excerpts from
La Voz de Esperanza
Hays St Bridge At Risk by Gary W. Houston | Oct 2011
Hays St Bridge Timeline
compiled by Gary Houston in collaboration with Douglas Steadman & Kathleen Trenchard of the Hays St Bridge Restoration Group | Nov 2011
La Voz de Zocalo
Hays St. Bridge at risk by Gary W. Houston
LA VOZ de ESPERANZA • October 2011 Vol. 24 Issue 8•
C
12
ity planning is largely influenced by the developers of real estate. Promoting economic growth has become such a strong priority for elected officials and urban administrators that few other considerations so strongly influence the deliberations that determine most land use public policy decisions. At every level of government there has evolved a short-sighted definition of economic growth that threatens to short-circuit quality-of-life decisions in favor of any practices that can be remotely related to increasing jobs or tax revenues. In the case of the Hays St. Bridge, the City may deliver to private interests not just contested land but a significant and beloved landmark. Those enabling the brewery have crossed a line toward a spirit of utterly shameless and unquestioning boosterism in support of a single business proposal in callous disregard of other interests such as historic preservation or recreational facilities for families and children. City planning is largely influenced by the developers of real estate. Promoting economic growth has become such a strong priority for elected officials and administrators that few other considerations so strongly influence the deliberations that determine most land use public policy decisions. At every level of government there has evolved a short-sighted definition of economic growth that threatens to short-circuit quality-of-life decisions in favor of any practices that can be remotely related to increasing jobs or tax revenues. In the case of the Hays St. Bridge, the City may deliver to private interests not just contested land but a significant and beloved landmark. Those enabling the brewery have crossed a line toward a spirit of utterly shameless and unquestioning boosterism in support of a single business proposal in callous disregard of other interests such as historic preservation or recreational facilities for families and children. Since Spring, steps have been made to reverse the work of dozens of people over more than 15 years. The consummation of the Restoration process as public park now appears unlikely. There are reasons why all of the published and official plans for the land adjacent to the bridge call for a public park. A park there remains an element of the Neighborhood Master Plan and part of the City’s Eastside Economic Development Plan and thereby a component of the City of San Antonio’s Master Plan.
Imperfect Land Transfer | The citizens’ group that led the
restoration process of the Bridge was successful at seeking a donation of land as “community public space” and “other recreational
Author’s note: Plans are moving forward for the transfer of land adjacent to the Hays St. Bridge for the development of a micro-brewery. The Dignowity Hill Neighborhood Association voted in favor and Councilwoman Ivy Taylor and City Staff are following that lead. The following article by a member of the Hays St. Bridge Restoration Group is critical of those plans. The Group does not object to the development of the brewery per se. It acknowledges, however, that such an enterprise could be appropriate elsewhere in the railroad corridor. The objection is to development on the 1.7 acres of land adjacent to the Bridge donated to the City of San Antonio for use as a public park. The words below reflect the observations of the author, not those of the Restoration Group.
uses”. The documents, prepared by City staff, made no explicit references to the use of the land as a “park” which is why there is a controversy. The City Dept. of Capital Improvement Management Services (CIMS), custodian of the land, took the vagueness of that language to move in an entirely different direction suggesting the land be made available to the brewery promoters. This represents de facto land confiscation and a betrayal of good faith. When there is a case of vagueness in the interpretation of a legal document, an inquiry is made to determine the original intent. No such inquiry was made this year. Instead, the City staff in the CIMS Department has viewed that vagueness as a loophole to enable the brewery.
The Bridge as a Landmark | It was not until the 1970’s that alternatives to the narrow underpass at Nolan St. and the Hays Street Bridge evolved as the means of access to downtown during hours that trains blocked passage via other streets. Thousands of San Antonians identify with that experience and consider the Bridge a monument to that past. And more identify with the Bridge as a defining local landmark. Eastside San Antonio has no other remaining public works’ landmark. The Bridge design, actually two bridges that were merged when transported to San Antonio in 1910, is such a rare combination of 19th Century patented trusses and structural members that it was certified in 2001 as a Texas Historic Civil Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Professional Engineers. The rebirth of the Bridge was conceived by City Staff and Bridge advocates (and celebrated by a broad spectrum of the public) as a component of a hike and bike trail and a pedestrian Gate-
way between the Eastside and the Museum Reach north of Downtown. As a Gateway it conveys a sense of transition and arrival in both directions while offering spectacular and unique views of the surrounding townscape. This Gateway would not be enhanced by the intrusive role of a brewery as gatekeeper.
