The Dallas Independent School District told the Dallas Landmark Commission on May 5 that Adamson High School’s main building has accelerating foundation movement and presents a public-safety concern, prompting the district to seek a pathway that could include demolition. The exchange was part of a courtesy review — not a decision — that produced no vote but drew repeated requests from commissioners for detailed, stamped engineering and contractor documentation.

At the hearing, Katie Linehan, design director for Dallas ISD, said the district has investigated the building for years and “we have had multiple structural reports” that show a “rate of movement has accelerated in recent years.” She described a stoppage of on-site work after contractors discovered the front façade lacked an assumed continuous bond beam and said the district currently has a general contractor on site for temporary shoring work but paused work when the contractor raised safety concerns.

Brent Alfred, speaking for DISD (registered as project representative), said the district is asking “to proceed with a demolition,” but said the district intends to document the building and involve students, alumni and the community in any recordation. Alumni speakers urged preservation, with Colleen Kelly, president of the Adamson Alumni Association, saying the alumni have advocated since 2012 and asked that “we can save at least a portion of the building.” Jessica Garcia, an architect with Corgan, said firm staff have been involved in the project for years and can answer technical questions.

The commission’s task force submitted non‑supportive comments, calling the demolition request “demolition by neglect.” City staff and the commission’s attorney read the legal standard the commission must apply from city code: the commission may approve demolition only if the structure constitutes a documented, major and imminent threat to public health or safety, the demolition is required to alleviate that threat, and there is no reasonable way other than demolition to eliminate the threat in a timely manner.

Commissioners repeatedly pressed DISD to supply the documents they need to make that judgment. Commissioner Spellacy asked whether the task force meant the formal “demolition by neglect” process; staff replied that the task force’s comment reflected a belief the building’s condition resulted from neglect but that the formal certification process would proceed differently and involves additional staff/​legal steps. Commissioners asked for: stamped and dated structural reports; engineering investigative demo records; contractor bids and written vendor refusals tied to specific safety observations; design-level shoring schemes (not just schematic sketches); updated cost estimates and which bond funds remain allocated to the project; and clear plans for protecting or salvaging cast‑stone and other character‑defining fabric.

DISD officials said bond funds remain allocated to the building but have repeatedly proven insufficient as incremental investigative work uncovered new structural issues. Linehan and Alfred said contractors and specialty subcontractors have declined to continue under current conditions because shoring setup and the equipment anticipated for repairs would likely generate vibrations the crews judged unsafe. Linehan described an interim estimate of roughly $75,000 per month for fencing, security and temporary stabilization while a final shoring design is produced; she said this was an immediate holding cost, not the total project price.

Several commissioners suggested alternatives they want staff and DISD to explore before any demolition permit is sought: (1) documentation for a record and options to salvage and reuse decorative cast stone and other elements; (2) a tax‑credit/leveraging study — including federal Historic Tax Credits and the Texas state credit referenced at the hearing — to determine whether an income‑producing reuse could change project feasibility; and (3) a complete, stamped structural survey and a detailed request for proposals that includes the exact shoring means and methods contractors would be asked to execute.

Commissioners emphasized that the courtesy review does not authorize demolition. Chair Evelyn Montgomery closed the discussion by saying the commission expects DISD to return with the documentation the commission needs: stamped and dated engineering reports, detailed shoring/repair plans, contractor statements about safety, and clearer cost/funding analysis. The commission also warned that if the building’s condition resulted from a failure to maintain the landmarked structure, staff might consider the formal demolition‑by‑neglect procedures in future reviews.

Why it matters: Adamson High is a landmarked building whose fate raises competing priorities — public‑safety obligations for the school district, long‑standing community and alumni interest in preservation, and the practical realities of construction risk and rising costs. The commission required more technical evidence before it would consider any removal authorization.

