City of San Marcos - Public Review Historic Preservation Plan

Ana Juarez: Preservation Solutions Toolkit Questions
Dream Preservation Effort: create a Mexican style Plaza on the block behind Centro Cultural Hispano de San Marcos, along with a three-story building fronting LBJ dedicated to dance, music, theatre, art and culture. The building could incorporate Mexican style arches similar to those found in many plazas in Mexico. The building could have accordion style glass doors that open up to an outdoor courtyard space bordered by some arches which then opens up into the main plaza, creating a large gathering area. Include a large rooftop area with gardens and incorporate vertical gardening on the building itself. This building could be used by the city, county, ISD, and other individuals or organizations. The plaza space could host tardeada’s, small festivals, maybe even have an outdoor amphitheater. The streets on Grove and McKie could be closed off for special events.
Other projects would be to preserve Guadalupe Chapel and La Victoria Grocery Store. Also Chapultepec Homes, the Mexican churches, Los Angeles Funeral Home, and the Southside School.
I’d love to see more use of outdoor photographic banners, called fotohistorias in San Antonio’s Westside, as well as walking tours of homes and places that are or have been significant in the past but are not about big beautiful structures or elites. Especially need to include more about women.
I’d love to see historical preservation of low-income and marginalized communities connected to home rehab and reapair and affordable housing. These communities need workshops or assistance with wills and making sure homes have clear titles.
Mapping the Future: See the above suggested preservation efforts for places that have been overlooked and need to be preserved. The biggest lost I know of is the Jose Gomez Funeral Home, established in 1908.
All three Mexican cemeteries need to be protected from deterioration and damage. San Pedro Cemetery does not have adequate drainage and stabilization infrastructure along both the Posey Rd. and Bastrop Hwy sides. It has suffered numerous crashes over the years that have demolished historic markers dating back to the 1920s, if not before. It needs bollards. This is true of the San Marcos Blanco Cemetery on Post Road as well. Large developments in the area surrounding these cemeteries, including Guadalupe Cemetery, put them at greater risk. The Stringtown/Bost/Abel Ranch cemetery also needs to be protected and stabilized, especially as the areas around it keep developing.
I am strongly opposed to rebuilding Cape’s Dam for both environmental and historic reasons. We already have preserved and memorialized the history of many enslavers in San Marcos, and the city should not be paying millions of dollars to restore the dam after every flood, especially since we are now seeing more extensive flooding with climate change. Moreover, the river frontage surrounding that area is basically privately-owned so will never have good public accessibility. It would be great to create an outdoor exhibit to describe and tell the story.
Along the same lines I don’t think we need to save every old building and don’t think every neighborhood needs to stay exactly the same. Culture is dynamic and always changing, so as long as we have some samples or small areas of neighborhood character that is adequate. This is especially true for anything built after the 1970s because we have so many photographs, architectural and archival resources.

Ana Juarez: I am disappointed to see that the demographics of respondents are very different from the city’s demographics, but I know how challenging and expensive it is to find participants that match an area’s demographics. I commend the staff for continuing to improve in this area.

Ana Juarez: Although the majority of respondents agreed that buildings should not be much larger than their surroundings (Question 14), I disagree because we need to balance the need for dense neighborhoods in order to make public transportation feasible, reduce urban sprawl, and reduce the cost of road construction and maintenance. ADUs, Duplexes, Fourplexes and two- or three-story buildings can still be designed to maintain the overall character of a neighborhood.

Ana Juarez: Question 16 also supports the idea of protecting longtime residents, which is extremely important in Mexican American and African American neighborhoods, which have historically housed lower-income communities.

Ana Juarez: p. A-36 Community Survey Responses: Question 5 clearly indicates widespread community support for a focus on Mexican American and African American buildings and neighborhoods.

Ana Juarez: Appendix – The appendix has great info, it would be helpful to have the sub-headings included in the Table of Contents. I read through not knowing the abbreviations for were in the back. The outreach was very good and resulted in some good data and suggestions.

Ana Juarez: 142 Good Solutions

Ana Juarez: p. 141 great ideas. A quick search of the 1983 MRA using black and African showed only 2 results. No results were found under Mexican, Latin, or Hispanic. I didn’t read it all but if that is the case the city needs to be sure it has redressed the omissions.

Ana Juarez: p. 139 Fndings 1 and 2 fit in perfectly with the idea of developing the lot behind Centro Cultural Hispano de San Marcos into a plaza or something else to honor and memorialize the first known Mexican American neighborhood in San Marcos. This idea also aligns well with many of the proposed solutions. A virtual exhibit on San Pedro Cemetery fits very well with Solution 2.

