“Today the Alamo is in a setting that makes one wonder if Texas would rather forget.” Texas Monthly, February 1984
Some would say this could only happen in San Antonio. A team of brilliant and accomplished local architects is leading a small army of new dissidents to City Hall with their own demands about the controversial Alamo Plaza design. Someone is feeling left out of the most visible plan in Texas.
However, within the demands is a strong sense that the true essence of a world-famous historic site is being ignored or forgotten.
For more than two decades, our organization – the Alamo Plaza Project – has compiled thousands of visitor documents, surveys, petitions, and responses regarding people’s experiences at the famous plaza. This is why in 2015 we were called upon by the legislative lobby to present our valuable material, which helped HB 2968, the Alamo bill, get passed.
Where is the dissident group’s data on this important customer base? After all, the future of the plaza, its history, and surrounding businesses depend on it.
Most professionals recognize extensive research as a valuable resource. What does their research say about the behavior of the visitors to Alamo Plaza, namely locals, Texans, and those who travel from afar? We didn’t hear anything about that in their quest to be involved in the discussion.
What are the top five issues that need to be addressed in order to bring people back to the Alamo? What other historic sites do they visit? How do people compare the information and experiences they receive at the Alamo to those at other historic sites? Again, the dissenters said nothing about the real customers of the Alamo.
Since 1836, San Antonians have done just about everything they can to keep people from remembering the Alamo. Physically and fundamentally, what remained of the historic footprint of the Alamo on the plaza side (long after the battle) has been demolished, carved up, denigrated, and carted away. You can’t blame Santa Anna for this one.
This always leads visitors to ask that inevitable question: “Is that all there is?”
Many Texans and visitors alike see Alamo Plaza as a site that should convey a universal message of courage and sacrifice representing both sides. They want a space that is reverent, educational, and engaging. They are also aware that a visionary focus on the rich history can still accommodate civic events and be comfortable, having already seen those qualities at other historic sites.
But some locals only see a convenient backdrop for selfies and a more comfortable extension of the River Walk; they forget the history altogether. Studies show that most of them can’t even tell you where the historic footprint exists, and that’s where the disconnect is obvious. We know we can still have comfort while playing to our true, authentic strength – the 1836 Battle of the Alamo story.
Like trying to shove a square peg into a round hole, being disconnected comes at a cost. No matter how often locals insist on turning a world-famous historic site into “Everywhere USA” with commercial exploitation, Better Block exercises, circus-like displays, and the 2014 attempt to install a streetcar, the spirit of the Alamo battle still wants to be visible and available among the din and clutter.
But back to our professionals: We should take our time and do more studies, they say. Wrong again. This topic has been studied to death with the same basic outcome. Let the history drive the design, remove the traffic, and let one owner – the State of Texas’ General Land Office – control the plaza.
It’s time for a world-class vision and courage to come forward, not another study.
With numerous documented success stories of how good historical programs draw and maintain large crowds in the plaza, or even the popular Cattle Drive that kicks off the annual San Antonio Stock Show and Rodeo, the public’s hunger to see our rich history come alive is clear. So why doesn’t the architects’ language have anything to say about interpretive space or living history events when discussing the new features in Alamo Plaza?
The annual “Dawn at the Alamo” ceremony is conducted during the pre-sunrise hour on March 6, the anniversary of the famous battle. For the staff of prominent architects, whose offices are virtually on the original Alamo battlefield, this should be a big deal – after all, it is only a few blocks away from where they work.
“I’m disappointed I didn’t see more locals here,” then-councilman Diego Bernal told us after the 2014 Dawn ceremony. “Most of these people came from out of town.”
Exactly. The obvious disconnect between history and local convenience is on full display.
The last three hearings for Reimagine the Alamo unleashed a hailstorm of complaints about the future designs and aesthetics of Alamo Plaza. We know, we’ve been there. Like many, we’re also on record on items we strongly disagree with. Our team has done enough research, for example, to know what kind of entrance the heritage traveler desires upon reaching the original main gate of the Alamo.
