The Bathhouse Rehab Pivot Point - How the Rotunda's 2018 Design Promise Was Broken

The keystone to understanding the Barton Springs Pool Bathhouse Rehab is the Rotunda. Would it be an unconditioned space, with visitors passing through its midst the way they do at Deep Eddy Pool's bathhouse and the way they did here in 1946? Or would it become a museum of exhibits requiring HVAC around the clock?

When Laurie Limbacher accepted the contract in early 2018, she stated that the Rotunda would be unconditioned space, except for new staff offices located in the 1946 women's basket area. Moving staff functions into the Rotunda would let the 1967 walls in the women's dressing area come down, returning the footprint to its 1946 volume. No one questioned that the showers and stalls were unique, historically valuable features. [source]

Excerpts from Limbacher's Jan. 2018 proposal letter [source]:

• The Bathhouse Rehabilitation project is to be designed in full, and implemented in phased construction, with the specific construction phase scopes, budgets and schedules contingent upon funding and ongoing fundraising by the Barton Springs Conservancy, and also contingent upon the resolution of a separate effort to relocate the Sheffield Education Center and Splash! exhibit out of the bathhouse.
• From the Zilker Park Bathhouse Zone Feasibility Study, we understand that the bulk of the bathhouse will be an unconditioned, open-air structure. The only areas under consideration for air-conditioning are the Aquatics offices, proposed for the future renovation of the original women's basket room area.
• Rehabilitation of the historic Rotunda and dressing areas, including rehabilitation of historic materials and components.

Ten months later — after community engagement with Stakeholders including Barton Springs Conservancy (BSC) — that vision was radically altered: the exhibits and classroom would remain in the Rotunda, be expanded, and require HVAC.

This post is a summary of my findings, based on extensive public information requests and on having used the women's dressing area before it was altered and its 1946 features destroyed.

Barton Springs Pool Bathhouse, Women's Dressing Area 2024 (prior to rehab)

Showers facing courtyard. Warm winter dressing stalls. Gone forever.

A Timeline Guided My Analysis

The pivot point was summer 2018. By submitting public information requests, I created a timeline of studies, contracts, and community engagement. I learned that the Parks Department, Barton Springs Conservancy, and architect Laurie Limbacher had agreed on basic principles by Jan. 2018: the Rotunda would not be air conditioned, the vacated 1946 women's basket room would become staff offices and storage, and the women's dressing area would be "opened up" to restore its 1946 footprint and character. All parties had access to the 2016 Feasibility Report, which recommended that the historic character of the bathhouse — including the women's unique showers and dressing stalls — be preserved and "rehabilitated." [source]

Community Engagement Created a Pivot Point

Oct. 2018 — eight months after Limbacher's proposal was accepted and made part of the contract — the revised scope [source] stated that the "vacated spaces" of the Rotunda would be committed to "public education." This was new.

Evidence indicates this revision was the result of BSC influence over the summer of 2018. Mike Cannatti, president of BSC, identified himself in a survey comment: "The lifeguard shack needs to stay in the current space. The safety of the swimmers should be the number 1 goal." [source]

That kept the lifeguard offices out of the Rotunda's basket area. With Limbacher's revised scope and design, BSC got the space it wanted for donor-funded exhibits and an educational classroom. Through that summer's community engagement process, BSC's donors pressed their special interests into the Bathhouse design. The Rotunda would not be an unconditioned space for swimmers — it would become an HVAC-conditioned, museum-like space with a classroom for school children. Women swimmers lost the restored, expanded dressing area they had been promised.

The 2023 Limbacher construction document (above): Blue = HVAC conditioned areas.

• Karen Kocher, BSC Board member and video content creator, would get the Splash! Exhibit to screen her Springs series for the next 50 years. [source]
• Someone — unidentified in the record in summer 2018 — wanted "women's privacy" added to the scope. The Limbacher 2019 design responded: concrete walls were added on the south-side of the women's showers, blocking all visibility of showers to-and-from the courtyard. The open design of the 1946 bathhouse had been destroyed... forever.

Who Failed to Protect the Historic Design?

Neither Laurie Limbacher (architect, and a commissioner at the Texas Historical Commission) nor Kim McKnight (the Parks Department's director of Historic Preservation) acted to protect the design features of the women's dressing area. Both knew better.

