Browning Hangar · 4550 Mueller Blvd · Austin

Keep the whole Hangar open, for everyone.

So many people love the Browning Hangar. Let's protect it as a historic structure and make sure it stays open for everyone.

Wide view under the Hangar's wooden arches on a weekend afternoon: people playing pétanque on the open gravel floor, folding chairs, trees and sky at both open ends.
PhotoA weekend afternoon under the arches.

For years and years, the Browning Hangar has been a gigantic open space like no other in Austin. It's free, it's open, and it's simply a wonderful place to be, with a breeze coming off the lake and the sunset filling the view through the arches. It's a fantastic place to get out of the sun or hide from the rain, whatever the weather. People from all walks of life end up there, hanging out, having a picnic, playing games.

But now there's real danger on the horizon. The Hangar could be lost to real estate development, like so many other wonderful places in Austin over the last several years. Once developers start turning it into a commercial enterprise, the historic character of that huge open space will be lost forever. Now is the time to act, and to preserve the Hangar as the wonderful, unique historic structure it has been for over 80 years.

Jeffrey Wade Brown, a Hangar regular and Austinite for 36 years

Help protect public access See the proposed changes

Two goals, both needed

Goal 1

Preserve the historic Hangar

Protect its structure, its character, and the wide-open space under its arches.

  • Complete the landmark designation the City's commissions recommended in 2002, before any sale or lease, so future plans are judged against it instead of shaping it.
  • Send any alteration through public preservation review.
  • Keep new buildings out from under the Hangar's roof.
Goal 2

Secure lasting public access

Protect the public's right to use the floor and grounds without paying or buying anything, whoever owns or runs them.

  • Write enforceable protections into any sale, lease or management agreement.
  • Map the protected space and guarantee public hours.
  • Bind every future owner, tenant and operator.

A perfectly preserved Hangar could still become a private patio. Stopping the current concept would not, by itself, secure public access. That takes protections in writing, and they are needed whatever design goes forward.

Right now, an early concept would put new tenant space partly under the Hangar's roof, and how the public could use the rest is not settled.

We support repairs, restrooms, and compatible cafés beside the Hangar. We ask that its covered floor stay available for public life, and that this be written into any deal before it is signed.

For Mueller neighbors
  • The protections we propose put no new costs on the Mueller Property Owners Association without its agreement.
  • Hours, amplified sound and lighting should be set in the City's agreement and enforced by the City, not left to a tenant.
  • Restrooms, good lighting and a responsible manager make a public place cleaner and safer.
For everyone in Austin
  • A rare covered public place where nobody has to pay or buy anything.
  • A historic landmark of Austin aviation, preserved.
  • Markets, tournaments and community events open to all.

Who's who

Mueller
A neighborhood in east-central Austin, about 700 acres, built since the early 2000s on the site of the old Robert Mueller Municipal Airport. The Hangar sits at its western edge, near Airport Blvd and Mueller Lake Park.
The City of Austin
Understood to own the Hangar and its land. City Council and City staff decide its future, within the City's 2004 development agreement with Banbury. Exactly who must approve what is one of the questions we have asked the City.
Banbury Development
Mueller's master developer (formerly Catellus), working under a 2004 agreement with the City. It is looking for a commercial user for the Hangar and presented the current concept.
PIAC
The Mueller Plan Implementation Advisory Commission: volunteers appointed by City Council members to advise Council on Mueller. Its recommendations are advisory.
Historic Landmark Commission
The City board that reviews changes to historic buildings and recommends landmark designation.
Mueller POA
The Mueller Property Owners Association, the owners' association for Mueller homes and businesses. Our proposals add no costs for it without its agreement.
Open Hangar Austin
Us: people who use the Hangar and neighbors who want it preserved and open to everyone.

Where things stand

Status as of October 20, 2026

Proposed
  • Banbury's early "massing studies" for commercial reuse, shown to the Historic Landmark Commission's review committee in August and to PIAC on October 13.
  • No tenant identified and no design approved.
Recommended
  • PIAC, August 2024: Council should consider public-access protections, a lease as well as a sale, historic zoning, and a nonprofit partner.
  • PIAC, November 2024: begin covenant changes for public access "in perpetuity," even if commercially owned.
  • PIAC's recommendations are advisory.
What is in place
  • We know of no adopted or recorded protection of public access to the Hangar.
  • In 2002 the Historic Landmark Commission (8–0) and Planning Commission (6–0) recommended landmark zoning for the Hangar. Council postponed it in early 2003, and we know of no final vote.
  • Banbury says it is pursuing historic designation. We know of no designation in effect.
Not yet known
  • The site's exact boundaries, and who holds which rights.
  • What approvals remain before a sale or lease, and whether Council must vote.
  • The last point at which the City can still require access protections on its own.
  • We have put these questions to City staff and commissioners in writing.

