Loading...
Item 5D - Public Comment Received May 23 - July 10Dear Boulder Landmarks Board, July 6, 2023 I m writing on behalf of the ‘Friends of the Bandshell’, and ‘Friends of the Teahouse’ to encourage you to approve the request to Initiate the Landmarking process for a new Historic District in downtown Boulder, the “Central Park/ Civic Area Historic District”. We started the process we are now in on April 6, 2023 when we submitted an Applications to Landmark the Central park/Civic Center Area of Boulder. We need to note that at that time there was not a City Application for a Landmarked District. I was advised to just make up my own form Based on the last two Landmarked Districts that were formed in 2016. It was also suggested that I take an application form for an Individual Landmark and modify it to be an application for a District. I attempted to do both of those suggestions, sending in versions of the application on April 5,6. A few days later we did receive an application form for a Landmark District from the City and filled it out, sending it in on April 7. City Staff advised that it needed some revisions. About this time, Historic Boulder Inc. advised us that they supported our efforts, and very shortly after that offered to co-sponsor the application, which we happily agreed to. So that is where we are now, We Friends welcome Historic Boulder in going forward together to create a new Central Park/Civic Center Historic District. The following 2020 Aerial photo shows the buildings and the Park, and our first attempt at setting boundaries. We are happy to go back to these boundaries if the Board wishes. Proposed District on April 6. Note Streets and area behind 13th buildings are not included. So together we Friends of the Bandshell, Friends of the Teahouse and Historic Boulder worked together to send in a combined Application on May 22. Preservation Staff accepted it, and issued an invoice which was paid on May 30, 2023 The proposed Historic District is included in the Red lines. Please approve this application and a timeline that enables it to be votes on by this Council. This Park was designed by Olmsted in 1924, and the Bandshell and Site added by Saco DeBoer in 1938. The surrounding buildings that look into the Park, have always had a relationship to each other and the Park. People crossing the Park to have lunch, go to meetings etc I urge you to approve this eclectic architectural area of different styles and periods as it reflects the eclectic way that Boulder developed. Boulder is a unique place. Let’s celebrate that. 1940 View of Boulder Most of the Proposed Park area site can be seen at the lower left corner of the photo. The Park is much the same today. Very sincerely yours, Kathryn Barth, AIA From:Kathryn Barth To:landmarksboard Subject:Cantu Tree Study Date:Sunday, July 9, 2023 3:59:14 PM Attachments:Cantu Boulder"s Central Park Old-Growth Trees.pdf External Sender What a exciting Study! Boulder’s Central Park Old-Growth Trees Research by Randy Cantu (revised 4-7-23) Page 1 of 9 Boulder’s Central Park is a historical treasure, and a beautiful greenspace. One of the most noteworthy features of the property, in addition to the expansive lawn, is the abundance of large old-growth trees. Referring back to the original 1924 Planting Plan, a document created by Olmstead Brothers – Landscape Architects, one wonders if any of the current large trees possibly date from this era, when the park was formally created, almost 100 years ago. Boulder’s Central Park Old-Growth Trees Research by Randy Cantu (revised 4-7-23) Page 2 of 9 This Planting Plan also has an accompanying Planting List, which was used to identify each type of tree, shrub, and ground cover plant, as well as their planned location. Boulder’s Central Park Old-Growth Trees Research by Randy Cantu (revised 4-7-23) Page 3 of 9 Here is a detailed excerpt of the Planting Plan showing the accompanying identifying numbers from the Planting List: As you can see, the plan precisely identified locations and designs of planting beds, shrubbery, and trees. Boulder’s Central Park Old-Growth Trees Research by Randy Cantu (revised 4-7-23) Page 4 of 9 The City of Boulder Forestry Department maintains an online Tree Inventory that presents a detailed layout of all of the 128 exisitng trees in the park, with their exact location, as well as some identifying characteristics, such as, genus, latin name, common name, trunk diameter, etc. Using some creative digital graphics manipulations we were able to overlay the original 1924 Planting Plan on a map of the current tree inventory. Boulder’s Central Park Old-Growth Trees Research by Randy Cantu (revised 4-7-23) Page 5 of 9 This is the result. Each blue dot represents a currently inventoried