When it comes to Austin’s historic buildings, every preservation fight raises the same question. What deserves to be saved? The answers can be crushing, consequential or contentious.
Crushing: In March, the city halted work on a Cesar Chavez Street coffee house after a developer destroyed more of the 19th-century former Cenote building than permitted.
Consequential: The Austin City Council recently approved historic landmark status for the Hill-Thompson House, cementing the mid-century modern home’s place in the Black community’s architectural, political and educational history.
Contentious: The new owner of a historic East Austin building from the 1930s once owned by developer Nate Paul wants to demolish the building, but some say it could be preserved.
Those are the types of cases that land before the Historic Landmark Commission.
The 11-member commission is a volunteer body that helps protect Austin’s older structures. Members are chosen by the City Council and serve four-year terms.
The work often puts commissioners at the center of difficult debates over history, property rights and development. Austin has nearly 700 individual properties zoned historic landmarks, including eight local historic districts and 18 National Register Districts. While saving historic structures pleases some people, it frustrates others. Historic landmark status comes with responsibilities and property restrictions that can make it harder to sell or develop, and creating a historic landmark district is a long, technical process that requires neighborhood consensus.
Historic Landmark Commission Chair Ben Heimsath, an architect specializing in nonprofit and church-related projects, has worked on the commission since 2019. In this edition of Five Things, he talks about how the commission works, how it decides what is historically significant and why preserving older buildings matters in a fast-changing city.
This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.
What does the Historic Landmark Commission (HLC) do and how much power does it have?
The HLC is a regulatory body. We are actively involved in permit and zoning cases that involve historic landmarks, historic districts (both local and national districts) or properties that have historic value or may potentially be eligible for historic designation. We work closely with a dedicated and expert staff who field requests and review literally hundreds of permit and zoning applications and who present the most relevant for review and/or action at our monthly meetings.
Since historic preservation is a specialized field, we have three active committees who meet between our regular meetings to work with staff and the public to go into more depth in particular areas.
The Architectural Review Committee meets with potential applicants to review informally their proposals or to answer their questions.
The Operations Committee is involved in a range of issues having to do with processes regarding historic properties.
The Preservation Plan Committee is now working with staff and community members in the implementation phase of the recommendations in the Council adopted Equity Based Preservation Plan.
What counts as a historic structure?
My technical answer, with some assistance from the National Parks Service is that a historic building is a structure or place that has significance due to its historical, cultural, or architectural value, and may be recognized for its role in telling the story of a community.
This requires a judgement call that we make in defining what is of value regarding the history, culture, and architecture.
One important additional issue is the condition of the historic material or fabric. If too much has changed, the structure can lose its historic significance. One of my early mentors suggested a question to ask when evaluating a historic structure: if the owner from the historic period were here today, would he or she recognize this building? The best answer is that the owner would see no difference and feel nothing had changed.
Finally, regarding the age of a building, we use 50 years as an informal guide to consider whether properties are worthy of evaluation. This helps us re-examine many structures in Austin that may not have been considered in older surveys. For example, many mid-century modern buildings are now becoming recognized for their importance and are being added to our program. However, I don’t subscribe to the 50 year mark as a cut-off date. For me, and many in the preservation field, there are times when a location may become so significant that the age isn’t a limiting factor. For instance, the World Trade Center site in New York City, or the location in Minneapolis where George Floyd was killed would both be candidates for historic recognition if it were up to me.
Some people pursue historic landmark status. What is the benefit?
I believe the biggest benefit is that future generations will be able to experience these places, just as we have inherited them from prior generations.
Our programs have a number of specific benefits. Many properties are eligible for a partnership with the City where they get specific tax incentives for keeping their historic properties in good repair and up to historic standards. The City has grant programs associated with historic tourism that also assists certain properties. The owner of a landmarked property may take advantage of city resources consulting with staff on specific issues and may work with other neighborhood or nonprofit groups in promoting their heritage property or neighborhood.
Some people don’t want historic landmark status. What kind of pushback do you hear and can the commission force that status on an owner?
I find that folks who object are either unaware of the significance of their property or they are choosing to be unaware. As volunteers, our commission has a broad range of experience with historic issues and historic properties. Our membership consists of neighborhood leaders, architects, engineers, and owners of historic properties who all bring their personal and professional expertise to our work on the Commission.
It is a very high bar for us to pursue recognition over an owner’s continued objection. However, in some very rare cases, I believe it is important that our history is preserved even if an owner doesn’t respect the historic significance.
(Reporter’s note: The Historic Landmark Commission can recommend historic status against the wishes of the homeowner but the City Council has the final decision. Three-fourths of the council — a supermajority — must approve the designation for it to take effect.)
In the context of this changing city, why do historic structures matter?
There are so many reasons that historic structures matter — for economic, social, cultural, and conservation reasons.
Let me just cite one example that may help put our efforts in perspective. In San Antonio, by the early 1900’s, The Alamo had deteriorated and was only a collection of derelict walls and run-down buildings on expensive downtown land. This was only 70 to 80 years after the fall of the Alamo, yet the entire complex was threatened with complete demolition. Fortunately, individuals, such as Clara Driscoll, and volunteer groups stepped in to save The Alamo. They persuaded city and state leaders to take action and preserve and restore what we now consider hallowed ground. When I think of those business owners and developers of that era, I realize they only saw the Alamo walls as an obstruction and hindrance. With a lot of research, lobbying, and public input, they eventually were persuaded that those old rubble walls actually had more value restored than demolished.