The Hangar today

A public place that already works

The City built the Hangar in 1943 for Austin's Robert Mueller Municipal Airport. Its glue-laminated wooden arches were an inventive answer to wartime limits on materials. It carries the name of Browning Aerial Service, the flight school and aviation business that Emma Browning and her husband Robert ran at Mueller for four decades. Inducted into the Texas Aviation Hall of Fame in 2005, she is remembered as "Austin's First Lady of Aviation." City staff have called it the oldest and most significant surviving structure of Austin's first municipal airport. Restored as an open-air shell, it has become one of Mueller's busiest public places. Much of its everyday use is free and informal; some groups also reserve it.

Black-and-white photo of Emma Carter Browning smiling in the cockpit of a small airplane, hand on the control stick.
PhotoEmma Carter Browning in a J-3 Cub, circa 1940. Photographer unidentified. Source: Emma Carter Browning, undated illustrated biography hosted by the Texas Aviation Association, cover.

Banbury itself, presenting on October 13, listed regulars "that play pétanque, those that do the fantasy sword play, that do the drums." Users who spoke that night added birthday parties, picnics, band rehearsals, comedy and monthly tournaments.

  • Pétanque
  • Tournaments
  • Sword play and martial arts
  • Drumming
  • Bands
  • Picnics
  • Birthday parties
  • Community celebrations
  • Farmers market (past)
  • Dog walkers
  • Shade on a 100° day

"In warm weather, the sun is not in it. The little breeze from the lake comes in and makes it really comfortable in there."

Michael Kaufman, Hangar user for 20 years, PIAC testimony, Oct 13, 2026 · transcript, 1:25:24

The developer's own words, 2016. A leasing brochure for the Hangar said it would "see over 65 events" that year, housed a weekly farmers market "with ±2,500 visitors per weekend," and hosted celebrations "from galas to 5ks, with guests of 150 to more than 6,000."

Catellus / CBRE, "For Lease: Browning Hangar," 2016, p. 10 (see the page). Marketing figures, not audited.

Video: a typical weekend at the Hangar, filmed by a user. 77 seconds, with sound.

A large crowd seated at tables and chairs under the arches during a community celebration.
PhotoA community celebration using the whole floor.
A polka band with brass instruments performing at the edge of the Hangar.
PhotoThe Austin Polka Band at the Hangar's edge.
The Hangar at night, lit from above, with people playing on the floor.
PhotoEvening play under the lights.
The Hangar seen from the parking lot, with a metal fence along its west side.
PhotoThe west side: a fence and parking between the Hangar and the food trucks.

When it's quiet today, it isn't for lack of interest. Today there is no shared calendar and no one organizing events, the farmers market has moved on, and the picnic tables were removed. It also has real needs: no permanent restrooms, an aging roof, lighting the public can't easily control, and a weak connection to the food trucks next door. Each can be met without building inside the Hangar.

The issue

What Banbury showed on October 13

Banbury, Mueller's master developer, presented early "massing studies" (rough studies of building sizes and placement) by Michael Hsu Office of Architecture to the City's Mueller Plan Implementation Advisory Commission (PIAC). The deck is dated August 4, 2026. Banbury stressed that it has no tenant and no final design. See the deck in the City's record.

13,000sq ft of new tenant space in total, mostly in new buildings beside the Hangar (deck p. 13)
5tenant spaces: A 3,300, B 4,000, and C, D, E about 1,900 sq ft each
1attached building that extends under the arch at one end (pp. 16–17)
Moreparking between Airport Blvd and the Hangar, in the architect's words

Same view, two futures

The deck opens with this photo, titled "Browning Hangar Today," and ends with the same view from Mueller Lake after the changes. Drag the handle, or use the arrow keys, to compare.

Architect's rendering from Mueller Lake: the Hangar with new buildings on both sides and tables on the floor. Architect's photo of the Hangar today from Mueller Lake: a single open arch reflected in the water.
Today (deck p. 11)Concept (deck p. 21)
Architect's massing page: plan and aerial showing a long tenant building along one side of the Hangar and three smaller buildings to the south, total area 13,000 square feet. 123
ProposalDeck p. 13, City record.

