If San Antonio City Council approves the Alamo Plaza redesign, it would be disregarding the guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior concerning the reconstruction of the Alamo’s south wall.
The Alamo was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1960. Such landmarks are nationally significant historic places designated by the Secretary of the Interior through a National Park Service (NPS) program because of their “exceptional value or quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States,” according to the NPS website. Loss of integrity – through alteration, addition, or demolition – is the most common reason for the withdrawal of the landmark designation.
My concern rests with the incorrect statement made by Preservation Design Partnership Design Director George Skarmeas, whose Philadelphia-based firm has been hired by the City of San Antonio, the Texas General Land Office, and the Alamo Endowment to design the multi-million dollar joint master plan for the historic site. In an August 2016 presentation, Skarmeas spoke on the reconstruction of the walls. When asked about the plans to rebuild some of the Alamo’s original structures as well as the southwest corner where the famous 18-pound cannon was located, Skarmeas said:
“… So we also need to think about the Secretary of Interior standards and the guidelines that the world experts have developed over the course of the last 50 years in treating such places. One of the things that they strongly discourage us from doing is reconstruction.”
He concluded: “It is also because we cannot single out one moment in time. How are you going to tell this story over thousands of years of history if you begin to reconstruct elements that are not necessarily connected. So the answer is something that is probably not going to happen.”
To watch Skarmeas’ presentation from Aug. 2, 2016, click here. For an outtake from the question-and-answer session, click here.
The first standard in NPS’s standards for reconstruction reads, “Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property.”
Tom Keohan, a senior staff historical architect with NPS for the Intermountain Region, which includes Texas, has verified that the standards have not changed, nor do they discourage reconstruction. The reconstruction standard specifies the recommended approach to reconstruction as an option to foster a greater understanding of a site that has lost elements of its historic integrity.
We are fortunate to have several well-known renderings of the Alamo that were made by recognized artists from eyewitness accounts, as well as measured drawings of the outline of the original walls by the city engineer.
Reconstruction is briefly mentioned in the frequently asked questions of the Alamo Plaza proposal of April 11, but NPS guidelines are not addressed.
At the August 2016 presentation, Skarmeas was asked whether walls will be built to attempt to replicate what the Alamo looked like in 1836.
“We will define the location of the perimeter walls, where possible, with a remarkable structural glass system which will be illuminated at night,” Skarmeas replied. “The palisade will also be defined with a different, yet to be determined, structure. We will use careful research and archaeology to determine the location of the perimeter walls and the depth of the historic living surface. These artifacts will be displayed in a protective glass structure with lighting for visitors to enjoy both day and night.”
To restate the park service’s standards and guidelines in the treatment of historic properties as they pertain to the south wall of the Alamo: Reconstruction to depict non-surviving portions of the Alamo, using documentary and physical evidence, is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture.
The reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property and to remember the Alamo.
Ms. Reveley has long been recognized for her knowledge of and devotion to care of the Alamo. Her insights should be appreciated by all Texans.
Sarah, Thanks for providing even more info that rebuts the premise “we can’t do that because…” JP
Thank you, gentlemen. Jerry we miss you – if you were still leading the charge at the GLO there wouldn’t even be an issue.
What does Sarah Reveley want to do?
I want to make sure the public has the correct information about the Secretary of Interior’s reconstruction standards, and give examples of the type of documentation we have. My personal opinion is that reconstruction of the south wall, to some degree, is possible.
Thank you for your insights, Sarah and taking the time to put forth your opinion. I always appreciate learning new stuff, such as NPS guidelines for reconstructing historic sites. Regardless of what is finally constructed, I bet it will be worthy of its UNESCO World Heritage site status, and I cannot wait!
My contention is we do not need to reconstruct the walls of the compound, to appreciate the events that happened there in 1836, especially with glass surrounding the proposed plaza.
What is essential is having the Cenotaph stay put while it’s being repaired, keeping mature oaks in place while adding more trees (how about cottonwoods, like the name of our shrine? Remember the South Texas sun!) throughout the expanded footprint, repairing Alamo walls and roofs, relocating entertainment venues to a grade-A+ / fully-supported entertainment district by fully funding the moves of the owner-operators, closing off avenues to vehicular traffic, setting up what will be a UNESCO World Heritage museum for newly acquired artifacts.
Also, what is essential is dedicating a new cenotaph for the indigenous folk who lived and died while tending the land for the missionaries. And instead of those glass walls, how about instead lines of trees with markers designating critical events and locations (e.g. where Jim Bowie fell) at the battle and throughout its history?
Let’s instead invest in virtual reality, smartphone apps and web pages, hardcopy maps and histories, more park rangers, and more guided tours to remember the past while acknowledging who is here in the present. The chapel will still be the quiet, iconic, and sacred place it is.
Thanks for the incite. The 1837 drawing proves that there was a second story on the long barracks even though Dr. Skarmaus says that evidence proves otherwise.
