Hays St Bridge At Risk by Gary W. Houston | Oct 2011

Hays St Bridge Timelinecompiled by Gary Houston in collaboration with Douglas Steadman & Kathleen Trenchard of the Hays St Bridge Restoration Group | Nov 2011

excerpts from

La Voz de Esperanza

12

LA V

OZ

de

ESP

ERA

NZ

A •

Oc

tobe

r 2

011

Vo

l. 2

4 Is

sue

8•

Hays St. Bridgeat risk

City planning is largely influenced by the developers of real estate. Promoting economic growth has be-come such a strong priority for elected officials and urban administrators that few other considerations so strongly influence the deliberations that deter-

mine most land use public policy decisions. At every level of gov-ernment 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 sig-nificant and beloved landmark. Those enabling the brewery have crossed a line toward a spirit of utterly shameless and unquestion-ing boosterism in support of a single business proposal in callous disregard of other interests such as historic preservation or recre-ational facilities for families and children.

City planning is largely influenced by the developers of real estate. Promoting economic growth has become such a strong pri-ority for elected officials and administrators that few other con-siderations so strongly influence the deliberations that determine most land use public policy decisions. At every level of govern-ment 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 increas-ing 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 un-questioning 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 dona-tion of land as “community public space” and “other recreational

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. Thou-sands 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 pat-ented 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 pub-lic) as a component of a hike and bike trail and a pedestrian Gate-

Author’s note: Plans are moving forward for the trans-fer of land adjacent to the Hays St. Bridge for the de-velopment of a micro-brewery. The Dignowity Hill Neighborhood Association voted in favor and Coun-cilwoman 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 rail-road 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.

by Gary W. Houston

La Voz de Zocalo

LA V

OZ

de ESP

ERA

NZ

A • O

cto

ber 2011 V

ol. 24 Issu

e 8•

13

way between the Eastside and the Museum Reach north of Down-town. 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.

Key Role of Open Space | There is a reason that open space is fundamental to the perception of a bridge within its environ-ment. 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 rea-sons many urban bridges across the U.S. are complemented by a major park at one end. If existing plans are not modified, the com-munity 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 re-lationship to any projected new structures requires careful exami-nation 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, as the brewery designs call for, would constitute an encroachment that extinguishes the dramatic impact of the Bridge and practically erases its role as a landmark. For any structure to be perceived as a landmark, it must first be highly visible. A relatively small bridge surrounded by more massive and taller buildings essentially be-comes about as visible as a tunnel. Any massive structure would intrude on the sightlines to the Bridge, rendering it no longer visible from Lamar and Cherry Streets, the last iconic view of the bridge. Moreover, the views from the bridge obstructed thereby would limit its role as an observation platform, especially toward the Northeast.

Private vs. Public Access | The brewery would not only encroach on the sightlines from and to the Bridge, it would routinely use the Bridge right-of-way placing that commercial use in direct competition with the public’s right to free access. This amounts to granting an exclusive commercial concession, similar to the Bracken-ridge Eagle miniature railroad or the Tower of the Americas restaurant. The major difference is that there were compelling needs for those exclusive grants of access because they met a public inter-est in complementing the existing land use. The compelling public need in the case of the brewery is one defined exclusively for developers. Under existing plans, the Bridge becomes part of the commercial brand of the brewery, which conflicts with rather than complements the existing public use. Because they already control the remaining partial view of the Bridge’s span from the south along Burnet St., once the brew-ery developers are granted control of the land north of the Bridge, they will essentially control the Bridge itself.

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 (or even a public right of way) is the key to the path of controlling the fate of that land use in between. This would amount to a sound, or even shrewd, business plan, but for the fact that in this case the

“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 shortcom-ing 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 cir-cumstances 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 consider-ations. “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.

A Park as Catalyst | An opportunity that the land next to the Bridge represents is as a catalyst for more economic development in the neighborhood. Were it to be developed as a destination park it could inspire the type of redefinition of the industrial wasteland along the railroad corridor north and east of downtown. A park that generates vibrancy along the streets in that zone of transition could inspire development in precisely the pattern contemplated

by each of the City Council-sanctioned Master Plans that call for a mixture of land use. Other cities have begun successful, creative “Living Streets” move-ments in such neighborhoods. A park addresses and inspires pro-jected land use mix more effec-tively than another industry and its associated warehouse.

Every few years the threat-ened demolition of a treasured San Antonio structure provides a national precedent in the areas of community development and historic preservation. Those les-sons are not always positive. The course that permits the appropri-ation of the Bridge to commerce could become tantamount to a

constructive demolition of a public monument and landmark. That San Antonio enjoys a national reputatiLA is that our more stellar policies and actions are often the result of the actions of citizens committed to a protracted campaign. Inappropriate commercial development prevails not because of its inherent merits, but too often because those who should know better are inclined to look only at the bottom line and to accept its simple solutions. q

Bio: Gary W. Houston has lectured on urban and environmental issues at institutions of higher education in San Antonio for the past 35 years. For the past 17 years he has been a faculty member of the Department of Political Science and Geography at UTSA.

Hays St. Bridge

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.

Hays St. BridgeTimeline*1844

Structural truss patent granted to Thomas and Caleb Pratt of Massachusetts

1847 Truss patent granted

to Squire Whipple of New York

1877Southern 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

1910Pratt and Whipple Spans moved to San Antonio (and widened) to accommodate 2-way carriage and automobile traffic as Hays St. Bridge

1881Longer Whipple Bridge Span constructed by the

Southern Pacific Railroad over the Nueces River, 88 miles west of San Antonio

1982Hays St. Bridge Closed

to Traffic due to

deteriorated condition

1999A 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 2000Neighborhoods Acting Together

organization and City of S.A.begin special study of future Bridge Uses

and Potential Funding Sources

April 2001San Antonio

Conservation Society Grants $50,000 toward local match of Federal ISTEA-221 funds for Bridge Restoration

Nov 2001Joined by local Elected Officials, Restoration Group Appears Before

TX Transportation Commission in Austin

to request Federal Funds for Bridge Rehab

2002City of S.A. is Awarded $2.9 Million

Restoration Grant by TxDot from Federal ISTEA Funds for Bridge Restoration. In addition, the City Committed more than

$700,000 as 20% Local Match of Federal Grant

March 2005Restoration Group holds major fundraising event at Red Berry Mansion which ultimately garnered more than $200,000 toward local match

April 2006The 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

Oct 2007City 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

Aug 2007Ownership of

Bridge Transferred from Union Pacific Railroad to City of

San Antonio

May 2009Restoration Process Construction

Phase Begins. Some Salvaged Original Materials were Set Aside for

Future Adaptive Reuse in the ParkDecember 2009

The Dignowity Hill Neighborhood Plan, the Eastside Reinvestment Plan & the City of S.A.’s Master Plan call for the development of a park next to

the Hays St. Bridge

July 2010Hays St. Bridge Rededicated and Reopened to the Public as a Pedestrian & Bicycle Gateway

May 2011Representatives 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 2011Dues Paying Members of

Dignowity Hill Neighborhood

Assoc. Endorse Brewery

for Land at 803 N. Cherry at Lamar

March 2001Bridge recognized as a Texas Historic Civil

Engineering Landmark by Texas Section of American Society of

Civil Engineers

Compiled by Gary Houston in collaboration with Douglas Steadman and Kathleen Trenchard of the Hays St. Bridge Restoration Group

Visit www.esperanzacenter.org to read an article on the Hays St. Bridge in the October 2011 issue of La Voz.

LA VOZ de ESPERANZANov 2011 Vol. 24 Issue 9• pg 17