3 thoughts on “Apartments at Mission Concepción Receive Final Approval After Height Adjustment

  1. Remember our Mission’s and the enduring historical reminder of what happened to our people that is still relevant now in the way developers have coerced with power and control institutions that are allowing these apartments to make a few rich. A land that should have been offered by the San Antonio Archdioces to our National Historical Park system as an enduring legacy, and heritage for the future, and not a quick profit for the Country Club few.

    This is a shameless act by all involved by silencing a community that has protested these apartments, and set a dangerous president for the rest of our Missions. Now the same developers Henry Cisneros and his 210 Development with Senator Carlos Uresti are proposing to do apartments at Mission San Jose. Again! A huge three story complex that would forever erase a cherished view from the San Antinio River to Mission San Jose.

    Our world heritage sites need a better view shed protection plan, especially as it relates to structures between the river, and our Missions. District 3 Councilwoman Rebecca Viagrand promised changes, and we are still waiting. It should not be acceptable that large green open areas be reduced to large security gates, and imposing structures as proposed by Henry Cisneros and 210 Development.

    This is about heritage, and the people here, already, and the needs of a marginalized people that deserve a better quality of life. The Missions as important historical icons need to be protected for future generations, including all associated lands around it. The threat of dense development threatens a quality of life, and a World Heritage culture as we know it, and more needs to be done to protect this from happening. The growth of crime of violence has flowed into the community faround Mission San Jose by the concentration of low income, and ethnic segregated housing. This is anticipated to grow with the current apartments that do not offer the local community enduring educational, health, and wellness programs to address current social needs.

    A stronger Mission view shed beyond the heavily developer one the City uses is critical if places like the San Antonio Mission Reach is to keep its green beauty, and not look like an overdeveloped roofline. The cultural relevance between our Mission’s, and the San Antonio River is a powerful one, and is the only reason why the Mission’s exist where they do, including our World Heritage People that have a World view our local elected officials need to understand.

  2. Shame on the archdiocese for not taking care of their property and for becoming a for profit developer/landlord. Both the archdiocese and the City serve the people of San Antonio first yet developers have more voice and power than the voters. Bottom line there should not be apartments right next to the Missions and any new development should have strict guidelines on height, proximity, and use. Why? To protect our Missions, offer an authentic experience to visitors, and to protect and enrich the quality of life for our neighborhoods (no gentrification).

  3. I continue to believe that an Archdiocesan-leased COLUMBARIUM (total funeral/burial/mausoleum facility managed by contractors) would be a far more appropriate, profitable for the Chancery, and neighbor-esteemed re-use for the dilapidated Seminary… but who listens to me! A “graveyard” is its own best security and solemnity… kills 3 birds with one stone! The Chapel should be given over to the Mission/St. Cecilia’s for “expansion” and used for funeral Masses and Rosaries locally at the Columbarium…. Lots of parking to boot!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *