A few weeks ago, Richard L. Gonzales filed for a certificate of appropriateness for demolition of the historic El Vado Motel in Albuquerque.
At the time, I expressed doubts such a certificate would be issued. That opinion has been reinforced after I received a report by Maryellen Hennessy, the city’s senior planner for the Landmarks Commission, that analyzed the application.
There are interesting nuggets in the 12-page report (alas, it doesn’t seem to be online), and it’s a strong rebuttal against Gonzales’ bid to raze the motel.
— When the motel was sold to Gonzales in late 2005, I heard through several good sources that the price was in the high $600K range. In Hennessy’s report, this is confirmed: Gonzales bought the motel for $675,000, and a few months later put it up for sale for $3.25 million after it became apparent his plan to replace the structure with luxury townhouses wasn’t going to fly.
Since then, Gonzales has lowered the price to $2.25 million. In the application, one of the things Gonzales has to prove is the property is no longer financially viable. His highly inflated asking price undercuts his own argument.
Hennessy also noted this:
“The applicant offers no information on why the property is offered at a price far exceeding the estimated market value or purchase price.”
Hennessy also noted that Gonzales didn’t do a good job of marketing El Vado to potential buyers. “National and international markets exists (sic) for properties of historic interest,” she wrote.
— Gonzales used Druc Engineering to estimate the cost of rehabilitating the motel. Druc estimated $2.894 million.
However, the city sent Ed Crocker of Crocker & Associates, an architectural conservation firm that specializes in earthen buildings like El Vado, to inspect the property in late October. The report says:
“Mr. Crocker disagrees with several key assessments contained in the applicant’s structural analysis and suggests that necessary remedial measures will likely not reach the $2.894 million estimate …”
— Gonzales enlisted an accountant to try to prove El Vado was no longer financially viable. However, just nine months’ worth of statements from when the motel was operating were examined — hardly a large enough financial snapshot. In eight of those months, the motel saw a net loss, but the motel also saw “positive cash flow” overall.
Also, the accountant noted “omitted financial disclosures.” The best the accountant could do was say that El Vado’s viability was “inconclusive.”
— The report says El Vado has enough space for adaptive reuse if reopening it as a motel is not possible. But it noted that tax credits and other financial opportunities for the property “have not been adequately addressed” by Gonzales.
Hennessy’s report asks for a 60-day deferral on the application to gather more information. But based on what I’ve seen already, the city will not let Gonzales raze the motel.
The city’s comprehensive plan and preservation rules are adamant. A property owner must consider all the possibilities in preserving a building or adapting it for reuse before the city ever issues a demolition permit.
Gonzales has not met that criteria — not even close.
This detailed information makes me wonder if such an analysis would be made if the owner of the Rose Bowl in Tulsa wanted to clear that land for other use. From my understanding there are no such ordinances to protect historic property like Albuquerque has.
Sad thing is that in all the discussions throughout Tulsa’s Route 66 Master Planning process I never heard anyone discuss changing zoning laws or creating such preservation ordinances to protect the “pearls” we have in Tulsa. In fact most of the money that many wanted to go to “Pearl Preservation” was cut for, what I call, “new stuff”. Shoot! We can’t even keep a 22 year old Route 66 business alive in Tulsa!
I should clarify, Randy, that these Albuquerque ordinances protect only City Landmarks like El Vado. They don’t necessarily apply to any other properties.
This is an observation I’ve made from being up and down the road and living in a variety of locations: historic zoning is much less common west of the Mississippi River. That’s because the East is steeped in history. Then you have places like Oklahoma, that’s just now celebrating its 100th year and hardly has a history at all, in comparison. Huge swaths of the West didn’t even see any significant populations until after World War II. Places like Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Albuquerque were much more modest cities 50 years ago than they are now.
The West has an “onward and upward” attitude, and often history gets lost. In the case of Route 66, it’s so recent that it tends not be as valued. People are much more inclined to preserve a late-1800s Victorian home than a Googie architecture building from the 1950s and ’60s. Plus, the West has more of a libertarian attitude and thus is more reluctant to enact zoning.
I’m not making excuses here; I’m just making observations. I do think that historic zoning needs to be a higher priority in Tulsa. But it’s going to be an uphill battle because of the factors I cited.
Also, I think the Route 66 Master Plan is looking at the big picture by making improvements and uplifting land values along the Mother Road corridor, thus providing more incentive to preserve historic properties. It’s not a magic-bullet solution, but it’s a start. And Michael Wallis has noted to me that Tulsa is much more sensitive about its Route 66 history than it was even a decade ago.
Progress is being made … it’s just that the city was so far behind.