The plan

  1. 1Tenants A and B (7,300 sq ft together) in a long building attached to one side of the Hangar.
  2. 2Tenants C, D and E in three gabled buildings to the south.
  3. 3Parking along Airport Blvd, expanded.
Architect's aerial cutaway with the roof drawn see-through: a tenant building pushes under the first arches, the floor is laid out with picnic tables, three buildings sit to the south, and a parking lot fills the foreground. 123
ProposalDeck p. 16. The roof is drawn see-through to show the floor.

Under the roof

  1. 1The attached building extends under the first arches.
  2. 2The rest of the floor is drawn with rows of dining tables.
  3. 3Parking leads on the Airport Blvd side.
  • Drawings showA tenant building reaching into the covered area, and the floor laid out with dining tables.
  • Our concernTenant seating could displace informal public use and the events that need the whole floor.
  • Not decidedSeating rules, public hours, and any tenant's obligations to the public.
Architect's aerial from the lake side: the arched roof, a tenant box visible under the arch, tables and string lights on the floor, and three gabled buildings on one side. 12
ProposalDeck p. 17, from the lake side.

From the lake

  1. 1The tenant building is visible inside, under the arch.
  2. 2The curved side wall is opened between the arch ribs. The architect described "peeling back a little bit of a roof right now that comes all the way down."
Architect's ground-level rendering: bare arch ribs and concrete footings on the left, a new building with shoppers on the right. 12
ProposalDeck p. 19, "View down proposed walkway."

At ground level

  1. 1With the side wall open, the ribs and footings stand exposed. The architect called them "the star of the show."
  2. 2A walkway runs between the ribs and the new tenant buildings.

In their own words

From the City's audio of the meeting. Times refer to that recording. Read the full transcript of the Hangar item.

"There is no active user for the Hangar site right now."

Brian Dolezal, Banbury, 0:52:04. In context: no commercial tenant or buyer.

"We are required under this legally binding contract between the City of Austin and Banbury to make the best effort possible to find an organization that will offer fair market value for this asset."

Brian Dolezal, 0:52:55

"…add some real square footage here so that this could function for multiple tenants and really would get a critical mass of use from various probably F&B and maybe retail functions."

Phil Ward, Michael Hsu Office of Architecture, 0:57:58

"The intention is not to fence this off, to close it off, to fully privatize the space underneath. But to find a balance between letting future tenants utilize that space…"

Phil Ward, 1:02:33

"Until we have a better sense of what those tenants are going to be, it's hard to know that for sure."

Brian Dolezal, asked about public use, 1:10:39

"I don't think there's a need for downtown Mueller to jump across the lake."

Commissioner Andrew Clements, author of PIAC's August 2024 recommendation, 1:17:23

What the concept gets right

It adds shade trees and a walk to the lake, plans restrooms the site needs, and celebrates the arches and footings. Banbury says it remains committed to historic designation, and that the building inside "could be smaller." Banbury has also hired a first-rate firm. We'd welcome the same team designing a version that builds beside the Hangar. Our concern is what it would put there: it treats the Hangar's floor as seating for new tenants.

What the concept puts at risk

Five concerns

These are concerns about the plan, not about the people who drew it. Open each one for the evidence.

Building into the landmark's open space

The wide-open space under the arches is what most people value in the Hangar today. National preservation standards ask that new additions not destroy what characterizes a historic property, that they be compatible in massing, size and scale, and that they could be removed later without impairing its essential form. A building under the arch and an opened side wall raise serious questions under those standards. Cutting into the historic structure could remove original material for good, while a café or restrooms beside it can be changed later. How reversible any change would be, and the final judgment, belong to a formal preservation review.

The evidence

The standards. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, Standards 9 and 10 (nps.gov). Standard 9: new additions "shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property," and new work "shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features." Standard 10: additions should be built so that "if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired." The standards are applied case by case, taking economic and technical feasibility into account.

The drawings. Deck pp. 16–17 show the attached building under the first arches; pp. 17 and 19 show the side wall opened between the ribs.

