Angry Cactus Causes Uproar

The shape of a proposed sculpture planned to sit atop a new restaurant downtown has become a topic of debate among citizens and the board members of the Design and Historic Review Commission (DHRC), who tabled a decision on the proposed “Angry Cactus” on Sept 18, after voicing concerns that it may be construed as offensive.

City planner Jeff Fisher presented the sign to the DHRC on Thursday with a recommendation for approval, placing stipulations on the sign’s lighting, color and the aesthetic qualities of compatibility and consistency with current businesses along the River Corridor.

The DHRC is comprised of citizens tasked with the job of making sure that businesses downtown and along the River Corridor compliment the historical district, and use the three criteria of color, lighting and aesthetics to consider whether new developments and their signs fit into the overall plan.

Showing photos of neighboring properties and their signage in a brief presentation, Fisher explained consistency from a planning standpoint as maintaining the “suburban modern post-1950s color palette” and using lighting that does not flood into other properties. Green awnings of adjacent jewelry stores and the neon Cheshire cat at Grinner’s Daiquiri Bar were included in the example photographs.

Due to the property line of the location abutting the building at 1 W. Concho St., property owner Timothy Condon cannot build a free-standing sign, and was therefore granted a variance by the planning commission last week for the rooftop structure.

City ordinance places limitations on the height of signage for one-story structures, meaning a variance was necessary to bring the sculpture up to code. Fisher explained that the variance was given “based on logistics and site visibility”, in order to attract foot and automobile traffic to the restaurant.

Having just voted and approved a sign with a variance for the neighboring Twisted Root Burger Co. (detailed drawings above), commissioner Sandra Morris began the public comment session by asking Condon why he chose to present a design that required a variance.

“I personally would have liked to have seen something else created that could be compliant,” Morris said. “The height is not compliant, you’re having to get a variance to create it. What I was suggesting was that maybe a different look could have…you know, cactuses can melt over the edges or whatever.”

In response to Morris' suggestion that Condon melt his cactus, commissioner David Mazur spoke up to clarify what he feels are the boundaries of the board.

“I think a lot of it is just the aesthetics of what the property owner wants,” he said. “That’s their design, that’s the feel that they want, and we’re not really to judge that part of it in a sense.”

As the dialogue moved to commissioner Gary Donaldson, he asked if it would be possible to include a clause mandating maintenance of the sign so that it does not fall into disrepair and become a “run-down cartoonish thing”, which planning director Rebecca Guerra announced was a requirement in the ordinance.

Picking up on Donaldson’s description, another voice of opposition rose from DHRC chairman Ashley Young-Turner, who said, “My concern is that it is cartoonish and is not adding to the aesthetic downtown, but rather, kind of, a parody of it. I think it’s silly looking and that is part of my concern with it. To be just perfectly frank, it’s a little phallic. I don’t, myself, care for it.”

Morris shook her head in agreement.

Fisher attempted to intervene at this point, and said he wanted to let the board know that they can look at color and lighting, adding a ‘but’ before looking for a way to approach design. At this point, Turner cut him off, saying “It completely stands out, though, sir, if you were to put this up.”

“And it has no historical reference,” Morris chimed in.

A survey conducted over three days with two questions asks if citizens find the signage appropriate for downtown and if they find the cactus offensive. Out of the 1,991 responses, 71.6 percent of those that voted said they found the signage appropriate, while 80.51 percent stated that it was not offensive.

[[{"fid":"8074","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":""},"type":"media","attributes":{}}]]

Standing up to defend his concept, Condon reiterated that the idea behind his restaurant is to offer a modern and refined west Texas-inspired venue that attracts people to the area.

“Everyone can have their own opinion and obviously that’s what you’re here for, but for me as an individual that is investing a substantial amount of money in downtown, if you’re to argue that the current condition of the building is better than what we’re going to create, that would be naïve,” he said.