Ana Juarez: p. 138 Love solutions 3 and 6. I don’t remember where I saw this but I like the idea of creating murals on outdoor canvases rather than painting directly on historic building exteriors.

Ana Juarez: p. 135 Good solutions! Can CITC get credit for spearheading the Cuauhtemoc and E. Guadalupe state historic markers?

Ana Juarez: p. 134 Good ideas, would love to see Photo Banners like San Antonio has on the Westside.

Ana Juarez: p. 132 Adaptive Reuse would be perfect for La Victoria Grocery.

Ana Juarez: p. 129 The Austin program is great, but can we figure out a way to use San Marcos’ income stats rather than the Austin Metro Area stats?

Ana Juarez: p. 128 Love solution # 3. Home rebab and repair, affordable housing and historic preservation all at once.

Ana Juarez: p. 127 I love the San Antonio incentive for qualifying low-income rental properties.

Ana Juarez: p. 124 I’d love to see more attention on cultural districts for the local community, not just tourists, especially for Mexican Americans.

Ana Juarez: p. 123 I do not like restrictions, certainly not of only two individuals that are not related by blood, marriage or adoption. Families and households today do not look like they used to, and cultural differences matter. These restrictions exclude Mexican and other household structures which embrace the extended family and fictive kin (e.g. aunties, compadres, ahijados). This is especially true for low-income households.

Ana Juarez: p. 121 I would like to see more attention given to how we balance neighborhood conservation with the need for affordable housing, rehab and repair, and the housing density required to stop urban sprawl and make public transportation feasible. I don’t think everything needs to be saved exactly as it is, as long as we preserve some samples and small areas. I’d like to see incentives provided for low-income homeowners who have room to build granny flats or ADUs. Increased height and smaller lot sizes are not necessarily incompatible.

Ana Juarez: p. 120 Great solutions. Are Capilla Guadalupe, La Victoria Grocery Store and the home on Fredericksburg next to or almost next to the Old Jail on the priority list? I believe it once housed the Mexican Methodist Church or Social Center.

Ana Juarez: p. 118 Yes please on all of these solutions, especially 4, 5 and 6.

Ana Juarez: p. 116 I love the solutions for Sustainability and Resiliency Goals. Maybe the Restore could partner with the city? Maybe the city could offer workshops or town halls about this opportunity, especially for low-income neighborhoods. Rehab and Repair programs equal historic preservation equals affordable housing. The San Antonio Case Study is super helpful, might ACC (and TX State Construction Science) be able to help with something like the Living Heritage Trades Academy?

Ana Juarez: p. 114 Solution 4 is a good way to at least preserve the history and knowledge of structures but maybe staff or the HPC can provide assistance for those who see it as burdensome or might not be able to complete the documentation package.

Ana Juarez: p. 112 I love solution 8, allowing narratives to be amended. Ditto re allowing preservation of resources, not just structures.

Ana Juarez: p. 111 I strongly support the idea of offering childcare and maybe even a simple dinner like pizza or tacos. I would love to see the boards and commissions offer flexibility in terms of meeting times. I know one person who got kicked off the neighborhood commission because he didn’t get off work until 7 PM and he was told the commission had always met at 6 so they couldn’t change it. Others don’t even apply because they don’t have flexible schedules or work evening or nights.

Ana Juarez: I appreciate the goal of looking beyond what has traditionally been prioritized in historical preservation. Can the HPC be more proactive, for example in identifying buildings, pursuing funding, and working with the community to achieve equity in allocation of budget and resources? Maybe select one or two more members to lead that effort?

Ana Juarez: p. 108 I love the way the section on Historic Preservation Goals is organized, with the findings addressing both the strengths and weaknesses, and the then providing some very good potential Solutions. The Case Studies and Examples also provide helpful models and ideas of ways to improve without having to start from scratch. I love everything San Antonio is doing!

Ana Juarez: p. 83 The section on Programs and Policy Analysis is super useful. It would be great to have staff available to orient and guide organizations and individuals through all the opportunities, based on the nature of their projects and their ability to sort things out and submit strong applications. Maybe they could hold small-scale workshops or orientations based on the types of things they want to pursue.

Ana Juarez: p. 79 Would love to see more outreach for Mexican American cultural events.

Ana Juarez: p. 78 Love the story maps and would love to see a similar project for Mexican American history. Ditto for the Preservation Month (p. 80)

Ana Juarez: p. 74 The east side of town needs more parks

Ana Juarez: p. 61 Both Cuauhtemoc Hall and Southside School are missing. Is that because they are state landmarks, not local?

