|
The
Renaissance of Mazatlan’s historic downtown is built on the remnants of
the past, but its future is being hastily constructed in our present time.
Mexican society, architecture, and infrastructure are engaged in an ongoing
interplay with foreign investment, tastes, and know-how. The result can
sometimes be frustrating and intimidating to both parties, but has huge
benefits to all concerned. Mexicans are happy to see their heritage area
restored without expense, but there is an uneasiness in certain quarters
about foreigners owning so much of the historic area. Occasional articles
hint at overvaluation and speculation, but observation doesn’t bear that
out. Tax rates have risen from 100 pesos per square meter in 1989 to around
500 pesos today, but taxes amount to less than $80 US dollars a year for
the typical owner of a large home. Meanwhile, the actual market value has
skyrocketed. A property that sold for $27,000 US ten years ago now sells
quickly at $80,000, around 2000 pesos per meter. But this doesn’t mean over-valuation.
It means taxes are lower than the true market values. Locals selling old
homes can buy larger, more modern homes in other areas with a nest egg left
over: greatly preferable to expensive repairs of plumbing, electricity,
or rotting roofs. Nobody has identified an actual case of land speculation.
Property is being bought, remodeled by owners, and lived in. Unfortunately,
this is not as true in rentals. Unscrupulous “scalpers” have been renting
downtown properties, then subletting for over twice as much to foreign newcomers.
This drives rents up dramatically without even benefiting the Mexican owners.
Most rent-savvy downtowners advise heavily against committing to rentals
before actually arriving and looking around and repeat the slogan, “Learn
before you rent, rent before you buy.” Aside from that, the influx of foreign
investment beautifies the area and sets it on a better economic basis. As
just one example, cruise ships didn’t offer downtown tours five years ago.
And there were no waiters, musicians or rose sellers in the Plaza. Foreign
residents are a source of civic pride and volunteer help: as many foreigners
as native Mazatlecos participated in the downtown cleanup drive. Downtown
foreign residents are not a case of “There goes the neighborhood”: quite
the contrary. On the other side, foreigners, whose numbers have swelled
rapidly in the five years following the streamlining of the bank trust system
of ownership, can still run afoul of the legal complexities of owning in
a historically designated area in a foreign country. But even problems like
the current excesses of the area’s “history police” get solved. Almost all
foreigners who remodeled there are completely content with the |
|
beautiful old homes they now enjoy. Things are moving very fast in the sleepy
old quarter these days. In the two months since this series began, several
forces have begun to reform the regime of the National Institute of Archeology
and History (INAH) that we discussed in our previous articles. For one thing,
research by local architects and the lawyers are revealing that the INAH
authority doesn’t include as much area as they claim. Their mandate over
180 downtown blocks and 479 buildings from the turn of the last century
probably doesn’t include the power to designate any building they feel has
“artistic merit” or “reflects the neighborhood style”—and INAH has been
backing away from challenges. Mexican professional associations of realtors
and architects, hampered by what many term the INAH “inquisition” are applying
political influence. One job stopped for non-compliance with whimsical INAH
objections was restored due to pressure from superiors in Culiacán, pressure
originating from state offices that promote foreign investment in southern
Sinaloa. The Governor himself, politically ambitious and very big on attracting
investment, has been showing increased interest in the situation. Opinions
at the weekly architects’ breakfast circle is that local INAH inspectors
are noticing storm clouds gathering—brought on mostly by their wide-ranging
and arbitrary powers of denial—and drawing back from confrontations that
might lead to publicity or court. Local lawyers have been informing residents
that it’s possible under Mexican law for a homeowner, even a foreigner,
to bring a personal lawsuit against an INAH inspector for exceeding his
authority or requiring unsafe or needlessly expensive construction. So far
nobody has done this but several cases have reached settlement points with
INAH backing off and the owner being understandably more interested in completing
his home than being a test case against malfeasance. There is movement afoot
to mount a human rights suit on behalf of a poor Mexican woman left roofless
by INAH’s reign of excruciating correctness. On the more positive side are
common-interest groups like the Historic Center Project, a group dedicated
to developing Old Mazatlán into a viable, attractive neighborhood, which
has engaged co-operatively with INAH with a view to developing a manual
for rebuilding, rather than leaving all decisions to personal whim. The
Project is a major ally for homeowners in conflict with INAH: contact Marissa
Gastelum at 985-4980 or marissagastelum@hotmail.com. A very recent development
is the formation of an association of Centro property owners, which plans
meetings, mailing lists, and co-operative approaches to the legal and financial
problems they mutually face. Information is available at http://centro.mazatlan.com
, from Gordon Gilkey at 981-5608, or email to mazcentro@yahoo.com . |
 |
INAH'S
Greatest Hits
Our article
on “historically correct” rulings by INAH brought in more examples of
ridiculous decisions expressed by inspectors over the past year. Most
of these “suggestions” were circumvented by owners and architects. 1.Damage
to a house is “historical” and cannot be altered. If the roof fell in,
you have to leave it that way. 2.After scraping a wall to determine
what the original color had been, INAH ruled that the house could only
be painted in those colors in order to be historically accurate—but
only two of the three colors were found. 3.Façade details like cornices
cannot be removed, not matter how rotten or unsafe. This requirement
led to the loss of the sale of a downtown building: a month later the
crumbling cornices fell, dumping several yards of big cement chunks
on the sidewalk. The remaining cornices disappeared overnight. 4.INAH
stopped a job because its fluted columns and roof cupolas are not harmonious
with prevailing architecture—in spite of being shown numerous photos
of nearby cupolas, and the fluted columns of the Belmar Hotel and Angela
Peralta Theater. 5.Marble floor tiles can be used—but only if a section
of the worn original cement tile is left visible. (The owner left a
square that now fits neatly under his refrigerator.) 6.Construction
must reflect “harmony” with the prevailing style of the neighborhood,
but showing pictures of three similar details on the same block is “irrelevant”
because inspectors make their decisions based on their knowledge of
the dominant Mazatlán style. Which is: “Eclectic”.
|
