“Ever since the city of Boulder purchased its Valmont Butte property, city taxpayers have been picking up the tab to pay for the environmental sins committed by more than a century’s worth of long-departed users at the site. And that tab may be getting bigger as more ghosts from the property’s past continue to reveal themselves.”

Read the entire article at the Boulder Weekly: The ghosts of Valmont Butte.

Hannah Barker house, circa 1890, Carnegie Library

As you may be aware, Historic Boulder now has ownership of the Hannah Barker house (800 Arapahoe) and has been successful in obtaining funding from the State Historical Fund for the first phase of a four phase restoration project. There is much more money to be raised (including matching funds for the state grant) and, to that end, a number of us are looking high and low for additional funds.

Saturday morning (1/14/12) at 10 am sharp we’re planning to take a photo of Hannah’s house to use in grant applications and are hoping to have lots of folks (kids, dogs, young, old) join us for the photo op. The idea is to illustrate our community’s enthusiastic support for restoring the structure. Our special celebrity photographer is Council Member Tim Plass.

Won’t you consider joining us on Hannah’s porch? It should be quick, painless, fun and a way to earn your preservation chops!

“The Altona Grange building out there north of town, seemed to stand for that whole experience of farming, farming within a community. Community: that’s the key word. These pioneers of Boulder County joined forces to survive and prevail, out here in the Boulder valley, not just for the economic success of their individual farms, but to establish a genuine and deeply human society and culture. They had ready to their hand the model of the typical lodge or fraternal order, so prevalent in the nineteenth and most of the twentieth centuries. It was a way, an organization, of belongingness, in a common cause, cultural, economic, social, and spiritual.”

Read the entire essay at the Bouldercreek Angler: Discovering the Altona Grange-In the Nick of Time for Christmas.

In the last half-century, the clear result of “architectural myopia” is buildings whose makers have been so concerned with the drama of their appearance that they fail on the most fundamental human criteria. They isolate people; they do not provide enough light; or provide a poor quality of light; they provide a hostile pedestrian environment at their edges; they cause excessive shade; or create winds in what is known as a “canyon effect”; or they trap pollutants in the “sick building syndrome”; they use resources wastefully; etc. Moreover, the buildings themselves are a wasteful use of resources, because they are not likely to be well-loved, cared for, repaired, modified, and re-used over many years. In short, it is not just that people find them ugly, but they represent a fundamentally unsustainable way of building human environments.

Read the entire article at  Shareable: Architectural Myopia: Designing for Industry, Not People.

Elizabeth Long, circa 1917-1924 (Carnegie Library)

The Boulder City Council met recently to explore the possible purchase of a conservation easement on the Long’s Gardens site at 3240 Broadway, Boulder.  The site consists of 25.1 acres which is zoned agricultural.

This timing is critical in that the Long family members are willing to negotiate a conservation easement and the preservation of the site at this time. With involved family members of an elderly age and out of town, the timing of this negotiation becomes critical.  Whereas the price may seem high ($4.7 M in its entirety), the cost of foregoing this opportunity in terms of conservation, preservation and sustainability is higher.

The Long family has a history and a vision of working with the city to preserve this 100 year old farm.  This is our opportunity, at a critical moment, to join together and let our voices and shared vision be known.  City Council needs to hear from the community as to their support of this endeavor.  As the Blue Line defined Boulder years ago, the Long’s Gardens site and Growing Gardens will define Boulder’s future for generations to come.

The long term vision includes a conservation easement put in place between the city and Long’s Garden family members as a means of preserving the 25 acre site, the historic structures which have supported the 100 year old farm, and the value in terms of an urban farm within the center of the Boulder community.

Suitable soils and water necessary for food crops, with an intact water delivery system, are an irreplaceable resource in the center of our community.  Protecting these resources in the heart of urban Boulder is one of the most forward-thinking investments the city can make.  This investment appears consistent with recent Comprehensive Plan revisions acknowledging the city’s desire to remain on the leading edge of promoting a sustainable local food economy.

