This was posted on the Friends of the C&TS new page, and has gotten a fair amount of discussion on the NGDF. Some interesting issues with regard to preservation and interpretation. Perhaps some folks here have had experience with these sorts of issues.

http://www.cumbrestoltec.org/cgi-bin/news.pl?read=469

Outreach is an important component of the planning process, but a lot of people do not seem to want to participate until there is something to complain about. I am involved in a similar planning process for a local railroad museum, and although our meetings have been advertised to a large swath of folks, we have not been getting enough participation. I am concerned that people are not really going to pay attention until some of the plans are announced, at which point there will be a massive freakout. One idea would be to place more of the products of the process (diagrams, meeting minutes, sketches and the like) online in a blog-like form. People that lack the stamina for monthly two hour meeting may find that format more acceptable, and could offer feedback through comments. Hopefully, huge paralyzing flamewars would not erupt...

All of that said, I agree with a some of the criticism of this project. It is hard to understand how the current design was arrived at. It is not a good idea to only offer elevation drawings without additional design justification. It is important that when a design is presented, that it is explained and defended. To do this, you need to share more of the process so that people might understand why that particular site was selected, why it is as big as it is, and why the depot-style architecture was chosen. Additionally, it would be a good idea to fess up to what negative impacts the design might have and how you intend to mitigate them (landscaping, viewing platforms, etc.). I will never send design drawing to a client without being able to verbally walk them through what we have done and why.

It does appear that in choosing the form of a Rio Grande depot, this building will not properly defer to existing historical context. The historic depot should remain the focus of the visitors' experience, and creating a second, larger depot (that does not function as a depot) will not accomplish that.

Thanks

Randy

I haven't been to Chama in over 30 years, but am old enough to remember it from Rio Grande days and have somewhat followed its development via the internet. To me, it is a historic site, that should be maintained with a certain amount of visual purity on the outside, at least. That has already been compromised somewhat with the construction of the new locomotive shop (built when it was just considered a tourist railroad) and all the stuff that goes with locomotive repair. To me, if the D&RGW didn't have something there, it should not be there, depending on the era recreated. On the D&RGW, Chama was never more than a lonely helper station, with major locomotive repairs done in Alamosa. Placing the locomotive shop at the Antonito end (which is not a historic site) would not have compromised Chama.

If such a visitors center could be installed in an existing building or replica of one that used to be at Chama, fine. After the turntable was removed and before the final shrinkage of the roundhouse, there were about three extra stalls that didn't have track into them. Reconstructing that would be a possibility. The paths for wheelchair access are not greatly unlike the boardwalks that were needed to move freight or locomotive parts with hand trucks, so locomotive repair facilities, freighthouses, etc., have something in common.

As stated above, there is often no comment on the construction of such facilities until the plans are completely finished and ready to implement, then there is a howl of protest. Thus, if anyone wishes to have meaningful input in such projects, it pays to get involved very early on. The typical architectural or engineering firm usually has little feel for how the site should really look, and will typically design something they're comfortable with, even if it looks like another suburban post office. And they'll always add shrubbery and gaslights to soften the industrial harshness. Chama, an old wild west town if there ever was one, was never a soft place.

In Nevada, for instance, lots of money is being spent on "recreating" the V&T from Virginia City to the outskirts of Carson City. While the Carson City end is so cluttered with modern development it could never be as it was in the V&T days, Virginia City still had possibilities for accurate recreation, as most of the old railyard was not developed. But now money has been spent on a new visitors center that somewhat resembles a V&T structure and the right of way for additional trackage is being bulldozed to modern highway standards. It is highly doubtful that Beebe and Clegg would recognize it if they arose from their mausoleums.

I learned my lesson in early involvement with the development of Burlington Union Station in Vermont, some years ago. When the plans appeared to the public, I was aghast that developers planned to destroy the umbrella platform shelters and a covered, glassed-in raised walkway behind the building. The shelters could serve their original purpose for the planned commuter train (which did happen later, briefly) and the raised walkway once contained a freight elevator (good for handicapped access, if replaced). But alas, the plans had already been approved by the city (which otherwise has a good preservation reputation) and the deed was soon done. One upright from the umbrella shelters was saved as a decoration..