My Comments on the new ABQ Railyard revelopment plan

(Copy of what I sent to the City)

I’ve reviewed the masterplan for the development of the Railyard in Albuquerque, and I have some things to offer in commentary.

Let me preface this by saying that I am an architectural designer and historian by trade, and a Preservation Commissioner in Taos by appointment. I’m a two-time TEDx speaker known in the community for trying to make a difference by empowering people with architectural knowledge, and I develop new media, television, and education projects that celebrate New Mexico's 1,000 year history of no-tech sustainable design. I am also a relatively new transplant to Albuquerque from Taos.

When I read the very first Guiding Principle of the masterplan, I cannot help but ask myself what exactly Economic Viability means here. It seems that economic viability as described in this plan has been defined by someone who has an economic interest in seeing the project planned for as much development as possible. Is this really all about the money or are we trying to make something, that for once, someone who wants to live in downtown will actually love to live and work in?

I’m saddened to see that “mixed use and “constant presence” in Guiding Principle #2 are defined in ways that can only be called pro-development. Not that I am ANTI-development, but I want SMART development - that doesn’t rob from the end-user and the community for the benefit of the developers ONLY, which is the direction this plan seems to be heading.

The alien landscape being offered here to the people of Albuquerque is a maintenance nightmare in waiting that promises to negatively impact our historic neighborhoods over time. And I am not at all convinced of what it brings to the table outside of “preserving” these old buildings in ways that actually obscure what’s awesome about them. It seems telling that the plan actually describes preserving “integrity” of the site in quotes.

I would like to know how the undulating landscape called the “Acoustic Mounds,” of bermed buildings under grassy knolls, speaks to the historic use of the railyards, to Route 66, or the community. I don’t understand this feature. Why do something like that when something lovely and useful and easy to manage and maintain like an orchard and community gardens and playgrounds and ball fields would actually speak to the agricultural heritage of the neighboring community AND promise a SUSTAINABLE future for the residents and employees by providing a place to grow food, to find solace and joy, and to find connection to nature in an otherwise pretty devoid cityscape. Capturing the rainwater off the new roofs proposed could even provide the site’s community gardens and orchards with water! The current design only promises to make MORE dependent on the machine. (The grocery store, the highways that bring things to it, the cars that get them there…) Where great planning for the site itself would create a space that INVITES PEOPLE TO STAY, turn winds into breezes, and provides acoustic control by having a variety of awesome landscaping!! Though, the berms and swales into bioswales are something I can absolutely get behind! But, not like this. But maybe that’s just my bias - part of my motivation in design is in making places more LIVABLE, not more rentable. Has there been some surveying done of potential renters? Do they want these features? Do the proposed financiers really understand how much maintenance will be involved in this design? Plus we already know that we have water and food issues that need to be addressed, especially as we are affected by a changing climate. We have a rare opportunity here to show people how, and prove it can be done… and well! And yet, we’ve been offered rolling hills of rentable space, that… wait for it… in the section in Figure 8, dead ends on walls so people can jump off! or we’ll get to have a fence on top of the walls! So from that edge, there’s a 15 foot wall with a fence on top facing the street? Really? And are we suggesting that it doesn’t totally change the context of the site? Are you sure about that? And do you see how much the concept sketches of the paths look like the Vietnam Memorial? Does that really convey the desired message?

As a preservationist, I’m concerned that preserving only the look of the exterior and not some of the feel of the amazing, expansive interior spaces is making the same mistake as tearing down perfectly good buildings in order to build something new and half as good. Which is exactly how we got in this situation in the first place. And why would we preserve buildings and then build new buildings inside them to make them actually work? That’s a waste of resources.

As a note for future planning documents: It would be helpful, in describing the triage of preservation, if you would place and list the images of the structures to be preserved in the same order proposed on the map and listing, so we do not have to hunt around to try and figure out what you are saying about your priorities. The same can be said for an overall plan of the site without having to refer to parcel descriptions to find and correlate building uses and landscape.

