What If Santa Fe Had Prioritized Indigenous Cultural Preservation in the 1950s?

The Actual History

Santa Fe, New Mexico—a city of approximately 85,000 residents—stands as one of America's oldest and most culturally distinctive urban centers. Founded in 1610 as the capital of Nuevo México, the city has evolved through Spanish colonial, Mexican, and American periods while maintaining a unique architectural and cultural character. This distinctiveness, however, has been both preserved and commodified through complex and sometimes contradictory policies over the past century.

The context for Santa Fe's approach to cultural preservation and development was shaped by several factors:

Indigenous and Hispanic Heritage: The Santa Fe area has been home to Pueblo peoples for centuries before European contact, with nearby communities including Tesuque, Nambe, Pojoaque, and San Ildefonso Pueblos. The city itself was established by Spanish colonizers, creating a complex multicultural landscape that later incorporated Anglo-American influences after U.S. annexation in 1846.
Early 20th Century Reinvention: Between 1912 and 1930, Santa Fe underwent a deliberate reinvention through what became known as the "Santa Fe Style." City leaders, many of them Anglo transplants, promoted a romanticized vision of the region's Hispanic and Indigenous architectural traditions, mandating adobe-style buildings and establishing aesthetic guidelines that continue to define the city's appearance.
Tourism Economy Development: Beginning in the 1920s and accelerating after World War II, Santa Fe increasingly oriented its economy around tourism and cultural attractions. The city marketed itself as an exotic destination offering authentic cultural experiences, fine art, and natural beauty.
Post-War Growth Pressures: Following World War II, Santa Fe experienced significant population growth and development pressures. Between 1940 and 1970, the city's population more than doubled, creating tensions between preservation and development interests.

During the post-war period, Santa Fe's approach to cultural preservation and development followed several trajectories:

Architectural Regulation: The city maintained and expanded its distinctive architectural regulations, requiring new buildings in certain zones to conform to the "Santa Fe Style" with earth-toned stucco exteriors, limited height, and other features inspired by Pueblo and Spanish Colonial architecture.
Arts Economy Expansion: Santa Fe cultivated its reputation as an arts center, with the establishment of major institutions like the Institute of American Indian Arts (1962) and the expansion of the Santa Fe Opera (1957) and the annual Indian Market. However, Indigenous artists often remained marginalized within the larger arts economy dominated by non-Native gallery owners and collectors.
Tourism Development: The city aggressively promoted tourism, with visitors increasing from approximately 100,000 annually in the 1950s to over 1 million by the 1980s. This tourism economy created jobs but also drove up property values and cost of living.
Limited Environmental Protection: Despite the region's fragile desert ecosystem and limited water resources, environmental considerations remained secondary to development through much of this period. Water consumption increased dramatically, putting pressure on aquifers and the Santa Fe River.
Cultural Appropriation Concerns: The city's marketing often relied on romanticized and sometimes appropriative representations of Pueblo and Hispanic cultures, creating tensions with the communities being represented.

By the 1980s, these approaches had produced mixed results. Santa Fe had successfully preserved much of its distinctive architectural character and established itself as a premier cultural tourism destination. However, the city also faced significant challenges:

Gentrification and Displacement: Rising property values pushed many longtime Hispanic and lower-income residents out of historic neighborhoods like the Eastside and Southside.
Water Scarcity: Drought conditions and increasing consumption strained water resources, with the Santa Fe River frequently running dry and groundwater levels declining.
Cultural Authenticity Questions: Critics increasingly questioned whether Santa Fe's carefully curated image represented authentic cultural preservation or a commodified version of Indigenous and Hispanic traditions designed primarily for tourist consumption.
Economic Inequality: Despite the city's prosperity, significant economic disparities persisted, with tourism and cultural industries often providing low-wage service jobs while housing costs rose beyond the reach of many workers.

Beginning in the late 1980s and accelerating through the 1990s, Santa Fe began addressing these challenges through more comprehensive approaches:

Indigenous Consultation: The city established more formal consultation processes with nearby Pueblos on development, water rights, and cultural representation issues.
Environmental Initiatives: Santa Fe implemented water conservation requirements, river restoration projects, and open space preservation efforts.
Affordable Housing Programs: The city created inclusionary zoning requirements and housing trust funds to address affordability challenges.
Cultural Equity Efforts: Museums, festivals, and cultural institutions began more actively addressing questions of representation, appropriation, and economic equity for Indigenous and Hispanic artists and cultural practitioners.