We also know that the effort on the west side to use those existing buildings doesn’t come close to creating a world-class museum. That space is too confining, too limiting to tell this massive story. We have a different vision, and it’s all based on decades of research, including a balanced story approach that is inclusive and international in scope.
If City leaders lose their nerve and give in to some of the provincial voices that want to hang on to the same status quo that has kept everyone comfortable while being miserable, ensuring the disconnect to world-class possibilities into the future, we’ll truly get the Alamo we deserve – sadly, one that could end up being forgettable.
Not very convincing. Key argument seems to be about the plan coming from “professionals.” Sounds too elitist to be a good argument. The Rivard Report has run arguments from equally qualified “professionals” who contradict the professionalism of this plan.
Thanks for your comment. Plan we envision comes actually from all of you, locals and visitors alike. This is has nothing to do with being elitist, it’s about a common sense approach in dealing with a world famous historic site.
I’m equally bothered by the quote from our previous District 1 Councilman, Diego Bernal, asking where the locals are. Those locals see and experience the Alamo everyday when they pass by it on their way to work, take shelter under the trees on a hot weekend, and stand and watch the parades pass by her every year. Closing off the Alamo like this author suggests only solidifies the feeling the state of Texas has walled off the heart of the city setting it apart for the elitist to visit just once and not its local population that live the life it gives them.
Thanks for your comment. In the clip below you’ll see why many locals and visitors are unhappy with the concern for historic interpretation. Our plan has stone walls and allows for comfort, civic flow, and great interpretation. You really can have it all and save the Alamo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQYuxD1foTI&t=2s
How does your fake facade and 1850’s roof fit into history? How about the 1950’s buildings built on historic ground? Everyone complains about Ripleys and other businesses across the street but the junk shop built mere feet from the shrine is conveniently ignored because it profits the Alamo. But you guys want to say your picked and chosen history is what 300 years of the Alamo is. Funny how you guys want to forget the past 181 years, except the fake facade, the roof, the junk shop, the library, etc. You want to cowtow to tourists who will visit the Alamo ONCE in their lifetime but those same tourists are too lazy to visit the Missions National Park, a legitimate representation of Missions of the era to see what the Alamo may have looked like at it’s apex. I love the Alamo and what it stands for but I detest the hypocrisy of people like the author who say they want to preserve what the Alamo was while ignoring non historical aspects of the current compound. Many years ago this same author wrote an article for the EN where he quoted another preservationist as saying that the Alamo doesn’t compare to places like Williamsburg, Gettysburg, Little Big Horn or Pearl Harbor. Umm, ok. Williamsburg is 51 miles from Richmond Virginia, the closest big town. Richmond has a population of 212,000. Gettysburg, a place I lived for four years is in the middle of the Pennsylvania farm lands. The closest “big city” is Baltimore, 59 miles away with a population of 600,000. Little Big Horn is a field in the middle of an Indian Reservation 60 miles from the closest “city” of Billings, population 108,000. Pearl Harbor is a non-argument. It was at the time and remains US Federal Government property. However for the sake of continuing the argument, it is 5 miles by air across the Navy base and the International Airport (right beside Pearl Harbor) to Honolulu with a population of about 375,000. By the way, the Aloha Stadium, a 50,000 seat football stadium, and the Aloha Stadium Swap Meet are about 1,500 feet from historic sites of Pearl Harbor. Clearly apples and oranges in arguments but then again they like to ignore a lot of about the entire history and pick and choose what is historic or their interpretation of historic. Tell me again how only Alamo Street of the four streets surrounding the Alamo is dangerous to the Shrine when the other three streets are left alone? I am all for “Reimagining the Alamo” and making it a better site. The first step should be to create a world class museum. Gettysburg today (a vision I worked with local organizations to help shape in a small way) does not look like July 4th, 1863 nor will it ever. Through museum pieces and shockingly , modern monuments like the Alamo Cenotaph, the story is told quite well.