As I said in 2024: the State of Texas Hotel Occupancy Tax — public funding — put over $14M in "historic preservation funds" toward destroying the historic design of the women's dressing area. An aesthetic that women and families had enjoyed for over 75 years was erased, without apology or explanation.

I suggest that the public direct their questions about the lost historic elements of the Bathhouse to CoA employee Kim McKnight, contact: Kim.McKnight@austintexas.gov

How Did This Happen?

I'm not alone in recognizing this failure of community engagement. The voice of "the many" was demoted — sometimes ignored outright even when it was the statistically larger preference, as with the preference for Concept #3 of the women's dressing area [source]— while Stakeholders, including the donors funding BSC, were given outsized influence. On Oct. 11, 2018, BSC was given a preview of the design prior to other Stakeholders. [source] By Nov. 20, 2018, BSC had selected their "preferred design". [source]

Here is how Laurie Limbacher's Jan. 2018 scope was altered after the 2018 community engagement with Stakeholders:

• The Sheffield Education Center and Splash! exhibit would not be relocated.
• The Rotunda became a museum-like exhibit area full of electronic displays, computers, and projection screens — adding expense, and HVAC, to the final project.
• The women's dressing area would remain crowded (1,000 SF smaller than the men's dressing area) with block walls for "total privacy" while showering, destroying the aesthetic experience.

My conclusion: BSC paid to play. The general public did not. BSC was given access and influence that radically modified the final design of the Bathhouse.

I suggest that the public direct their questions about the exhibits to BSC, contact: president@bartonspringsconservancy.org

What's Next?

I think the designers took a big risk. By departing from the Rotunda's historic function — an open-air, naturally ventilated space with staff functions inside it — and installing a museum-quality electronic exhibit area, the new logistics could create problems. The pool can draw over 11,000 visitors on a single day. Temperatures can top 100 degrees. HVAC can break down. Storage is needed for BSC volunteers' wheelbarrows and Watershed Protection Department equipment, and weekend trash must be stored away from rodents. Hours are long, with many winter hours after sunset with dressing areas in the dark. The electronic exhibits are expensive and need constant monitoring while open.

• Operational cost: Two new FTE employees are needed as "exhibit interpreters." [source] PARD asked for 8 new FTE positions for the pool and bathhouse in FY26 and ALL were NOT FUNDED. [source] 
• The men's dressing area has an occupant load of 82 people; the women's dressing area allows 20 fewer people at 62 maximum [source]
• As recently as March 2026, BSC's volunteer wheelbarrows and rakes were being stored in an emergency exit corridor. [source 1] [source 2]
• Rotunda enter-exit doors hold an occupancy = 1, possibly slowing passage time. [source] 
• People will be unhappy if the entry system leaves them outdoors in the heat too long.
• Summer HVAC temperatures will struggle if the Rotunda's entry and exit doors stay open constantly.
• If the HVAC fails, there are no operable windows.
• The women's showers may be prone to mold, since light and airflow are more restricted than in the 1946 design.
• The women's showers may feel unsafe, with no sight-lines to the dressing area's entry corridor or the courtyard.
• Emergency egress could get confusing with gendered exit corridors — families could be separated trying to get from the pool through the Bathhouse exits in an emergency. [source]
• Family restrooms have a history of drug use. The Bathhouse now has five of them. Can staff keep them clean and safe?

DP's Conclusion

Barton Springs Conservancy helped private philanthropists make real, valuable cash donations to the Bathhouse Rehab Project. But there's no dollar figure for the additional cost BSC's influence imposed on the final design. BSC took a big risk to push final design choices — an air-conditioned Rotunda with museum-like electronic exhibits and a classroom — that don't align with the interests of the swimming public. Most significant for me: For all future generations of women, the experience of showering adjacent to an open-air grass-filled courtyard is gone forever, as are the sunny dressing stalls that supported winter swimming.

Yes, the completion of the Bathhouse Rehab has been delayed for over a year. But the effects of poor design decisions will last... forever.

(Additional supporting evidence for these conclusions: here.)

