Developers of a multimillion-dollar housing and retail project next to the Hays Street Bridge have agreed to one more meeting with community stakeholders before the Historic and Design Review Commission votes on the controversial plan.
The Council-appointed citizen committee was scheduled to consider the project on Wednesday, but an attorney representing the developers pulled the item from consideration after receiving requests to host another meeting with neighborhood leaders.
Neighbors are divided on “The Bridge” project proposed for 803 N. Cherry St. Some say it will bring much-needed activation to an area plagued with crime, while others say the four-story, 149-unit apartment building with ground floor retail will block views of the 1910 bridge and that the land should become a public park instead. The latter issue is the subject of a lawsuit against the City that may be considered or rejected by the Texas Supreme Court.
“Two more weeks isn’t the end of the world,” said Mitch Meyer, owner of local property management and development firm Loopy Ltd., who is partnering with property owner Eugene Simor. Simor owns Alamo Beer Company – its brewery is located on the other side of the Hays Street Bridge – and has plans for an adjacent restaurant.
“We [delayed the vote] out of kindness to meet with the neighborhood association,” Meyer said, noting that City staff has signaled support by placing it on the consent agenda twice. “It’s not like it hasn’t been through the meat grinder.”
The vacant lot itself is not historic nor in a historic district, but an HDRC ruling is required because the property falls under the jurisdiction of downtown design guidelines. The committee’s decisions are final and do not require review by City Council. If HDRC approves the project’s design, construction can begin.
Meyer said his team has met with members of the Dignowity Hill Neighborhood Association and the HDRC’s design subcommittee. The design has since been adjusted to more closely follow the downtown guidelines, he said, including changes to driveways, retail that would face Cherry Street, and bridge access.
“The neighborhood has had plenty of involvement,” Meyer said.
Brian Dillard, president of the Dignowity Hill Neighborhood Association, said the few times he met with developers to discuss the project were brief and did not include feedback.
“They weren’t there for input,” Dillard said of the presentation developers gave the association. “They just showed us the project.”
The preliminary renderings showed a “half-assed” project, he said, adding that if Simor and Meyer had met with the neighborhood associations’ Architectural Review Committee earlier on, they wouldn’t be getting as much pushback.
“They’re going to make money either way, so just do it right,” Dillard said. “The general consensus of the neighborhood is we want something like this but we want it done right.”
Monica Savino, who chairs the neighborhood architectural committee, in September requested another meeting with developers after HDRC reviewed the project.
“As a first step to a better project, we are respectfully requesting that the conceptual design not be approved and that the applicant be required to meet with a stakeholder group to include [the Dignowity Hill Neighborhood Association] and Downtown Business District property owners and others for a meaningful dialogue,” Savino wrote in a letter to commissioners.
The commission delayed the vote until developers could produce visuals that more clearly show the building’s distance from and scale in relation to the bridge. New renderings of the project were created, according to the application package the developers submitted.
Representatives from the San Antonio Conservation Society have said during previous meetings that they would rather see the building face Lamar Street and be further away from the bridge.
To say that he was “super frustrated” with the hoops he’s had to jump through for this project would be an understatement, Simor said.
“At some point developers are going to decide it’s just not worth it,” he said, adding that every delay affects his bottom line. “Time definitely equates to money.”
But some community members have little pity for Simor’s plight.
“Economic development also has to be about quality of life for the community,” Graciela Sánchez, executive director of the Esperanza Peace and Justice Center, told the Rivard Report earlier this month. She has been asking Council members to consider rules regarding view sheds of historic places – especially for the bridge. Hays Street Bridge is a landmark on the National Register of Historic Places, but that designation does not come with view shed protection.
“It seems like the Missions are the only ones that are protected at this point,” Sánchez said, noting that the overlays added to the City’s development code limit heights of new developments near the Spanish-colonial Missions. She and some members of the neighborhood association would like landmarks to be treated similarly.