Your visit to other historic sites and your insight from it is much appreciated. As you may know, there are many historic structures, forts, castles, chateaus, etc well inside urban areas around the U.S. and the world. Gettysburg, in fact, did make major sacrifices to recapture its uniqueness by removing structures, taking down old trees, tearing up parking lots, etc was part of that effort. It always comes down to agreement about what’s working or not.
I think the fundamental argument comes down to whether we should be catering to locals or tourists. The plaza has been performing a civic function for over a hundred years. That history, though it may not matter to tourists who have only come to see the Alamo and not to experience the rich vibrancy of the community in which it sits, matters to the city of San Antonio. Alamo Plaza is a placemaking dream – slowed traffic, pedestrian focus, shade, seating, community gathering space. For the city to tear up one of its most active and successful organic civic spaces in the downtown for tourism obviously feels like a betrayal to locals. The real question is, with the technology and advancements in historical interpretation available, why is this group convinced that the only way to immerse visitors in the Alamo experience is to make the space physically look like it did before? Take a page from the Witte, for example, that uses displays and interactive technology to transport people to Texas in the age of the dinosaurs – without turning the museum grounds into swampland. Why not develop a tour package that includes the Alamo with the other grand and breathtaking missions that have remained more rural in layout? That would provide visitors with spatial context if that’s what they feel is lacking. That, coupled with better display and interaction within the Alamo grounds itself would perhaps solve the issue of a lackluster interpretation. There are ways to enhance the historical experience for tourists without sacrificing this vital public space for locals.
We agree with many of your points. The Witte is a great place for what it does and it doesn’t match the Alamo’s world status for that situation. Studies by locals and other professional groups have consistently stated that Alamo Plaza has become disappointing, confusing, and tawdry. We also agree with you that new intepretive tools should be employed and the best place for that would be in a massive multi-media center and museum. The best place for that would be the Federal Building. The best interpretive practices should be utilized in the Plaza with quality interpretive staff, as we see in other top tier sites.
Another voice that seems entirely oblivious to the fact that Alamo Plaza has served as an actual heart of local downtown civic life for over a century. A bit telling, I think, that you begin your argument by basically belittling the concerns of residents. This is not just “someone” feeling left out, these are people who actually live here, spend their daily lives here, love the city and appreciate its architecture. You reduce the use of the plaza by residents to simply a matter of opportunities for selfies. If locals don’t show up for Alamo ceremonies it may be because it just doesn’t mean as much to many of them as it does to Alamo enthusiasts. That doesn’t seem such a travesty to me, but maybe if Alamo Plaza was torn out and turned into a single use empty historic battlefield site we’d all see the light. That “local convenience” you mention might also include the concerns many of us have about losing yet another north-south through street in downtown. I think many San Antonio residents are aware of frequent tourist dissatisfaction with the Alamo “experience”, but frankly don’t think that visitor dissatisfaction (that customer base you speak of) should carry more weight than residents. This may be a battlefield of some peoples dreams, but it’s smack dab in the heart of our current, actual existing downtown. The most telling of all is that you advocate the city cede control of the Plaza to the state, forgoing local control altogether.
That last sentence, though^^^ excellent argument.
You present good points and we appreciate the insight. However, we have many locals (including police and fire department staff) on record that know it’s not a real Plaza but a convoluted park, and an obstacle course that is quite disorienting and not the world famous site it could be. There’s a reason why locals, Texans, and visitors alike want to see this transformation. There’s a sound design out there in this process that could accommodate everything we’re all talking about. Having one controlling partner makes complete sense.
Many wish the Alamo was separated from the city. We understand that. However, there are many examples around the country and world where fabulous historic sites, their wonderful and professional interpretation work hand in hand with civic events and atmosphere. It can be done and it always works better with one manager.
“Let the National Park Service Oversee The Alamo”…no explanation needed. It’s obvious what that has done for the other four missions. World Heritage status! Why is there even a question regarding this move.