The City's own finding, 2002. The staff report for landmark zoning called it "the oldest and most significant structure surviving" from Austin's first municipal airport, and the National Register nomination describes its glue-laminated wooden trusses as "a rare early example" of that building practice. (City records, case C14H-02-0008, released October 2026; read the 2002 report)

A commissioner, Oct 13: "It seems intrusive to that just beautiful shape to me, but I get it." (1:08:09)

History includes the last twenty years

The deck draws on the airport era, when offices were attached to the hangar and warehouses stood to its south. That history is real and worth telling. The Hangar's recent life as a free civic space is part of its significance too. We ask that preservation professionals identify the features that give it its character, and that the open space and its public use be counted among them.

The evidence

The deck, p. 14, "Reinforcing History": the addition "mimics the placement & attachment of the offices or storage rooms of the original hangar," and the southern buildings derive "from the warehouse structures that were located to the south."

The architect described the concept as "not one sort of pure pristine shell, which is kind of what we've gotten used to for quite a while now." (0:58:37)

Public use would depend on tenants

Banbury says the public will still be welcome, and we take that in good faith. But by its own account, how much public use survives depends on who the tenants turn out to be. Good intentions don't bind the next owner.

The evidence

Banbury: "So it's possible that the tenants that we get there definitely want to have that kind of more of a public use. But until we have a better sense of what those tenants are going to be, it's hard to know that for sure." (1:10:39)

The record. PIAC's November 2024 recommendation asked Council to begin covenant changes protecting public access "in perpetuity." We know of no protection that has been adopted. (recommendation)

Whole-floor uses could be pushed out

Some of the Hangar's best uses need most or all of the floor: tournaments laid out in lanes, markets, charity events, large celebrations. The arrangement illustrated, with an enclosed tenant space and the floor laid out with tables, could prevent those uses.

The evidence

Users, Oct 13: speakers described weekly play, monthly tournaments, visitors from across Texas, and hopes for regional and national tournaments. The farmers market once used the entire floor.

The drawings: deck pp. 16–17. The drawings don't say whether tables would be fixed or movable.

Parking leads at Mueller's front door

The Airport Blvd side is many people's first view of Mueller. The concept gives that side to a larger parking lot. Mueller already has a town center with restaurants and shops across the lake. What it has nowhere else is a covered public space this size where nobody has to pay or buy anything. More pavement also means more heat and more stormwater runoff, and drainage is already on the Hangar's list of needs.

The evidence

The architect: "We are showing here also an expansion of the parking area that's between Airport Boulevard and the Hangar." (0:59:25) Deck p. 18.

The Chair, summarizing a commissioner: the Hangar area "needs to be respected as a major point of entry for the community." (1:16:43)

Public access

What "open" has to mean

"Open" can mean open during a business's hours, or open to customers. We mean three things together: no buildings or fixed structures on the floor, anyone can use it without paying or buying anything, and that stays true under every future owner.

Three kinds of use

Everyday useDrop-in, free, no reservation

Anyone may come and use the floor during public hours, without a reservation, membership, fee or purchase. Everyday use comes first; every booking follows rules that protect it.

Scheduled public eventsMarkets, tournaments, charity runs

Free to attend and announced in advance. Most share the floor with everyday users. A few, like a tournament or a charity run, may occasionally use the whole floor for a set time.

Private rentalsShort, limited exclusive use

A limited number of private rentals may close the floor for short, set periods, scheduled and posted in advance. That gives renters something of real value and helps pay for the Hangar, as special events have done in the past.

Five protections for any sale, lease or management agreement

  1. Keep the entire floor public

    Keep the entire covered floor open as public space, and protect public use of the surrounding grounds and their connections to Mueller Lake Park, all shown on a map in the controlling documents.

  2. No purchase required

    Allow everyday use without a purchase, membership or reservation.

  3. Guaranteed public hours

    Guarantee minimum public hours, not limited to a business's operating hours.

  4. Bind every future owner

    Bind all future owners, tenants and operators, and survive any change in ownership or management.

  5. Council approval to reduce

    Require City Council approval, after public notice, for any change that reduces these protections.

These are protections we propose; we know of none in place yet. They should apply to any sale, lease or management agreement, including if the City keeps the Hangar. They allow commercial uses next to the Hangar and events under its roof, and should not impose new costs on the Mueller Property Owners Association without its agreement.