Their rendering also shows remains of a wall, covered by glass, over the Indian burial ground in front of the Alamo, which has caused a great deal of unnecessary consternation. I’m not sure who the experts were who provided the information, but something tells me when they talk to two or more people they don’t say “y’all” or eat Mexican food at least once a week. 😉
Ms. Reveley I’ll begin my response to your article by saying that comments like these, insinuating that non-locals could not possibly be experts in this matter, diminishes the work of historians and historic preservation professionals everywhere. I know it’s sort of a lighthearted reply, but can’t we get beyond this insular attitude?
I feel your article’s opening statement that the Alamo Plaza redesign disregards the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards is incorrect, and I disagree that there is enough accurate evidence to reconstruct anything that existed before or during the 1836 battle.
For the sake of context, the walls and living quarters at Mission San José are examples of reconstructions. They were built in the 1930’s on the original mission foundations, are of approximate dimension of the original walls, and are built of material similar to the original mission remains (see A, below).
As far as I know, no one on the Reimagine team has characterized the design’s glass walls as an effort to reconstruct the south barracks or walls. The glass walls stand distinctly away from the original foundations and serve to contextualize the shape and size of the plaza. When you look at what’s been done at Mission San José versus what is planned here at the Alamo I don’t think anyone can say that they have the same intent.
My disagreement with your piece comes down to this: I do not believe that we have documentary and physical evidence accurate enough to permit reconstruction of the Alamo’s south wall without relying on conjecture.
You promote your article’s position by presenting well-known works by recognized artists that were based on eyewitness accounts. None of these qualities make them accurate. They are inconsistent with each other, and not a single one is drawn by someone who personally studied the Alamo before or during the 1936 battle. Moreover, none of them show the structure’s interiors.
You open your article with a work by Gary Zaboly, an artist from New York (who seems to pass your y’all/ Mexican food standard). I took some time to get to know Mr. Zaboly’s method, and appreciate that he takes a research-based approach to his work. I also appreciate that he openly states reliance on his own interpretation of his research (see B). Are you willing to acknowledge that the other artists presented in your piece may have used a degree of interpretation?
Like Mr. Zaboly, Dr. Skarmeas and the PDP team have done intensive research as well. Ms. Reveley have you taken time to speak directly to Dr. Skarmeas and the PDP team about their research, about the forensic work they have conducted? Have you spoken to them about their proposed treatment and where it fits in relation to the other Secretary of the Interior Standards (preservation, rehabilitation, & restoration; see C)? Why didn’t your article address Reconstruction standards 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6?
PDP has called in a team of experts to uncover and document the site, and I’d dare say their documentary and forensic research stands on firmer ground than the evidence you have proposed.
For instance, regarding the Fulton drawing you provide in your article, the Texas State Historical Society website indicates that George Ware Fulton, Sr. didn’t arrive in Texas until February 1837, which corroborates the drawing’s date (see D). Assuming that Lieutenant Fulton’s drawing is a first hand account of what he saw with his own eyes in San Antonio, then his drawing does not represent the compound as it appeared prior to or during the 1836 battle. What he drew can only be a post-battle reconstruction.
The William Bollaert drawing is dated 1843 and does not indicate exactly what it claims to show. Is this a drawing of what appeared in 1843 or a conjectural account of what appeared on or before 1836?
François Giraud’s excellent survey of the original walls is breathtaking, but no one questions exactly where the walls are located because their footings still exist. As we know, they are buried under our modern day streets and paving. Moreover, neither Giraud’s nor any of the other provided drawings provide measured elevations, sections, or interiors.
The caption on Captain Lee’s 1848 sketch clearly indicates that it depicts the low barracks after the Army’s repair. Does anyone know for certain if the Army’s repair was a faithful reconstruction of the compound as it appeared in 1836? Seeing as how the Army built a second level in the Alamo church in order to make the space functional, I don’t see why a post-1836 reconstruction of the barracks would not have improved upon the original mission-purposed structures.
My biggest concern with the documentary evidence you use to promote your point is the Théodore Gentilz painting. As indicated in the picture’s caption, Mr. Gentilz relied on eyewitness accounts, not his own first hand account of the 1836 compound. Who did he interview? When were the interviews conducted? How objective were the interviewees? Do Mr. Gentilz’s interview notes survive so that we may evaluate them?
The caption indicates that Mr. Gentilz had access to the ruins before 1850, but how could he have possibly discerned details (other than footings and doorways) from rubble? What year did he examine the ruins? If his painting is considered the most accurate, then why doesn’t it indicate the door and two windows indicated in the Fulton and Bollaert drawings?
Perhaps the most disqualifying aspect of Mr. Gentilz’s work is his association with Eugène Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, who Gentilz characterized as “my master” when describing his training (see E). Architectural historians widely view Viollet-le-Duc’s approach to historic preservation as entirely incompatible with our modern day Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. In short, Viollet-le-Duc did not hesitate to “improve” upon the historic sites he reconstructed. He is widely known to have taken an overzealous approach. He had no qualms about introducing conjecture, artifice, anachronism, or make-believe to his “reconstructions”.
Ms. Reveley I do not believe we will ever know exactly what the Alamo south walls, buildings, and interiors looked like in 1836.
Most importantly, I feel that if the Alamo is reconstructed to look like something that existed after the 1836 demolition by the Mexican Army, we will diminish the accuracy of the mission and battle eras.