Ana Juarez: p. 59 I assume San Pedro Cemetery is omitted because it is not in the SM city limits. What about Stringtown/Bost/Abel Ranch Cemetery near Kissing Tree?

Ana Juarez: p. 55 Emphasize the need to prioritize E. Guadalupe since 7 of 18 resources identified in 1996 were no longer extant in 2019.

Ana Juarez: p. 50 Include a category for neighborhoods built prior to 1920 but now eradicated, e.g. Rio Vista park and Dunbar areas (Mexican presence in Dunbar area needs more research but mentioned in Suenos book).

Ana Juarez: p. 45 I taught the first course in Mexican American Culture (Anthropology) in 1996 but I doubt it was the first course on Mexican Americans. The Mexican American and Indigenous Heritage and Culture District was established in 2021.

Ana Juarez: p. 36 Specify that the consolidation of elementary schools was for white students only, and occasionally allowed a Mexican student. Same for high school move to college campus.

Ana Juarez: p. 33 Delete the reference to Barrio del Jorobado and Nalga Pelona. There was a small insider-group who used the term but most people in the community never heard that name and find it offensive.

Ana Juarez: p. 29 Note that the SM Cemetery was segregated for context. I don’t remember the exact date offhand but only three Spanish-surnamed individuals were buried there prior to 1920, the first was a Union soldier in the 1880s. It wasn’t integrated until the 1950s or 1960s. Mention somewhere in the document that Mexicans were socially but not legally segregated. Also important to mention at some point that the Rogers Funeral Home listed Mexicans by their ethnoracial status, i.e. “Mexican,” rather than use their given names.

Ana Juarez: Historic Context Statement: p 24 The history timeline neglects the role of Indigenous conflict and slavery in the development of the area and the city, and doesn’t mention the US-Mexico War of 1846-1848. The population figures between 1848 and 1865 should specify the number of free and enslaved, and Juneteenth reference should include that freedom for slaves happened two and a half years after emancipation in Texas, and that enslavers started recruiting Mexican labor to replace slave labor.

The plan does not clarify whether the Showplace Theatre, which is not part of any local historic district, is recommended for landmark designation. Plastic mermaid sculptures are mentioned as preservation, which is confusing and requires clarification.

The full-page photo of a lost historic structure (formerly on South Guadalupe Street, now a parking lot) is a missed opportunity to highlight the plan’s purpose: preventing the loss of unique historic fabric. Contextual information about this loss would enhance its educational value.

The definition of historic preservation should include “restoring” and “rehabilitating,” which differ significantly from “enhancing,” a non-standard term in preservation practice. The use of mermaid imagery is unexpected and its relevance to preservation is unclear.

While the plan contains valuable background information, including federal and state preservation law overviews, the history of San Marcos, terminology, and descriptions of historic resources and designations, we note that these sections comprise roughly two-thirds of the document. This material, while informative, might be better suited for an appendix or a standalone educational document to keep the main body focused on strategic priorities. The absence of an executive summary at the outset, which is standard in most preservation plans, makes it challenging to quickly grasp the plan’s goals and strategic direction. Recommendations do not appear until page 107, which may hinder stakeholders seeking clear, actionable guidance earlier in the document. The plan’s vision statement on page 2 is a strong starting point, but the document would benefit from consistently connecting recommendations back to this vision to ensure alignment.

The Implementation Matrix, while a useful tool, appears only at the end, giving the impression of an afterthought rather than a core component. To enhance the plan’s effectiveness, we recommend
incorporating the following:

● Identification of lead/responsible parties for each recommendation.
● Budget and funding strategies to support implementation.
● Specific timeframes for achieving goals.
● Performance metrics or indicators to measure success.

The goals and recommendations lack clear prioritization, timelines, phasing, or cost projections, which are essential for guiding staff, elected officials, and partners in implementation. Without a structured framework—such as short-, mid-, and long-term goals or goals organized by theme—the plan reads more like an inventory of ideas than a cohesive roadmap.

The plan thoroughly documents community outreach efforts, including workshops, surveys, and social media engagement. However, it does not clearly demonstrate how this input directly shaped specific policies or actions. A stronger through-line from community feedback to adopted goals would help illustrate the plan’s responsiveness to public priorities.

Despite being headquartered in downtown San Marcos, Preservation Texas is not listed as a preservation partner. We would welcome the opportunity to be recognized as a partner and to collaborate further on advancing the city’s preservation goals.

Archaeology: The plan is silent on archaeological resources, a critical oversight given their importance to San Marcos’ heritage.

Local History Museum: The plan does not address the need for a local history museum, which would support preservation and education efforts.