The Long’s Gardens property is the foundation of Growing Gardens’ urban farming operation.  The site currently houses the Growing Gardens not-for-profit organization and has for the past 11 years.  Growing Gardens is not just a “community garden” organization, but has an extensive outreach program. Over 10,166 individuals participated in Growing Gardens programs in 2010. Of these, 4,415 were low-income, 270 were youth, 140 were people with disabilities, over 1,422 were gardeners, 53 were seniors and 3,700 children.  Growing Gardens worked with a total of over 100 schools, community groups, agencies and corporations.  They donated 8,000 pounds of produce in partnership with the Boulder County Farmers Market and through their own Market Garden, to those in need.  There were 554 individuals volunteering 3,872 hours of their time to benefit our programming.

City Council acknowledged that the preservation of this site would give Growing Gardens the greatest opportunity for success and could well be, and should be, a world class success, furthering Boulder’s core values of sustainability.

Council acknowledged that there exists an unparalleled opportunity to preserve this urban farm, to allow for expansion of the Growing Gardens facilities at the Long’s Gardens site, and has empowered city staff to move forward with obtaining an appraisal of the property.

All City Council members acknowledged the value of the property and the desire to preserve the historic structures and urban farm operation.  Many expressed concern over the purchase price and the ability for the city to consider this purchase at this time with energy issues in the forefront.  There was discussion as to funding options, the ability to acquire agricultural grants, foundation support, partnerships, etc.  There was discussion of the increased densification of central Boulder and the value of this urban farm within that context.  There was strong support for sustainable, publicly available agriculture, with acknowledgment that this is a unique property and opportunity.

Council directed staff to move forward with a current appraisal of the property and further consideration of options for preserving this legacy.

Please let your voice be heard.

Read the draft version of the conservation easement.

Growing Gardens is currently looking for sponsors for our Harvest Dinner scheduled at the Longs Gardens, Hawthorne Garden site on August 6, 2011.  Corporate sponsors are an important part of this celebration and support is vital to making this program possible.  All community members are invited to attend the Harvest Dinner and tickets may be purchased at growinggardens.org.  For those unable to attend, silent auction items are welcomed.

"Rock posers" circa 1898-1910 (Carnegie Library)

When you take visitors to Boulder to see the sights, what places do you immediately think they should see? The downtown mall? The university? Almost surely, Chautauqua is at the top of that list, as an icon of our community.

But the Colorado Chautauqua Association (CCA) is planning some real changes to Chautauqua. Their Chautauqua 2020 Plan includes improvements to infrastructure, parking and transportation, changes to landscaping, and new signage and interpretive displays. Most controversial is a plan to move the Picnic Shelter and build a new 7,000 square foot, two story building in its place. Of even more significance to the future of Chautauqua is the CCA’s business strategy of growing the conference and retreat business and shifting to short term lodging in place of the nine-month off-season lease strategy of the past. This plan has generated a great deal of concern in the larger Boulder community over Chautauqua’s future and who will determine that.

What do the citizens of Boulder envision for Chautauqua in 2020? Is it a growing business venture for meetings and conferences? If so, how much growth and development is acceptable? If the business is successful, will more lodging space be the next proposal? This is not an idle question. Not long ago, the CCA Board came up with the idea of building a hotel on Open Space adjacent to Chautauqua. This was inadvertently revealed to the public and caused a public outcry. Boulder residents deserve to know what Chautauqua’s caretakers are planning for the future of this key city asset.

The Context of Chautauqua

Chautauqua has had a long and varied past in Boulder, from its earliest beginnings as cultural and educational camp that was part of the national Chautauqua movement of the late 19^th century, to its tattered post World War II condition, and finally to today’s well-restored home of the Colorado Music Festival. The City of Boulder owns the land of Chautauqua, along with the open space that surrounds the site on three sides. It also owns the Chautauqua Auditorium, the Dining Hall, Academic Hall, and the Picnic Shelter. The CCA leases the land under the cottages and other buildings that it owns, and also leases the public buildings owned by the city. The city has long recognized the historic importance of Chautauqua, and designated the Chautauqua Historic District in 1978, followed shortly by the district’s listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

The Structure for Preserving Chautauqua’s Historic Value

The ability to protect historic resources by controlling changes to historic sites and buildings rests, for the most part, with local government. Local historic preservation ordinances are the basis for regulation, and the strictness with which regulation is applied depends on the significance of the historic resource and the community’s political support for regulation. Designation of Chautauqua as a local historic district was an important step, since it required any changes to the Chautauqua site and its buildings to be reviewed by the City of Boulder to ensure that changes would be appropriate to the historic character of the district. Determining the appropriateness of changes was initially relatively ad hoc, so the Chautauqua Design Guidelines were added in 1989, to give direction to both applicants and regulators.