His defense did little to sway the commissioners, however, who continued to repeat that the design was phallic, cartoonish and not compatible with downtown, adding that the bright white smirk of the cactus could also be construed as offensive.

“I agree with the board,” Mazur changed positions. “It looks a little cartoonish to me. It’s kind of overwhelming.”

Explaining that he drew the sketch himself, rather than have the artist create the draft, Condon again tried to win over the DHRC, stating that it could well be that his drawing has a little more “attitude or sass to it than it would in real life”. While the sculpture would be very similar, he said, the angle of the smirk and the length of the points may differ a little as per the artist’s interpretation.

“Maybe we could look at a different design that wasn’t so out there, in your face,” commissioner Eric Eggemeyer said as he made the first suggestion to table the decision. “I don’t see an angry cactus anywhere downtown at this point or anything that resembles this at all.”

A survey conducted over three days with two questions asks if citizens find the signage appropriate for downtown and if they find the cactus offensive. Out of the 1,991 responses, 71.6 percent of those that voted said they found the signage appropriate, while 80.51 percent stated that it was not offensive.

[[{"fid":"8080","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":"","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":""},"type":"media","attributes":{}}]]

As Turner spoke up calling the cactus kitsch, Condon again approached the podium and asked if there may be a conflict of interest since Turner owns the Concho Pearl down the street from his property.

“No,” Guerra responded. “In fact, this board has the absolute right to determine if something is consistent or inconsistent with the tenants for the River Corridor.”

In a later interview, Guerra explained that conflicts of interest are reviewed before a person is appointed to the board, rather than on an item-by-item basis.

“She has to have a substantial interest or be considered a business entity,” Guerra said. “She would have to be a business entity of the actual business itself…if she were in business with the Angry Cactus.”

Turner stated on Friday that she doesn’t believe a conflict of interest exists between herself as a restaurant owner and the signage of a competitor, adding that other restaurants have come before the board in the past as well.  She said the DHRC does not have a goal of setting up roadblocks for entrepreneurs, “but to come to a consensus on proposed projects and ensure that the things we build in San Angelo contribute positively to our city.” Turner stressed that she voted for the approval of the Angry Cactus' building plans at an earlier meeting.

“The whole thing with it is that whenever you do submit something it needs to be pretty much what you’re trying to recreate,” she said, referencing the fact that Condon had stated his rendering may differ from the artist’s final product. “There were some issues with that—or rather some questions on it—but they were resolved within the meeting.

"The concerns of the commissioners, myself included, may in fact be alleviated once we are able to view an actual presentation, from the artist of this project. Our hope and goal is not to be in the business of creating road blocks for entrepreneurs," Turner said.

One of the resolutions met in the meeting came when Donaldson suggested that Condon provide an updated and to-scale drawing of the sculpture and the building’s façades. He stated that being able to visualize the cactus with reference to the building may help the commissioners reach a decision.

“The height and size is not the issue that we’ve all been expressing,” Morris said, “it is the actual design.” She agreed with a previous statement about submitting other designs, stating she felt the DHRC was affording Condon a great opportunity in tabling the issue as a denial would have left him unable to submit new renderings for a year.  

“The only thing I have a problem with making it cartoonish,” Mazur said before it was called for a motion. “If we could just get rid of those white teeth, I think I wouldn’t have a problem with it…the eyes don’t bother me, the only thing that bothers me is those white teeth…”

Following a motion to table the decision until Condon returns a to-scale drawing and alternate designs, the commissioners voted unanimously in favor of tabling. Condon is currently drafting further options for the sculpture, and anticipates that he will present them at the next DHRC meeting on the third Thursday in October. 

The story has been updated to reflect an error in the initial report, which identified Barbara Hesse as the second female in the meeting. Information on the city website provides the names of only three women as board members, and having spoken to two--one of which stated she was not present--the process of elimination was used to determined the identity of the second female in the meeting. We have now learned that the board members have recently changed and Hesse is no longer a part of the DHRC.