“parcel” in between is the public’s Hays St. Bridge.
“Highest and Best Use” | This is the term that is used to de-
termine private investment and public land use policies. Usually applied through a cost/benefit formula it has been invoked by the City’s CIMS department in support of the brewery. The shortcoming is that it looks mostly at the fiscal bottom line and does not address the fact that the use of the land at issue completely defines the Gateway and Landmark functions of the Bridge, themselves high order uses. A park or a greenbelt could be considered the “highest and best” use where the protection of those functions is a higher priority. “Highest & Best Use” should refer to more than the direct economic or tax generation potential of the 1.7 acres next to a local monument. The standards that apply in these circumstances should recognize the potential positive leverage of the landmark and the ultimate adverse impact of its inappropriate commercial exploitation on aesthetic and quality-of-life considerations. “Lowest and worst use” is perhaps a more appropriate term that should be invoked to describe the outcome resulting from the imposition of rigid and unimaginative standards that fail to adapt to unique circumstances and the greater public good.
LA VOZ de ESPERANZA • October 2011 Vol. 24 Issue 8•
Key Role of Open Space | There is a reason that open space is fundamental to the perception of a bridge within its environment. Most bridges are readily visible from or through the open space which they span (a lake, a valley or the Riverwalk). That is not the case with the Hays St. Bridge because it spans the less traveled railroad tracks and neighboring warehouses. This is why a park is the most respectful use for the land there. For similar reasons many urban bridges across the U.S. are complemented by a major park at one end. If existing plans are not modified, the community could be left with better views of the Hays St. Bridge from the northbound lanes of I-37 than from neighborhood streets. Because the Bridge is surrounded by existing buildings, its relationship to any projected new structures requires careful examination of their impact on the few remaining views of the bridge from surrounding streets and the vital role played by open space. A large structure that rises higher than the platform of bridge itself, A Park as Catalyst | An opportunity that the land next to the as the brewery designs call for, would constitute an encroachment Bridge represents is as a catalyst for more economic development that extinguishes the dramatic impact of the Bridge and practically in the neighborhood. Were it to be developed as a destination park erases its role as a landmark. For any structure to be perceived as a it could inspire the type of redefinition of the industrial wasteland landmark, it must first be highly visible. A relatively small bridge along the railroad corridor north and east of downtown. A park surrounded by more massive and taller buildings essentially bethat generates vibrancy along the streets in that zone of transition comes about as visible as a tunnel. Any massive structure would could inspire development in precisely the pattern contemplated intrude on the sightlines to the Bridge, rendering it by each of the City Councilno longer visible from Lamar and Cherry Streets, sanctioned Master Plans that call the last iconic view of the bridge. Moreover, the for a mixture of land use. Other views from the bridge obstructed thereby would Those enabling the brewery cities have begun successful, limit its role as an observation platform, especially creative “Living Streets” movehave crossed a line toward toward the Northeast. ments in such neighborhoods. A a spirit of utterly shameless park addresses and inspires proand unquestioning Private vs. Public Access | The brewery jected land use mix more effecwould not only encroach on the sightlines from tively than another industry and boosterism in support of a and to the Bridge, it would routinely use the its associated warehouse. single business proposal in Bridge right-of-way placing that commercial use Every few years the threatin direct competition with the public’s right to ened demolition of a treasured callous disregard of other free access. This amounts to granting an exclusive San Antonio structure provides interests such as historic commercial concession, similar to the Brackena national precedent in the areas preservation or recreational ridge Eagle miniature railroad or the Tower of the of community development and Americas restaurant. The major difference is that historic preservation. Those lesfacilities for families and there were compelling needs for those exclusive sons are not always positive. The children. grants of access because they met a public intercourse that permits the appropriest in complementing the existing land use. The ation of the Bridge to commerce compelling public need in the case of the brewery could become tantamount to a is one defined exclusively for developers. Under existing plans, constructive demolition of a public monument and landmark. That the Bridge becomes part of the commercial brand of the brewery, San Antonio enjoys a national reputatiLA is that our more stellar which conflicts with rather than complements the existing public policies and actions are often the result of the actions of citizens use. Because they already control the remaining partial view of committed to a protracted campaign. Inappropriate commercial the Bridge’s span from the south along Burnet St., once the brew- development prevails not because of its inherent merits, but too ery developers are granted control of the land north of the Bridge, often because those who should know better are inclined to look they will essentially control the Bridge itself. only at the bottom line and to accept its simple solutions. q It is a well-established principle in real estate, that the control by a single interest of the land use on either side of a third parcel Bio: Gary W. Houston has lectured on urban and environmental (or even a public right of way) is the key to the path of controlling issues at institutions of higher education in San Antonio for the the fate of that land use in between. This would amount to a sound, past 35 years. For the past 17 years he has been a faculty member or even shrewd, business plan, but for the fact that in this case the of the Department of Political Science and Geography at UTSA.