The Full Series

This is the tenth and final post in this series. In the order they were written and published:

1. Introducing the 2026 Barton Springs Pool Bathhouse Rehab Project
2. The Design Options Shown to the Public
3. What the Visitor Encounters Entering the New Rotunda
4. Questions: Has the Current Limbacher Design Met the Scope of Services?
5. Two Concerns of Barton Springs Conservancy: Staffing and Storage
6. Possible Operational Issues: Occupancy Limits and Air Conditioning
7. Missed Opportunities: Women's Dressing Area Not Restored to Historic Design
8. Missed Opportunities: Exhibits and Education Center Did Not Get a New Building Off-Site of the Bathhouse
9. In 2026, At Least 9 Months Past Due: Difficulties With the Exhibits at the Barton Springs Pool Bathhouse

In 2026, at least 9 months past due: Difficulties with the exhibits at the Barton Springs Pool Bathhouse

PIR evidence shows that the bathhouse is coming in at a total cost of about $22M, including all aspects of design and construction (see below). As of today (09-23-2026), about $2M is "encumbered" (not spent) but dedicated to the completion of the project.

However, the completion has been postponed several times, and the current culprit appears to be the exhibits funded by Barton Springs Conservancy — total exhibit costs are internally estimated at $750,000, including $75,000 from Austin Water and a dedicated Watershed Protection Department "Exhibit Contribution" line of $290,750 in the City's own funding records, among other sources.

The bathhouse rehabilitation was originally contracted for completion by August 29, 2025. Internal emails obtained by public information requests show that a tentative date for the bathhouse grand opening is Oct. 17, 2026.

Even assuming the currently pending Change Order 11 is approved — pushing the contractor's completion date to on or about January 14, 2026 — that still puts the bathhouse rehab project at least nine months (about 276 days) past deadline by the time it opens.

The Exhibits

Internal emails and a project budget (below) help explain the current delays.

Here, Barton Springs Conservancy board member Karen Brimble anticipates a grand opening of the Bathhouse in October 2026:

Source (above): PIR #C330322

However, a City staff member is concerned that the Bathhouse might not be completed by the opening date:

Source (above): PIR #C330322

Encumbered funds show that money for the exhibits has not been fully paid out. The exhibits, as noted by Brimble above, are possibly dragging the project past another "completion due date."

Source (above): PIR #C330131

Missed Opportunities - Exhibits and Education Center Did Not Get a New Building Off-site of the Bathhouse

Post #8 in a series

The Bathhouse sits inside the Barton Creek floodplain. That fact alone shaped what the City's own 2016 feasibility study said should happen to the Exhibits and Education Center — and it didn't happen that way.

What the 2016 Feasibility Study Recommended

The study pointed out that Austin City Code (§25-7-96) limits new construction inside a floodplain to a narrow list of small structures — a restroom or bath facility, a concessions stand, a tool shed, or a pump house, each under 1,000 square feet. A real Visitor's Center, in other words, legally couldn't be built at the Bathhouse itself. It had to go somewhere above the flood hazard zone.

So the study recommended exactly that: a new, stand-alone Visitor's and Education Center of 6,000 to 8,000 square feet, located near the children's playscape parking lot, within 500 feet of the Bathhouse Rotunda. The recommendation combined the Visitor Center, the Sheffield Education Center, and the SPLASH! exhibit into this one new building — both to share infrastructure costs and to properly integrate education into the visitor experience of the park. The study's own 2016 budget estimate for that new building was $3.5–$5.5 million, on top of roughly $12 million estimated for the rest of the project (which didn't include a firm number yet for Rotunda and dressing-room rehabilitation).

What BSC Was Raising Money For

Barton Springs Conservancy's own 2016–2017 promotional fundraising video, “For the Love of the Springs,” showed this same concept: a stand-alone Visitor Education Center, entirely separate from the Bathhouse, with its own classroom/office/meeting-room wing and a “Splash and Theater Wing,” plus exhibits on energy, water conservation, weather, geology, and bird-viewing. The City's agreement with BSC for BSC's original $3,000,000 contribution to the project was reached in 2016 — the same year as this video.

What Got Built Instead

By October 2018, Limbacher's design concepts had already folded the education and exhibit functions into the Bathhouse's Rotunda rather than placing them in a new, off-site building — the same pivot away from the 2016 study's Sheffield Education Center relocation that Post #4 of this series asked the City about. The finished project — covered earlier in this series — shows extensive exhibit, audio-visual, and IT infrastructure built directly into the Rotunda, the adjoining exhibit hall, and the Sheffield Education Center, all inside the historic, floodplain-sited Bathhouse itself.