Colorado Chautauqua National Historic Landmark District

The city’s historic preservation process has been successful in protecting the historic character and integrity of Chautauqua throughout the improvements that have been made to the public buildings, and energy upgrades and renovations of many of the cottages. In 2006, Chautauqua was designated as the Colorado Chautauqua National Historic Landmark District by the Secretary of the Interior. Designation as a National Historic Landmark (NHL) is recognition reserved for the most important historic resources in the country; there are only about 2,500 nationwide. This designation is based not only on the historical importance of Chautauqua, but also the fact that changes over time have preserved its historic and architectural integrity, rather than damaging it. While this recognition is quite an honor, it also brings with it significant responsibility for ongoing stewardship.

The Chautauqua 2020 Plan

For several years, the CCA has been developing the Chautauqua 2020 Plan, a strategic plan for the future of Chautauqua. This plan proposes making significant changes to the site and the CCA’s operations, and is composed of a number of elements, such as the Chautauqua Master Signage Plan, the Chautauqua Park Historic District Cultural Landscape Assessment and Plan, the Chautauqua Interpretive Services Plan, and the Chautauqua Environmental Sustainability Plan, all of which can be found at the CCA website. The CCA has selected certain recommendations of these plans for implementation by 2020. Parking and traffic circulation have long been problems at Chautauqua, and better management of both are key undertakings. Undergrounding of overhead power lines for both fire safety and aesthetic reasons will require large capital investment. Additional investment will be made in storm water drainage and other outdated infrastructure. A visitor center will be established in an existing building, the Dining Hall upgraded and site improvements recommended in the Cultural Landscape Assessment will be undertaken. Much of the Master Signage Plan has already been completed.

Picnic Shelter circa 1925 (Carnegie Library)

The really controversial proposed change is the relocation of the Picnic Shelter located directly to the south of the Auditorium, and in its place, the construction of a 7,000 square foot, two story building to house maintenance and housekeeping operations, and 3,500 square feet of meeting space (for purposes of comparison, the Dining Hall and the Community House are both about 8,300 square feet in size). This would also require the relocation of the McClintock Open Space Trailhead, and would eliminate a number of parking spaces used for the picnic shelter and the trailhead.

Picnic Shelter circa 2011 (CCA)

Why is the CCA proposing this new building? It appears to be a response to the convergence of several plan recommendations. The CCA has determined that it needs to increase revenue for the investments of the 2020 plan and for increased costs of maintenance and operations. In 2005, the 9 Month Retreat Feasibility Study evaluated the revenue potential of shifting from leasing cottages for the nine-month off-season to short term rentals associated with retreats and similar types of meetings. The 2008 Interpretive Services Plan notes that “more and more small and medium sized groups are using Chautauqua facilities for their single-day meetings, weekend retreats, and mini conferences. Such groups typically use lodging accommodations in addition to meeting spaces … CCA intends to grow this group business in the near future.” The CCA has stated that the new building will provide meeting space that will facilitate increased cottage rentals and the growth of the group business. Already, the public has responded with concern for the related increase in parking and traffic impacts. Concern has also been expressed for the damage to the historic Chautauqua site caused by removing a historic structure and replacing it with the more intense development of a new two story building. And there are questions about whether the CCA’s ultimate plans for Chautauqua will require even more development.