I believe that the best approach is to display the genuine remains in situ, with absolutely no type of structure purporting to be an accurate reconstruction.
I believe that the proposed glass walls only serve to indicate the site’s overall massing, which is something sorely missing at the site today. I’m not sure that glass is the best way to do this, but it is certainly heading in the right direction.
Dr. Skarmeas’ statement was not incorrect because the approach they are taking acknowledges that there is not enough evidence to accurately reconstruct the walls and buildings. This is completely in line with all six Reconstruction standards. Furthermore, the approach they are taking reveals primary evidence, adds much-needed spatial context to the site, is not conjectural, and does not create a false sense of authenticity.
Notes:
A: Worth noting: the Mission San José perimeter walls/ indigenous living quarters are of dubious accuracy and do not follow the Secretary’s Standards for Reconstruction, standards 3 and 5 in particular (https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment-reconstruction.htm). Ironically, the outtake clip provided in your piece accurately describes the problem at Mission San José. At around the 3:17 mark Dr. Skarmeas describes the problems docents and guides at historic sites have when dealing with structures that are ambiguously “historic”.
B: https://gcaggiano.wordpress.com/2010/11/13/interview-with-historian-author-and-painter-gary-zaboly/
C: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards.htm
D: https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/ffu08
E: https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fge01
Oak, I don’t think Gary or anybody else thought I was serious, especially since I added a smiley face. It was in reference to Gene Powell’s comment about ‘locals’ at the meeting.
Someone asked me in an earlier comment what I wanted to do, and I said “I want to make sure the public has the correct information about the Secretary of Interior’s reconstruction standards, and give examples of the type of documentation we have. My personal opinion is that reconstruction of the south wall, to some degree, is possible.” So that’s what I did.
Texas has forgotten about the Alamo for too many years . You do not get a feel for it’s history, my first visit was in 1968 , and again in 1997 . It seemed to have regressed in the time between. How many times do you hear it is so small . You take it for granted , maybe if it had been sold and made into a Hotel or something it truly would have been forgotten.
Thank you Sarah, God’s on our side !!! Wait !! HE’s on there side too!!! Maybe we can win em all over ??? John F
A petition was just started at Change.org.
https://www.change.org/p/greg-abbott-remember-the-alamo-properly
Because of the public’s negative reaction over the design team’s solution for Alamo Plaza, and the projected cost that far exceeds HB 2968, I am requesting that the Governor requests the state auditor to audit the GLO/Alamo financial records including all 501c3’s, and that the budget conference committee require that monies appropriated to the GLO for the Alamo not be used for anything other than required maintenance and operations until the audit is complete and the legislature has vetted the recently released Alamo plan.
We must stop the current plan for Alamo Plaza,the city wants to erect glass walls on the site instead of limestone walls.We must demand that the Alamo be restored much in the way the fort at Goliad was restored.The Alamo belongs to the people of Texas,it is the Shrine of Texas Liberty and it must be restored properly and not with Glass walls.If we do not stop this plan and demand the proper restoration of the plaza then Texas will again lose the battle of the Alamo.
We just hit 300 names on the petition. Thanks to everyone who has signed it and especially those who left comments. The governor and every legislator has each received 300 emails!
https://www.change.org/p/greg-abbott-remember-the-alamo-properly
The petitions says:
“Because of the public’s negative reaction over the design team’s solution for Alamo Plaza, and the projected cost that far exceeds HB 2968, I am requesting that the Governor requests the state auditor to audit the GLO/Alamo financial records including all 501c3’s, and that the budget conference committee require that monies appropriated to the GLO for the Alamo not be used for anything other than required maintenance and operations until the audit is complete and the legislature has vetted the recently released Alamo plan.”
First. People commonly misinterpret the standards to fit their agenda. The standards basically say that if you are constructing something at a historic site then it needs to be obvious that it is not original and that it can be removed in the future without damaging the actual historic feature.
These criteria are met with the proposed glass wall, but it’s a bad idea because of maintenance and public use of the site.
Second. I would pay attention to someone from Philadelphia sooner than someone from Texas. Philadelphia is the cradle of our constitutional government, and their downtown puts San Antonio’s connection to living history to shame…even with a mariachi mass at a mission.
It’s unfortunate that the streets were widened here in the early 1900s. Walk around downtown philly and new orleans to get a sense of making changes that can be reversed if later generations have a better appreciation of local character.
The consultants want to honor the entire legacy of the Alamo to San Antonio. Not just locked in time for a couple of hours in 1836 when a bunch of people were fighting for their “rights” to keep slaves.
Thank you, Sarah. As we so often find, as with Skarmeas explanation, modernists often use the Secretary of Interiors standard as rational for contemporary architectural interjection as “contrast” to a historic structure or site. However, rather then clarifying history for the public, it is often a distraction, diminishment, or worse, insult to the building or site it is trying interact with.
the Alamo should be as it was in 1836. It is a monument for the dead Texans who died there in the siege. Do it for their courage / they didn’t run they fought till the last man till they were outmanned and died bravely to the last.