Comment by Tracy Rogers on January 4, 2008 at 9:56am

The El Vado is the truly the crown jewel of Route 66 establishments in Albuquerque and should be saved. To allow it to be razed for condos would be a huge loss to the city. Once these unique historical establishments are gone, they are gone forever - you can never get them back. Every city in America has condos and national chains, but only Albuquerque has the El Vado.

On a recent trip to Santa Fe, I stopped by the El Rey Inn – a beautiful example of a thriving historical Route 66 hotel. The El Vado could achieve the same if restored. Perhaps it is already well known, but I was surprised to learn that the El Vado and the El Rey are sister establishments – or were at one time. A document that hangs in the lobby of the El Rey shows both together as "twins" – probably built by the same contractor for the same original owner.

Albuquerque has done so much to preserve its Route 66 heritage and it would be a shame to lose this beautiful historical site – please encourage all to vote to save the El Vado.

Comment by John on January 4, 2008 at 11:48am

I'm there. So who else is coming? It'd be good to meet up during the meeting, so we can all look like one united mass in the seats of the City Council chambers...

Comment by Ron W. on January 4, 2008 at 12:01pm

Alas, I won't be able to attend, as I'm 700 miles away. But the city council streams its meetings live on the Web, and I'll monitor it there that night.

Comment by East Ghost on January 4, 2008 at 10:32pm

The neon sign is really great and belongs in a museum or on the outside of City Hall or something. I'm not sure what else is preservation-worthy here. Some undersized, dilapidated, faux-adobe, stucco motel rooms? Can someone explain this to me? I totally get kitsch and all that but I really don't understand the anti-modern, anti-change sentiment that gives us relentless sprawl...

Comment by John on January 4, 2008 at 11:15pm

Who said we were anti-modern?

Comment by Ron W. on January 5, 2008 at 11:48am

Here's an article today from the Trib.

http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2008/jan/05/motel-owner-albuquerque-city-council-gear-preserva/

Comment by East Ghost on January 6, 2008 at 7:44pm

I did. The guy who owns it wants it to build higher density, infill housing in the core of the city. This is "modern." Preserving a rundown, closed motel for kitsch value (literally paying homage to sprawl) is something else entirely. Preserve the gorgeous neon...

Comment by John on January 6, 2008 at 8:11pm

*sigh* Yes, the desire to preserve a beautiful piece of our history must obviously make us anti-modern, anti-change, pro-sprawl loonies.

Your reasoning that we must be pro-sprawl because we want to keep the El Vado is completely beyond me...

Comment by East Ghost on January 6, 2008 at 10:18pm

I'm sure you don't consider yourselves "pro-sprawl." Very few people do. Blocking high-density infill development has the unfortunate effect, however, of pushing growth to the edges: sprawl. Whether it's blocking condominiums on 66 or whether it's impeding 2-story development in Nob Hill, the end result is the same.

The arguments vary: That particular rundown motor court is extra special, that dirt lot has always been there, the sun will go away, I won't ever see the mountains again, etc. The effect is the same: more sprawl.

I do not mean to be rude at all. I do not think (nor did I say) that you are "loonies." It's just that I see a combination of intentions, some good, some selfish, some inscrutable, that all lead to more sprawl.

So that's my reasoning; maybe it's clearer now. I confess I don't understand yours that well. Like I said previously, I get the kitsch-on-66 thing and I really like El Vado's sign. I've looked at the motel on several different sites, and, well, it's a dirt-colored, stucco motel that is no longer in use. You want to "keep" it meaning what exactly? Tax dollars to refurbish, upkeep, and just kind of have it there?

The museum idea is the sort of thing you might sell to a gullible or nostalgic official but it will never actually support itself. I'd rather have higher density neighborhoods along Central.

Comment by bleve on January 6, 2008 at 11:10pm

Not sure of all the particulars but in my experience (I used to run the audio-visual for another city government's meetings) many developers purchase a property and then request a re-zoning. At the re-zoning meeting developers are infamous for not being upfront in their intentions for the future of that property and when the re-zoning is granted, they announce that they are going to tear down the property.

Many times its a trailer court with a Wal-Mart being built down the road with long-term residents getting kicked out on short notice. In turn, law suits are filed and the city also puts a ton of tax-payer cash into fighting something that wouldn't have been granted in the first place if the developer was upfront with their intentions.

In this case its a Historical Landmark and I guarantee a zoning change would not have been granted if this particular current owner stated to the zoning committee that he was going to raze the place for condos as soon as it went through. I'd be happy to admit I'm wrong if anyone knows the details from '05, or whenever the re-zoning was granted.

On another note, I'm not really sure that the proposed condos don't fit the description of in-fill sprawl. I definitely think that area needs to be cleaned up but where's the comprehensive plan? Its a historic district and a patchwork of random lofts and condos should be questioned just as much as the decision to save the property.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page