These efforts, while significant, came after decades of development had already established patterns that proved difficult to reverse. The city's distinctive character had been preserved but in ways that sometimes prioritized aesthetic considerations and tourist appeal over the living cultural traditions and economic needs of the communities that created those traditions.

This history raises an intriguing counterfactual question: What if Santa Fe had implemented a comprehensive approach to Indigenous cultural preservation and environmental protection in the 1950s rather than the 1990s? How might the city—and the relationship between its diverse communities—have developed differently if cultural preservation had been defined more holistically and with greater Indigenous leadership from the beginning of the post-war development period?

The Point of Divergence

In this alternate timeline, the divergence occurs in 1952-1953, when a unique combination of factors creates the opportunity for Santa Fe to pioneer a more comprehensive and equitable approach to cultural preservation and development:

The catalyst comes in late 1952, when the city council is considering updates to Santa Fe's already distinctive architectural and zoning codes. In the actual timeline, these updates primarily reinforced aesthetic requirements while facilitating tourism development. In this alternate timeline, a coalition of Pueblo leaders, Hispanic community advocates, and progressive Anglo preservationists proposes a more fundamental reconsideration of the city's approach to cultural heritage and development.

This proposal coincides with several favorable circumstances:

Pueblo Political Assertion: The early 1950s marked a period of increasing political assertion by Pueblo communities, following their contributions during World War II and the establishment of the All Indian Pueblo Council as a more unified political voice. In this alternate timeline, leaders from the eight Northern Pueblos surrounding Santa Fe coordinate more effectively to influence city policy.
Progressive City Leadership: In this alternate timeline, Oliver La Farge—anthropologist, writer, and advocate for Native American rights—is elected mayor of Santa Fe in 1952. La Farge, who in the actual timeline was active in Santa Fe cultural circles but never held elected office, brings both scholarly understanding of Indigenous cultures and a commitment to their living preservation.
Early Environmental Awareness: The severe drought of 1950-1951 raises early awareness about water scarcity in the region. In this alternate timeline, this environmental concern converges with cultural preservation interests, as Pueblo representatives emphasize the sacred nature of water and the importance of sustainable land use practices derived from traditional knowledge.
Economic Development Alternatives: The post-war economic boom creates opportunities for considering development paths beyond mass tourism. In this alternate timeline, federal funding becomes available for a pilot program exploring culturally appropriate economic development in regions with significant Indigenous populations.

In March 1953, Mayor La Farge convenes the Santa Fe Cultural Heritage Commission, with unprecedented representation from surrounding Pueblos, Hispanic community leaders, and environmental experts. The Commission is charged with developing a comprehensive plan for preserving and enhancing Santa Fe's cultural heritage while ensuring environmental sustainability and economic opportunity for all community members.

After six months of deliberation, including public forums held in both English and Spanish, the Commission presents "The Living Heritage Plan," a visionary document that reimagines cultural preservation as encompassing living traditions, environmental stewardship, and economic equity rather than merely architectural aesthetics.

The Santa Fe City Council adopts the plan in November 1953 by a vote of 4-1, establishing several groundbreaking policies:

Indigenous Cultural Zones: The plan establishes "Cultural Heritage Zones" around the city where development requires not just aesthetic compliance but meaningful consultation with affiliated Pueblo communities regarding cultural impacts. These zones include archaeological sites, traditional gathering areas for medicinal plants, and viewsheds of sacred mountains.
Water Conservation Framework: Recognizing water as both an environmental and cultural resource, the plan implements the nation's first comprehensive municipal water conservation program, including groundwater protection, usage limits, and restoration of the Santa Fe River as a living ecosystem rather than merely a water source.
Cultural Enterprise Initiative: Rather than focusing primarily on tourism, the plan establishes programs to support Indigenous and Hispanic cultural enterprises owned by community members, including preferential leasing in the Plaza area, technical assistance, and marketing support.
Living Wage Requirements: Recognizing that cultural preservation requires economic security for tradition bearers, the plan includes early living wage requirements for businesses operating in historic districts and receiving city support.
Multilingual Education Commitment: The plan commits to maintaining Spanish and incorporating Tewa language education in city schools, recognizing language preservation as essential to cultural continuity.