I believe there is a serious question regarding local control as the Alamo sits in the heart of our actual existing downtown. Like it or not there is a fabric of civic life long intertwined with the site. I think you could safely make your case if the Alamo sat further south on a quiet stretch of river. It’s just not simple.
“This topic has been studied to death with the same basic outcome. Let the history drive the design, remove the traffic, and let one owner – the State of Texas’ General Land Office – control the plaza.
It’s time for a world-class vision and courage to come forward, not another study.”
AMEN! Cut and Print! The “local vision” for Alamo Plaza continues to be keeping it dumbed down and maintaining all the historic distinction of a fly blown Flea Market – and oh yeah, Gramma still needs to be able to drive by the front door once a year and cuss out all the riff raff she sees. Give me a break. All these local dissenters bemoaning the imagined loss of “community gathering” and “local vibrancy” is code for “I come once a year to drink beer and watch The Battle of Flowers Parade – period.” The other 364 days belong to the hordes of clueless tourists who stumble around in a daze wondering what in hell this tacky place is supposed to be about. No – I’m no fan of the glass wall either and I’m certainly opposed to closing off Houston Street (we did however close off the street in front of the Cathedral and it’s evolved into a downtown oasis of calm and civility – with plenty of protests and civic engagement demonstrations going on whenever the need arises.) I am however 100% in favor of bringing some dignity, cultural significance and historical perspective to Alamo Plaza. Long overdue and desperately needed.
The rantings of another fetishist.
It remains that the piece of land that The Alamo shrine inhabits is not only sacred to many native peoples far pre-dating the Battle of the Alamo, it is also the cradle of modern Texas and the city of San Antonio. As many lay people and professional architects alike have pointed out, we do not need to destroy modern San Antonio in order to achieve the goal of preserving this history. Back to the drawing board, please!
Keep our heritage oaks. A large expanse of hard surface will be an ugly, miserable thing in the dry, dusty heat of our summers.
Deep six the glass wall, and any wall that will hinder access to Alamo Plaza.
The Museum sounds like it has great possibilities and preserves the Giles buildings. No one will miss Ripley’s. No one.
Do not shut down Alamo Street without a credible master plan to deal with traffic flow crossing the city.Walking plazas, and pedestrian boulevards are a lovely thing to imagine, but impossible in a city that has no mass transit. We still need cars and parking and operable thoroughfares to traverse this city.
Folks that “knew better than us” already tried to kill Houston Street with the Tri-Party scheme. It has been heroically trying to recover ever since. Don’t deliver the death knell with this hare-brained scheme.
Maintain the First Amendment space in the plaza in front of the chapel.
$450,000,000. Let that sink in. I think we can come up with solutions that are far less costly. I find it blush-worthy that this number can be trotted out by
with a straight face in light of the extreme poverty that still grips our city in 2017.
And on THAT note, why is a lame-duck mayor and city council in the middle of numerous run-off elections coming June 10, in such a hurry to vote on this far reaching piece of business? This plan should be tabled for the moment.
The fact is that we can arrive at a suitable compromise, and we must. It can be done. The words of my fellow citizens above, eloquent and clearly thought out, echo the thoughts of many here in The Alamo City. When will the GLO listen?
Decades before he helped create the Alamo Plaza Project (which is several decades old), Gary Foreman worked tirelessly to help bring attention to the problems that needed to be addressed in order to help elevate Alamo Plaza to a more appropriate place, free of crass commercialism and replete with carefully reconstructed elements of the original Alamo, quality historical interpretation activities, and informative educational programs. He remains steadfast in his vision to rescue the Alamo and Alamo Plaza from the “Is that all there is?” malaise. In the song “We Remember the Alamo,” one lyrical line states: “And some pass by and never notice,” a reference to many who consider the Alamo as just being another part of “downtown.”
We appreciate that you noticed what the true intention of this effort is all about. A sincere “thanks” to you.
The “Reimagine the Alamo” Design Team’s “Big Ideas” were declared D.O.A.
