demolition averted?

Interesting turn of events this past week. I attended a Historic Landmark Commission meeting to air out my opinions regarding Alamo Elementary. There were others there who had the same idea. Fortunately, the local media took an interest and covered the discussion of the school. The stars aligned for that one evening as the HLC voted to initiate a historic overlay zoning for the old school. It was a spirited discussion and I was pleasantly surprised by the commission's actions. Needless to say I was floored to hear what happened next -- the school district announced it would not demolish the school. Though after the initial elation, I couldn't help feeling a bit of unease. It will most likely take a few months for the HLC to get the designation in place. I'm hopeful the school district will keep its word in the meantime.

alamo elementary

I'm somewhat a fan of old schools. Aside from their architectural beauty, there is a certain comfort I find in them. Kinda like a well worn shoe. Alamo elementary is the oldest school still standing in el paso. Built in 1898 by Edward Kneezell, it is currently under threat of demolition. The El Paso Independent School District got bond monies several years ago to aid in the "reconstruction" of the old school. Apparently, they never really were specific about what that meant. Today that means the school is completely unsafe and needs to be replaced with a brand new school. The segundo barrio icon has been shut down for a few years -- my guess is the construction was put on standby as the surrounding block was rebuilt. There was a large urban housing complex from the 30s across the street that was torn down and replaced with new housing. Only now as that project is coming to a close, is the fate of the school coming to light.

The school district has put forward several weak arguments why the school must come down. For example, the architect isn't well known and insensitive modifications to the exterior have severely cheapened any historic value. A portico has been removed, as well as an alteration to the parapet on part of the facade, but I still think it retains much of its old character. There was also a fire in the basement many years ago. Seems to me that the fire wasn't that severe or else the building would have been torn down afterwards. I doubt EPISD would put children at risk in an unsafe structure.

What bothers me aside from the whole destruction of a historic building thing is that the school district isn't really being upfront about what they're doing with taxpayer money. When I voted for the bond I assumed the main building would be refurbished and the supplemental 1990s additions would be renovated or added on to. I don't get how they can look taxpayers in the eye and ask for more money -- "it's for the kids". I'm all about improving education, but I truly do believe the current building was doing just fine. There was already a significant investment in the school (recently I might add). Use that money to fix the structure and update it as necessary. But here we are again a few years later, time for another bond money handout. What a waste..

segundo barrio

There's been much talk regarding the neighborhoods adjacent to downtown ever since the downtown plan came into public knowledge in october 2006. Our downtown has slowly decayed for a period of 20 - 30 years. The city sprawled, malls were constructed, and downtown lost its importance. However, the once great urban core has been coughing and sputtering to regain its former glory, probably most noticeably in the last 5 - 10 years. The plan at its unveiling has been received by much praise, protest, and uncertainty. The plan boundaries encompass some 127 acres, much of this acreage adjacent to what many el pasoans consider "downtown". The neighborhoods mostly affected are to its east (magoffin), west (union plaza), and south (segundo barrio).

Prior to yesterday, I had never given much thought to what would become of these neighborhoods as depicted in the plan. From a high level, the plan sounds great on paper. Entertainment areas have been selected, the lifestyle retail areas have been designated and the historic areas have been accounted for. Or have they? The neighborhood known as the second ward, or segundo barrio to its residents, is a place with much history. It's been the inspiration for the mexican revolution and played a significant role in the chicano movement. I ventured down into the neighborhood innocently enough at the request of a friend of mine. The place was Sacred Heart catholic church, a beautiful turn of the century building. The neighborhood breathed with vibrancy and life. The most urban neighborhood in the city didn't disappoint. I felt at home and marveled at the wonderful architecture surrounding the old church. Problem is, as so quaintly designed in the plan, the future of this beautiful old neighborhood is uncertain.

An article I found details some of the architectural and historical significance in part of the neighborhood that's within the redevelopment zone. The writer is recognized as an authority on the subject so I won't try to summarize. I'll leave it to the reader to form their own opinion. The author obviously has a stake in the outcome of the plan, but I'm still concerned whether or not it should even include this neighborhood. The church and the surrounding block appears safe as its listed as a sensitive site, but what about the rest? Frankly, the idea of destroying such a significant chunk of the city's history for a mercado and border retail (the wal-mart conspiracy) makes me sick. That is, if the reader takes the article (and the plan) at face value. And that's what is so unsettling about the whole thing. On the one hand, I'm excited. Finally it seems there are enough people who give a damn and are willing to do something about downtown. But then there's the other part of me that wonders "will they really tear down all those buildings in the redevelopment zone"?

I pray that whatever "redevelopment" does occur is as minimal as possible. What's so wrong with infill development and rehabbing old buildings anyhow? Does the downtown renaissance the city so wants to achieve have to come at such a high price? I don't think it has to..

Read the article here.

Various documents for the downtown plan.