At the Historic Landmark Commission meeting in July, Stocklin presented six criteria from the Land Development Code which she feels pertain to the Buratti-Moreno building:
- It exemplifies “part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics” of Austin.
- It possesses a “relationship to other distinctive buildings, sites, or areas.”
- It exemplifies “cultural, economic, social, ethnic or historical heritage.”
- It’s identified “with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the City, State or United States.”
- It has become “of value to a neighborhood, community, or area.
- It is “valued as an aspect of community sentiment or public pride.”
Those are six of the 13 criteria for historic landmarks; any one of the 13 points can suffice for historic landmark designation. With support from various neighborhood associations and individual residents, Stocklin provided a strong case which caused the commission to recommend that zoning of 1001-1003 E. Sixth (excluding the metal building at 1005) should be changed to a historic landmark designation.
Last week, the Planning Commission took up the matter. By far the most widely debated topic of the evening, the issue brought forth lawyers, architects, business owners, neighborhood activists, political officeholders, and area residents. The building, Stocklin told the commissioners, was included in the city’s East Austin Historic Survey and was proposed for the National Register of Historic Places in 1985, but, because of opposition from the Buratti family, was not listed. Stocklin reaffirmed that only the building at 1001-1003 was recommended for historic zoning and that CS-1 development (height up to 60 feet and 95% impervious cover) could still take place at the rear of the building, an area of 7,320 square feet. And she noted that the historic designation (CS1-H zoning) only prevents the owner from tearing down the building, but does not define or regulate what the use of the building should be.
In Defense of History
When Planning Commission Chair Art Navarro opened the public hearing, the deeper reasons for opposition to the proposed demolition of the building became much clearer. PODER representative Raul Alvarez indicated that his organization always analyzes any new development in East Austin according to the intensity of land use and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Jose Chavez’s 50-foot height for a block-sized building was simply disproportionate to the existing structures in the area, he said. Furthermore, Alvarez voiced concern over the loss of 11 units of affordable housing. Suddenly a historic zoning case for one building had widened to include discussion of other, broader issues related to the new development. It would not be the first time.
Other speakers eloquently resurrected memories of the 1000 block of East Sixth (Buratti Grocery, Nash Moreno’s Auto Repair, Roy’s Taxi, the League of United Latin-American Citizens, Lopez Drug Store) which provided their rationale for preserving the Buratti building. Many spoke glowingly of the Buratti family, who ran the grocery store, helped various people through difficult times, and even assisted some local Mexican-American businessmen in getting started.
The Rev. Bill Elliott of Our Lady of Guadalupe emotionally pleaded that the power of “the market” should not be allowed to destroy East Austin’s history. Richard Kooris, who has renovated the four old buildings on E. Fifth from I-35 east to San Marcos, talked about the “economic viability of older structures” and their importance as “talismans to people’s memories.” And longtime neighborhood activist Paul Hernandez worried that the project might engulf the area and make it economically unfeasible for the working poor to live in the neighborhood. His concerns went beyond the historical importance of the building itself to the entire East Austin neighborhood, he said, which has had such a long and rich history of working-class people who “were responsible for the building of this city.”
What About the Future?
Opposition to the historic zoning, on the other hand, reflected support for the Chavez project. Jim Nias, attorney for property owners John Michael and Davey Buratti, questioned the Historic Commission’s position that a demolition permit request had never been formally submitted. He pointed out that historic designation is generally sought by, not forced on, property owners. Shaking his head, he added, “I find it ironic to hear all the glowing reports, all the kind things said about the Buratti family, the generous, kind, and good works they did over the years for the community, and then have this forced upon them against their will.” Nias, who was once the lawyer for the Historic Landmark Commission, reminded the planning commissioners that even if a building were to meet all 13 criteria in the Land Development Code, they still did not have to impose historic zoning.