Read the full public-access proposal and principles

Details to work out together

The protections set the floor. The rest should be worked out in public, with common sense rather than rigid rules:

  • Hours. Generous daily public hours. We're confident these can be worked out openly with neighbors and the people who use the Hangar.
  • Full-floor events and private rentals. Occasional, and arranged so everyday use always comes first. We're confident a fair balance can be found with the people who use the Hangar.
  • Tables and stalls. Market stalls and event tables can use the floor during events, as long as they are temporary and cleared afterward. A few movable café tables in a limited area can be an everyday part of the Hangar, open to anyone, with no purchase needed.
  • Enforcement. Who monitors compliance, where people can report being excluded, and who must restore access.
  • Neighborhood rules. Limits on late-night hours, amplified sound and lighting, and who enforces them.
  • Changes. What it takes to reduce any protection, and whether some should never be reduced.

Our alternative

Keep the floor. Build beside it.

Fix what's missing, put commerce at the edges, and design the grounds and the Hangar as one place. The Hangar becomes Mueller's front porch: cafés, restrooms and shade around it, and a free, open floor at its heart.

What makes a covered public place work. Christopher Alexander's classic A Pattern Language (1977) has a pattern for this, No. 69, "Public Outdoor Room": a roofed place without walls, beside a well-used path, where people can comfortably spend hours. Few modern neighborhoods have one. The Hangar already is one. Our plan keeps it that way: cafés, restrooms, seats and shade along the edges, outside the arches, and the open floor at the center.

  • No buildings under the roofNo buildings or fixed structures on the covered floor. It stays available for public life.
  • Commerce beside itA café and restroom pavilion and a food-truck plaza on the grounds.
  • Fix what's missingPermanent restrooms, a sound roof, good lighting with simple public controls, water, and power for events.
  • Grounds and Hangar as one placeShade trees, gardens, and benches and low walls where people can sit and watch. Swap some asphalt for a plaza tied to the food trucks and the lake.
  • Free to use, with eventsEveryday use stays free. Scheduled markets, tournaments and concerts bring life and some revenue.
  • A shared calendarOne public booking calendar, run by whoever manages the Hangar, so groups know when and where they're playing and clashes are settled before anyone arrives.
  • Fast setup, fast clearChairs, tables, stage platforms and power on rolling carts, stored beside the Hangar, so events set up quickly and the floor is open again right after.
  • Firm protections, common sense for the restPublic access protected in writing. Everything else, from where the tables go to which group plays when, worked out with good judgment. Rigid rules can't foresee how a good public place grows; the people who use it can.
  • Tell the storyEmma Browning, Mueller Airport and the 1943 wartime construction, told with panels and signs on site, without turning the Hangar into a museum.

Two site plans, same frame

Both diagrams use the same boundary, orientation and Hangar footprint, outlined in brown. They are diagrams for discussion, not to scale.

Banbury concept

Banbury's concept: a tenant building attached along the north end of the Hangar and reaching under it, three tenant buildings to the south, tables across the floor, and a large parking lot on the Airport Boulevard side. AIRPORT BLVD MUELLER LAKE PARKING TENANTS A + B 7,300 SQ FT into the arch ↓ TENANTS C, D, E N ↑
Drawn from deck pp. 13 and 16.

Open Hangar alternative

Open Hangar alternative: the whole Hangar floor clear, shown with tournament lanes; a separate café and restroom pavilion and a food-truck plaza on the Airport Boulevard side; a smaller parking lot; a shaded terrace to the south; trees linking to the lake. AIRPORT BLVD MUELLER LAKE SMALLER LOT FOOD TRUCKS CAFÉ + RESTROOMS WHOLE FLOOR CLEAR lanes shown: tournament SHADED TERRACE N ↑
Concept for discussion. Locations are illustrative.
  • Hangar footprint
  • New tenant buildings
  • Café and restroom pavilion
  • Plaza and terrace
  • Food trucks
  • Parking
  • Trees
Panorama under the arches on a sunny afternoon: people spread across the open gravel floor, some playing, one sitting in a folding chair, a few at a picnic table by the wooden wall.
PhotoAn ordinary afternoon: the whole floor open, shared by whoever comes.

Three kinds of days

Illustrative examples, not a committed schedule.

An ordinary weekday. Walkers stop for coffee at the café pavilion. Pétanque players, families and people looking for shade spread across the floor. In the evening a sword-play class uses one end. Nothing is booked for most of the day.

A shared event day. A market fills part of the floor from morning to early afternoon. The rest stays open for players, kids and anyone passing through. By afternoon the whole floor is open again.