tree in the Forestry Department’s system, and the gray drawings are from the original Planting Plan: Boulder’s Central Park Old-Growth Trees Research by Randy Cantu (revised 4-7-23) Page 6 of 9 Looking a bit more closely we can see that some of the originally planted trees align very closely with exisitng mapped trees: Boulder’s Central Park Old-Growth Trees Research by Randy Cantu (revised 4-7-23) Page 7 of 9 Using this information, as well as on-site observation, we investigated a subset of large trees that we suspected were old enough to be from the original park development. We specifically looked at any tree that has a trunk diameter of 28 inches or greater and aligned closely with the original planting locations. For most trees, the 28-inch diameter would represent a growth period of at least 100 years. We came up with 11 trees that are likely candidates. Here is a map with their locations and trunk diameters (largest to smallest): 1 - Shumard Oak - 48” 2 - Shumard Oak - 42” 3 - White Oak - 41” 4 - Northern Red Oak - 41” 5 - Silver Maple - 39” 6 - Shumard Oak - 34” 7 - Honey Locust – 34” 8 - Northern Red Oak – 32” 9 - Northern Red Oak – 31” 10 - Northern Red Oak – 30” 11 - Northern Red Oak – 28” Boulder’s Central Park Old-Growth Trees Research by Randy Cantu (revised 4-7-23) Page 8 of 9 These 11 trees match up closely with the planned locations. And all but one of them match the planned species. The one exception is the 41” diameter Northern Red Oak (Tree #4 at the left center of the map). It is listed on the original Planting Plan as an American Elm, but has been documented by the City Foresters as a Northern Red Oak. It’s interesting to note that the original plan called for almost 50 Elm trees, but as a result of the Dutch Elm Disease epidemic, today there is only 1 large Elm remaining in the park. Also, the original plan did not include any true Ash trees, only some European Mountain Ash, which are immune to Emerald Ash Borer. And, as an added bonus, two of these trees are State Champions! Tree #1 (the 48” Shumard Oak) and Tree #3 (the 41” White Oak) are both on the Colorado Tree Coalition’s State Champion Tree Registry (www.coloradotrees.org/champion-tree-program). Also, an interesting observation is that the calculated ages of many of these 11 trees are well beyond what would be expected if they were planted in 1924, even assuming they were at least a couple of years old when transplanted. A commonly accepted method for estimating tree age is to multiply the trunk diameter by the known growth factor for a particular species. Using several different on-line tree age calculators we came up with the following estimated ages: Tree # Species Diameter Estimated Age 3 White Oak 41” 205 years 4 Northern Red Oak 41” 164 Years 1 Shumard Oak 48” 144 years 8 Northern Red Oak 32” 128 years 2 Shumard Oak 42” 126 years 9 Northern Red Oak 31” 124 years 10 Northern Red Oak 30” 120 years 5 Silver Maple 39” 117 years 11 Northern Red Oak 28” 112 years 6 Shumard Oak 34” 102 years 7 Honey Locust 34” 102 years *Source: https://www.omnicalculator.com/biology/tree-age As you can see, the majority of these trees have an estimated age that seems incongruous with the estimated planting date of no earlier than 1924. There could be a couple of reasons for this: 1) The formula for these estimates is based on averages. So, it’s possible that these trees are exceptions to the rule. They could be just unusually healthy specimens, having been well-maintained, and having just grown incredibly well. 2) It’s possible that these older trees existed before the park was created. In theory, the park designers might have then developed their Planting Plan to incorporate these already-mature trees. There are original city plat maps dating as far back as 1878 with small city home lots on the land that would eventually become Central Park. Early Boulder’s Central Park Old-Growth Trees Research by Randy Cantu (revised 4-7-23) Page 9 of 9 homeowners could have planted and nurtured these trees. Also, it’s worth noting that none of these tree species have Colorado as part of their native range. Regardless of their origin, these beautiful senior trees are a vital part of Boulder’s Central Park and should be respected and maintained for their value to the citizens and visitor of Boulder for years to come. From:Gail@growingtipsllc.com To:Historic Preservation Subject:Support letter for Landmarks Board Date:Friday, July 7, 2023 4:17:22 PM Attachments:Support letter 2023.docx External Sender July 7, 2023 In Re: Public hearing and consideration of a motion to adopt a resolution to initiate the process for the designation of a historic district encompassing a portion of the area from 1777 Broadway to 14th Street and between Canyon Blvd. and