Get with the times. This is the 21st century. All y’all who seem obsessed with the battle have to do is put on a set of virtual reality (VR) goggles on while in the plaza and voila! You will experience your battlefield exactly as it was in 1836. The plaza was actually a stinking, fetid swamp, full of livestock, horses, and their poop, of course. There were also smoky fires scattered about. Probably indigenous people and their dwellings, too. Enjoy it. Then y’all can leave the rest of us — and OUR plaza — alone. Thank you very much.
Tami Kegly, Right On!
So many comments respodig todayto Mr. Foreman’s article make sense.
I visited this city as a teenage tourist years ago, before making San Antonio my home. My most important impression of the Alamo was that it wasnt John Wayne’s version! I was surprised that the Alamo was in the middle of a living city. If it was “small” that impressed on me that real history isn’t ‘bigger than life’. I have always felt this integration of history with daily life makes San Antonio special.
I don’t want to see history segregated from our lives. I remember the Alamo as a starting point for learning the real history and culture of San Antonio.
“Give me Help, O my Country” For those who know the Alamo history, these words will be very familiar. Travis wrote these words in his lonely room in the West Wall of the Alamo with the life of Texas weighing heavily upon his young shoulders. Apart from the Immortal 32, his plea went unanswered then and it seems to me it is still being unanswered today.
To the Re-Imagine people, all I can say is that the Alamo is not a place to be re-imagined. It is LIVING! It is REAL! This is your chance. Show us what you are made of! Show Texas what you are made of! And show us a Shrine that, when the millions of visitors make the pilgrimage in the years to come, they will say “Wow! Texas sure knows how to look after her own”
Leave Alamo Plaza open as it has always been for all who wish to be in the “presence”. Especially the regulars and the diehards who gather on a regular basis to honor and remember. Who gather collectively each year in the early dawn hours of March 6th. Please do not take that away from them.
Gary Foreman’s vision of what Alamo Plaza needs to be is like a bright light shining through all the Re-Imagine mess.
Gary, God bless you and thank you. Your vision IS the Alamo.
They really need to not move the monument. I know there’s a name for it but I forgot it. The big marble thing with all the people carved in it. It will damage it. They can build around it.
The Rivard Report has given all of us an opportunity to voice our opinions, and it’s good to see Gary Foreman speaking out here. For three decades Gary has shared his dreams for the Alamo, and while we may have differences of opinion about various parts of the methodology, we put up with each other I think. Gary taught me how to give his famous Alamo tour. If you haven’t been on it you should go. I hope the discovery of the 1871 deed adds a new dimension to the battle, and am now hunkered down to see what happens.
And YES the State needs to be in charge. I spent a great deal of time researching the subject and am 125% behind the State.
And YES the State needs to be in charge. I spent a great deal of time researching the subject and am 125% behind the State. SIGN THE PETITION! We have 626 supporters now!
https://www.change.org/p/greg-abbott-remember-the-alamo-properly
Gary m, your vision is right on target. Your plan was what I was hoping to see. Enclosing the Alamo with glass walls, as the Reimagine Committee wants to do, just does not work. The Federal building would make an excellent museum, not the building across the plaza where the west wall once stood. I’ve always thought it was an eyesore and a blight on the image of the Alamo as it should be.
Terrific! A well-written article. The comments and observations made by the writer (Gary Foreman) are spot-on.
We preserve our historic sites for two important reasons: to educate and inspire us. The current state of Alamo Plaza – an integral part of the Alamo – accomplishes neither of those ideals. It’s painfully clear the city of San Antonio didn’t get that memo on preserving and interpreting deeply historic space and hallowed ground. Not only has the city conditioned and convinced some of the locals that Alamo Plaza is nothing more than public space – a place to hang out and act out – they’ve encouraged and perpetuated the misuse and abuse.
