HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > San Antonio

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2017, 2:56 PM
SAtown SAtown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
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!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2017, 3:13 PM
jaga185's Avatar
jaga185 jaga185 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 1,922
Probably the best response with pros and cons. ^^^
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2017, 6:56 PM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 2,444
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2017, 8:16 PM
Spoiler's Avatar
Spoiler Spoiler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 256
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2017, 9:25 PM
SAtown SAtown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoiler View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2017, 10:15 PM
Spoiler's Avatar
Spoiler Spoiler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAtown View Post
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

Last edited by Spoiler; Apr 18, 2017 at 11:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2017, 2:03 PM
SAtown SAtown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoiler View Post
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!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2017, 3:54 PM
The Model's Avatar
The Model The Model is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 416
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!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Aug 9, 2017, 5:39 PM
deeger deeger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 25
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2017, 4:23 AM
Spoiler's Avatar
Spoiler Spoiler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 256
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
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2017, 4:58 PM
Restless 1 Restless 1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 279
Well, yeah that, and

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoiler View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2017, 5:18 PM
Spoiler's Avatar
Spoiler Spoiler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless 1 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2017, 5:32 PM
jaga185's Avatar
jaga185 jaga185 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 1,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless 1 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2017, 8:07 PM
Restless 1 Restless 1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 279
I get that, but

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoiler View Post
I think he's on the cenotaph.
It's not called "Cenotaph Park".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2017, 8:16 PM
Spoiler's Avatar
Spoiler Spoiler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless 1 View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2017, 9:32 PM
Restless 1 Restless 1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spoiler View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2017, 11:17 PM
Spoiler's Avatar
Spoiler Spoiler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Restless 1 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2017, 11:05 PM
Restless 1 Restless 1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 279
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.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > San Antonio
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:38 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.