Arapahoe Ave. pursuant to Section 9-11-3, of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981 (HIS2023-00081). Owner: City of Boulder / Applicant: Historic Boulder, Friends of the Bandshell, and Friends of the Boulder-Dushanbe Teahouse. To: The Boulder Landmarks Board From: Gail Gray I strongly support this potential designation by the Landmarks Board. As the City of Boulder’s council pursues and embraces the higher density living style being advocated throughout the country, it is important to remember why Boulder is considered an highly desirable location to live. The proximity to the mountains and the readily available “outdoor life” is significantly important. Any drive to one of the nearby trails or scenic roads makes this readily apparent. While enjoying these areas, it must be remembered that not everyone is able to access them. To forget that open and “green” spaces within the city serves even more of our diverse population would be a mistake. Further, the closer the houses and apartments, the more important it is to also have green spaces as part of the everyday life experience, not just those special foothills rides and trail. They supply meeting areas, sunlight and easily accessible open spaces for all people to enjoy. The Central Park area is probably the “premier” open space of the city. It has developed a life of its own and, with good planning, such as indoor (The Atrium, The Dushanbe Tea House, etc.) and outdoor facilities (outside seating, grassy areas, water interest, shade, the bandshell for entertainment), it will [continue] to be the heart of the city. Good sense and a love for Boulder will dictate the best decision: landmarking this area for perpetuity. Thank you. Gail K. Gray From:susanna osborne To:landmarksboard Subject:Central Park/ Civic Area Historic District Date:Friday, July 7, 2023 2:43:43 PM Attachments:CPCA HD.docx External Sender Susan M Osborne 525 College Ave. Boulder, CO 80302 (720) 340-0159 Sent from my iPhone July 6, 2023 Dear Boulder Landmarks Board, I’m writing to you as a former long range planning director who oversaw Boulder’s historic preservation program from 1984 through 1992, as a former president of Historic Boulder, Inc, as a former PRAB member and chair, as a former Boulder City council person (2007-2011) and mayor (2009-2011), and as a current member of the board of Colorado Preservation, Inc. I also was the project manager for the Boulder Creek Greenway Plan 1985-1986. I care deeply about the future of the city’s municipal campus and Central Park, and urge you to support the Central Park/ Civic Area Historic District. I believe it is the very best way to assure that future changes (and there will be many) are carefully considered by the city staff, relevant citizen boards and the public at large. We have a treasure in the collection of landmarked buildings, the Glen Huntington bandshell and the delightful green space of Central Park. Seeing them as a coordinated whole and viewing proposed change through this lens is what will be achieved by creating an historic district here. When we began designing the Boulder Creek Greenway, we dusted off Fredrick Law Olmsted Jr’s ideas about Boulder Creek improvements (1910,1924) and used them as our polestar. His concept of “The Park at Boulder Creek” as a shady, sheltered place along the creek with views to the foothills and open to all is still valid today. It seems so right to me that it becomes the centerpiece of a new historic district. Thank you for your consideration of this timely proposal. Best regards, Susan Osborne 525 College Ave. Boulder, Co 80302 720-340-0159 1420 N Ogden St, Suite 104 ● Denver, CO 80218 303.893.4260 ● ColoradoPreservation.org COLORADOPRESERVATION.ORG July 7th, 2023 City of Boulder c/o Landmarks Board 1777 Broadway Boulder, CO 80302 Dear City of Boulder Landmark Board Members, Colorado Preservation, Inc. (CPI) has been a proud supporter and strong partner for efforts to preserve the Glen Huntington Bandshell since its listing on Colorado’s Most Endangered Places in 2016. As part of the City Beautiful Movement, civic planner and landscape architect Saco DeBoer designed the Bandshell and the landscape around it. His other landscape projects include the Denver Botanic Gardens, Red Rocks Amphitheatre, and Speer Boulevard. We are writing to express our strong support for adopting a resolution to initiate the process of designating a historic district encompassing the park. Designating the park and its surrounding buildings will not only ensure the future of DeBoer’s vision of City Beautiful but will solidify the park's reputation as the heart of Boulder. Please consider this request from Historic Boulder, the Friends of the Bandshell, and the Friends of the Boulder Dushanbe