An occasional big day. A regional tournament or a charity run uses the whole floor for a set time, free to watch and announced well ahead. Afterward the carts roll out and the floor is open.

Today there is no shared calendar, so groups simply show up. A public calendar would make scheduling choices visible and protect drop-in use.

Next: a real design, by the people who know it

The diagrams show the idea. The next step is a public design workshop at the Hangar with architects, landscape architects, preservation professionals and the people who use the space every day.

Our alternative · Funding and management

A funding path to investigate

Banbury is right that the Hangar is expensive to maintain. Every public building is. Upkeep should be paid for in ways that keep the floor public. The figures and sources below are possibilities, not commitments.

Capital needs, planning estimates

ItemRange
Permanent restrooms, including sewer and utility connections the site lacks$0.9M–$1.6M
Roof replacement$0.5M–$1.2M
Electrical and lighting$0.35M–$0.7M
Drainage, public realm and event infrastructure$0.85M–$2.15M
Total$2.6M–$5.6M

From the capital plan on browninghangar.org. See the capital plan for each item. These are not bids; real numbers need a professional cost study.

Possible sources

  • Parks bond (Proposition A). Austin voters decide on a $260 million parks bond on November 3. The package Council approved includes $65.5 million for "park buildings and facilities." The Hangar is not named. If the bond passes, specific projects are chosen later. (KUT, Oct 15; KUT, Aug 5)
  • A café beside the Hangar. A café building leased to an operator could pay rent.
  • A well-run calendar. Markets, tournaments, concerts, charity runs and film shoots can pay fees, within the limits on exclusive use, and their crowds make a café lease worth more.
  • A precedent next door. Across Airport Blvd, the City rebuilt the Pharr Tennis Center with $4 million from the 2018 bond: lighting, drainage, restrooms, shade, rain gardens and public art. The Hangar site deserves the same kind of whole-site study. (CultureMap)
  • Grants, sponsors and donors. Preservation, aviation-history and park funding.

Four separate decisions

Who owns the Hangar, who runs it, how it's paid for, and where anything new is built are different questions, each with options.

OwnershipWho holds it
  • The City keeps it as public parkland.
  • The City leases it.
  • It is sold, with access protections attached.
ManagementWho runs it
  • The City's parks department.
  • A nonprofit partner, as with Austin's Waterloo Greenway, Pease Park and Shoal Creek conservancies. PIAC recommended exploring this in 2024.
  • An operator bound by the access protections.
FundingWho pays
  • Bond or other City capital funds.
  • Café rent and event fees.
  • Grants, sponsors and donors.
DesignWhere to build
  • Beside the Hangar, not under its roof.
  • Inside it, as the current concept shows.

Two paths compared

Path 1Commercial sale or lease (the current concept)
  • Control: a buyer or tenant, under the deal's terms.
  • The floor: tenant building and seating shown under the roof.
  • Upkeep: owner or tenant, as the deal assigns.
  • Public use and neighborhood rules: whatever the deal requires.
Path 2 · one optionCity-owned, with a nonprofit partner
  • Control: the City, with a partner managing under a City agreement.
  • The floor: no buildings on it, with commerce beside it.
  • Upkeep: as the agreement assigns, from City funds, grants, donors and event fees.
  • Public use and neighborhood rules: whatever the agreement requires.
Required on either pathProtections in writing
  • The five protections above, with the space mapped.
  • Enforcement by the City.
  • A public process for any change.

Responsibilities on both paths are proposals; none has been agreed. On either path, written protections are what make public access last.

Our position: build beside the Hangar, not inside it, and attach written access protections to whatever ownership and management arrangement is chosen. The other choices should be made in a public process.

Questions a full operating plan must answer
  • Who maintains the roof, cleans the restrooms, handles waste and manages bookings?
  • What does it cost to operate each year after the capital repairs?
  • How much could café rent and limited event fees realistically contribute?
  • How do accessible routes, surfaces, seating and restrooms work?
  • How do deliveries, service vehicles and food trucks coexist with people on foot?
  • How does scheduling protect everyday drop-in use?

These answers should come from a professional plan developed in public.

Take action

Help protect the Hangar and public access

1
Write to City Council

Use the City's form to email all Council members. A short, personal note works best. Pick your district and how you use the Hangar, then copy the message and add your own words.

2. Open the Council email form
2
Come to the next PIAC meeting

The commission's next meeting is November 10, 2026. Check the commission's page for the agenda, time, location, and how to sign up to speak in person or remotely.

