Commentaries at the San Antonio Report provide space for our community to share perspectives and offer solutions to pressing local issues. The views expressed in this commentary belong to the author alone.
In the heart of old San Antonio, a recent surge of growth and the proposal of a downtown baseball stadium (and yet another Spurs arena) have sparked an intense citywide debate. We’re at a critical juncture where these different visions of downtown can completely rewrite the fabric of our beautiful city and the community we want to attract. We no longer live in the age of tourism, San Antonio’s growth is now in the age of post-tourism, with visitors seeking a more authentic and lived-in experience.
While some city leaders envision the stadium as a symbol of progress, others, especially the community deeply rooted in downtown, approach it with caution. At the core of this discourse lies a fundamental question: How can San Antonio continue to develop while honoring its rich history and the aspirations of its residents?
San Antonio’s heart beats through its people, its culture and its history. The term “downtowner” holds a special meaning to those of us who’ve lived and worked downtown. It represents a collective of locals passionately committed to the city’s urban heart, its heritage and its future. I lived just blocks from the proposed development area, and the proposed location of the baseball stadium by San Pedro Creek has raised concerns and plenty of chisme.
We fear that the stadium’s construction may overshadow the historical and cultural landmarks that have long been overshadowed, including the Alamo’s original location, currently an enigma to archeologists. We also worry about worsening traffic, rising housing costs and that taxpayers will have to foot the bill for a project that won’t give back to the community.
The average stadium generates $145 million per year, whereas the San Pedro Creek expansion is expected to have an estimated $1.5 billion economic impact in the area (that means it would take 10 years for a stadium to match). And yet even then, the profits may not return back to the community.
The city claims taxpayers aren’t directly paying, while also stating that the stadium would be partly funded through tax revenues generated from private development in the area and the Houston Street Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone. Accordingly, not only is there an inherited cost to taxpayers, but there’s a detrimental impact by taking away funds and services towards more critical infrastructure or community projects. Are we okay with the benefits being privatized?
If rumors are true, Graham Weston and Co. are targeting urban housing in the area, which is a step in the right direction. Witnessing the opening of the San Pedro Creek expansion was ecstatic, and it’s become a popular attraction to residents and visitors alike, connected with other community hotspots like Market Square and Legacy Park. Affordable and new housing is welcomed as rental prices stabilize. It is essential that development projects reflect these values and contribute to a city that is vibrant, inclusive and sustainable.
A collaborative approach is crucial for San Antonio’s growth. One that respects the city’s past while embracing its future. While the proposed baseball stadium has potential benefits, it should not come at the expense of the city’s soul. Looking at former Mayor Julian Castro’s “Decade of Downtown” with SA2020, public input was requested and every effort was made, both in person and online, to collect feedback from the community regardless of socioeconomic background. As a result, over $4.4 billion in development incentives brought growth to the urban core, with a rise in housing, employment, and liveability.
I would also suggest dialogue with the Tap Pilam Coahuiltecan nation. The San Pedro Creek was also the oasis of sustenance for the first Villa de Bexar village and the numerous tribes that coexisted and worked together with the arriving Spanish. When Fray Antonio de Olivares first wrote to the Viceroy of New Spain in 1716, requesting settlers to establish a pueblo, he made a point to emphasize “that it was necessary for some of these families to be skilled in the useful arts and industries.”
Industry does not exist without artisans. San Antonio has consistently had a thriving artisan community, inspired deeply by its sacred cultural roots. Over a decade ago, I wrote about how the arts and artists revive inner-city neighborhoods. Since then, we’ve seen Austin’s growth accelerate, and yet with gentrification, it has also pushed out much of the original art scene that made Austin attractive in the first place. We don’t want San Antonio to repeat that mistake.
The Link embodies some alignment with what many downtowners would like to see from a development project: affordable housing, an ecosystem with the historic environment and a place for small businesses and artists to showcase their talents. County Commissioner Tommy Calvert, a local leader whom I would also consider a downtowner, has strongly supported this proposed project. If the proposed price seems high, consider it’s half of what the San Pedro Creek expansion has cost, and that has already revitalized the neighborhood for visitors.
Regardless of the path chosen, San Antonio’s growth should not be a top-down process dictated solely by a few city leaders and private interests. Instead, it should be a collaborative effort that involves all stakeholders, particularly the local community that has a deep understanding of the city’s unique identity and a relationship to its land. In time, we could also see a link to other visionary growth sectors of the metropolis, such as Port San Antonio and the Mission Reach.
By actively listening to and incorporating the perspectives of downtowners and other community members, San Antonio can ensure that its growth is inclusive and reflective of the values and aspirations of its residents across all spectrums.