San Antonio has a long and sordid history of taking from the venerable old mission. The city has taken the Alamo’s name (the Alamo City), its ground, and its dignity. This is a trend and a behavior that needs to stop. When does the city recognize the needs of the Alamo and make it a priority? After years and years of taking, when is the city going to start giving back? It’s time to give the Alamo the space it needs, the room to breathe, and the respect and gratitude it deserves.
The sudden appearance and professed interest by the gaggle of architects comes across as disingenuous. For years, these folks have sat idly by as Alamo Plaza devolved into a non-historic and chaotic environment. They’ve said nothing and they’ve done nothing to make Alamo Plaza a better place and a more fulfilling experience for those who travel great distances to see the Alamo and learn of its story. My guess is that they’re sucking-up to the city in the hope of securing a lucrative contract for themselves. For some of these players, it’s not about the Alamo and interpreting/preserving history, but rather the pursuit of personal gain and money. Don’t let yourself be fooled by them.
” They’ve said nothing and they’ve done nothing to make Alamo Plaza a better place and a more fulfilling experience for those who travel great distances to see the Alamo and learn of its story.”
That sentence right there is a perfect illustration of where your head is at.
You think The Alamo belongs to the tourists. You think that the people of San Antonio have no claim to that place. We are just a bunch of outsiders to you. Who just so happen to have lived around the Alamo and “taken” it’s name, but deserve no place within the outline of where those walls once stood.
Well I for one remember OUR ALAMO, and I’m going to fight tooth and nail to keep it.
Also. I’d just like to point out here something about the name that you think the city stole from the Alamo.
The mission’s original name was Misión San Antonio de Valero and was only later known as The Alamo after its occupation by the Second Flying Company of San Carlos de Parras, also known as the Álamo de Parras Company who came by that name because they were from San José y Santiago del Álamo in Coahuila, Mexico.
“The Alamo” is a name stolen from Mexico. San Antonio is the original name of the mission.
If the TXGLO is handed the Plaza and the street they will close it for good and prevent the people of San Antonio from developing a relationship to this icon that is central to our city’s identity.
If we give them the plaza then we must retain the easement on Alamo St. and while we may accept an end to regular traffic, we must not allow state police to prevent the free flow of pedestrians and the occasional parade.
The Alamo, as it was during that battle is long gone. We cannot resurrect it, nor should we. We can honor the fallen through our reverence for that iconic church (which didn’t look like that during the battle). We can honor them with the Battle of Flowers Parade as we have done for over a century.
I want nothing more than for this, our most popular tourist destination in Texas, to get the treatment it deserves. Artwork on display in the Long Barracks was worked on by my mother. She also put a ton of work into the bronze dioramas.
We don’t honor those soldiers by walling San Antonio out and handing Alamo Plaza over to the tourists.
Mr. Foreman’s vision is the correct one. My wife and I visited Texas a few years ago, and included the long drive to San Antonio for one reason alone.
The Alamo.
And not for the Ripley Museum; not for the 1880 building and whatever happened there then; not to see the local protesters ; not to imagine what went on there in the Native American era, the early mission era, or at the dawn of automobile transportation.
We were there to capture as much as we could of that sliver of time in 1836 which has to become a part of our national folklore; that event which symbolizes enduring and recurring American resolution, audacity and courage in the face of terrible odds; that moment in time that symbolizes the paradox of the human mortal condition itself-The Battle of the Alamo.
As proud as Texans justifiably are of the city’s RiverWalk, open air markets and bilingual culture, if it were not for the Alamo, the City of San Antonio would be irrelevant outside the state of Texas and certainly unknown on the international stage.
Not all old buildings or their stories are of equal value to present or future generations. We of the present can and should use our resources to preserve the best of the past. The sacrifices of those who died at the Alamo battle give not only lasting and deeply thought-provoking inspiration. They have become, most poignantly, sacrifices to the present prosperity of the City of San Antonio. The city should respect those sacrifices by focusing its vision for the Alamo plaza entirely on that resonant moment in time in 1836, even if that means mixing old construction with new to bring that most relevant moment more vividly back to life.