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.
Santa Fe has capitalized on tourism, but is not the quaint small town of my youth. Progress brings changes; I think changes in Santa Fe have been good for the most part, but it has also lost something. Same can be said for Las Cruces, Albuquerque, etc.
Maybe the complaints about Santa Fe are more numerous because it has always been unique, and has more to lose?
Not sure how old you are, Domino, but yes Santa Fe is no longer the small town of your youth.
But ever since the transportation routes went south, Santa Fe has realized that it would no longer be a center of commerce and industry, and has survived on the combination of state government, art and tourism -- albeit a very different brand of tourist than is attracted to the ski resorts.
But unless you are somewhere upward of 100 years old, this was true in your youth -- government, art and tourism were the mainstays of the economy then as well as now. And La Fonda is not really an old mission -- it is a modern fake -- a reproduction built in 1922 -- are you old enough to remember the authentic pre-1922 La Fonda?
And growth has brought certain things like a decent hospital and specialists, and people no longer have to go to El Paso for specialized medical care. Back in the good old days, when ABQ wasn't much either, yes, people went to El Paso for specialized medical care or -- of course -- died on the way.
Oh sure. Drive up to Taos from Santa Fe in the ski season or the summer -- slog through miles of bumper-to-bumper traffic along miles of strip development with its non-commercial Walmart, Raley's, McDonalds, etc, go past the huge billboards, finally arriving in the plaza where I Love Taos offers over 5,000!!! T-shirts.
What could be less commercial? What could be more evocative of the old Santa Fe? Darn -- we just don't have the T-shirts shops like we use to.
Seriously -- I like Taos -- I go up there frequently. But less commercial, less touristy than Santa Fe? Please.
IMO, I still think that Taos is behind the development of Santa Fe.
Is Taos also over commercialized? Sure it is. There in nothing "pure" standing in NM except for some isolated pueblos and indian reservations.
Everything else is southwest only in appearance, a mimic if you will of what once was....................
[quote=Devin Bent;3513172]But unless you are somewhere upward of 100 years old, this was true in your youth -- government, art and tourism were the mainstays of the economy then as well as now. And La Fonda is not really an old mission -- it is a modern fake -- a reproduction built in 1922 -- are you old enough to remember the authentic pre-1922 La Fonda?
I am young enough to find the 1922 replica of the original structure anachronisitic enough to be pretty hip in its own right. I realize not many older adobe structures exceed two stories in height. Santa Fe has always been touristy in my lifetime, and I'm not knocking that. Most of my visits there have been as a tourist.
I find some of the structures built in the last decade or so out of scale with the original, and worry about that. I think that's where you get the amusement park comments. Santa Fe could become a victim of its own success, and that would be sad.
I find some of the structures built in the last decade or so out of scale with the original, and worry about that. I think that's where you get the amusement park comments. Santa Fe could become a victim of its own success, and that would be sad.
IMO they are doing a pretty good job particularly in the historic district. I do worry a little about the new convention center and a building the county is putting up.
The really big, out of scale, convention center is out this way on the south edge of the Pojoaque Pueblo and there is not much anybody can do about that. At least it is out of town and with more rugged terrain out here you don't really see it unless you drive by.
Both the city and the county are cracking down on building on ridge lines although some owners of existing lots still slip through. And most people under the spur of covenants, neighborhood pressure, or just good taste build in a southwestern compatible style.
In the interest of water conservation, restrictions are placed on development. People are generous enough to support a higher minimum wage and to back affordable housing programs.
When we consider it is a real-world city and county of 140K people -- it is not Disneyland where all is centrally planned -- IMO they are doing a pretty good job.
Theme Park may have been a better descriptor than Amusement Park... (Caveat: I know I am uncertain of certain chronologies and specifics in this post- my opinion is based on observation and casual discussion with persons involved with development in Santa Fe)
Santa Fe apparently went through a fairly draconian preservation and historic design period several years ago which applied "Santa Fe Style" rules not only to new construction but to existing structures being rehabilitated or remodeled. The unfortunate result was a significant number of Italianate and Craftsman style structures covered with stucco to conform with community design standards, creating a non-historic forced homogeneity in several neighborhoods, particularly those south of the capitol. These examples of forcing an incongruous vernacular onto buildings with distinct identities lends to a "Theme Park" look in some parts of SF...
Santa Fe design rules seem to have become more flexible in recent years, allowing for a late 19th century brick/metal industrial look in the Railyard area, for example.
I think it fine that new construction in SF conform with Pueblo or Territorial style, but I wince every time I drive down Don Gaspar or Don Diego and see beautiful 100+ years old Craftsman bungalows caked in beige stucco.
Theme Park may have been a better descriptor than Amusement Park... (Caveat: I know I am uncertain of certain chronologies and specifics in this post- my opinion is based on observation and casual discussion with persons involved with development in Santa Fe)
Santa Fe apparently went through a fairly draconian preservation and historic design period several years ago which applied "Santa Fe Style" rules not only to new construction but to existing structures being rehabilitated or remodeled. The unfortunate result was a significant number of Italianate and Craftsman style structures covered with stucco to conform with community design standards, creating a non-historic forced homogeneity in several neighborhoods, particularly those south of the capitol. These examples of forcing an incongruous vernacular onto buildings with distinct identities lends to a "Theme Park" look in some parts of SF...
Santa Fe design rules seem to have become more flexible in recent years, allowing for a late 19th century brick/metal industrial look in the Railyard area, for example.
I think it fine that new construction in SF conform with Pueblo or Territorial style, but I wince every time I drive down Don Gaspar or Don Diego and see beautiful 100+ years old Craftsman bungalows caked in beige stucco.
I have to agree. I can support enforcing a uniform style on reconstruction on a limited historical district and thus don't suffer too badly when I view a Greek revival bank coated over with stucco. (Besides that bank didn't look so great in the first place.) But when this sort of thing happens outside this limited area, then I too wince at times. I suspects it sometimes happens because of the choice of the owners and a desire to conform rather than from restrictions.
One very nice thing about Las Vegas is that you can see what you would have if you left the older buildings alone.
But the limitations on new developments -- the theme -- are certainly a plus when you consider what dominates most new construction in the US -- a cube with one window each of every style ever known to humanity; a mosaic of plastic siding mimicking rock, brick, wood and any thing else the builder can imagine; a few arches; a dozen peaked roofs purchased at the local building supply and stuck on every which way; and of course a half dozen 'Greek' columns. And I suppose we all know this, but wealth does not guarantee good taste -- so the bigger the house, the more gimcrack the architecture.
I can drive through a new development around Santa Fe, without feeling the acute pain that I would so many other places. We can call Santa Fe a theme park -- but it is infinitely preferable to the abysmal real-world alternative.
Last edited by Devin Bent; 04-21-2008 at 10:31 AM..
If you want to see what I am talking about go look at the Ute Lake Ranch thread. The builder left off the columns, but that McMansion has got two types of siding, the arches, a variety of windows, and at least 13 peaked roofs visible. That's looking at it from only one side. That baby must have close to 20 peaked roofs. And even the peaked roofs are of more than one style.
The Santa Fe theme park looks pretty good.
Last edited by Devin Bent; 04-21-2008 at 12:03 PM..
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.
quaint towns
, this was true in your youth -- government, art and tourism were the mainstays of the economy then as well as now. And La Fonda is not really an old mission -- it is a modern fake -- a reproduction built in 1922 -- are you old enough to remember the authentic pre-1922 La Fonda
? 
.