But the view of downtown from the bridge is the view that should be protected, Simor said, and neither the brewery nor the proposed apartments will do that.
The City’s sale of the property for $295,000 to Simor in 2014 was illegal, according to Sánchez and the Hays Street Bridge Restoration Group, which led efforts to restore the 1910 bridge and protect it from encroaching development. A 2002 memorandum of understanding from the previous private owner suggests that the property be used as a public park, the group’s lawsuit claims. The previous owner has since said that they are not opposed to the development. The courts ruled in favor of the City, but the restoration group, backed by the Esperanza Center, has appealed the case to the Texas Supreme Court.
A public park, Sanchez argues, could activate the empty lot just as much as apartments and retail.
“If previous administrations hadn’t been so stubborn, we could have activated that land years ago,” she said. The preservation group lacked the funding or political support to turn the land into a park.
Because of the lawsuit, Simor built the brewery on the other side of the bridge. Alamo Beer received an $800,000 incentive package from the City for the $8 million facility, one of the largest private investments in the historically neglected near-Eastside in years.
Councilman William “Cruz” Shaw (D2), whose district includes the Eastside and a portion of the inner city, said that the community should have been involved in the process earlier on in the official process.
“[Simor and Meyer] have done it the right way, but maybe we can tighten the rules a little bit to have more community input,” Shaw told the Rivard Report. “We expect to see a lot more [development]. That area of District 2 is really taking off … we have to be strategic on what’s being built and protect those [who] already live there. It’s a balance.”
Shaw and his staff are working on language and changing community notification and engagement processes, he said.
The development received about $1.2 million in City incentives from the Center City Housing Incentive Program, according to a City spokesperson, for a minimum $14.7 million investment.
“Incentives include City Fee Waivers totaling $42,960, SAWS Fee Waivers of $387,477, and a 10 year reimbursement of City Ad Valorem increment real property taxes valued at $801,286.”
Bexar County approved negotiations for its an incentive package for “The Bridge” project Tuesday, which will base its tax abatements on an estimated $21 million investment.
The person who did the “opposition” rendering shouldn’t be anonymous.
We should know who the opposition is and who they represent. I have a feeling that who did the opposition rendering works for a firm here in town that usually has big well known projects of their own and totally wouldn’t do that rendering to oppose it had it been their firm with the project.
I don’t think that is full disclosure. I don’t think “opposition” renderings have any place and are gross. Like an architectural (political) smear campaign. I’ve never seen anything like that before and I think it’s really gross. Whether or not they are right doesn’t matter that’s a dirty move.
Full disclosure: I work as an architect but I do not have anything to do with this conversation. Just can’t believe one architect would make a rendering to hinder the work of another architect. It’s the most smug, disgusting little cheeky move I’ve seen in our profession.
Richard M., that opposition rendering does not look like a professional did it at all! No need to get so upset.
Todd I think you did a fine job on it don’t be so self-deprecating.
Any architect/designer/photoshop hobbyist who takes someones PRIVATE not public intellectual property and modifies/reproduces it using their own gifts and craft of creation to sabotage and destroy the progress of someone else isn’t worthy of their gifts. That is a visual tool for creation, not to be used against other architects for your own political purposes. Disgusting.
That’s a political move and you know it. It’s smug. It says, here we can do sketchup and photoshop too, let’s make a little graphic to put it in their faces. So gross. I wish the architect at least knew who made that picture so that we could all know who is willing to do that around town to each other. To the developer and to the architect not working on a public project, its so wrong.
PUBLIC: they don’t have to please you. You don’t ‘deserve’ anything. Not a good design, nothing. Private property, not a historic district, bill is footed and building is designed. They’re including you as a courtesy and some jerk shows up with their own little cheeky rendering and doesn’t even have the political back bone to say who did it.
I say again, anyone who is willing to fire the cannon should at least have the spine to raise their banner lest they be pirates or cowards.