13
LA VOZ de ESPERANZA
Nov 2011 Vol. 24 Issue 9• pg 17
Hays St. Bridge Timeline* Compiled by Gary Houston in collaboration with Douglas Steadman and Kathleen Trenchard of the 1844 Structural truss patent granted to Thomas and Caleb Pratt of Massachusetts 1847 Truss patent granted to Squire Whipple of New York 1877 Southern Pacific RR begins Operation in San Antonio (as GH&SA) and expanded under condition that it will build bridges to allow convenient access to downtown from points East 1881 Longer Whipple Bridge Span constructed by the Southern Pacific Railroad over the Nueces River, 88 miles west of San Antonio
1910 Pratt and Whipple Spans moved to San Antonio (and widened) to accommodate 2-way carriage and automobile traffic as Hays St. Bridge
1982 Hays St. Bridge Closed to Traffic due to deteriorated condition
1999 A restored Bridge projected by Bicycle Mobility Task Force of Metropolitan Planning Organization and later City of San Antonio as Key Component of Hike and Bike Trail Network linking Downtown and River North/Museum Corridor to Eastside Cultural Attractions and Salado Creek Greenway December 2000 Neighborhoods Acting Together organization and City of S.A.begin special study of future Bridge Uses and Potential Funding Sources
Visit www.esperanzacenter.org to read an article on the Hays St. Bridge in the October 2011 issue of La Voz.
March 2001 Bridge recognized as a Texas Historic Civil Engineering Landmark by Texas Section of American Society of Civil Engineers April 2001 San Antonio Conservation Society Grants $50,000 toward local match of Federal ISTEA-221 funds for Bridge Restoration Nov 2001 Joined by local Elected Officials, Restoration Group Appears Before TX Transportation Commission in Austin to request Federal Funds for Bridge Rehab
Hays St. Bridge Restoration Group
March 2005 Restoration Group holds major fundraising event at Red Berry Mansion which ultimately garnered more than $200,000 toward local match April 2006 The City of SA and Hays St. Bridge Restoration Group Apply for TxDot Grant for “Hays St. Bridge Park and Railroad Station Relocation” with support of many local orgs, including Dignowity Hill Neighborhood Assoc and S.A. Conservation Society
Aug 2007 Ownership of Bridge Transferred from Union Pacific Railroad to City of San Antonio Oct 2007 City accepted transfer of 1.7 acres at Cherry and Lamar Sts from BudCo as “community public space” for “recreation uses” -- understood at the time to mean a Park
May 2009 Restoration Process Construction Phase Begins. Some Salvaged Original Materials were Set Aside for Future Adaptive Reuse in the Park December 2009 2002 The Dignowity Hill Neighborhood City of S.A. is Awarded $2.9 Million Plan, the Eastside Reinvestment Plan Restoration Grant by TxDot from Federal & the City of S.A.’s Master Plan call ISTEA Funds for Bridge Restoration. In for the development of a park next to addition, the City Committed more than the Hays St. Bridge $700,000 as 20% Local Match of Federal Grant
July 2010 Hays St. Bridge Rededicated and Reopened to the Public as a Pedestrian & Bicycle Gateway
May 2011 Representatives of Restoration Group notified in “Park Planning” meeting with City Reps that a Proposal for a Business rather than a Park were Being Considered for Land at N. Cherry & Lamar July 2011 Dues Paying Members of Dignowity Hill Neighborhood Assoc. Endorse Brewery for Land at 803 N. Cherry at Lamar