little bit blah.

[KevinFromTexas]

They could very easily put a high rise on the north side of the building and slightly to the west. They could still do it and not have to worry about shadows on the Riverwalk. I've seen some crazy plans in Austin with huge buildings being positioned on one block and just a few feet away from each other. Nothing is impossible. They just have to have the will to do it.

[Atomic Glee]

Originally Posted by sakyle04

As a developer I would pause at the notion that the portion of my site with the greatest potential for height was already nailed down as a thin 10-story structure.

That is assuming that the simplistic goal of "height" should be priority for a developer. I'd disagree.

[sakyle04]

Originally Posted by Atomic Glee

That is assuming that the simplistic goal of "height" should be priority for a developer. I'd disagree.

With the price of land on the Riverwalk, it has been stated (by Andres Andujar among others) that a certain amount of height is necassary to acheive profitability on a project.

This would be different as a rehab as opposed to new construction, but it is still part of a total development area that would be diminished (in terms of potential square footage) and would therefore be more difficult to be made profitable which in turn makes it a more difficult sell to investors which jeopardizes the project from ever getting off the ground.

Considering recent DT SA projects... The Grand Hyatt is as tall as it is because it needed to be to maximize profits. If it were heigh limited, it may never have been built. Vistana needed height to achieve financing and (hopefully) a profitable existence. Same for Vidorra and the Courtyard by Marriott. Even the Embassy Suites is going up 16 stories.

So to dismiss height is silly. At the end of the day, this parcel of land is someone's business opportunity. Strictly from a business/development standpoint, diminishing the amount of total square footage available in the project does diminish its attractiveness and value.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by Atomic Glee

That is assuming that the simplistic goal of "height" should be priority for a developer. I'd disagree.

There had been a project planned there before that was around 300 feet tall from the rendering we saw. This demolition plan may be involved with that project, or some form of it. So height has been meant for that site at least at one point.

I'd like to ask why not have the height and restore the older building? It would be a real boost for that area of downtown.

[sakyle04]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I'd like to ask why not have the height and restore the older building? It would be a real boost for that area of downtown.

Kev, you're right to ask that.

It is do-able (maybe even ideal) but my ire has always been in the fact that the declination of the demolition permit may stall everything altogether. So I don't know if it is really and either/or type of proposition.

Faced with preservation and no development or no preservation and development, I'll take development almost every time.

[chadpcarey]

Originally Posted by ChrisM

I just walked by there not but 30 minutes ago and thought how cool it would be to renovate that place. I started searching online and found this thread incredible timing I must say.

Two things anyone know how to get investment capitol started to renovate a historical site?

What permits would I need or process would I need to start to show neglect of historical landmark so the company that owns it would/could be forced into selling it?

I would really like to gut the inside and turn the top floors into some simple office spaces/lofts. I would like to renovate the historical building on the ground floor into a conference space with a museum attached.

Anyone know how to get the ball rolling on this type of thing. I'm very interested in seeing if I could actually pull something off. Never done anything like this before but there is so much potential in that building.

Chris -

This city needs more good developers, but that would be a mother of a project for any developer in the country, much less a rookie! The land value alone is probably in the $8MM-$10MM dollar range.

And there are very few cases in TX where owners can be forced to sell a property, no matter how poorly they maintain it.

Chad.

[sakyle04]

Ben from the MySA Downtown Blog came through and checked out our discussion and it sounds like he's gonna be posting about it on his blog for all to see as soon as he can.

For what its worth, I blogged on it today...

[oldmanshirt]

I read your blog, sakyle, and that was well-stated! I'd still like to see this building redeveloped instead of torn-down. Like you, however, I fear the precedent set by the HDRC when it comes to blocking valuable developments in the future, all in the name of preserving some "past glory" which, when we think objectively about it, may not have been that glorious anyway.

When the goal of beautifying and enhancing the Riverwalk of the present - the lifeblood of San Antonio in ways both physical and metaphorical - clashes with the goal of hanging on to every scrap of "historical significance", no matter how obscure or mundane, is there any doubt that the former should win out 11 times out of 10?

[sakyle04]

Originally Posted by oldmanshirt

I read your blog, sakyle, and that was well-stated! I'd still like to see this building redeveloped instead of torn-down. Like you, however, I fear the precedent set by the HDRC when it comes to blocking valuable developments in the future, all in the name of preserving some "past glory" which, when we think objectively about it, may not have been that glorious anyway.

When the goal of beautifying and enhancing the Riverwalk of the present - the lifeblood of San Antonio in ways both physical and metaphorical - clashes with the goal of hanging on to every scrap of "historical significance", no matter how obscure or mundane, is there any doubt that the former should win out 11 times out of 10?

thanks for the kind words.

i am against saving stuff (be it buildings, keepsakes, or whatever) but we have to choose our battles wisely. is a typical 1920's office building historic...or just old?

hopefully someone will soon develop that beautiful property into something great, no matter what they decide on that building in particular.

[sakyle04]

Ben Olivo's great new MySA downtown blog has posted the following about the Hedrick Building:

photo by Ben Olivo, MySa.com Downtown Blog...

