State presents Executive Office Building concept to Historic District review board; subcommittee appointment deferred

Jennifer Jenkins, an attorney with Jenkins Gavin, told the Historic Districts Review Board that the state is restarting the design phase for the proposed Executive Office Building on the state capitol complex and was seeking the board’s consultation and a small subcommittee to review details. The presentation Wednesday included an architecture team from FBT Architects and Anna Silva, cabinet secretary for the New Mexico General Services Department.

The project team described a three‑story, approximately 265,000‑square‑foot office building with an underground parking garage sized for roughly 660 cars and a site slope of about 11 feet between the Capitol and Galisteo Street. Ted Grama of FBT Architects said the design aims to respond to adjacent territorial revival buildings with stepped massing, plazas and rooftop decks; Art Tatum detailed material choices such as stucco, deep‑set windows and brick coping intended to reference territorial revival character.

Why it matters: the property sits adjacent to the state capitol and within the city’s Historic Districts Review boundaries. The state previously sought demolition approvals for several on‑site structures; those demolition requests were withdrawn so the design could be considered in context. The board’s earlier decision to deny demolition of several casitas remains a factor board members said they expect to affect future deliberations.

Board members generally welcomed the urban moves in the proposal but pressed the team on how the design will “honor” the casitas and other designated contributing buildings that the board had previously declined to demolish. Member John Mather said the massing and plaza relationship were promising but urged caution on superficial commemorative gestures: “If we’re remembering the casitas in any way, I question why we’re not also remembering the building,” he said. Member Michael Bermudez pressed the architects on window proportions and glass reflectivity, urging smaller, inset windows with through‑divided lights and limited reflectivity so the project better fit local territorial revival precedents.

On demolition and process: Jenkins and Anna Silva confirmed the state intends to refile a demolition request as part of the final historic review package so demolition would be considered together with the final design. Jenkins summarized the approach as “a do‑over” that would let the board review demolition in the context of a completed design. Several board members questioned whether a design effort is productive while prior board members have expressed a preference against demolition, but the state said it chose this path to produce a fuller record and to try to reach agreement.

Subcommittee and next steps: the state requested a two‑member board subcommittee to meet more frequently with the design team. Board members discussed reappointing the two members who served previously but deferred a formal appointment. Chair Tara Rios said she would coordinate with staff and the board and notify the applicant by email of the two appointed members. Jenkins said the team would return with a formal, complete historic review package, including the demolition request, at a later date.

Quotes attributed in this report come from the meeting transcript: “We are commencing the design phase for the Executive Office Building,” Jenkins said. Anna Silva was introduced in the record as “cabinet secretary for the general services department.”

Ending: The board did not vote on the design at this meeting; it provided initial feedback on massing, windows and streetscape treatment and asked the state to return with a formal package and a clarified demolition request. The board and state staff agreed to select subcommittee members and resume consultation before a formal hearing on demolition or final design.