The Albuquerque City Council is set to hear the recommendation from the Landmarks Commission to designate the endangered El Vado Motel on Route 66 as a city landmark.
When that will be, I’m not sure. The next council meeting is Jan. 18. The agenda won’t be set until Friday. That leaves little time for people to write to express their support for El Vado, so the time is to do it now. If the council doesn’t take up El Vado on Jan. 18, it probably will do so Feb. 6 or Feb. 22.
A person close to the machinations concerning El Vado offered excellent advice concerning the letters of support we should write (with my points of emphasis):
I know for certain that outside contacts help, so long as they don’t disparage the owner and diverge too far from the matter at hand. In this case, the matter at hand is whether the property meet’s the city’s criteria for landmark designation. These criteria are online at www.cabq.gov/planning in the Landmarks and Urban Conservation Ordinance.
To the extent that the El Vado stands out in the national Route 66 landscape, that is another angle to present to councilors, most of whom probably think of Route 66 in affirmative but vague terms. When a signature property is up for landmarking, the qualities that set it apart must be explained pretty specifically for councilors, who rarely see these applications, and have never seen one for a motel.
Also, whether El Vado remains in motel use is not at issue in the city landmark designation. We are trying to preserve the buildings for whatever use is viable in today’s market and compatible with the property’s historic architectural character. So rebutting the owner’s claims that it can’t work as a motel anymore, as some respondents have, may be counterproductive in a city council setting. Maybe it can work as a motel, but that remains to be decided by someone else.
To belabor that last point, it would be unfortunate if the “outside” communications with the city council were construed by councilors to be coming from a group of people of undetermined number who want to lodge at El Vado when (and if) they get back to Albuquerque. The council needs to hear that if this place is lost, Albuquerque will lose its appeal as a Route 66 destination, and that of all the historic motels in town, this is top-tier, if not the peak.
The best part is that the City of Albuquerque’s Internet site makes it very easy to write to all the city councilors. The contact page for the councilors is here. You’ll need to leave your name, address and e-mail address with your message, but that’s OK — the councilors will see that “save El Vado” messages are coming from all over the globe.
Remember, don’t rip into El Vado’s new owner, don’t express concern whether El Vado will be a motel anymore, and tell the councilors why losing El Vado would make Albuquerque less appealing as a Route 66 destination.
Let’s get busy. We’ve already slowed the bulldozers. If we’re persuasive enough, we may effectively grind the bulldozers to a halt.
The following website,
https://www.nmhistoricpreservation.org/OUTREACH/outreach_review.html, contains the following paragraphs:
“State Laws
The New Mexico Legislature has recognized the benefits of historic preservation and provided for the preservation of historic places through four separate State statutes. The Cultural Properties Act (Sections 18-6 through 18-6-23, NMSA 1978) was originally enacted in 1969 and amended several times in the ensuing years. It established the central principles of preservation in New Mexico: “that the historical and cultural heritage of the state is one of the state’s most valued and important assets [and] that the public has an interest in the preservation of all antiquities, historic and prehistoric ruins, sites, structures [and] objects of historical significance.”
The Cultural Properties Act established the Historic Preservation Division and the Cultural Properties Review Committee (CPRC); created the Historic Preservation Publications revolving fund and the Historic Preservation Loan fund. The Act authorizes the CPRC to issue permits for archaeological survey and excavation and excavation of unmarked human burials to qualified institutions with the concurrence of the state archaeologist and SHPO; and establishes civil and criminal penalties for looting of archaeological sites and disturbance of unmarked burials. The Act requires that state agencies provide the SHPO with an opportunity to participate in planning for activities that will affect properties that are on the State Register of Cultural Properties or the National Register of Historic Places.
The Prehistoric and Historic Sites Preservation Act of 1989 (Sections 18-8-1 through 18-8-8, NMSA 1978), among other things, prohibits the use of state funds for projects or programs that would adversely affect sites on the State or National Registers unless the state agency or local government demonstrates that there is no feasible and prudent alternative and that all possible planning has been done to minimize the harm to the register site. The Division works closely with local governments, in particular, to find ways of accommodating development while still preserving the historic character of our downtowns and historic districts.
Cultural Properties Protection Act (Sections 18-6A-1 through 18-6A-6, NMSA 1978), enacted in 1993, encourages subdivisions of the state government to work with the Division to develop programs for identifying cultural properties under their jurisdiction and requires them to ensure that such properties are not inadvertently damaged or destroyed.”
Would the final paragraph (Cultural Properties Protection Act) have any bearing on saving the El Vado? Thanks. Mike Marshall
It could help. I think the mayor of Albuquerque is requesting the landmarks designation first because it can be accomplished faster. The Cactus Lodge in Tucumcari recently acquired cultural property status, but apparently the owner had been seeking help from the state for years. Perhaps that’s something that can be used with El Vado down the road.
As a first- time visitor to the USA last year, I was fortunate to spend a little time on Route 66.
Regretfully, I didn’t get a chance to spend a night in the El Vado.
Fair enough, the guy who owns the place should be allowed to sell it for a fair profit.
Be that as it may, you’re not seriously telling me that the El Vado is at risk of being demolished before i have a chance to visit the joint are you?…
You don’t knock down buildings like that.
STU, I’m as serious as a heart attack.
Just put in “El Vado” in this site’s search engine if you don’t believe me.
Yup…
I see what you mean
Good Luck