A city panel on Wednesday denied the request by a local developer to raze two buildings on the West Side of San Antonio where attempts to redevelop other historic properties in recent years have stalled.
After dozens of residents opposed the demolition plan, the Historic and Design Review Commission voted against approving the request by local developer David Adelman for permission to demolish the Rich Book and SA Dye Works buildings.
The early 20th-century structures on West Houston, North Frio and Medina streets are located in the historic district known as Cattleman Square.
Designated historic in 1985, the small district is located west of Interstate 35 and downtown and is home to the I&GN Railroad Passenger Station and the 1909 Heimann Building, headquarters for the nonprofit Avance since 2000.
The buildings proposed for demolition have been owned since 2014 by an entity known as Master Property Partners led by Adelman and restaurateur Barclay Anthony.
VIA Centro Plaza, opened in 2015, sits across West Houston from the two buildings. The property is also near the massive Scobey site where VIA Metropolitan Transit recently abandoned plans for a mixed-use and residential development.
Economic hardship
Built in 1923, the Rich Book building has housed multiple businesses over the years, including the Cloth Model Shop, Whitt & Co. Printers (publishers of La Prensa), The Majestic Cafe and a barber shop, according to the request documents. The second floor was occupied by the Fausto Hotel.
In 2018, police raided the building in a drug bust. Since that time, the building has been mostly vacant. In 2020, the owners put the property up for sale through two different brokers, but a three-year effort to market the buildings for sale or lease failed to find a buyer or tenant.
Several potential buyers passed on the buildings, Adelman said, including the economic development organization Prosper West.
Ramiro Gonzales, president and CEO of Prosper West, said that after considering the acquisition costs, rehabilitation costs and the marketability of the area, the organization “could not see a feasible path forward” in the way it did with Basila Frocks.
“Demolition of historic structures such as the Rich Book Building should always be a last resort, but without significant public financial support to make such projects economically feasible … property owners are left with very few other reasonable options,” he said.
After a fire in 2022, a fire marshal found the building had “serious collapse potential,” among other dangerous conditions.
A recent assessment report by a Houston engineering firm for the owners found the Rich Book building to be in poor condition and estimated rehabilitation costs to be $6.6 million.
Photos in the report show significant water damage from roof leaks and cracks in the masonry walls. The plumbing is corroded and the air conditioning system is 20 years old.
At least $1 million would be needed to renovate the SA Dye Works building, stated the documents submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation.
Adelman applied for approval to demolish the vacant buildings late last year, but the request was denied after city staff found that the applicant did not satisfy a “burden of proof” requirement.
Before demolition of a landmark can be approved, city code requires an owner to show unreasonable economic hardship to redevelop or adapt the buildings. The owner must also show that the buildings could not be sold despite marketing for two years or more.
Community opposition
Since last year, a design review committee of staff and commissioners has met three times at the site with the building owners or representatives. At the most recent site meeting in February, two commissioners who were present said they could not support demolition.
At the hearing Wednesday, 11 Westside residents and others asked the commission to stop the demolition, and 21 recorded messages opposing demolition were heard, including one from the Conservation Society of San Antonio.
Lety Sanchez, co-chair of the Historic Westside Residents Association, said developers should not buy historic property in the area if they aren’t going to maintain it.
“We are just so tired of developers purchasing historically designated property in our neighborhood, and then trying to go around the preservation part and claiming economic hardship based on the fact that they will not be able to make the profit margin,” she said.
“What is sad about Cattleman Historic District is that it’s been disappearing since 1988,” said Graciela Sanchez, director of the Esperanza Peace and Justice Center. “What’s the point of having a historic district if there’s always someone that has [the ability] to take another building down.”
Adelman, who has redeveloped other historic properties, responded to the comments by saying he “fundamentally” knew what he was dealing with when he bought the property, and that he has tried for a decade to redevelop or sell the buildings.
“We have not been able to make any viable … just even remotely reasonable rate of return on any project that we’ve tried to conceive of over these 10 years,” he said.
James McKnight, an attorney representing Adelman, said the commission also should consider the effect a long-vacant building has on a community.
“Part of what can be a drag on the community is leaving a building just sitting there and not being able to economically get that moving,” McKnight said.
City recommendation
City staff recommended approval of the demolition request contingent on saving the architectural elements and materials when possible and reconstructing the original Rich Book block facades using the building letters and other salvaged materials.
Under the rules of the city’s unified development code, a demolition permit won’t be released until final approval and permitting of new construction is submitted.
Still, Commissioner Jeffrey Fetzer said approval for demolition is “premature,” and several commissioners agreed that Adelman had not provided enough information about his replacement or redevelopment plans.
“I know at some level you want to [understand] what the replacement is, but the other question is, to what end?” said Cory Edwards, deputy historic preservation officer for the City of San Antonio. “Design development is costly, takes time and … the applicant would probably want an answer on the demolition before they go too far down the road about what the replacement is.”
Adelman said he is committed to the project which he envisioned as affordable housing and said a current cost “guesstimate” for construction is $50 million.
Commissioner Andrew Holland said he would like to see something built on the property and that he would support the demolition request. “I’m familiar with the applicant’s projects and they’re all great,” he said.
“This is a clear economic hardship,” said Commissioner Anne-Marie Grube. “With what’s been presented and also with what I’ve [seen] myself looking at this property for the last three years through this board, I do think that the staff has it right, and I think the applicant has now made that case.”
After a motion by Grube to approve the request for demolition was voted down by nine of the 11 commissioners, the panel passed a second motion to deny the request.
Commissioner Gabriel Velasquez said it’s possible that the West Side and Cattleman Square areas are economically revived in the future.
If so, he said, “the only thing missing will be the building. The building is part of a collection in an enclave that has been deemed worthy of preservation over the course of many years.”
“We understand our proposition triggered a strong emotional response from some members of the Westside community who were opposed to any demolition,” said Adelman and Anthony in a statement. “Though we appreciate their arguments, the economic hardship case is the reality on the ground. … If the commission’s ruling stands, the community should expect only to see these structures continue to sit vacant.”