The Regulatory Structure to Evaluate New Development

There is quite a lot of existing guidance for the evaluation of the appropriateness of changes to Chautauqua in the city’s current historic preservation policies. State and federal historic preservation authorities also give direction on such changes, and in various ways, the city has committed to incorporating state and federal policies into evaluating changes to the city’s historic resources. In the case of changes to Chautauqua, the bar for approving changes should be very high because of its national historic importance.

Federal guidance regarding the relocation of the Picnic Shelter and construction of a new building in its place was provided in an April 8, 2011, letter from the National Park Service, which oversees the National Historic Landmark District program. This letter stated, “The National Park Service does not recommend moving historic buildings. In fact moving a historic structure into or within a historic district may jeopardize its ability to contribute to the significance of the district and has a negative effect on the historic integrity of the district.” The letter goes on to note that “the National Park Service understands that moving a historic building or structure is sometimes the only way to save it from demolition, but such an action should only be undertaken as a last resort when all other preservation options have been exhausted.” Regarding the new building to take the place of the relocated Picnic Shelter, the letter goes on to say …”The National Park Service does not recommend new construction within NHLs. New construction will add non-contributing elements to the district and will have a negative effect on the NHL.” These are unambiguous statements regarding the advisability of the CCA’s proposal from the national entity that oversees the country’s most important historic resources.

State guidance on historic preservation projects comes in the form of the Certified Local Government program, through which the City of Boulder has a formal relationship with the State Historic Preservation Office. Based on the fact that Boulder has a local historic preservation ordinance and codified review process, a historic preservation board, locally designated historic landmarks and districts, and design guidelines, the state recognizes that local processes and resources are adequate to uphold the preservation of historic buildings and districts. As a Certified Local Government, the city also commits to adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, which are generalized guidelines for rehabilitation of historic buildings, structures and sites used by the National Park Service.

At the local level, since Chautauqua is a designated local historic district, changes are reviewed by the Landmarks Board, using the Chautauqua Design Guidelines. These guidelines state that “There are few locations where a new building of any kind could be added to Chautauqua without destroying the historic integrity and rural character that has been carefully preserved for nearly a century. In general, the addition of buildings to Chautauqua will be inappropriate.”

Even the Chautauqua 2020 plan offers guidance. The Chautauqua Park Historic District Cultural Landscape Assessment and Plan notes the original character of the site as open, with views into and out of the area, but which have since been obscured by mature landscaping. The plan recommends: “preserve and restore Chautauqua Park’s setting and context. Retain the open character of the City of Boulder Open Space at Chautauqua Park’s edges; Protect views into and from Chautauqua Park including those to City of Boulder Open Space lands and to the City of Boulder; Re-establish historic viewsheds.” A focal point of interest is the area where the Picnic Shelter is located. Currently, the shelter is low in height, quite transparent, with open area on either side. This offers a wonderful view out to the plains and surrounding open space land. From the opposite direction, there is the familiar view of the Auditorium and into the Chautauqua site. The character of this area would be completely changed and seriously damaged by the insertion of a two story building.

The Real Issue to Be Decided

Given all these admonishments stating that the Picnic Shelter should not be moved and no new building added, the question might be asked: Why is a new building still under discussion? Does the CCA’s desire for more meeting space outweigh the impact to the preservation of an important local and national historic resource? The discussion that this has generated so far is related to the size and architectural character of the new building, not whether it should be built at all. It has been noted that the Chautauqua Design Guidelines don’t offer guidance for construction of new buildings and that therefore they should be updated to add some. But this ignores the fact that the guidelines specifically don’t offer such guidance because they note that new buildings are not appropriate. So far, the discussion seems to have taken as an established fact that the CCA needs more meeting space to increase their retreat/lodging business, and that growing this business is the desired future of Chautauqua. However, it is not at all clear that this is either necessary or desirable.

In reality, the community’s desired future for Chautauqua is what is important. It is not about the design guidelines or about designing a building that fits in with the other Chautauqua buildings, because that can be done. The Ranger Cottage demonstrates that, and was done before any design guidelines existed. What if this growing conference business increases parking and traffic impacts to Chautauqua and the surrounding neighbors? Will the public who can now access Chautauqua be forced out? And, very importantly, who should get to decide the answers to these questions? The CCA Board? The citizens of Boulder?