Not every building needs preserving. Maybe we should be thinking more about viability in the sense of what can actually be done over the long term here. Is preserving buildings just for the sake of them being old really that great of an idea? And as far as reconstituting buildings that are gone... Is there anyone who actually thinks that it’s a good idea? Because who is going to come up with the money to maintain these structures? I don’t know if we really want to re-create buildings that “tell the story of the train station” when the train station itself decided it didn’t need or want the story told. Are we sure that’s the way to go? Because this plan doesn’t actually want to reconstruct them in form. It reconstructs their “idea”. (and the ones proposed are U-G-L-Y!) Do we think the people who come into the train station really LOVE and GET the new replacement for the gorgeous old buildings? I bet they don’t. So why would we do that AGAIN?

The concept of Paseo proposed is something so out of touch with our architectural culture that I cannot let it pass without saying something. A paseo is a PASSAGE, a path, a connector... something that LINKS. The proposed Paseo buildings are NOT connecting, they are filling up space. A Paseo would be a building that connects all the buildings so someone could pass from one end of the site to the other without having to go out in the cold or heat to pass between, which is a great idea, but that is not what is proposed here. Your “Connector” = Paseo. Your “Paseos” ≠ Connectors.

I seriously question a permeable hardscape treatment of the landscape in the plaza around the firehouse considering that it compromises the foundation of the structure by exposing it to a new kind of water infiltration. Also, I wouldn’t want to be one of the people outside enjoying a nice warm day in the sun and eating at the beautiful restaurant and having an amphitheater of people sitting there watching me because all the focus is on the building. Maybe if the site is intended to be a DINNER theater, it could work, but for those of who do NOT like living in fish bowls, maybe it’s not the right choice.

Nor do I comprehend the Gehry-a-la-1993-esque irregular courtyards which are bizarre sculptural pieces that seem to be yet more forms of architectural masturbation, rather than anything of value to the users. Can we not make them pretty, symmetrical and easy and affordable to cover spaces that would complement the site and encourage visiting and community and collaboration?

The glass water collection system is so bad that it’s embarrassing to comment on. Who wants to pay for that probably half a million dollar nonsensical sculpture? Does it really NOT negatively impact the most relevant buildings in the site’s context? Who is going to clean it? Who wants to sit in the solar collector that’s been created underneath it? And those water gardens! Such a waste of an already precious resource! Why, if acequias already ran through the site once, are they not being rebuilt and utilized to make the site more viable for your inhabitants and encourage aquifer recharge in the area?? Can we really not try to impact the world in more positive ways? Do we really need another Civic Plaza to maintain?

Does this “transportation corridor” along the “perpidicular walk” allow for UPS, deliveries, and for loading and unloading of supply trailers for all the proposed users?

And do we really need an inflatable canopy on the machine shop plaza? Because that’s not a technical and mechanical headache in waiting is it? And how expensive that will be??!?! Aren't there more logical, easy to build & to maintain, takes less from the environment, isn't made of PVC options?

One tiny last request, for those of us that are differently abled and will have to try and preserve this effort later, please note that preserving 50 foot long cut off sections of traintracks is a waste of resources, and dangerous. Just change the texture of the paving at the locations of the tracks and tell the story in a sane, maintainable, less likely to be a tripping hazard way, please. (and maybe use those pulled up sections of track to do something positive, like make a recycled patio terrace cover that actually tells part of the story of the place itself?!?!)

In all cases, the mergence of old and new should be something that EVOLVES the design language and improves the conditions of our culture. This design, in so many ways, brings nothing to the table as far as function because it depends on form to make its statement. That may well work for places like Denver where they can afford pointy sculptures of shiny metal clad buildings that are weird for the sake of being weird, but for once, here, can we do something rational and manageable and maintainable that maybe improves people’s lives a little?

I think this site has some of the most incredible potential of any site we could develop downtown. But I think this masterplan has made it look like a college campus. Or an airport. And not a very good one. I’m sorry, but I think this is more of the same bad planning that’s made so many projects fail here. And I think the people of ABQ, and the generations that will have to maintain it after we are gone, deserve better.

Thank you, and please know that these comments are truly offered from the place of trying to make things better, for both the developers, AND the end users.
Sincerely,
Rachel Prinz