Implementation begins in January 1954, with the establishment of the Office of Cultural Heritage to coordinate across city departments and with tribal governments. While facing opposition from some development interests, the plan gains crucial support from an alliance of Pueblo governments, Hispanic community organizations, and conservation advocates.

Immediate Aftermath

Early Implementation Challenges

The first five years of Santa Fe's Living Heritage Plan produce both significant achievements and revealing challenges:

Jurisdictional Complexities: Implementing the Cultural Heritage Zones reveals complex jurisdictional questions between city authority, private property rights, and Pueblo sovereignty. Some landowners challenge consultation requirements as unconstitutional takings, leading to legal battles that reach the New Mexico Supreme Court. In a landmark 1957 decision, the court upholds the consultation framework while requiring the city to establish clearer standards and processes.
Tourism Industry Resistance: Elements of the tourism industry initially resist the Cultural Enterprise Initiative, viewing preferential treatment for Indigenous and Hispanic businesses as threatening established interests. Hotel and restaurant associations lobby against living wage requirements, arguing they will undermine the city's competitiveness. These tensions lead to a contentious recall election attempt against Mayor La Farge in 1956, which he survives with support from a coalition of Pueblo voters (newly enfranchised following the 1948 court decision recognizing Native American voting rights in New Mexico), Hispanic neighborhoods, and progressive Anglos.
Federal Relationship Challenges: Federal agencies, particularly the Bureau of Indian Affairs and U.S. Forest Service, initially resist recognizing the city's Cultural Heritage Zones where they overlap with federal jurisdiction. This creates complications for implementing protections around the Santa Fe National Forest and on scattered parcels of federal land. Mayor La Farge leverages his national connections to negotiate a memorandum of understanding with federal agencies in 1958, establishing a coordination framework that becomes a model for federal-local-tribal cooperation.
Implementation Capacity: The ambitious scope of the Living Heritage Plan strains the city's administrative capacity. The Office of Cultural Heritage struggles with limited staffing and expertise for the complex cultural consultation processes. In response, the city establishes an innovative partnership with the Museum of New Mexico and representatives from Pueblo communities to provide technical assistance and cultural expertise.
Economic Transition Tensions: As the city shifts from prioritizing mass tourism toward supporting cultural enterprises and environmental sustainability, some businesses experience difficult transitions. The city establishes a Business Adaptation Fund in 1957 to provide technical and financial assistance to existing businesses aligning with the new vision.

Cultural and Environmental Outcomes

Despite these challenges, by 1960 the Living Heritage Plan begins showing measurable impacts on Santa Fe's cultural and environmental landscape:

Indigenous Cultural Presence: The Cultural Enterprise Initiative supports the establishment of over 30 Indigenous-owned businesses in the downtown area by 1960, compared to fewer than 10 in 1953. The Palace of the Governors portal program, which in the actual timeline would not be formalized until decades later, is established in 1955 as a dedicated space for Native American artisans to sell their work directly to the public. This economic presence translates into greater cultural visibility and authenticity in the city's public spaces.
Language Preservation: The multilingual education commitment leads to the establishment of New Mexico's first public school Spanish-English dual language program in 1956 and the incorporation of Tewa language instruction through a partnership with nearby Pueblos. By 1960, over 40% of Santa Fe public school students participate in these language programs, creating a foundation for cultural continuity that would have been lost in the actual timeline.
Water Conservation Success: The water conservation framework shows early results, with per capita water usage decreasing by 15% between 1954 and 1960 despite population growth. The Santa Fe River restoration project ensures year-round flow in the river for the first time in decades. These environmental successes attract attention from other Southwestern cities facing similar water challenges.
Cultural Landscape Protection: The Cultural Heritage Zones prevent development on several sites of cultural significance that would have been lost in the actual timeline. Most notably, the Arroyo de los Chamisos area, which contains archaeological sites and traditional plant gathering areas, is preserved as open space rather than being developed for housing as occurred in the actual timeline.
Architectural Evolution: While maintaining its commitment to the distinctive Santa Fe Style, architectural regulations evolve to distinguish between aesthetic requirements and deeper cultural considerations. New buildings are evaluated not just for their appearance but for how they relate to cultural landscapes, environmental sustainability, and community needs. This approach leads to more functional and environmentally appropriate adaptations of traditional forms.