Managing the financial support of a non-profit organization is difficult. The CCA has been a good steward of Chautauqua, overseeing rehabilitation and ongoing maintenance of the leasehold for many years. However, the plans intended to ensure the future of Chautauqua should not become its destruction. The City of Boulder has developed an option for public participation in planning for Chautauqua that would step back from the current building approval process and incorporate the Boulder community into a discussion of what future is desired for Chautauqua. The approach is thoughtful and what is needed. The City Council should approve it.

Picnic Shelter -- site of proposed new building. From GoColorado.com (http://tinyurl.com/3lozs4g)

As part of an ambitious, ten-year master plan, Chautauqua is proposing a new, 7,400 square foot building in back of the auditorium and an effort to promote more September-May and mid-week conferences and retreats. But critics question whether this proposal will generate more traffic and parking problems and negatively change the character of the venerable and beloved institution.

At a PLAN-Boulder forum on April 8, Susan Connelly, the executive director of the Colorado Chautauqua Association, presented the principal features of Chautauqua’s 2020 Plan, which she estimated would cost $10 million to implement. The most controversial aspect of the plan is the relocation of the picnic shelter from south to north of the auditorium and the construction in its place of a new building to be called Arbor House. It would contain restrooms for auditorium patrons and space for administrative and maintenance operations on the 3,700 square foot first floor, and restrooms, a commercial kitchen and meeting space on the 3,700 square foot second floor. Due to the slope of the site, about half of the first floor would be situated underground. Connelly said that Wolff-Lyon Architects has been engaged to design the new building, and that its appearance would be compatible with the other structures at Chautauqua.

Connelly characterized Chautauqua’s financial future as “stable,” but she also observed that the cost of maintaining and improving the grounds continues to rise. She said that the Association’s annual budget is about $3 million and that about $1 million of that is spent on the grounds. She noted that the Association owns 60 of the 99 cottages at the facility, and that rentals of them drop off substantially from September to May and also during mid-week. She indicated that the meeting space at Arbor House is intended to draw more people to Chautauqua to rent the cottages during the off-season, particularly mid-week of the off-season.

The other major elements of 2020 Plan are:

• Rehabilitation of the Primrose building, which currently houses administrative and maintenance operations, so that it can be used to rent to customers
• Burying overhead utility lines
• Storm water drainage and road improvements
• Dining hall improvements, so that it can be used comfortably year-round, and roof repair
• An interpretive center
• A comprehensive parking and traffic management plan
• A new sidewalk along the south side of Baseline Road, a new or improved entry, and a bus and car pull-out area
• Archives protection, management and greater public access
• McClintock trailhead enhancements

"In the twilight on the Chautauqua" circa 1900 Carnegie Library

Another panelist at the forum, Allyn Feinberg, remarked that Chautauqua’s design guidelines, which she wrote with extensive public input, “Do not contemplate significant new buildings at Chautauqua.” She also noted that the more historically important a resource is, the more scrutiny should be given to proposals to change it; and she claimed that “Chautauqua is recognized as very, very historically significant.” She further commented that the views both into Chautauqua and out from it constitute a critical part of its character and that Arbor House would block views to the east. However, Feinberg contended that the principal issue raised by the 2020 Plan is not the design of Arbor House or its immediate impacts, but “what do we want Chautauqua to be.”

Another panelist, Francie Anhut, lives near Chautauqua on 12^th Street and has served as a Chautauqua board member and chairwoman. She claimed that Chautauqua has effectively “annexed” the immediate neighborhood during July and August because of the car and bus traffic that it generates and intense demand for parking at times. She said that the neighbors have learned to tolerate these nuisances for two months of each year. But she expressed concern that the conference business intended for Arbor House would extend them throughout the entire year.  Anhut emphasized her sympathy for Chautauqua’s goal of strengthening and improving itself, but called for “balance” between Chautauqua’s interests and those of the rest of the community.