Teahouse. Thank you for your ongoing support of this excellent preservation project. Sincerely, Katie Peterson Endangered Places Program Director From:margaret fleurtflowers.com To:Historic Preservation Subject:Downtown Historic District Date:Monday, July 10, 2023 10:34:10 AM Attachments:PastedGraphic-3.png External Sender Dear Landmarks Board I am writing in support of the Downtown Historic District and particularly the exemplary Glen Huntington bandshell. I am a history major, interior designer and a hobby architect. I live in the Chautauqua Historic District and see the importance of protecting unique structures and spaces that serve the community well. Sadly, I have also seen the destruction and loss of character when communities do not protect their structures and honor and/or learn from their history. The historic landmark designation of Chautauqua has preserved the grounds for future generations. We have been able to make repairs and updates to our cabin and the process has been just fine. The requirements within historic districts not only preserve structures but foster community and preserve traditions that are more important than ever in our chaotic world. The change that has happened in Boulder in the past two decades is staggering. Progress is important and it is most successful when carried out with respect for cultural and architectural histories. The Glen Huntington Bandshell is a rare example of art deco architecture in Boulder and is an iconic fixture in Central Park. Decades of work have gone into protecting this space and its interesting history. As you well know, landmarking the park does not prevent changes, it only means making changes that align with the historic vision of the park. Yes, maybe a little more work but a much better result that serves the community as a beautiful space for the future that also honors the past. Please consider designating the historic district in downtown Boulder. Best, Margaret Ryder 4 Goldenrod Drive Boulder, Colorado 80302 214.773.2700 From:Noble, Aubrey To:Noble, Aubrey Subject:FW: Historic district in Central Park Date:Tuesday, May 23, 2023 5:02:40 PM From: Fran Sheets <sheetsf@colorado.edu> Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2023 10:48 AM To: landmarksboard <landmarksboard@bouldercolorado.gov> Cc: boulderplanningboard <boulderplanningboard@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: Historic district in Central Park External Sender April 30, 2023 Dear Landmarks Board, As your former compatriot on the board, I’m now writing to you to advocate for the historic district in Olmsted’s Central Park. A year ago on June 14, 2022, the landmark board’s recommendation to expand the landmark designation of Block 13 in Boulder’s Central Park was denied by Council in a close 5-4 vote. One reason was that although staff usually supports the recommendation of the Landmarks Board, staff did not support the LB’s vote to expand the Bandshell boundary in lieu of creating a historic district. Council requested, as proposed by James before his departure, to develop an historic district during 2023 after assurances that it would be a priority in this year’s work plan. Council instructed PRAB and LB to collaborate in the process. In April of this year, Friends of the Bandshell and Friends of the Teahouse learned weekly meetings were held since January between Parks and Preservation staff. No meaningful information came from these meetings but I was assured no designing had taken place for Phase II of this area. However, the 2015 Phase II plans remain in place that did not show the Bandshell or seats with dense infill behind 13th St. buildings. Further, we were all told in April that an historic district would not be created until after a CLA was completed for the area which would take 9 months. A historic district is estimated to take 3-4 years to complete. These decisions were made totally in the dark without any stakeholder input or updates. To be clear, no one is opposed to a CLA but we feel to be done correctly it should include the entire historic area from Eben G. Fine Park along the creek way to the proposed Central Park historic district. The CLA should be done concurrently while the historic park is created. There is no question the Central Park area meets all the qualifications for a historic district and the Cultural Landscape Assessment should reflect the designation not the other way around. The plan to stall the creation of the historic district came to us after four months of meetings in the dark. Realizing Council would not be reviewing a historic district this year as we were promised, it was only then that the several citizen grassroot organizations submitted an application for the historic district. It is the