Members of the city’s Historic Landmark Commission were blindsided this month when they were asked to sign off on the demolition and replacement of the 100-year-old Barton Springs Road Bridge – more than two years after City Council had decided its fate.
It’s unusual for the commission to receive a case after the fact, particularly one involving an iconic public structure in a National Register Historic District like Zilker Park.
The commissioners’ approval is needed as part of an ongoing state review of the bridge project since federal dollars are funding a portion of the construction. The Texas Historical Commission and the state Department of Transportation are conducting the review.
“They’re reviewing a process that would’ve been very nice for us to have been a part of,” HLC Chair Ben Heimsath said at the Feb. 4 meeting. “It would have made a lot more sense at the beginning of the process, not telling us how they got here at the end.” He likened it to being handed “the answer to the equation without any of the numbers.”
Commissioners were frustrated not only by their late entry into the process, but by the lack of information in their briefing materials – thin documentation for a panel of architects, engineers, and civic activists being asked to make a consequential decision. Commissioners were equally dismayed that alternatives – rehabilitating the bridge or adding a separate path for cyclists and pedestrians – were never on the table for their review.
“The whole thing is extremely disappointing,” Commissioner Carl Larosche said, calling the backup information they were given “woefully insufficient to justify removal of that bridge.”
After hearing from several opposition speakers – many of them residents from nearby Barton Hills and Zilker neighborhoods – commissioners spent several minutes airing their concerns over the prospect of razing and replacing a “significant piece of architecture.” Several speakers pointed to other bridges in the U.S. and Europe that are well over 100 years old and still in use.
The meeting concluded with the commissioners voting to postpone a decision until their March 4 meeting.
Given their limited options, some commissioners seemed inclined to vote to initiate historic zoning when the case returns next month. Should that happen, the matter would then go to the Planning Commission for consideration, then back to City Council.
“The caveat here,” explained Kalan Contreras of the city’s Historic Preservation Office, “is that City Council has already voted on the demolition, which means that if y’all vote to landmark, it will go back to City Council, at which point they will say ‘We have already voted.’”
Still, Council’s decision two years ago may not translate to a done deal. Austin Free Press reported this week that Council Member Ryan Alter is vowing to block funding until evidence is provided that concludes demolition is the city’s only option.
As with many things old and dear to Austin residents, the fate of the bridge has been debated for many years, with city engineering staff eager to replace it, and civic activists and environmentalists calling for rehabilitating the bridge and giving it landmark status. It’s uncertain why the question was never put to the city’s own Historic Landmark Commission.
Built in 1925 and widened in 1946, the bridge is best appreciated from the ground up. Its graceful arches over Barton Creek have long been a treasured sight for runners along the trail and paddlers in the creek. The surface of the bridge, or deck, is less aesthetically appealing, with 20,000-plus vehicles traveling east and west each day, while cyclists and pedestrians traverse a narrow passage across the bridge.
City officials say the bridge is in fair condition structurally but functionally obsolete. Further, they say the bridge is beyond rehabilitation, citing “extreme deterioration and deferred maintenance.” Commissioner Roxanne Evans said that the city’s “deferred maintenance” of the bridge reminded her of a common rationale used for leveling old houses and other structures. “For me, it triggered a term that we use often in our proceedings, which is demolition by neglect,” she said, adding her disappointment in how the bridge decision was handled.
Funding for the entire project has not yet been identified. According to an April 2025 Community Impact article, the city has spent $3.9 million on planning, designing, and engineering work, now counting on a $32 million federal grant awarded in 2024 to cover part of the construction costs. While city staff declined to provide a cost estimate for the demolition and replacement work, the 2025 article reported the entire project would cost up to $54.5 million.
In requesting more information to consider before their next meeting, commissioners also asked for an apology from those responsible for bypassing the commission’s consideration of such a major decision. Heimsath said he was “flabbergasted” over how the process played out.
“At some point, I just would like to know who is responsible,” he said. “You have a city-owned property in a national registered district, and nobody said, ‘Where is the landmark commission? Why are we not talking to them?’”
This article appears in February 27 • 2026.