Questions for a journalist:

• When was the plan for a separate, off-site Visitor and Education Center dropped, and by whom?
• Given the floodplain construction limits the 2016 study cited, how was education and exhibit space ultimately permitted inside the Bathhouse rather than in the new off-site building the study said was needed?
• Did donors who gave toward BSC's 2016 agreement know their money might end up funding education and exhibit space inside the Bathhouse, rather than the stand-alone Visitor Center shown in BSC's own fundraising materials?

Sources

2016 Zilker Park Bathhouse Zone Feasibility Study (City of Austin Parks + Recreation Department / MWM DesignGroup), pages 40–41 and 54. Barton Springs Conservancy promotional video, “For the Love of the Springs” (vimeo.com/216682712).

Missed Opportunities - Women's Dressing Area Not Restored to Historic Design

Post #7 in a series

Source: The Parks Department reported, in the Community Engagement Summary, "What we heard": "congestion in the women's restroom."

In 2024, when the City broke ground on the Bathhouse rehab, I and about twenty fellow protesters showed up with signs reading “$14M to DESTROY the historic women's dressing area.”

The City's own 2016 feasibility study for this project suggests that we had a point.

What the 2016 Feasibility Study Recommended

The study laid out a four-phase plan for the Bathhouse. Phase 3 called for relocating the pool's Aquatics operations — offices, maintenance, and storage — into a new, consolidated facility, freeing up the “former women's basket area.” Phase 4 then built on that: with Aquatics out of the way, “the women's changing room could be restored to approximately its original size and configuration,” preserving the historic character of the space while addressing maintenance problems and better accommodating modern privacy needs.

The same section recommended restoring elements of the historic “basket room” configuration — tall open volumes with natural ventilation and clerestory daylighting — and suggested that a restored portion of the space could even host interpretive displays for pool visitors.

This wasn't a minor aside: at the City's own August 2018 community meeting, “congestion in the women's restroom” was one of only three things listed in the summary of what the City heard from the public.

What Got Built Instead

By October 2018, Limbacher's design concepts already showed staff functions intruding into the women's dressing area — not receding from it. And per the project's own occupant-load calculations (Sheet T1.02, dated April 26, 2023), the final built space is still lopsided: the Men's Shower/dressing area totals 4,101 square feet (occupant load 82), while the Women's Shower/dressing area totals 3,098 square feet (occupant load 62) — a gap of 1,003 square feet, and 20 fewer people the women's side is rated to hold.

That gap lines up with a finding from Post #4 of this series: the Aquatics facilities that the 2016 study wanted relocated out of the women's area don't appear to have moved at all — they're still carved out of the women's dressing area, in roughly the same footprint as before. If Aquatics never left, the space the 2016 study intended to free up for the women's changing room was never actually freed.

Questions for a journalist:

• Since Aquatics operations were not relocated as the 2016 study recommended, is that why the women's changing area could not be restored to its original size?
• Why is the women's dressing/shower area more than 1,000 square feet smaller than the men's in the final, built design?
• Did the City consider any alternative that would have restored the historic size and configuration of the women's changing room, as its own 2016 study recommended?

Sources

2016 Zilker Park Bathhouse Zone Feasibility Study (City of Austin Parks + Recreation Department / MWM DesignGroup), Recommendations section, pages 50–54; the women's-changing-room recommendation is also excerpted separately here. Sheet T1.02, “Design Data” / Occupant Loads table, 100% Construction Design Intent Document set, Limbacher & Godfrey Architects, April 26, 2023 — full sheet. Austin Parks and Recreation Department, Bathhouse Rehab Community Engagement Summary (final, Dec. 3, 2019) — full document.

Possible operational issues: Questions about the occupancy limits of the Rotunda, and air conditioning

Post #6 in a series

On a hot Austin summer day, shade temperatures can reach 104 degrees. Visitors queue outside, and as the line moves, they will eventually reach the Rotunda — the rehabilitated Bathhouse's new, air-conditioned entrance.