determination of the citizen groups that the application (which was recently expanded by staff) be completed by June 1 to be heard at the LB July 12 meeting so the historic district designation will move forward to be heard by this council by the end of this year as we were promised last June 14. This process will be transparent and inclusive with community participation. The reason Parks does not want to designate the area or even expand the Bandshell’s boundary as recommended by Landmarks Board last year was, as stated by Parks, their desire to avoid “another layer” of approval. In other words, to deny the city’s own preservation code. We feel this historic area in the heart of Boulder is not solely the Parks Department’s property but belongs to everyone who lives and visits here. We all need to work together to preserve our past in order to wisely move into the future. As we continue the historic district proposal with community input and support, we provide regular updates to LB and PRAB. This process should be by the community and for the community. Sincerely, Fran Mandel Sheets Boulder From:Fran Sheets To:landmarksboard Subject:HD initiation Date:Thursday, June 29, 2023 10:59:10 AM External Sender Dear John, Ronnie, Abby and Chelsea, In the name of transparency which doesn’t seem to be a part of Boulder government anymore, I am submitting a letter written to Marcy Gerwing because of her refusal to support the historic district initiation THIS DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED to happen this year. Per the City Council meeting last June 14 2022 this was “best practices” making the Block 13 expansion unnecessary. I apologize for the length but only out of necessity for full explanation. This is a legislative process and I am happy to discuss the issues on the phone. Hope you all are doing well, Best, Fran Dear Marcy, Leonard Segel sent his notes from the private conversation between the two of you yesterday. I am disappointed you didn’t have the courage to meet with the others who are contributing many hours of time and energy to this initiation effort. As a former chair and member of the Landmarks Board, I currently work closely with the Friends of the Bandshell and of the Dushanbe Teahouse. I am also a member of Historic Boulder’s Preservation Committee. I along with numerous others contributed to the historic district application. I’m more than disappointed and frustrated with your inability to support the initiation and preservation of probably the most studied and intact landscape in the heart of Boulder. Please don't forget it was staff that assured city council last year that expanding the Bandshell site (which was to have been done years before) was rejected because your staff recommended a historic district be created instead! As a major staff contributor to the 2013 and 2019 revised edition of the city’s own City of Boulder Historic Preservation Plan available on the city's website, you are not living up to the goals or objectives you agreed to in the document. I suggest you reread the document you were instrumental in writing. Submitting the application for the historic district (accepted on May 30, 2023) was a hard won accomplishment given the obstacles city employees of Preservation put in our way. Initially it took a week to even obtain the city’s own application form for an historic district. Then it took nine days before the invoice was produced so we could pay so the designation process could begin. Then the hearing dates were shifted such that the July 5th monthly meeting was moved to July 12 which pushes a possible designation hearing further into the future making a vote by city council on the designation to a new council. Now you very cleverly but cowardly refusing to do your job and support the initiation which your department highly recommended as best practices just one year ago. Your objections to the application as described in Leonard Segel’s notes to us are part of the initiation hearing discussion including the boundaries and period of significance. To not support the application due to these issues is a refusal on your part to do your job and work with us. We submitted an application but never suggested we are not open to the usual discussion and changes. The application is well written and documented. We did your work for you. This area is arguably the best documented landscape in the entire city with clear history important both locally and nationally. As recently as last year Mundus Bishop documented for the city the overwhelming qualifications of this area for preservation. Since then we have found even more support and documentation in support. Beyond that we have documented the trees some of which originate from Olmsted and DeBoer plans