I was listening to the radio today and one of the guys said that there was some kind of a problem in SA with the Alamo. From the discussion it seemed like the city had decided to "upgrade the Alamo" and make it some kind of a theme park. This sounds a little far fetched to me so...does anyone have the straight scoop?
Post Reply
1 of 1
The Alamo
4,179 Views |
30 Replies |
Last: 6 yr ago by huisachel
Thanks for the info. I hadn't seen anything about this. My family lived in SA for a number of years and consider it our second home, yet I have not seen anything in the local papers here in the valley. I would have thought that the DTR would be having a fit. I know they no longer run the place but it doesn't seem like something that they would like.
I guess if the citizens of SA want to do this, what are we going to do?
I guess if the citizens of SA want to do this, what are we going to do?
https://www.savethealamo.us/oldvalleyrat said:
Thanks for the info. I hadn't seen anything about this. My family lived in SA for a number of years and consider it our second home, yet I have not seen anything in the local papers here in the valley. I would have thought that the DTR would be having a fit. I know they no longer run the place but it doesn't seem like something that they would like.
I guess if the citizens of SA want to do this, what are we going to do?
The Alamo no longer the Alamo...Sad!!
This has zero to do with San Antonio at this point. The state is running things at the Alamo these days.oldvalleyrat said:
Thanks for the info. I hadn't seen anything about this. My family lived in SA for a number of years and consider it our second home, yet I have not seen anything in the local papers here in the valley. I would have thought that the DTR would be having a fit. I know they no longer run the place but it doesn't seem like something that they would like.
I guess if the citizens of SA want to do this, what are we going to do?
The Alamo as we know it now is a tourist Mecca and bears little resemblance to the historical Alamo. The church is reconfigured and little resembles the 1836 structure. Same for the barracks and all the rest is gone and is replaced by Ripley's side show, a hotel and lots of cheesy businesses
What they are planning will be more instructional about what the place looked like and what happened there
What they are planning will be more instructional about what the place looked like and what happened there
We don't want no stinkin German-made glass in Texas. Send that crap to the border wall.Quote:
the Alamo's walls would be constructed of modern-day see-through German-made glass
Those things he describes don't necessarily make a "disney them park". Maybe he's never been to Orlando?
It looks more like a theme park now in its current condition.
Not sure what people are upset about. The current status of the Alamo and surrounding area is a sad representation of what occurred there and what the site represents. It desperately needs to be done better. I wish they would do a historic restoration but many things would be better than what's there now.
OK, I'm going to weigh in because there's a lot of conspiracy theory **** going on out there.
The street HAS to be shut down. Went to an Alamo preservation workshop last year and they said they put a black fabric like a tablecloth on the floor by the walls every day and they collect a ton of debris that is being literally shaken off from the walls.
The repairs done to the walls in the 60s used Portland Cement, which doesn't breathe and traps in air and moisture. The air conditioning put in around the same time also increases humidity. The alamo is crumbling.
So far, so good. The repairs to the building are a must. Beyond that, everything is negotiable. The plans are not set in stone and are going to be adjusted based on citizen impact. It's important to know that this is a STATE, not a CITY project. Although the two will work together, the Texas Land Office, which is now and will for the near future be run by Republicans, owns the Alamo. The City owns the surrounding streets, etc.
The glass walls you see in the first mockup were universally derided. They're not out, but they're probably not going to happen. There are some who want to rebuild the walls, but that's a destructive process and you might actually destroy old foundations of the walls to create new walls. The glass walls were conceived as a compromise. But, as I said, no one likes it.
The Cenotaph should be moved. It's a monument that is no more contextual in its current location than it would be 10 feet, 20 feet or 500 feet over. There are a number of sites where they might move it. One, just outside the footprint of the fort/mission, is believed to be where the Alamo defender bodies were burned. That would be the logical spot. You would still be able to see it from inside the Alamo, but you could imagine the battle without having a big ***** sticking up in the middle of the fort.
People have been going nuts over this ever since the Alamo got a UNESCO heritage designation. You have people saying the UN is taking over the Alamo. No. All UNESCO does is say you can't tear it down. Frankly, if there's anybody out there who thinks the Alamo needs to be torn down, then they're Stalin/Hitler rolled into one and I don't care what they think anyway.
This is a deliberative project. There are good things and bad things and things that are in between. It needs input, so plug in, but don't go jumping on a bandwagon unless you actually study the wagon and figure out if it's going in the right place.
The street HAS to be shut down. Went to an Alamo preservation workshop last year and they said they put a black fabric like a tablecloth on the floor by the walls every day and they collect a ton of debris that is being literally shaken off from the walls.