PIAC meetings and agendasOur proposal and handouts
3
Write to the Landmark Commission

The City's Historic Landmark Commission reviews changes to historic buildings. A short email to the City's preservation office goes into the public record. Mention case C14H-02-0008 (the Browning Hangar, 4550 Mueller Blvd.) and ask the City to finish the 2002 landmark designation before any sale or lease, and to keep new construction out from under the arches. The commission usually meets the first Wednesday of the month (next: November 4), and anyone can sign up to speak during public comment.

Email the preservation office
4
Get updates

Hear when the Hangar is on an agenda and when your voice will count most.

Sign up for updates
5
Share this page

Send it to neighbors and to the groups you see at the Hangar.

What we ask of each decision-maker

PIAC commissionersBring the public-access recommendation forward as an action item on November 10.
City CouncilMake sure any Council item on the Hangar includes enforceable public-access protections and PIAC's recommendations, and finish the 2002 landmark designation before any sale or lease.
Historic Landmark CommissionDesignate the Hangar before any sale or lease, name the open space under its arches as part of its historic character, and keep new construction out from under them.
BanburyBuild beside the Hangar, not inside it, and work with the people who use it.

Three questions we have put to the City

  1. Who owns the Hangar site, and what are its boundaries?
  2. What approvals remain before a sale or lease, and does City Council have to vote?
  3. What is the last point at which the City can require public-access protections on its own, before it needs a buyer's or developer's agreement?

Questions

Questions about access, preservation and funding

Doesn't the agreement require Banbury to get fair market value?

That is what Banbury said on October 13. We have asked City staff in writing what the agreement actually requires. The only language from the Mueller Master Development Agreement we have seen, quoted in PIAC's August 2024 recommendation, says the long-term plan "may include the sale or lease of the Bow-Trussed Hangar." A lease is an option, and value can come from a café site beside the Hangar, a lease, or a sale with access protections.

Who owns the Hangar?

The City of Austin is understood to own the Hangar and its tract, 70,500 square feet (about 1.6 acres) in a 2002 City report, and Banbury describes its role as master developer "on behalf of the City." We have asked staff to confirm the exact boundaries and any rights Banbury holds under the development agreement.

Isn't the Hangar too expensive to maintain without commercial tenants?

It needs a roof, restrooms and electrical work, roughly $2.6M–$5.6M for all capital work by current planning estimates. That is normal civic infrastructure. A café beside the Hangar and scheduled events could help with operating costs. See A funding path to investigate.

Doesn't the space need "activation"?

It is already one of Mueller's busiest public places, without a tenant; watch the video. What would help is restrooms, light, shade around it, and someone organizing events.

Wasn't the Hangar always meant to be redeveloped?

Banbury says so, and a 2016 brochure marketed it "for lease." Redevelopment can also mean restoration. PIAC's August 2024 recommendation asked Council to consider a lease as well as a sale; public access through a covenant, easement or similar means; food, beverages and restrooms; historic zoning; and a nonprofit partnership, including a possible conservancy.

Banbury says the public will still be welcome. Why isn't that enough?

Being welcome is not the same as having a right. Banbury says public use depends on future tenants, and owners and tenants change. Written, enforceable protections, mapped and binding on every future owner, are what keep the floor public.

Won't historic designation protect it anyway?

Designation protects the structure by sending changes to public review, and the City's commissions recommended it back in 2002. It does not guarantee free public use. We need both, which is why this site asks for both.

It's only an early sketch. Why object now?

Because early is when designs change most easily. Banbury said the building inside "could be smaller" and that its financial review will take time. Once a tenant and a contract are in place, change will be much harder.

Is this just about pétanque?

No. Pétanque players are among the most regular users and caretakers of the Hangar, and tournaments are one of the uses that need the whole floor. The case is about everyone: martial artists, musicians, families, dog walkers, market vendors, charity events, and people who just need shade.

What about safety?

Public places become safer with good lighting, restrooms, regular events and someone responsible for the site. None of those require privatizing the floor.

Will this raise Mueller HOA dues?

It shouldn't. The protections we propose say they should not impose new financial obligations on the Mueller Property Owners Association or its members without their agreement.

Is there a deadline?

The Mueller Master Development Agreement is reported to end December 31, 2027, and PIAC is set to end then too. We don't yet know the last point at which the City can still add access protections on its own. That is one of the questions we have put to the City, and it's why we're acting now.