Speakers

- Dr. Rhonda Dunn — Historic Preservation Officer, City of Dallas (presented courtesy review)
- Katie Linehan — Design Director, Dallas Independent School District (presenter)
- Brent Alfred — Dallas ISD project representative
- Colleen Kelly — President, Adamson Alumni Association
- Jessica Garcia — Architect, Corgan
- City Attorney (unnamed) — City of Dallas (read legal standard)
- Commissioners who participated in questioning: Courtney Spellacy (Vice Chair), Commissioner Anderson, Commissioner Preziosi, Commissioner Renault, Commissioner Gay, Commissioner Rothenberger, Commissioner Hinojosa

Authorities

- City of Dallas, Chapter 51A, Section 4.501(h)(4)(C) (standard read into the record by the City Attorney)
- Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (referenced by staff and applicants)
- National Register of Historic Places and federal/state historic tax credit programs (discussed as potential financing avenues)

Actions

- None — courtesy review/discussion only. The commission requested further documentation and did not vote on demolition or issue a certificate of appropriateness.

Discussion vs. decision

- Discussion: Extensive. Commissioners asked for engineering reports, contractor statements, shoring designs, and funding details.
- Direction to staff: Collect and post requested technical documentation and engage with DISD; return to the commission when stamped engineering and contractor documentation are available.

Clarifying details

- Recent investigative demo showed the front façade lacks a continuous bond beam; lintels were found instead (presented by DISD).
- DISD reported multiple structural reports on record dating back to 1938 and later reports in 2008, 2010, 2018, 2021 and more recent years.
- DISD cited an interim stabilization estimate on the order of $75,000 per month to maintain fencing and temporary stabilization during design work (presented as a staffing/holding cost, not a project total).
- DISD reported cumulative bond funding has been allocated across multiple bond cycles but is insufficient to fully fund the discovered repairs; specific remaining bond dollars were not reported and were requested by commissioners.

Proper_names

[{"name":"Adamson High School","type":"school"},{"name":"Dallas Independent School District","type":"agency"},{"name":"Corgan","type":"organization"}]

Community_relevance

- Geographies: Uptown/Downtown Dallas (Adamson site)
- Impact groups: alumni community, students and staff of DISD, preservation community
- Funding sources mentioned: DISD bond funds, federal/state historic tax credits

Meeting_context

- Engagement: High — many public speakers and extended commissioner questioning; meeting segment lasted over an hour.
- Implementation risk: High — procedural constraints, contractor willingness, and funding shortfalls.
- History: Project has been under repeated review, with certificates of appropriateness submitted in 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2023 and ongoing investigative work since at least 2014.

Searchable_tags

["Adamson High School","Dallas ISD","demolition","historic preservation","landmark commission","shoring","tax credits"]

Salience

{"overall":0.85,"overall_justification":"Landmarked school with safety, funding, and preservation trade-offs; broad community interest and potential for significant fiscal impact.","impact_scope":"local","impact_scope_justification":"Decision affects local historic district, alumni, and DISD students.","attention_level":"high","attention_level_justification":"Multiple speakers, potential demolition of landmarked building.","novelty":0.4,"novelty_justification":"Long‑running project but immediate technical disclosures are new.","timeliness_urgency":0.7,"timeliness_urgency_justification":"Public‑safety and contractor refusals make near‑term decisions possible.","legal_significance":0.7,"legal_significance_justification":"City code demolition standard is the determinative legal test.","budgetary_significance":0.6,"budgetary_significance_justification":"Large repair or demolition/rebuild costs and bond funding implications.","public_safety_risk":0.8,"public_safety_risk_justification":"Contractors refused work citing safety; public access and trespass issues cited.","affected_population_estimate":5000,"affected_population_estimate_justification":"Students, alumni, neighborhood users; rough service area of the school.","budget_total_usd":93000000.0,"budget_total_usd_justification":"Applicant referenced a $93,000,000 full‑restore estimate in materials presented.","policy_stage":"proposal","policy_stage_justification":"Courtesy review; no action taken.","follow_up_priority":9,"follow_up_priority_justification":"Requires stamped engineering and funding clarity before any demolition decision.","fact_check_risk":0.2,"fact_check_risk_justification":"Article sticks closely to speaker statements and requested documentation.","uncertainty":0.6,"uncertainty_justification":"Outcome depends on future technical submissions and contractor willingness.","source_diversity":0.7,"source_diversity_justification":"Includes city staff, DISD officials, architects, alumni, and commission members.","stakeholder_balance":0.6,"stakeholder_balance_justification":"Includes both district and preservation community perspectives."}