The fourth panelist at the forum, Susan Richstone, comprehensive planning manager for the City of Boulder, noted that the city owns the land in Chautauqua, which it rents to the Association for terms of 20 years, and that the Boulder City Council will study the implications of 2020 Plan on April 12  She observed that many parts of the plan, including Arbor House, would have to be reviewed and approved by the city’s landmarks, planning and parks boards, as well as open space and mountain parks staff and perhaps their board. But she asserted that the major question to be considered by the City Council on April 12 is whether the city should pause and reflect on whether there is “a shared community vision for the next 40 years for Chautauqua” and if so, what it is.

Richstone declared that “a lot of good work has already been done” and that the process of defining “a shared community vision” would not have to “start fresh.” She said that the city’s planning department has suggested a process lasting about two years and steered by a committee of stakeholders.

One of the Chautauqua cottage owners who spoke after the panelists asserted that he and his fellow owners are worried that Arbor House would attract weddings and parties with rowdy guests who would vomit and urinate on the grounds. This speaker advocated a large, stately short-term residence building, like the former Mohonk House in the Catskill Mountains, north of the auditorium and also a new entrance to Chautauqua east of the current one.

Connelly noted that Boulder’s Chautauqua is the only one in the nation which remains open year round. She also stated that it is one of only 21 National Historic Landmarks in Colorado.

The staff memo for Tuesday’s City Council study session is available on the city’s website.

The Colorado Chautauqua Association’s 2020 Plan is on their website.

The Chautauqua Cultural Landscape Assessment document is available here (20MB).

A National Park Service letter regarding the Chautauqua proposals is available here.

Almost two years ago, in January of 2009, the City’s Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Department began a process designed to assess trails, trail sustainability, visitor access, and natural resource protection in the West Trail Study Area (TSA). Regarded as the crown jewel of the Open Space system, the West TSA extends from Eldorado Springs Drive to Linden Avenue and includes all Open Space property west of Broadway – the Flatirons, Green Mountain, Bear Peak, Chautauqua, Mt. Sanitas, and the many spectacular landmarks of Boulder’s mountain backdrop. That long process appears to be on a final approach for landing.

With two previous trail study areas, the OSMP staff with community input generated recommendations about trail use, modified them based on public meetings, and obtained approval from the Open Space Board of Trustees (OSBT). For the West TSA, the OSMP staff decided to try a different approach – one that most people admitted was a bit of an experiment. The idea was to select a group of volunteer citizens whose charge was to produce a set of recommendations on all matters related to trails in the West TSA; that group was called the Community Collaborative Group (CCG, last acronym!). Selected in a rambunctious meeting on September 15, 2009, the CCG members comprised four caucuses representing conservation (5 reps), recreation (5 reps), neighborhood (3 reps), and cultural interests (1 rep). The CCG also consisted of two OSMP representatives for background support plus a set of alternates.

And then the work began. For three months CCG members familiarized themselves with previous OSMP management plans, inventory reports, and relevant research. They went on field trips and learned about habitat suitability models. They studied existing conditions for recreation, natural, and cultural resources. They were taught about trail-building techniques and costs. For another two months, the CCG representatives pored over maps and walked the trails in order to formulate desired future conditions and identify key destinations. Throughout these five months, the CCG members fulfilled their roles as representatives by communicating with their constituent groups through public meetings, email lists, and web sites. And equally important, despite widely differing opinions and perspectives, the CCG members learned to communicate with each other and form functional relationships that would be essential in the next stage of the process.

In April 2010, the process entered a new phase as CCG members began formulating specific recommendations about building new trails; rerouting and maintaining existing trails; and closing or designating social trails and access trails into nearby neighborhoods. They proposed regulations for equestrians, dogs, and mountain bikes for each trail. They discussed trail signage, historical features, and trailhead improvements. Working through the summer on an increasingly demanding schedule, each caucus assembled a packet of recommendations. Needless to say, many of the recommendations in these packets were incompatible.

In October 2010, guided by the remarkable negotiating skills of CCG facilitator Heather Bergman, the representatives began the grueling process of giving and taking, horse-trading, and compromising. The goal was to reach complete (100%) consensus on as many recommendations as possible. In some cases, consensus could be reached only by combining seemingly unrelated issues into one super-package held together by multiple concessions. Issues on which unanimous agreement could not ultimately be reached (such as a mountain bike route from Chautauqua to the south Mesa Trail) were sent to the OSMP staff as non-consensus items.

A spectator of the final CCG negotiating sessions could not help but be moved by the high drama of these intense four-hour meetings. Much agonizing and teeth-gritting took place as representatives wrestled with their own personal convictions and the (often conflicting) desires of their constituents. More than a year of difficult work was finally converging on these final high-pressure decisions. Equally impressive was the admirable level of civility that was maintained throughout the negotiations. If they didn’t know it already, the CCG members had mastered the art of agreeing to disagree.

It’s too early to say much about the final outcome. The preliminary recommendations of the CCG will be presented to the public (at a December 6 open house) and the OSBT (in a study session on December 15). The CCG will meet in a final negotiating session on January 6 before presenting its final report to the OSBT on January 19. The final TSA report, which includes the CCG recommendations plus the OSMP staff recommendations on non-consensus items, will be presented to the OSBT on February 23. Regardless of the specific details of the final report, we know it will be the product of compromise. As a consequence, it’s safe to say that no CCG member will get everything s/he desired, and it is certain that each member will have given up something that s/he truly hoped for. The hope is that averaged over the West TSA, and indeed over the entire Open Space system, all users can find gains and improvements. The greater hope is that moving forward, Open Space users can adopt the tolerance and respect for other users that CCG members cultivated among themselves.

Regardless of the feelings that people may have for the content of the final CCG report, it is important that we all stand back and acknowledge the prodigious effort that produced that report. We can all reach consensus on that point! It would be difficult to estimate the number of hours of strenuous work, late-night study, emotional overdrafts, lost sleep, and frustrating emails – in addition to full-time jobs and family lives − that went into this project on the part of both the OSMP staff and CCG members. The volunteer CCG members particularly deserve our gratitude and admiration for a truly extraordinary act of public service.

From 1947 to 1967 Boulder experienced unprecedented growth, and the city’s population boomed from 18,000 to 60,000 people. The post-World War II years saw the completion of the Boulder Turnpike, the opening of Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant and the arrival of businesses like Beech Aircraft and Ball Aerospace.

With the influx of thousands of new residents, Boulder experienced an extreme housing shortage. In response to this shortage, many new neighborhoods, including Martin Acres and Table Mesa, were constructed. Today, Boulder’s post-war neighborhoods account for thirty percent of the city’s housing stock.

The period also witnessed a rising tide of concern amongst Boulder citizens about the city’s rapid growth, which resulted in the community embracing the Blue Line and a greenbelt of open space delineating Boulder’s urban boundary.

This period of explosive growth and change is documented in a short video put together by the city’s Planning Department. The video has great historic images along with an informative narrative.

Historic Boulder is offering an opportunity to see inside the homes of Boulder’s innovative architects. The tour is scheduled for 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday, April 24 and Sunday, April 25.

Tickets for the Tour are $12 for Historic Boulder members; $15 in advance for non-members; and $18 for non-members day of tour at your choice of destinations.

Compared to other cities of its size nationwide, Boulder is particularly rich in fine examples of innovative architecture related to the Modern Movement. More than anywhere else in Colorado, Boulder welcomed and embraced architectural Modernism, especially after the Second World War. This is in large part a result of the expansion of the University of Colorado and its related research facilities.

The next challenge for historic preservation across the country is appreciating the rich qualities of Modernism. Growth pressures are threatening this important heritage. Yet, Modernism is not a past style. It is a living philosophy that continues as a progressive design force today. The annual Spring Tour is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to see several amazing Modern houses firsthand.

The six houses on the tour showcase how innovators in the construction industry have created their own homes. As home to the state college of architecture, Boulder has a richer than usual array of creative custom residential designs. There is a terrific variety of house styles showcased on the tour. There are three new homes, one addition, one condominium, and a renovation. All of the houses feature unique ideas in creative space planning, material finishes, ecological design and neighborliness.

Don’t miss seeing cutting edge designs featured in the Historic Boulder’s Landmarks of the Future Tour.