and are documented state specimens. This information is readily available and one would expect you would be concerned about an area that currently has little or no protection today. Boulder’s Historic Preservation Plan, which, again, you wrote, clearly states in the goals and objections preservation will “ensure the protection of Boulder’s significant cultural, historic, architectural and environmental resources” which you are failing to do by denying your support for this initiation. Further, the Preservation Plan you yourself authored states Preservation in Boulder should “Create a shared community vision for the identification, evaluation and protection of culturally, historically, architecturally, and/or environmentally significant resources.” You are failing this objective again by not supporting the application. It was stated by Preservation staff at the Council meeting June 14 , 2022 the historic district would be part of the 2023 work schedule with the COLLABORATION of stakeholders, which to this day has not happened. Leonard Segel is only one of many concerned citizens. Councilperson Bob Yates confidently told me this historic district has a good possibility of going into effect this year and it could be accomplished in a year. Councilperson Rachel Friend, who voted for the Bandshell boundary expansion, stated that night this process would get bogged down and become complicated because staff is unable to actually get anything accomplished in a timely manner. How right she is! As a long time Boulder resident, I am cynical enough to believe the following: this city staff put up roadblocks all along because it is still backing the 2015 Phase II plans which show the Bandshell and seats gone, new bike paths cutting through the park, and the ditch covered. There were suggestions at that time of buildings (restaurants and housing) on the park land. An historic district gets in the way of inappropriate changes in the park. Changes can surely happen in an historic district but they must be reviewed by the Landmarks Board which is exactly what the Parks Department and you do not want. Without designation Parks Department can do whatever they want. Maybe the Bandshell, which is listed on the state’s Most Endangered Structures, will be saved from demolition or removal but the point is, Parks Dept. is once again flexing unchecked power to not only shut the public out from any significant process but also denying any significant collaboration by preservation. By denying the park designation Parks Dept. can do exactly what they always do without regard to history which clearly doesn’t matter to them (note Phase I). Why consult with Landmarks Board if you can do what you want without them? You, Marcy, are once again professionally failing our community. I’ll never forget how you recommended the Landmarks Board permit the demolition of the Bandshell seats. Not best practices for this structure. You also made the very poor decision without board consultation, to demolish the Hilton Harvest House/Clarion despite it being a nationally recognized award winning steel structure. For these reasons and others, I do not trust your professional decisions. Not supporting the initiation is just one more poor decision. Attached you can find the March 2022 Mundus Bishop report. It clearly states the historic value and significance of the landscape at issue. They give a recommended period of significance and state the qualifications of the area. Staff, both Preservation and the Parks Dept. request these consultant reports and then discard the information when the recommendations don’t fit what you want to do - so why waste spending the time and money? Yet you all are insisting on yet another CLA which you will disregard like the other reports. You have yet to respond to why the initiation cannot continue simultaneously with the CLA. To not support the designation of the heart of Boulder until after yet another unnecessary delay (CLA) while the Parks Dept. implements its Phase II design is another poor professional choice you are making. You are supporting Parks Department rather than preservation in Boulder which you were hired to do. It is clear city staff has alternative plans for the area. It is time you all were honest. Staff should stop the underhanded obstructions, come out in the light and hold honest discussions about what you are planning in the park. The Boulder community deserves open leadership. The Boulder community deserves to be served better than what we are being given now. I think you know better. You have done better. Sincerely, Fran From:Historic Preservation To:landmarksboard Cc:Payson Sheets; Leonard Segel Subject:FW: Save Central Park, Please ! Date:Friday, July 7, 2023 8:45:16 AM Dear Landmarks