Voices

From the October 13 meeting

"I've been all over the country… and I have never seen a structure like that in any city. I think it's a historical structure."

Michael Kaufman, Hangar user for 20 years

"Friday afternoons, Saturday afternoons, there's so many people out walking. There's bands, the whole grass is filled up… There's all of us in the Hangar."

Kimberly, pétanque player, at her first PIAC meeting

"Maybe we need to look what's missing… And there's an affordability factor."

Bonnie, a neighbor of 14 years

Sources

The record

Black-and-white photo of the Browning hangar around 1960, with BROWNING painted on the arch and small airplanes in front.
PhotoThe Browning hangar at Mueller Airport, 1960. Photograph by Neal Douglass, "Browning Aviation," ND-60-531-01, Neal Douglass Photography Collection, Austin History Center, Austin Public Library; via The Portal to Texas History, University of North Texas Libraries.
  1. The City builds the hangar with glue-laminated wooden arches under wartime limits on materials.
  2. Browning Aerial Service, run by Robert and Emma Browning, trains pilots and services aircraft at Mueller. Emma becomes its president in 1973.
  3. Airport operations move to Austin-Bergstrom. The hangar and control tower survive the airport's demolition.
  4. Landmark Commission (8–0) and Planning Commission (6–0) recommend landmark zoning; Council postpones it in early 2003.
  5. The City and its master developer sign the Mueller Master Development Agreement.
  6. The City dedicates Emma Browning Avenue at Austin-Bergstrom, after Council renames General Aviation Avenue in her honor.
  7. A developer brochure markets the Hangar "for lease," citing over 65 events that year.
  8. The developer tells PIAC of a potential for-profit user. That deal "did not materialize."
  9. Council extends the agreement, reported to end December 31, 2027.
  10. PIAC recommendation: consider a lease, access protections, amenities, historic zoning and a nonprofit partner. 8–0, one abstention, two absent.
  11. PIAC recommendation: begin covenant changes for public access "in perpetuity." 8–0, three absent.
  12. Banbury brings its concept to the Historic Landmark Commission's review committee.
  13. Banbury presents the concept to PIAC; many Hangar users speak.
  14. Election, including the parks bond.
  15. Next PIAC meeting.

Labels used on this page

ProposalBanbury's drawings, from the City's public record.
PhotoPhotographs of the real Hangar.
0:52:04 Time in the City's recording of the Oct 13, 2026 meeting.
  1. Michael Hsu Office of Architecture for Banbury, "Browning Hangar: Massing Studies," Aug 4, 2026; City backup "Browning Hangar Update," PIAC, Oct 13, 2026. services.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=483291
  2. PIAC meeting, Oct 13, 2026: agenda, backup and audio. austintexas.gov/boards-commissions/meetings/2026_45_1
  3. Unofficial transcript of the Hangar item, Oct 13, 2026. Read the transcript
  4. PIAC Recommendation 20240813-004, Aug 13, 2024. services.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=434273
  5. PIAC Recommendation 20241112-005, Nov 12, 2024. services.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=441089
  6. National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. nps.gov
  7. KUT, Austin parks and library bond package, Oct 15, 2026. kut.org
  8. KUT, Council signs off on $295 million bond proposal, Aug 5, 2026. kut.org
  9. PIAC commission page and meeting schedule. austintexas.gov
  10. City of Austin records released under the Texas Public Information Act, October 2026 (request C337018-093026): 2002 staff report and National Register nomination excerpt, case C14H-02-0008. Read the excerpt (PDF)
  11. Catellus / CBRE, "For Lease: Browning Hangar" leasing brochure, 2016, p. 10. See the page (PDF)
  12. City of Austin, Historic Landmark Commission backup, July 27, 2015 (case NRD-2015-0063): staff report, Emma Browning biography and obituaries, and the Austin-Bergstrom release on Emma Browning Avenue, Oct 26, 2010.
  13. Pharr Tennis Center renovation and 2018 bond allocation: CultureMap Austin, May 10, 2021. austin.culturemap.com
  14. Christopher Alexander, Sara Ishikawa and Murray Silverstein, A Pattern Language (Oxford University Press, 1977), Pattern 69, "Public Outdoor Room."
  15. Capital cost ranges: Capital Plan page, browninghangar.org/capital-plan.
  16. Draft PIAC recommendation, Public Access Principles and background note, September 2026. browninghangar.org/public-access-proposal