The architects' own construction documents suggest that keeping that queue orderly, and that air conditioning intact, may be harder than it sounds.

What the Plans Say

Sheet T1.02 of the 100% Construction Documents (Limbacher & Godfrey Architects, dated April 26, 2023) contains the project's Occupant Loads table — the code-required calculation of how many people each room is allowed to hold. For Room 4, the Rotunda, using the standard assembly-space factor of one person per 30 square feet, the table calculates an occupant load of 13 people for the Rotunda's 381 square feet. The adjoining Transaction and Passage areas are each calculated separately, at 1 person apiece. The Exhibits area has an occupant load of 25 people. Several of these people need to be CoA staff.

Occupant Loads table, Sheet T1.02, Zilker Metro Park Barton Springs Bathhouse Rehabilitation, April 26, 2023.

It is my understanding that the entire Rotunda is conditioned space with inoperable windows. In other words, there's no cracking a window for airflow — the Rotunda depends entirely on mechanical air conditioning, and its only connections to the outside air are its doors.

The Operational Question

That leaves the building's daily operation to reconcile a 13-person occupancy limit inside the Rotunda and 25-person occupancy of the Exhibits with a queue of visitors outside in well over 100-degree heat, every one of them eager to step into the air conditioning.

Questions for a journalist:

• How will the Rotunda's 13-person occupancy limit be maintained when visitors are eager to step inside to feel the air conditioning? Similarly for the Exhibit's 25-person occupancy limit?
• If the entry door is not closed between each visitor — and is instead propped open — how does the operational plan account for the resulting loss of air conditioning?
• Who is responsible for monitoring the number of visitors inside the Rotunda to ensure compliance with the stated occupancy limit?

Sources

Sheet T1.02, “Design Data” / Occupant Loads table, from the 100% Construction Design Intent Document set for the Zilker Metro Park Barton Springs Bathhouse Rehabilitation (Limbacher & Godfrey Architects, April 26, 2023; City contract CSP 6100 CLMB341 / CIP 6066.035). Source: CSP_6100_CLMB341_PLANS_v1.pdf; full sheet also available as “BSBH Cover page 2 Occupant loads.pdf”.

Two Concerns of Barton Springs Conservancy - Staffing and Storage

Post #5 in a series

Barton Springs Conservancy (BSC) — the nonprofit partner that helped raise private funding for the Bathhouse rehab and the new exhibits — has flagged two operational concerns to the City in emails obtained through public information requests: staffing to run the rehabilitated Bathhouse, and storage for the tools and equipment BSC's volunteers use to maintain the springs. Neither appears to have a clear, current public answer.

1. Staffing

In July 2025, BSC president Mike Cannatti wrote to PARD Assistant Director Lucas Massie, following up on what he called “a pressing matter now that we are in the budget season.”

(Above) Mike Cannatti (BSC) to Lucas Massie (PARD Assistant Director), July 19, 2025.

Cannatti's understanding was that PARD's own budget submission to the City Manager's office had included five new FTEs in each of the next three fiscal years (FY26–28): building and grounds assistants to operate, manage, and clean the rehabilitated bathhouse grounds, plus exhibit staff — cultural and arts education specialists, exhibit specialists — to staff and maintain the new education exhibits at the central rotunda. Roughly speaking, he estimated, this would cost just under $2 million, staggered over four years. Cannatti also wrote that BSC understood the City Manager's proposed budget had not included that requested staffing funding, and that BSC wanted to raise the gap with City Council during that summer's budget deliberations.

That was the summer of 2025. The current answer to the Bathhouse staffing needs should be found in the City's FY2027 budget.

Questions for a journalist:

• Has the CoA sufficiently budgeted for staff?
• How many additional staff positions are needed for the new Bathhouse rehab?

2. Storage

In March 2026, Cannatti raised a second, more concrete concern: where BSC's volunteers were supposed to store their own equipment.

(Above) BSC explains the lack of storage for volunteer equipment — Mike Cannatti to Ellen Colfax (PARD) and David Polkinghorn, March 24, 2026.

(Above) CoA's Ellen Colfax replies — March 25, 2026.

Colfax acknowledged the problem — volunteers' tools, wheelbarrows, and ladders had been stacking up in the emergency exit hall, which she confirmed isn't allowed — and said Aquatics staff would move the wheelbarrows to a fenced area behind the café. A permanent solution for the rest of the equipment, she wrote, was still being worked out.