Economic and Social Impacts

By the early 1960s, Santa Fe's alternative development path begins showing complex economic and social effects:

Tourism Character Shift: Rather than the mass tourism that developed in the actual timeline, Santa Fe cultivates a reputation for cultural authenticity and environmental responsibility. Visitor numbers grow more slowly than in the actual timeline, reaching approximately 250,000 annually by 1960 compared to over 400,000 in the actual timeline. However, visitors stay longer and spend more per visit, supporting a more stable year-round economy.
Demographic Stability: Unlike the actual timeline, where post-war development led to significant displacement of Hispanic residents from historic neighborhoods, Santa Fe's Hispanic population remains stable at approximately 65% through the 1950s. The combination of living wage requirements, cultural enterprise support, and housing policies that discourage speculation helps maintain community continuity in historic neighborhoods.
Economic Diversification: The Cultural Enterprise Initiative fosters a more diverse economy than developed in the actual timeline. By 1960, cultural enterprises directly owned by Indigenous and Hispanic community members account for approximately 30% of the city's economic activity, creating a more equitable distribution of tourism revenue. Additionally, the focus on environmental sustainability stimulates early development of conservation technologies and services.
Educational Attainment: The emphasis on cultural continuity and multilingual education contributes to improved educational outcomes. By 1960, high school graduation rates for Hispanic and Native American students in Santa Fe exceed state averages by significant margins, reversing previous disparities. This educational foundation supports greater participation in cultural enterprise development and governance.
Community Relations: While tensions between communities certainly persist, the collaborative governance model established by the Living Heritage Plan creates institutional frameworks for addressing conflicts. The Cultural Heritage Commission evolves into a respected forum where representatives from different communities negotiate shared challenges, from water allocation during drought to balancing preservation with needed development.

Regional and National Influence

By the early 1960s, Santa Fe's innovative approach begins influencing broader policy discussions:

Southwestern City Network: Santa Fe's success attracts attention from other Southwestern cities facing similar challenges of cultural preservation, water scarcity, and tourism development. In 1959, representatives from Tucson, Albuquerque, and Taos visit Santa Fe to study its approach. This exchange leads to the formation of the Southwestern Heritage Cities Network in 1960, creating a framework for ongoing collaboration and policy diffusion.
Federal Policy Influence: Santa Fe's model of Indigenous consultation and cultural landscape protection influences early historic preservation policy discussions at the federal level. Elements of the city's approach inform the development of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, particularly regarding consultation requirements and the recognition of cultural landscapes beyond individual structures.
Academic Interest: The city's integrated approach to cultural and environmental preservation attracts scholarly attention. The University of New Mexico establishes the Center for Regional Studies in 1961, focused on documenting and analyzing Santa Fe's experience. This academic interest helps legitimize the city's approach and disseminate its lessons to other communities.
Tourism Industry Evolution: Santa Fe's alternative tourism model challenges conventional approaches focused primarily on visitor numbers and short-term economic impact. The city hosts the first Conference on Cultural Tourism in 1962, bringing together representatives from communities across the American Southwest and Mexico to discuss more sustainable and equitable approaches to tourism development.

By 1965, Santa Fe has established itself as a national leader in cultural preservation, demonstrating an alternative to both unrestricted development and the museum-like preservation that characterized many historic cities. The Living Heritage Plan's integrated approach to cultural continuity, environmental sustainability, and economic equity provides a foundation for the city's development that differs significantly from the path taken in the actual timeline.

Long-term Impact

Santa Fe's Transformation by 2000

By 2000—nearly five decades after adopting the Living Heritage Plan—Santa Fe has evolved in ways that significantly diverge from the actual timeline:

Cultural Landscape Integration: The city's physical development reflects a deeper integration of cultural and environmental considerations:
- The urban footprint is more compact, with development clustered to preserve cultural landscapes and reduce water consumption
- Cultural Heritage Zones have expanded to create a network of protected areas connecting the city to surrounding Pueblos
- The Santa Fe River functions as a living cultural corridor rather than the often-dry streambed of the actual timeline
- Traditional acequia irrigation systems have been maintained and incorporated into the city's water management infrastructure
- Public spaces throughout the city incorporate Indigenous design principles and multilingual interpretation
Governance Evolution: Santa Fe's governance structures have institutionalized cross-cultural collaboration:
- The Cultural Heritage Commission has evolved into a formal co-governance body with representatives from the city, surrounding Pueblos, Hispanic community organizations, and environmental advocates
- Decision-making processes routinely incorporate traditional ecological knowledge alongside conventional scientific approaches
- The city has established formal agreements with surrounding Pueblos addressing water sharing, cultural resource management, and economic development
- Multilingual public engagement is standard practice, with city documents and meetings routinely available in English, Spanish, and Tewa
- The city's planning department includes a dedicated division for cultural impact assessment
Economic Distinctiveness: The city's economy has developed along significantly different lines:
- Indigenous and Hispanic-owned enterprises constitute approximately 45% of businesses in the historic districts
- A network of cooperative enterprises and community land trusts ensures broader participation in economic benefits
- The tourism sector emphasizes quality over quantity, with visitors primarily attracted by authentic cultural experiences and environmental values
- A significant "conservation economy" has developed around water management, renewable energy, and sustainable building technologies
- The city has maintained greater economic diversity than in the actual timeline, with less dependence on luxury tourism and real estate development
Cultural Vitality: The living traditions of the region's diverse communities have maintained greater continuity:
- Language preservation efforts have been remarkably successful, with approximately 60% of residents speaking Spanish and 15% speaking Tewa
- Traditional agricultural practices continue within and around the city, maintaining food traditions and agricultural knowledge
- Cultural festivals reflect authentic community traditions rather than primarily tourist attractions
- Intergenerational transmission of cultural knowledge occurs through both formal educational programs and community-based learning
- The arts scene balances innovation with traditional forms, with greater representation of Indigenous and Hispanic artists in leadership positions

Demographic and Social Patterns

The early implementation of the Living Heritage Plan has produced demographic and social patterns significantly different from the actual timeline:

Population Composition: Santa Fe's demographic profile differs markedly:
- The city's population reaches approximately 70,000 by 2000, smaller than the 85,000 in the actual timeline
- The Hispanic population remains the majority at approximately 60%, compared to 48% in the actual timeline
- The Indigenous population constitutes approximately 12%, compared to 2% in the actual timeline
- Population growth has been more gradual and planned, avoiding the rapid influxes that characterized the actual timeline
- Neighborhood composition shows greater stability and less segregation than in the actual timeline
Economic Equity: Measures of economic wellbeing show different patterns:
- Income inequality is significantly lower, with a Gini coefficient approximately 20% below the actual timeline
- Median household income is slightly lower than in the actual timeline, but with basic needs more affordable
- Poverty rates are substantially lower, particularly for Hispanic and Indigenous residents
- Housing remains more affordable relative to income, with approximately 65% of residents owning their homes compared to 50% in the actual timeline
- The living wage provisions, expanded over time, ensure that even service sector jobs provide economic security
Educational Outcomes: The education system shows distinctive characteristics:
- Multilingual fluency is the norm rather than the exception among Santa Fe residents
- Educational attainment gaps between demographic groups are significantly smaller than in the actual timeline
- The public school system maintains stronger performance, with less flight to private schools
- Curriculum integration of local cultural knowledge and environmental education is standard practice
- Higher education pathways connect more directly to local cultural enterprises and environmental management
Health Indicators: Community health measures reflect different social conditions:
- Traditional food ways and active transportation options contribute to lower rates of diet-related diseases
- Access to green space and water features throughout the city supports mental and physical wellbeing
- Cultural continuity and community cohesion contribute to lower rates of substance abuse and suicide
- Traditional healing practices are integrated with conventional healthcare through innovative programs
- Environmental health indicators show better outcomes due to earlier and more comprehensive protections

Environmental Sustainability

Santa Fe's early commitment to environmental protection as a cultural value produces substantial long-term benefits:

