Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
New Mexico isn't big on history unless it is profitable or political(ly correct).
Care to elaborate on that claim / statement?
Basis for making it? Comparisons to what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoidberg
The founding (or at least significant growth) of numerous towns to serve the railroad, including Grants, Gallup, Tucumcari, Raton, and Deming.
Add to your list Alamogordo, Cloudcroft, Capitan, Carrizozo, Santa Rosa, Vaughn, Willard, Mountainair and a few others that are just spots on the map now.
There is a pile of debris a block from my house that used to be an old Anglo ranch house, one of the oldest Anglo structures in Albuquerque east of I-25. It used to be called the Gilchrist House. Nobody really cares though. New Mexico isn't big on history unless it is profitable or political(ly correct).
I don't know about other parts of the state, but Santa Fe is all about its history. We just celebrated our 400th anniversary. The city is very conscious of this and closely regulates building and renovations within the historic district to ensure it is maintained. The NM History Museum is a must see for all NM residents.
I don't know about other parts of the state, but Santa Fe is all about its history. We just celebrated our 400th anniversary. The city is very conscious of this and closely regulates building and renovations within the historic district to ensure it is maintained. The NM History Museum is a must see for all NM residents.
As a tourist destination and the center of northern New Mexico's Spanish heritage, maintaining Santa Fe's historic architecture is both a matter of profit and political correctness. That is the recipe for historic preservation in this state.
As I understand it, the Gilchrist house was the unfortunate victim of neglect by the family that owned the property. It had been neglected for some 30 years and was structually unsound, and prohibitively expensive to rehab by the time the decision was made to demolish it. People did try to save it but it was too late.
As a tourist destination and the center of northern New Mexico's Spanish heritage, maintaining Santa Fe's historic architecture is both a matter of profit and political correctness. That is the recipe for historic preservation in this state.
This has been the case in Santa Fe long before it became a tourist mecca. Santa Fe has always treasured its history. The Palace of the Governors was restored to its original state in the early 1900s. The preservation of buildings has been done for over 100 years. This is not something recent to draw and keep tourists.
As a tourist destination and the center of northern New Mexico's Spanish heritage, maintaining Santa Fe's historic architecture is both a matter of profit and political correctness. That is the recipe for historic preservation in this state.
I can understand your assumption that historic preservation in Santa Fe is aimed at tourism (though regulations about style and the restoration of historic buildings began around 100 years ago), but I am mystified about "political correctness" being a driving force behind efforts to maintain historic authenticity and preservation in that city.
Care to explain?
Santa Fe absolutely was trying to draw tourism as early as the late 19th century, after the railroad came through, and (along with other southwestern towns) advertised itself as a haven for tuberculosis sufferers and other health-seekers as early as the 1880's. Part of the reason for preserving the local architectural styles in the early 1900's did have to do with the tourist trade, especially after the area became more depressed when the railroad moved west. The effort to "pueblofy" Santa Fe was part of a movement to increase tourism. Carlos Vierra (himself a tuberculosis refugee from California) spearheaded the preservation movement, recognizing the unique architecture, and understanding that tourists wanted to see something different after making the long journey to Santa Fe, not just another town resembling the ones the tourists were coming from. The "Anglo" styles of architecture that were gaining ground 100 years ago were turning Santa Fe into an "Anytown USA" and most were not preserved or were converted into an "approved" vernacular style.
aries63, good info and absolutely correct. In fact, the Palace of the Governors was, at one point, outfitted in what's now called Territorial style...that is, it had Victorian/Anglo inspired details and fittings, though they had been attached to a much older building with the aim of modernizing it. When a concious decision was made to keep the town in the older Spanish/Pueblo style the building was stripped of it's Territorial decoration and details.
You bring up an interesting part of New Mexico history...the changes that relatively easy travel by train encouraged. Without that, there likely would be no Navajo rugs or Pueblo pottery, and far less silver jewelry. Though all of those things were and are considered permanent parts of New Mexico's historic heritage, all those crafts were in a severe decline before the late 1800s and the arrival of visitors eager to see and experience the exotic and romantic New Mexico they'd read and heard about. They all wanted something to take home, and thus created new markets for the craftspeople and the traders who supplied the goods. There were large mail order operations by 1900 that sent out catalogs and shipped rugs, pots, jewelry and more all over the USA.
I can understand your assumption that historic preservation in Santa Fe is aimed at tourism (though regulations about style and the restoration of historic buildings began around 100 years ago), but I am mystified about "political correctness" being a driving force behind efforts to maintain historic authenticity and preservation in that city.
Care to explain?
What I mean is that the Hispanic and Native American heritage of New Mexico is appreciated and invested in by the vast majority of New Mexicans of any race or ethnicity.
Anglo history and heritage, not so much. Especially in Northern New Mexico.
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that most Anglo Albuquerqueans (and I am singling out Albuquerqueans because I cannot speak for Santa Feans) don't have a long history in the state, most far less than 100 years, and are not attached to the Anglo contribution to the state (in terms of material culture such as architecture) while for the Hispanics and Native Americans, their material culture was created by their actual ancestors not simply people who happen to share the same race or ethnicity.
By that token, while a Hispanic New Mexican would balk at the destruction of a historic Hispanic house in the South Valley, his Mexican immigrant neighbor might not.
As I understand it, the Gilchrist house was the unfortunate victim of neglect by the family that owned the property. It had been neglected for some 30 years and was structually unsound, and prohibitively expensive to rehab by the time the decision was made to demolish it. People did try to save it but it was too late.
I really don't understand bringing up the Gilchrist House as an example of some sort of disregard for the Anglo contributions to the history of New Mexico. What cglore points out is absolutely true. When the building was first slated for demolition the City, which represents all of us - Hispanic, Native and Anglo included - stepped in to try and save it. If six year's worth of time and the support of the City wasn't enough to save it, I don't know what else could've saved it.
Also, let's not pretend that it was Penn Station or something. The loss of something like the beautiful Alvarado or Franciscan Hotels (also Anglo contributions) stirs emotions in me, but the rather humble Gilchrist House does not. Beauty has a lot to do with caring for something. That may not be politically correct, but it's the truth.
And while no doubt it was historically significant, it also wasn't exactly the most important thing in the development of the Heights. That distinction might belong to a person (Sam Hoffman, Dale Bellamah, Ed Snow, etc.); an institution (UNM, the Sunport, KABF/SNL, etc.); or a development (the Nob Hill Business Center, the Monte Vista neighborhood, etc.), but I don't think it belongs to that house in particular. It was historic in being the first house on the East Mesa, but its being built didn't specifically kick off or pave the way for the development of the Heights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
about "political correctness" being a driving force behind efforts to maintain historic authenticity and preservation in that city.