The repairs done to the walls in the 60s used Portland Cement, which doesn't breathe and traps in air and moisture. The air conditioning put in around the same time also increases humidity. The alamo is crumbling.
So far, so good. The repairs to the building are a must. Beyond that, everything is negotiable. The plans are not set in stone and are going to be adjusted based on citizen impact. It's important to know that this is a STATE, not a CITY project. Although the two will work together, the Texas Land Office, which is now and will for the near future be run by Republicans, owns the Alamo. The City owns the surrounding streets, etc.
The glass walls you see in the first mockup were universally derided. They're not out, but they're probably not going to happen. There are some who want to rebuild the walls, but that's a destructive process and you might actually destroy old foundations of the walls to create new walls. The glass walls were conceived as a compromise. But, as I said, no one likes it.
The Cenotaph should be moved. It's a monument that is no more contextual in its current location than it would be 10 feet, 20 feet or 500 feet over. There are a number of sites where they might move it. One, just outside the footprint of the fort/mission, is believed to be where the Alamo defender bodies were burned. That would be the logical spot. You would still be able to see it from inside the Alamo, but you could imagine the battle without having a big ***** sticking up in the middle of the fort.
People have been going nuts over this ever since the Alamo got a UNESCO heritage designation. You have people saying the UN is taking over the Alamo. No. All UNESCO does is say you can't tear it down. Frankly, if there's anybody out there who thinks the Alamo needs to be torn down, then they're Stalin/Hitler rolled into one and I don't care what they think anyway.
This is a deliberative project. There are good things and bad things and things that are in between. It needs input, so plug in, but don't go jumping on a bandwagon unless you actually study the wagon and figure out if it's going in the right place.
Thanks for the good info. My wife and I go to SA from time to time to visit and I will be sure to visit.aalan94 said:
OK, I'm going to weigh in because there's a lot of conspiracy theory **** going on out there.
The street HAS to be shut down. Went to an Alamo preservation workshop last year and they said they put a black fabric like a tablecloth on the floor by the walls every day and they collect a ton of debris that is being literally shaken off from the walls.
The repairs done to the walls in the 60s used Portland Cement, which doesn't breathe and traps in air and moisture. The air conditioning put in around the same time also increases humidity. The alamo is crumbling.
So far, so good. The repairs to the building are a must. Beyond that, everything is negotiable. The plans are not set in stone and are going to be adjusted based on citizen impact. It's important to know that this is a STATE, not a CITY project. Although the two will work together, the Texas Land Office, which is now and will for the near future be run by Republicans, owns the Alamo. The City owns the surrounding streets, etc.
The glass walls you see in the first mockup were universally derided. They're not out, but they're probably not going to happen. There are some who want to rebuild the walls, but that's a destructive process and you might actually destroy old foundations of the walls to create new walls. The glass walls were conceived as a compromise. But, as I said, no one likes it.
The Cenotaph should be moved. It's a monument that is no more contextual in its current location than it would be 10 feet, 20 feet or 500 feet over. There are a number of sites where they might move it. One, just outside the footprint of the fort/mission, is believed to be where the Alamo defender bodies were burned. That would be the logical spot. You would still be able to see it from inside the Alamo, but you could imagine the battle without having a big ***** sticking up in the middle of the fort.
People have been going nuts over this ever since the Alamo got a UNESCO heritage designation. You have people saying the UN is taking over the Alamo. No. All UNESCO does is say you can't tear it down. Frankly, if there's anybody out there who thinks the Alamo needs to be torn down, then they're Stalin/Hitler rolled into one and I don't care what they think anyway.
This is a deliberative project. There are good things and bad things and things that are in between. It needs input, so plug in, but don't go jumping on a bandwagon unless you actually study the wagon and figure out if it's going in the right place.
and its not currently "like a Theme Park"? Hasn't it been a "theme park" since about 1840?
I think anything done differently than it is currently is a good idea. The only time I have been as an adult was about 8 years ago, and I was severely disappointed in the development of a tourist attraction as apposed to the preservation of history. It is through Texags that I learned it has always been that way.
I am in favor of any effort to preserve the structure and the history of the site.
I think anything done differently than it is currently is a good idea. The only time I have been as an adult was about 8 years ago, and I was severely disappointed in the development of a tourist attraction as apposed to the preservation of history. It is through Texags that I learned it has always been that way.
I am in favor of any effort to preserve the structure and the history of the site.
gigemhilo said:
and its not currently "like a Theme Park"? Hasn't it been a "theme park" since about 1840?
I think anything done differently than it is currently is a good idea. The only time I have been as an adult was about 8 years ago, and I was severely disappointed in the development of a tourist attraction as apposed to the preservation of history. It is through Texags that I learned it has always been that way.