Water System Resilience: The city's water management approach demonstrates remarkable sustainability:
- Per capita water consumption is approximately 50% lower than comparable Southwestern cities
- The Santa Fe River maintains year-round flow even during drought periods
- Groundwater aquifers have stabilized rather than declining
- Rainwater harvesting, graywater reuse, and efficient irrigation are standard practices
- The city has avoided the costly water importation projects required in the actual timeline
Energy Transition Leadership: Santa Fe becomes an early leader in renewable energy:
- By 2000, approximately 70% of the city's electricity comes from renewable sources
- Solar design principles derived from Pueblo building traditions are incorporated into building codes
- A district heating system serves the downtown area, reducing energy consumption
- The city establishes one of the nation's first municipal green building codes in 1975
- Transportation systems emphasize walkability and transit, reducing energy consumption and preserving traditional urban patterns
Climate Adaptation Capacity: The city develops strong climate resilience:
- Traditional agricultural knowledge informs drought adaptation strategies
- The urban forest, composed primarily of native species, provides cooling with minimal water requirements
- Wildfire mitigation incorporates Indigenous burning practices alongside modern techniques
- Food security is enhanced through preservation of local agricultural lands and water rights
- Building design requirements balance historical aesthetics with climate-appropriate features
Biodiversity Conservation: The city maintains stronger connections to regional ecosystems:
- Cultural Heritage Zones preserve habitat corridors connecting to surrounding natural areas
- Native plant requirements in landscaping support pollinators and wildlife
- Traditional gathering areas for medicinal and ceremonial plants are actively managed
- Urban wildlife populations remain more diverse than in the actual timeline
- Restoration ecology becomes a significant field of local expertise and economic activity

Cultural Preservation Model

Santa Fe's approach evolves into a distinctive model of cultural preservation that influences practice nationally and internationally:

Living Heritage Framework: The city pioneers an approach that emphasizes:
- Continuity of cultural practices rather than merely preserving physical structures
- Economic viability for tradition bearers and cultural practitioners
- Intergenerational transmission of knowledge through both formal and informal channels
- Adaptation of traditions to contemporary contexts while maintaining core values
- Recognition of the interconnection between cultural and environmental sustainability
Indigenous Leadership: The role of Indigenous communities in shaping preservation evolves:
- Consultation processes established in the 1950s develop into genuine co-governance structures
- Indigenous cultural values inform citywide policies beyond specifically "Native" contexts
- Traditional ecological knowledge is recognized as essential expertise in environmental management
- Indigenous perspectives on time, development, and progress influence planning horizons
- The economic benefits of cultural tourism are more equitably distributed to Indigenous creators
Multilayered Authenticity: The city develops a more complex understanding of authenticity:
- Architectural preservation balances visual continuity with cultural meaning and environmental function
- Tourism experiences emphasize genuine cultural exchange rather than performance for visitors
- Historical interpretation acknowledges contested narratives and ongoing cultural evolution
- Contemporary cultural expression is valued alongside historical traditions
- The commodification of culture is managed through community protocols and ethical guidelines
Preservation Economics: Santa Fe develops alternative economic models for supporting preservation:
- Community land trusts maintain affordability in historic neighborhoods
- Cultural enterprise incubators support new generations of tradition bearers
- Cooperative ownership structures ensure broader community benefit from cultural assets
- Public investment in cultural infrastructure is evaluated for distributional impacts
- Preservation is framed as economic development rather than a constraint on growth

National and Global Influence

By 2000, Santa Fe's alternative development path has influenced cultural preservation and sustainable development far beyond its boundaries:

Preservation Policy Evolution: Santa Fe's approach influences the evolution of preservation frameworks:
- The National Historic Preservation Act amendments of 1980 incorporate elements of Santa Fe's cultural landscape approach
- UNESCO adopts aspects of the Living Heritage model in its cultural heritage guidelines
- Federal agencies develop more robust consultation protocols based on Santa Fe's experience
- The National Trust for Historic Preservation establishes a Living Heritage Initiative inspired by Santa Fe
- State historic preservation offices across the Southwest adopt similar integrated approaches
Indigenous Cultural Rights: The city's model contributes to broader Indigenous rights movements:
- Santa Fe's consultation framework becomes a reference point in the development of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
- The city hosts the first International Indigenous Cultural Heritage Conference in 1985
- Pueblo communities leverage their experience with Santa Fe to assert greater influence in other policy arenas
- The economic success of Indigenous cultural enterprises demonstrates the value of cultural self-determination
- Santa Fe becomes a training center for Indigenous cultural preservation professionals from across North America
Sustainable Tourism Development: The city's approach to tourism influences international practice:
- The World Tourism Organization adopts principles from Santa Fe's model in its sustainable tourism guidelines
- Cultural tourism programs in Latin America, particularly Mexico and Guatemala, adapt elements of the Santa Fe approach
- The city becomes a case study in tourism management courses worldwide
- Santa Fe hosts the UN Conference on Cultural Tourism and Sustainable Development in 1997
- The economic success of the model challenges conventional tourism development paradigms focused on visitor volume
Urban Sustainability Integration: Santa Fe's integration of cultural and environmental sustainability becomes a reference point:
- The city's water conservation achievements influence policy throughout the arid West
- Santa Fe's cultural landscape protection approach is adapted by cities from Albuquerque to Oaxaca
- The Living Heritage Plan becomes a case study in urban planning education
- The city's success in maintaining affordability while preserving character informs gentrification responses elsewhere
- Santa Fe's multilingual governance model influences practice in other multicultural cities

