Dallas ISD says Adamson High faces structural risks; Landmark Commission urges full engineering records before demolition

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…