I am in favor of any effort to preserve the structure and the history of the site.
Yeah, I was very underwhelmed when I went for the first time and realized they weren't kidding when they called it a "shrine."
I actually like the idea of the glass walls. Any modern reconstruction will not be completely accurate. Give an idea of the look and scale without further degrading the site.
Two relatives of mine are in SA this weekend and want to go; they live in northern California. I will report back on their takes.
Historians have done so much excellent work on the battle aspects in the last half century that the place cries out for more interpretive assistance and that is one of the aspects of the current proposal. And I don't have any problem with the glass because you can't reconstruct the walls and the glass would give a hint about scale.
And Germans are the world's best right now at manufacturing quality glass.
And I highly recommend Joe, the slave who became an Alamo legend. The author did some awesome research on Travis' slave and how he changed hands before and after Travis by going through probate records.
This man' family back in Missouri was fascinating and how and why he went to Alabama to find Travis' family after escaping from a new owner is a priceless counter intuitive tale of life in the slave regime. Travis comes across as a very good man as well as a hero
Historians have done so much excellent work on the battle aspects in the last half century that the place cries out for more interpretive assistance and that is one of the aspects of the current proposal. And I don't have any problem with the glass because you can't reconstruct the walls and the glass would give a hint about scale.
And Germans are the world's best right now at manufacturing quality glass.
And I highly recommend Joe, the slave who became an Alamo legend. The author did some awesome research on Travis' slave and how he changed hands before and after Travis by going through probate records.
This man' family back in Missouri was fascinating and how and why he went to Alabama to find Travis' family after escaping from a new owner is a priceless counter intuitive tale of life in the slave regime. Travis comes across as a very good man as well as a hero
I would highly recommend a visit to Mission San Jose as well. That place is pretty well done.huisachel said:
Two relatives of mine are in SA this weekend and want to go; they live in northern California. I will report back on their takes.
Historians have done so much excellent work on the battle aspects in the last half century that the place cries out for more interpretive assistance and that is one of the aspects of the current proposal. And I don't have any problem with the glass because you can't reconstruct the walls and the glass would give a hint about scale.
There's also a newer... I dunno what to call it, museum? Interactive history? at the Rivercenter Mall next door that I have not yet tried but might be interesting.
http://battlefortexas.com/the-experience/
Smells like a toruist trap, there is a distinct lack of any sort of description of what you'll see and pricing is pretty steep but I'm just conjecturing.
Except for the Cenotaph, and I think the property it sits on. The Cenotaph belongs to the city.p_bubel said:
This has zero to do with San Antonio at this point. The state is running things at the Alamo these days.
And oh lord, do people have a hard on for keeping that ugly statue in place. Its a monument to a monument, and the original monument sits about 75 yards behind it.
J. Frank Dobie said it best about the Cenotaph:aalan94 said:
The Cenotaph should be moved. It's a monument that is no more contextual in its current location than it would be 10 feet, 20 feet or 500 feet over. There are a number of sites where they might move it. One, just outside the footprint of the fort/mission, is believed to be where the Alamo defender bodies were burned. That would be the logical spot. You would still be able to see it from inside the Alamo, but you could imagine the battle without having a big ***** sticking up in the middle of the fort.
Leaving architect Adams out of it, he described the Cenotaph's silhouette as "like a grain elevator or one of those swimming-pool slides" and the full-on defender portraiture as making them look as if they had "come to the Alamo to have their pictures taken." Most notable is the figure of Travis, wearing an anachronistic Lone Star buckle "he probably boughtat the 10-cent store across the plaza."
My relatives from Cal liked the Alamo as is, bought a few books but no trinkets and liked San Jose better
At our county historical commission meeting tonight, our guest speaker was Becky Dinnin, Executive Director of the Alamo Endowment. She discussed the Alamo and many things relating to the master plan and going forward. She did relate to us that there will be no name change, no theme park, that the emphasis on the site will be the 1836 battle, and that the glass wall idea was out. There are ongoing negotiations will a land swap with the city and closing some of the streets. First and foremost will be the preservation of the church.
The walls are something like two feet below original ground level and there is concern about damage due to water. They are planning on doing some probing and evaluation of what all is going on in that regard. From what I gathered, there is an emphasis on reclaiming as much of the battlefield as possible, and returning the south gate to the south gate. A great deal of archeological work is being discussed. It seems as if much of the stuff that would upset most of us is not going to happen.
The walls are something like two feet below original ground level and there is concern about damage due to water. They are planning on doing some probing and evaluation of what all is going on in that regard. From what I gathered, there is an emphasis on reclaiming as much of the battlefield as possible, and returning the south gate to the south gate. A great deal of archeological work is being discussed. It seems as if much of the stuff that would upset most of us is not going to happen.