By 2000, Santa Fe has established itself not merely as a well-preserved historic city but as a living laboratory for cultural sustainability. The decision in 1953 to pursue a more holistic, equitable, and Indigenous-led approach to preservation has created a fundamentally different community than exists in the actual timeline—one where cultural continuity, environmental health, and economic equity are understood as interdependent rather than competing values.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Elena Martinez, Professor of Cultural Heritage Studies at the University of New Mexico, observes:

"What's most striking about this counterfactual Santa Fe is how it challenges our assumptions about the inevitability of the commodification of culture in tourist economies. In the actual timeline, Santa Fe's cultural preservation efforts, while well-intentioned, often resulted in a kind of 'preservation as performance' where Indigenous and Hispanic cultures became products for tourist consumption rather than living traditions. This alternate history suggests that with different governance structures and economic models established early in the tourism development process, more equitable and authentic outcomes were possible. The key innovation in this scenario was redefining preservation to include the economic viability of tradition bearers and their communities, not just the physical artifacts of culture. By ensuring that the economic benefits of cultural tourism flowed substantially to the communities whose heritage was being shared, this Santa Fe created conditions where cultural continuity could be maintained alongside economic development. This counterfactual raises important questions about current preservation practice: Are we preserving buildings and landscapes while allowing the displacement of the communities that give them cultural meaning? How might we restructure the economics of heritage tourism to support rather than extract from living cultural communities?"

Joseph Suina, former Governor of Cochiti Pueblo and Professor Emeritus of Education, notes:

"This alternate Santa Fe illuminates something profound about Indigenous agency in shaping modern American communities. In the actual timeline, Native peoples were often positioned as subjects of preservation efforts rather than their architects, with our cultures treated as artifacts from the past rather than evolving traditions. This counterfactual demonstrates how Indigenous leadership in defining cultural preservation could have created fundamentally different outcomes. The early establishment of meaningful consultation processes—and their evolution into genuine co-governance structures—created space for Pueblo values and knowledge systems to influence development beyond designated 'Indian' spaces. What's particularly significant is how this approach recognized the inseparability of cultural and environmental preservation in Indigenous worldviews. Water wasn't just a resource to be managed but a living entity with cultural and spiritual dimensions. Land wasn't just real estate but a cultural landscape embedding history and relationship. This integration of cultural and environmental values offers an alternative to the nature/culture divide that has dominated Western approaches to both preservation and development. While this alternate timeline may seem idealized, nothing in it contradicts what we know about the capacity of Indigenous governance systems to manage complex social and environmental relationships when given the space to operate."

Maria Varela, community organizer and MacArthur Fellow, comments:

"The economic dimensions of this alternate timeline deserve particular attention. In our actual experience with cultural preservation, economic considerations are often treated as secondary or even opposed to cultural values. This counterfactual Santa Fe demonstrates how economic structures could have been designed from the beginning to support rather than undermine cultural continuity. The Cultural Enterprise Initiative, community land trusts, cooperative ownership models, and living wage requirements created an economic foundation for cultural preservation that went beyond museums and festivals to support the everyday viability of traditional lifeways. What's especially important is how this approach addressed questions of power and equity that are often sidelined in preservation discussions. By ensuring that Hispanic and Indigenous communities maintained ownership stakes in the cultural economy, this Santa Fe avoided the pattern we've seen in many historic communities where preservation leads to gentrification and displacement. The early timing was crucial—these economic structures were established before property values skyrocketed and before external interests consolidated control of the tourism economy. This suggests that the window for establishing more equitable models of cultural preservation may be early in the development process, when foundational economic relationships are still being formed."