15.b - 2117 W 49th St - public comments — original pdf

Backup

January 5, 2026 Chair Ben Heimsath Austin Historic Landmark Commission By email at: BC-Ben.Heisath@austintexas.gov and preservation@austintexas.gov RE: Rosedale School, Jan. 7 HLC Agenda Item 15 Dear Chair Heimsath and members, I am a Rosedale resident, am active in our neighborhood association, and since 2021, I have been monitoring and reporting to our email list-serve on AISD’s process of “repurposing” the Rosedale School. I thought some neighborhood context would be helpful. As you heard at your Dec. 3 meeting, the community engagement back in 2021-2022 by AISD was all about teacher housing, and the most intensive development, of four theoretical options shared with the neighbors, is pasted below. There were no actual plans and therefore no discussion of preserving or disposing of some bricks and panes of glass from the façade. (That is a small correction to Leah Bojo’s testimony to you on Dec. 3 at 1:01 on your recording. As she said, she was not part of the process back then. She did know that “full demolition” was on the table back then as it is today.) That brings me to my first concern, that this has been repeatedly posted as “partial demolition.” Words matter in postings under the Open Meetings Act and that posting is materially misleading when one reads what is actually proposed. It is a total demolition 1 with at best reconstruction of maybe 2% of the existing structure, assuming they in fact follow through. Does anyone keep an eye on that in the years to come? I appreciated your vote for postponement on Dec. 3, and your rationale, to listen to the affected neighbors. As you heard, before Dec. 3 there was one community meeting where AISD and OHT were very clear and explicit: there would be no compromise to the 435-unit, 6-story, edge-to-edge complex they envisioned, and they would sue the neighbors by Oct. 31, which they did. Since your Dec. 3 meeting of course there have been 2 weeks of holiday down time at minimum, but there was one other opportunity to engage, a meeting on Dec. 10 convened by Councilmember Siegel. Refusal to compromise was reiterated by Leah Bojo and David Hartman and the only thing we really learned was that they were pushing forward in January. On that same day I attended your Architectural Review Committee discussion of the Rosedale School. It was short, and shockingly opaque for someone used to attending discussions of public matters. There was a hushed discussion, with no mics, over a letter - sized single copy of a schematic, on the table in front of the chair, with a Thrower representative. Then someone with a file folder of nice big pictures showed up with copies for the members, and the inaudible exchange continued. As they concluded I raised my hand and asked for a copy on behalf of those concerned about the proposal. The chair said it’s up to OHT because this “isn’t a public meeting” so I asked Leah Bojo, and she said nope, you have to wait for the HLC posting. So much for opportunities for engagement. Enough context, to the merits. I do not argue that the Rosedale School structure merits protection on its merits as a historical landmark. Frankly the original façade of the school, on the north side facing 49th Street, is not seen as a feature, and we would rather you not focus on moving it closer to the street. This proposal is a façade in the second meaning of the word. Your own Architectural background highlights this discrepancy: “the south side of Rosedale School will have special windows.” Why are we talking about moving the north façade? What offends the neighborhood is that the proposed use of the entire property and the air above the property is the absolute antithesis of the community-friendly spirit and physical space of the existing Rosedale School property. Your background reflects this physical and architectural reality and the ARC’s feedback, which led to the Dec. 10 discussion, recognized it: [Architecture background] The original building and the historic-age Its modest design is architecturally friendly to the students and additions are all low-slung, with large windows and an unassuming presence the neighborhood around it on the block. . [ARC] Retain the front corner or portion of the building. Reconstruction is acceptable if demolition is required but retention strongly preferable. 2 as the scale of the existing school is currently in keeping with the neighborhood Provide a site plan with setbacks and drawings showing scale, The proposed complex is totally inward-focused, rather than part of the existing community. A fortress, edge to edge, six stories with 3 car entrances and exits on neighborhood streets. An architectural 180 degrees. . I submit that you should reject this proposal as incompatible with the physical setting, from a historical perspective. It is also untimely as you heard in December. AISD has sued 125 residents and now 71 of them have file a unified answer to the lawsuit, represented as one bloc by PlayFairWithRosedale. It is very likely that PFWR will prevail based on the clear deed restriction of one residence per lot, this exercise will be mooted, and in any case the trial court will be appealed. In closing: • AISD’s budget crisis is clearly not relevant to your deliberations and should not be entertained in testimony or as a rationale for pursuing demolition, or for fast action. • Rosedale’s reaction to this proposal is not a knee-jerk response to be simply labeled NIMBY and ignored. Rosedale Neighborhood Association recently, enthusiastically supported development of a 5-story apartment building in the heart of the neighborhood to provide affordable units to tenants with incomes from 30% AMI to 80% AMI. That development is underway, at a site and scale where it actually makes sense, unlike the OHT/AISD proposal. Carl Reynolds Carl Reynolds 4300 Sinclair Ave. 3