The Great Courthouse Showdown

Despite All the Fisticuffs, This Stuff Is Good for Us

he long-running brouhaha over the size, height, design and location of the planned new Santa Fe County courthouse is playing out as one of the admirable strengths of this community. A lot of head butting is going on now, but in the end, Santa Fe should benefit from the hassle. For our city, this is a quintessential exercise.

In half a dozen ways the project is controversial. As initially designed -- and also as still proposed after some adjustments -- the planned courthouse is both taller and larger than normally allowed under city zoning and historic regulations. The issue tests the question of whether the county, as a separate government entity, is subject to the city’s rules and laws, or is autonomous. Whatever design is advanced, it draws both supporters and detractors. Some local people are miffed that the architects are from out of town. Hints of litigation hover over the project. And an underlying possibility (or threat, depending on point of view) is that if the County Commission does not get a free hand to do things the way it wants to, it will just build the courthouse down south, outside the downtown and outside the historic district, on unrestricted land.

Like few other recent issues, this matter has engaged the press, public officials, civic organizations, letter-writing citizens and the man and woman on the street. Both daily newspapers have editorialized on the subject. Their cartoonists have poked fun at the fracas. Guest columns have been written by at least one judge, one county commissioner and the president of the preservationist Old Santa Fe Association. That same organization, in one of the more colorful stunts in modern memory, erected a 52-foot-tall "cherry-picker" crane, draped with a bold sign, to show drivers and passersby the visual impact of a structure that high, in a neighborhood of mostly one- and two-story buildings. (For full disclosure, this writer notes that he sits on the board of the association.) The mayor, for his part, has been quoted as saying that he is less concerned with height than with a design compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and with Santa Fe itself. Everybody, it seems, is getting involved.

After a number of meetings with project critics, county planners reduced the proposed height significantly, by 20 feet, but by no means enough to comply with city historic regulations. Also, the design was rather radically changed from a mixture of Classical Territorial and Pueblo styles to a more stark and modernistic Territorial architecture. Needless to say, there were grumbles from some quarters, insisting that the earlier design was better. Or that an entirely different one was still needed.

In a combative New Mexican guest commentary on March 9, County Commissioner Paul Campos maintained that only about 50 "self-appointed ‘knowers’ of what Santa Fe Style is all about" are opposed to the latest courthouse plan. He went on to say that "the community" is firmly behind it. He rightly pointed out that a $55 million bond issue for the project was approved by voters in 2006. He failed to note, however, that the issue barely passed and that nearly half of the voters said no. His argument is "code talk," a distressingly frequent element in Santa Fe clashes these days; the implication is that only a handful of elitists, presumably recently arrived Anglos, are against the plan, while the vast majority of "the people," presumably native Hispanos, are for it. But his case is patently dubious.

Taking a similar stance as Campos, a letter to the editor on the same page disparaged "the crybaby citizens of Santa Fe." But a far gentler guest column a week later on March 16 -- from District Judge Michael Vigil, who would be one of the occupants of the building -- stressed that "the courthouse should be a dignified place where citizens can come and resolve their disputes. The courthouse should be located downtown in the center of our community."

Still, even Vigil’s argument contained code talk, stressing that "where we have not compromised -- and cannot compromise -- is on the issue of building a secure facility that will make the courthouse a safe place for our citizens to conduct their business." Suddenly, he implies, anyone who wants the courthouse to comply with long-established city regulations is, apparently, against public safety.

Some of this is not the stuff of high-level discourse, but it is indicative of a vigorous debate. Invigorating the discussion even more, City Councilor Matthew Ortiz has been drafting a proposed ordinance that would declare once and for all that both Santa Fe County and the state of New Mexico must "submit to the jurisdiction of the City of Santa Fe Historic Design Review ordinance." If passed, this ordinance may bring legal challenges from the county and state, but when the dust has settled, the official status of all parties may finally be clear.

My own feeling is that the county should be subject to the historic ordinance and should make every effort to meet its requirements, in design, height and mass. In turn, the Historic Design Review Board should take a flexible stance, granting reasonable exceptions to the rules, as it may do under the law. The Old Santa Fe Association should also be flexible, and it has indicated it is ready and willing to be. The point here is not some ego-driven power struggle to show who’s boss, but a mutual effort to keep the downtown vital, to honor Santa Fe’s hard-won uniqueness, and to work together with much give-and-take from all.

Yes, one of Santa Fe’s admirable strengths is that on some level it resists almost every new idea, particularly architectural, and then the opposing forces keep pushing and pulling, and in the end the final result by no means pleases everyone -- but is a heck of a lot better than it would have been without the struggle. By this yardstick, I would say the courthouse tug-of-war is right on track. Let’s hope it arrives at a good destination.