Chavez, as the principal developer of the project, responded to opponents’ statements about the need to help and house the poor. He affirmed that “there can never be any more serious effort than what I am proposing — to bring in an industry that provides training, provides jobs for entry-level to technician-level, and to bring an opportunity for 100 jobs to East Austin.” He added, “If you don’t have a good job, what does it matter if you have houses available? We have city programs right now that our people don’t qualify for because they have no jobs. I provide that vehicle for our people to be able to get houses in or out of the neighborhood.”
As for concerns about the density and type of development, as well as retaining the Buratti-Moreno building, Chavez did not easily quell those fears when he said, “This is a very expensive piece of land. For us to maximize on space, value, and economics, I cannot afford to have a structure … that is not sound.” Chavez said in a later phone conversation that he intends to assist the residents of the little alley houses with transitional housing, and will provide three to four months notice rather than the usual 30 days. He has even looked into the feasibility of moving the houses at his own expense, but engineers tell him they are not sound enough.
George Villalva, long-time Austin resident and well-respected architect, told the Planning Commission that his design for Chavez’s building meets the guidelines of the Cesar Chavez Neighborhood Planning Team — of which he was chair — as well as proposed design guidelines for downtown and the major corridors of East Austin by encouraging a diversity of uses, activities, and sizes of development, intense investment of public and private funds in East Austin, and intense street activity through incorporating mixed uses that would make the street the locus of 24-hour activity. Commissioner Jean Mather questioned why the architect could not incorporate the 6% of the block containing the Buratti-Moreno building into his overall design. Villalva responded, “We have a program that requires a certain amount of revenue and economic return in order for us to make the purchase of the land feasible. If you notch that corner out, it will be very hard to comply with that appropriateness.”
Former Planning Commissioner Cathy Vasquez-Revilla expressed her surprise at the opposition to Chavez’s proposal. She praised his history of affirmative action in hiring and training. Furthermore, she said, Chavez hopes to create a corporate endowment to benefit projects building affordable housing. Accusing some neighborhood leaders of using historic zoning “as a tool to influence and mislead long-time residents who have fond childhood memories of growing up and trading at the Buratti grocery store,” she affirmed that Chavez was providing East Austin a “chance to move beyond the strictly industrial uses we have approved in the past.”
Vasquez-Revilla’s sister, Diane Valera, local restaurant owner and proponent of Plaza Saltillo and other East Austin projects, read letters from Connie Moreno, daughter of Nash Moreno, and Robert Velasquez, son of Roy Velasquez, who indicated their support for Chavez’s proposal and said their parents could be memorialized with a plaque rather than a building. Valera finished by saying, “We should not be duped into thinking that ‘historic’ is the solution to our [East Austin] problems.”
After a long, friendly, and sometimes humorous discussion, the Planning Commission approved two somewhat contradictory motions: First was to preserve the facade and a depth of 20 feet of the building at 1001-1003 E. Sixth and to create a plaque to memorialize the three families. An alternate motion to preserve the entire building, apparently including the sheet-metal building at 1005 E. Sixth, passed 4-3, with one abstention. But matters could get yet more complicated when the issue reaches the City Council. If council members nix the rezoning, then there will still be the issue of size, density, and type of structure proposed by Chavez. If council decides that the building — or its facade — must be awarded historic zoning, then Chavez and Villalva may rethink their design or seek a full city block of land elsewhere — not an easy prospect.
What is a community trying to preserve through historic zoning? Much of the discussion about this building has centered around people’s warm memories of the Buratti, Moreno, and Velasquez families. What is seen in their minds’ eye can be preserved (imperfectly at best) through stories and images. But historical buildings allow us to see and feel some physical aspects of the past. Planning Commissioner Betty Baker stated movingly that we all want to be able to drive past certain buildings and tell our children and grandchildren what used to take place there. “Much of the Dallas that I knew as a child in the Forties and Fifties is completely wiped away and generally alienates me from that city. Without cultural landmarks, all our lives become a little poorer.”
This article appears in August 27 • 1999 and August 27 • 1999 (Cover).