Maybe they will tell the truth and let everyone know Travis disobeyed orders to abandon the Alamo.
There was no order to leave San Antonio. That is a myth
Dr. James Pohl will offer a different opinion. He died a couple years ago so he can't argue with you anymore. The fact is the Texas State Historical Association disagrees with your opinion as well. Assuming they agree with what they publish. Dr. Pohl's book The Battle of San Jacinto" clearly states the orders were to abandon.
Where is your source?
Where is your source?
Travis was not ordered to abandon the Alamo.
TSHA does not have opinions and there is no such order in the 8 volume Papers of the Texas Revolution. Tom Lindley's Alamo Traces explains how this rumor became myth in the first chapter. That whole book is worth the read
The Revolution was one set of miscalculations after another. Like most wars
The Revolution was one set of miscalculations after another. Like most wars
Never read Lindsey's book, but the account I'm familiar with is that Houston ask for permission from Gov. Smith to demolish the Alamo. Smith obviously never gave the ok.huisachel said:
TSHA does not have opinions and there is no such order in the 8 volume Papers of the Texas Revolution. Tom Lindley's Alamo Traces explains how this rumor became myth in the first chapter. That whole book is worth the read
The Revolution was one set of miscalculations after another. Like most wars
A t-sip author led me astray spreading fake news.
Thomas Ricks Lindley chased down sources and followed evidence like a Bloodhound. The first chapter of Alamo Traces is a tour de force in explaining the ins and outs of what happened and why the alleged order is myth. Then as now some folks salt the record to make themselves look good or at least less blameworthy
I also recommend Joe, the Slave Who Became an Alamo Legend, another first rate use of records, Probate in this case, to find some truth. I never had much use for Travis until I read what his slave did afterwards
I also recommend Joe, the Slave Who Became an Alamo Legend, another first rate use of records, Probate in this case, to find some truth. I never had much use for Travis until I read what his slave did afterwards
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/the-alamo-should-never-have-happened/amp/
Someone needs to tell this author at Texas Monthly that Houston didn't order the Alamo demolished! Something to the effect of Houston sending Bowie to do it.....which appears quite often!
Someone needs to tell this author at Texas Monthly that Houston didn't order the Alamo demolished! Something to the effect of Houston sending Bowie to do it.....which appears quite often!
As he points out, Houston told Neil to destroy the fortifications in San Antonio and suggested the Alamo, outside of the town, should be stripped and abandoned. Then he went on a drinking binge.
And this author says Fannin abandoned his march to the Alamo after having trouble crossing the Guadalupe. Sorry, but the river at La Bahia is and was the San Antonio.
And this author says Fannin abandoned his march to the Alamo after having trouble crossing the Guadalupe. Sorry, but the river at La Bahia is and was the San Antonio.
huisachel said:
As he points out, Houston told Neil to destroy the fortifications in San Antonio and suggested the Alamo, outside of the town, should be stripped and abandoned. Then he went on a drinking binge.
And this author says Fannin abandoned his march to the Alamo after having trouble crossing the Guadalupe. Sorry, but the river at La Bahia is and was the San Antonio.
If Houston told that to Neil, then he probably fully expected it to transpire!! His letter is evidence that he ordered the "fortifications" at San Antonio destroyed....he may not have said it to Travis himself, but sounds to me based on his letter to Smith he expected it to be abandoned at the least!
At that point nobody was paying much attention to Houston, who was nominally in command of an army which did not exist. The troops followed whoever they felt like following
And Houston did not order the Alamo be destroyed. He told someone who was not in charge that he thought it best to do so.
Travis, who commanded some of the troops there, thought it best to stay and fight. Lots of good artillery.
And Houston did not order the Alamo be destroyed. He told someone who was not in charge that he thought it best to do so.
Travis, who commanded some of the troops there, thought it best to stay and fight. Lots of good artillery.
Featured Stories
See All
2025 Prosper offensive lineman Connor Carty commits to Texas A&M
by Jason Howell
37:35
3h ago
2.8k
The Loochador Podcast: Maroon & White Game storylines abound
by Billy Liucci
6:33
3h ago
1.5k
In-Home Visit: Carty provides more Metroplex muscle for Maroon Goons
by TexAgs Recruiting
7:40
3h ago
18k
2025 OL Connor Carty calls committing to A&M a 'dream come true'
by Jason Howell
0:00
8h ago
4.2k
Struggle and Strifer
2025 Prosper offensive lineman Connor Carty commits to Texas A&M
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
68