	Table of Contents \| Home




The Great Courthouse Showdown Despite All the Fisticuffs, This Stuff Is Good for Us he long-running brouhaha over the size, height, design and location of the planned new Santa Fe County courthouse is playing out as one of the admirable strengths of this community. A lot of head butting is going on now, but in the end, Santa Fe should benefit from the hassle. For our city, this is a quintessential exercise. In half a dozen ways the project is controversial. As initially designed -- and also as still proposed after some adjustments -- the planned courthouse is both taller and larger than normally allowed under city zoning and historic regulations. The issue tests the question of whether the county, as a separate government entity, is subject to the city’s rules and laws, or is autonomous. Whatever design is advanced, it draws both supporters and detractors. Some local people are miffed that the architects are from out of town. Hints of litigation hover over the project. And an underlying possibility (or threat, depending on point of view) is that if the County Commission does not get a free hand to do things the way it wants to, it will just build the courthouse down south, outside the downtown and outside the historic district, on unrestricted land. Like few other recent issues, this matter has engaged the press, public officials, civic organizations, letter-writing citizens and the man and woman on the street. Both daily newspapers have editorialized on the subject. Their cartoonists have poked fun at the fracas. Guest columns have been written by at least one judge, one county commissioner and the president of the preservationist Old Santa Fe Association. That same organization, in one of the more colorful stunts in modern memory, erected a 52-foot-tall "cherry-picker" crane, draped with a bold sign, to show drivers and passersby the visual impact of a structure that high, in a neighborhood of mostly one- and two-story buildings. (For full disclosure, this writer notes that he sits on the board of the association.) The mayor, for his part, has been quoted as saying that he is less concerned with height than with a design compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and with Santa Fe itself. Everybody, it seems, is getting involved. After a number of meetings with project critics, county planners reduced the proposed height significantly, by 20 feet, but by no means enough to comply with city historic regulations. Also, the design was rather radically changed from a mixture of Classical Territorial and Pueblo styles to a more stark and modernistic Territorial architecture. Needless to say, there were grumbles from some quarters, insisting that the earlier design was better. Or that an entirely different one was still needed. In a combative New Mexican guest commentary on March 9, County Commissioner Paul Campos maintained that only about 50 "self-appointed ‘knowers’ of what Santa Fe Style is all about" are opposed to the latest courthouse plan. He went on to say that "the community" is firmly behind it. He rightly pointed out that a $55 million bond issue for the project was approved by voters in 2006. He failed to note, however, that the issue barely passed and that nearly half of the voters said no. His argument is "code talk," a distressingly frequent element in Santa Fe clashes these days; the implication is that only a handful of elitists, presumably recently arrived Anglos, are against the plan, while the vast majority of "the people," presumably native Hispanos, are for it. But his case is patently dubious. Taking a similar stance as Campos, a letter to the editor on the same page disparaged "the crybaby citizens of Santa Fe." But a far gentler guest column a week later on March 16 -- from District Judge Michael Vigil, who would be one of the occupants of the building -- stressed that "the courthouse should be a dignified place where citizens can come and resolve their disputes. The courthouse should be located downtown in the center of our community." Still, even Vigil’s argument contained code talk, stressing that "where we have not compromised -- and cannot compromise -- is on the issue of building a secure facility that will make the courthouse a safe place for our citizens to conduct their business." Suddenly, he implies, anyone who wants the courthouse to comply with long-established city regulations is, apparently, against public safety. Some of this is not the stuff of high-level discourse, but it is indicative of a vigorous debate. Invigorating the discussion even more, City Councilor Matthew Ortiz has been drafting a proposed ordinance that would declare once and for all that both Santa Fe County and the state of New Mexico must "submit to the jurisdiction of the City of Santa Fe Historic Design Review ordinance." If passed, this ordinance may bring legal challenges from the county and state, but when the dust has settled, the official status of all parties may finally be clear. My own feeling is that the county should be subject to the historic ordinance and should make every effort to meet its requirements, in design, height and mass. In turn, the Historic Design Review Board should take a flexible stance, granting reasonable exceptions to the rules, as it may do under the law. The Old Santa Fe Association should also be flexible, and it has indicated it is ready and willing to be. The point here is not some ego-driven power struggle to show who’s boss, but a mutual effort to keep the downtown vital, to honor Santa Fe’s hard-won uniqueness, and to work together with much give-and-take from all. Yes, one of Santa Fe’s admirable strengths is that on some level it resists almost every new idea, particularly architectural, and then the opposing forces keep pushing and pulling, and in the end the final result by no means pleases everyone -- but is a heck of a lot better than it would have been without the struggle. By this yardstick, I would say the courthouse tug-of-war is right on track. Let’s hope it arrives at a good destination.		The issue tests the question of whether the county, as a separate government entity, is subject to the city’s rules and laws, or is autonomous.