Questions for a journalist:

• Has the CoA found a permanent storage location for BSC's volunteer equipment at or near the Bathhouse?
• After coordinating donations of over $3.5M for the Bathhouse rehab project, why did the designers neglect to create storage for the BSC's tools, wheelbarrows and ladders?

Sources

Emails obtained through City of Austin public information requests: the staffing thread (Cannatti to Massie, July 19, 2025, forwarded to Jesus Aguirre July 21, 2025) via PIR #249, and the storage thread (Cannatti to Colfax and Polkinghorn, March 24–25, 2026) via PIR #507: original message and Colfax's reply.

Questions: Has the current Limbacher design satisfied all objectives?

Post #4 in a series

The Scope of Services for the Joan Means Khabele Bathhouse rehab design contract (RFQS_6100_CLMP223) laid out seven objectives. Four of them are not immediately apparent to the public eye.

“Objectives of the Project,” City of Austin Scope of Services, RFQS_6100_CLMP223, Revision Date 10/01/15.

It would be helpful if City staff could explain each of the four boxed and highlighted objectives above, including answers to these questions:

• Life safety egress — Are there 25 linear feet of north-side egress in the event of an emergency?
• How was the location of the Exhibits and Education Center decided?
• Relocated and expanded Aquatics Facilities with storage for WPD salamander biologist equipment: have the storage needs of CoA staff been met?
• The new parking lot: please explain in terms of impervious cover requirements of the entire site.

1. Life Safety Egress

The Scope calls for “Life Safety Egress, ADA accessibility and automated entry improvements to the Bathhouse and related Barton Springs Pool perimeter.” The City's own 2016 Feasibility Study had already spelled out why this mattered, in fairly blunt terms: “At present, the number and location of emergency exits from the north side of the pool are conspicuously deficient with respect to the requirements of the Building Code… the north side of the pool should be provided per code with not less than four means of egress, with a total width of not less than 25'.” The same study noted that state pool regulations require every door, gate, and window in the pool enclosure to be either staffed or locked, which is why it recommended that egress points double as supervised entry points — and separately, that a required means of egress cannot be gender-segregated, nor located in an area that is.

Put together, that's a specific, checkable standard: at least four emergency exits from the north side of the pool, totaling 25 feet of width or more, each one supervised, and none of them split by gender.

Has the completed design met it?

2. The Sheffield Education Center and SPLASH! Exhibit Location

The Scope calls for the design team to “Determine Sheffield Education Center/SPLASH! Exhibit Location and related Remodel.” But the 2016 Feasibility Study's Recommendations section (covered in Post #2 of this series) didn't leave that question open — it concluded that relocating the Sheffield Education Center off-site was “the most viable means” of protecting its educational programs from the next flood, and that a relocated Center could be combined with a new Visitor's Center for the park. That's not what happened: the Education Center and the SPLASH! exhibit both remain inside the Bathhouse.

Who decided to keep them there, and why wasn't the 2016 study's recommendation followed?

3. Aquatics Facilities and WPD Storage

The Scope calls for “Relocated and expanded Aquatics Facilities with storage for WPD salamander biologist equipment within the Bathhouse.” Two things about that are worth checking.

First, the Aquatics space doesn't appear to have moved — it's still carved out of the women's dressing area, in roughly the same footprint as before. Why wasn't it relocated?

Second, the objective specifically promises storage space for the Watershed Protection Department's salamander biologists. Did WPD actually get that storage?

4. Parking Lot Reconfiguration and Site Improvements

The Scope calls for the design to coordinate with “Parking lot Reconfiguration and Site Improvements.”

Please explain the new parking lot in terms of the alterations in the ratio of pervious-to-impervious cover of the entire site, including the Bathhouse.

Sources

These questions are drawn directly from two City documents: the Scope of Services for the design contract (RFQS_6100_CLMP223, “Objectives of the Project,” Revision Date 10/01/15) and the 2016 Zilker Park Bathhouse Zone Feasibility Study (City of Austin Parks + Recreation Department / MWM DesignGroup), both obtained through public information requests. None of the four questions above has a public answer yet.