The Downtown Blog
Visiting, working and living in downtown San Antonio.

June 19, 2008

Development:
Discussion of Hedrick Building postponed until July

As reported in today's Express-News, the city's Historic and Design Review Commission postponed its discussion of the demolition of the Hedrick Building, a 10-story structure on North St. Mary's Street, catercorner to the Greyhound Bus Station. The commission will address the issue at its July 2 meeting.

According to the E-N article, the city's Code Compliance Division applied to demolish the building. According to the HDRC's June 18 agenda, "the staff recommends denial of demolition and approval of a finding of historic significance."

This is the latest in an ongoing debate over the Hedrick Building, which was built in 1928 as the home of the San Antonio Real Estate Board.

Last year, the Express-News reported on the recent history of the overall property, which spans a block and includes two other buildings.

On the Internet, downtown enthusiasts have been debating amongst themselves on a forum dedicated to downtown development.

Here is some of the discussion:

sakyle04 wrote:
The white-plastic-clad eyesore of a building that has been a vacant, graffiti-covered, drug-infested death-hole is being protected by the HDRC as historic.

oldmanshirt wrote:
Eh, if they were gonna tear it down to build another "3-story" Walgreens or a walk-in Chase bank branch or something lame and quasi-urban, then I'm not that upset. Frankly, it would be cool if they'd restore the building to the original look or at least get rid of the tags and find some use for it.

KevinFromTexas wrote:
I knew right away what building they were talking about without a name or address being listed. It's really the epitome of decay in downtown.

Atomic Glee wrote:
Not from SA, but that building should be saved and that awful modernist facade cleared off of it and restored.

What do you think should happen to the Hedrick Building? Hit "Post" below to talk about it.

— Benjamin Olivo

I hope that this raises some awareness of the issue and the city has a real dialogue before the 8 members of the committee to make a decision for the entire city.

BTW, I am really stoked about this downtown blog. I have been emailing the MySa editors for awhile asking for such a thing (hoping Mike Greenberg would've taken it on). But they actually got a downtown resident to keep us up to date on the happenings down there. Should be sweet. (Bookmarked it already...)

[SAguy]

I will be glad to see this building demolish.

[jaga185]

Wasn't there a plan that Andres had posted a while back that proposed a new tower that incorparated this building?

[John R]

I also don't live in San Antonio, but I'm a preservationist at heart. I would rather see preservation and no development over no preservation with development. The building is already within the historic district, so the Historic and Design Review Commission should deny the request for demolition so the integrity of the district is preserved. It appears the building's structure is in sound condition, so restoration is feasible.

[sakyle04]

from: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/cit....18ce9e16.html

This says the City's Code Compliance Office requested demolition, not the owner... Hmm....

The next battle for preservationists is over the 1928 Hedrick Building, a 10-story structure at Martin and St. Mary’s streets downtown.

Discussion of a proposal to raze it was postponed, but the commission is set to hear the case July 2.

The city’s Code Compliance Division applied for demolition of the building, which is vacant, with broken windows and graffiti. The historic preservation staff recommends denial of the demolition request and a finding of historic significance that would protect the building, originally the San Antonio Real Estate Board Building.

It was designed by Adams and Adams, architects who conceptualized Jefferson High School and the San Antonio Zoo, and was one of the early high-rise structures on the downtown skyline.

Although the building is covered on two sides with a glass and metal facade, a 1928 photo in the San Antonio Light showed its early muscular appearance, with strong vertical lines on its brick veneer and detailed terra cotta ornamentation.

“This could be another gem of a building,” Marcie Ince, San Antonio Conservation Society president, said in an interview.

Ince said the city should sue the owner to force him to clean up and repair the building.

“No property owner should be allowed to hold onto a building and allow it to deteriorate to the point that it could be subject to demolition,” she said.

As the San Antonio Express-News reported last year, the city has received dozens of complaints about graffiti, vagrants and public safety at the Hedrick and two smaller adjacent structures, all three owned by B.P. Agrawal and his company, RBRA Inc. Agrawal bought the building in 1993 with plans to convert it to a hotel or office building, but hasn’t been able to keep long-term tenants there.

[alexjon]

Wait wait wait- CC decided to ask for demolition because the owner flat-out refuses to restore it.

The Conservation biddies are really grating my nerves.

[sakyle04]

Originally Posted by alexjon

Wait wait wait- CC decided to ask for demolition because the owner flat-out refuses to restore it.

The Conservation biddies are really grating my nerves.

Yes, thank you for understanding the stupidity here.

The CITY asked for the thing to be demolished....the CITY then rejected the claim.

July 2nd is going to send me to the insane asylum.

[KeepSanAntonioLame]

This building is an embarrassment. Either knock it down or fix it up, I don't care which. Something needs to be done.

[swissspice]

From what I have heard, the city's demolition permit application was not done because they really want to tear it down. They are trying to use that as a tool to spur renovation. Trouble is, they forgot to tell the conservation folks that.

Personally, I think that the homeless people around there should strip off the metal cladding and sell it to a scrap yard. That way, they get some food and beer, and we get the original facade back.