If their were no need to be so upset because it wasn’t a big deal, it wouldn’t have been published on this platform anonymously.
I’m confused. The person who owns the property wants to develop his property, the way he wants to develop it – after all, it’s his, he paid for it. The city, who safeguards the viability and visibility of these kinds of projects finds the project acceptable. The previous owner finds the project acceptable… When did we lose our right to the use of our own property? This is an ugly old bridge, which had been moved here from somewhere else, it used to usher wagons and then cars over an ugly railroad yard – let’s not compare it to the Missions.
Part of the issue is that local private citizens spent many years raising private funds and securing funds from state and federal government agencies to restore the Hays Street Bridge to its current popular condition. The sale of this property has been in litigation and is still in litigation as to the city’s right to sell the property for commercial development to start with.
This is not as black and white as one private party selling to another private party with no historic structures involved. My personal hope is that the developer will come up with a design that will showcase the entire bridge rather than the current design that hinders viewing a portion the bridge from neighborhood streets.
In addition, the city has entered into other agreements with the developer that include using part of the bridge for private seating. While this is not part of this immediate issue, how the bridge is emphasized during this proceeding (as a community asset to be shared by all or as a backdrop for private gain) may affect later development.
Please clarify why the area is “plagued by crime.” I don’t know if this is an issue the developer is using or if it’s based Rivard Report’s research and analysis. I live in the area and I do see misdemeanors occurring. I also drive on the freeways and see turn signals not being used, speeding and other infractions. Would our local freeways be characterized as “plagued by crime?”
I’ve expressed this through Facebook and hope it reaches Council — the re-development of this site should really represent the BEST San Antonio can do pedestrian urban design, including as it is a property within the downtown district addressed by the City’s Downtown Design Guide (2013).
So far, I’m not seeing with this proposed project the best or even good enough urban design, or urban design that’s in keeping with the historic East Side in regards to sidewalk conditions and pedestrian paths and amenities. Using E. Commerce west of Cherry as an example of what we should be seeing with this new high density project that will set the pattern of future urban development on Cherry and Lamar into the rest of downtown:
– we should be seeing sidewalks much wider than 6 feet on Cherry and Lamar–including a paved utility zone at least 5 feet wide to accommodate street tree wells as required with the Downtown Design Guide (2013) and suggested with the renderings. The building envelope likely needs to be stepped back further from both Lamar and Cherry or reduced to achieve the minimum sidewalk and utility zone requirements and to create sidewalk conditions that meet the basic needs for higher density urban design.
– we should be seeing sidewalk awnings that enclose a generous sidewalk area and provide real comfort — including connecting and sheltering pedestrian building entrances and where bikes are expected to park on Lamar and Cherry (see the Downtown Design Guide). The current awning design as rendered is practically useless, leaving various pedestrian entrances and bike parking areas exposed.
– there should be planning for covered VIA bus stops on Cherry and Lamar, including the ample sidewalk space needed to ensure safe bus boarding and waiting that does not obstruct a minimum 6 foot wide walking area. Such design could also support ride hailing and taxis. The unprecedented request to increase density with this proposal should require better accommodation of mass transit options along with truly urban/downtown sidewalk.
– currently there is no space for sidewalk bins or other sidewalk seating.
– the planned pedestrian paseo/path under the Hays Street Bridge is not provided enough detail with the proposal. The path should be at least ten feet wide to serve the high level of pedestrian activity and mixed use depicted with the renderings. We also need to see how this path/paseo will cross the rail road tracks to the west and connect with the street grid and accommodate ADA requirements. If the path goes nowhere or is not ADA compliant, it’s a boondoggle and distraction from very poor pedestrian conditions planned on Cherry and Lamar.
That the architects misspell ‘bicycle’ in the renderings suggests that the design has not been properly reviewed or considered in terms of pedestrian amenity and the City’s Downtown Design Guide. We deserve better pedestrian urban design than what has been proposed with this project to date.