Board members, Please see the email below regarding Central Park. From: Payson Sheets <payson.sheets@colorado.edu> Sent: Friday, July 7, 2023 5:28 AM To: Historic Preservation <historic@bouldercolorado.gov> Subject: Save Central Park, Please ! External Sender Good morning, I write to you hoping you have a moment to receive my plea. I was born in Boulder in 1944 and still live here. I have had many important visits to Central Park, and covet it as a center of history for our town. I love the Bandshell, open grassy area, trees, and lament the demise of the train. Olmstead did a terrific plan for the park, and I want as much as possible to be maintained. Keep the bandshell area as it is, with the wooden seats and no bike path through it !!! Please please please protect the historic integrity of our Central Park. Saludos, Dr. Payson Sheets 520 Marine St. 720 347 0556 From:Stepanek To:landmarksboard Cc:joe & Caroline Stepanek Subject:The Tajik Tea House in our Civic Park Historic District - July 6, 2023 Date:Friday, July 7, 2023 11:55:13 AM External Sender Hi Please confirm receipt. Thank you, Joe & Caroline Stepanek No one would have guessed - that a gift from half way around the world - would become Boulder's most popular meeting place cafe. Born of the Cold War; it is today a symbol of community, of communication, of peace itself. Boulder owes lots to many for what is now a Landmarked beauty as a new part of Boulder's soon-to-be Historic District along Boulder Creek; a major contributing work of art from then Communist Soviet Tajikistan. How did this happen? It was President Eisenhower who became convinced by a friend that foreign policy would be enhanced by including citizen to citizen participation; hence, Sister Cities was born in the early 1960s. Boulder, with its own share of the Cold War just down the road, in the form of its nuclear trigger factory, had its own share of peace-loving citizen activists: three American ladies - Mary Axe, Mary Hey and Sophia Stoller - set to work finding Boulder's own Soviet sister city partner. After a few false starts, a story in its own right, two scientists, one from Boulder and the other from Dushanbe, capital of a Central Asian country, initiated and achieved this unique agreement. Not easily reached as our three ladies had approached the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C. several times. Each time they were rebuffed as being C.I.A. plants. Finally a chance remark did the trick; "Boulder has its own Balalika Band!" This chance remark changed minds and led to an invitation to their Soviet-era mayor to visit our city, Boulder, which like Dushanbe, is snug up against the mountains. He arrived only to announce that what Boulder needed was a gift of a Tea House. No sooner offered than two hundred large wooden boxes arrived - to be stored amid endless controversy. Why accept an unwanted gift from a Communist country! An Islamic country! How to fund it? Where to place? Even bank funding for its construction was lost when the site itself was deemed to be polluted by a a previous factory. Controversy surrounded these boxes, stored for nearly seven years until Boulder's City Council and our public found satisfactory answers to these many questions. And, as importantly, City officers found funding; Leslie Dugan, our Mayor, and Tim Honey, our City Manager solved this crisis. As many as 27 sites around Boulder had been considered. Finally, a site was found on the edge of our City Park. Boulder's own architect - the late Vern Seieroe - started working with a Tajik architect and their artists and artisans from Khujand north of the capitol, and the doors opened on this completed gift in May of 1998. The public soon embraced this Persian cafe, thanks in part to the thoughtful operation by restauranteurs, Lenny and Sara Martinelli. These combined, thoughtful efforts led in turn to the Landmarking of this gift by City Council in November 2020 - landmarking its interior and its garden - uniquely so for such a new building. Today this unique Persian-Tajik structure stands facing Boulder Central Park and is surrounded with other landmarked buildings with their own unique histories. Today, the Tea House is the center of a peaceful community where Boulder families, friends and tourists, even Tajiks from Denver and out of state, gather. When asked "Why?" one of our founding three ladies, Mary Hey, replied that she as a single Mom could not raise her baby daughter with a bomb factory down the road. The principle of Sister Cities continues to be honored with Tajik visitors every year; with the celebration of the Persian-Tajik New Year - termed Navruz - at the Tea House each year; and with visits from several other international visitor programs. Our City Council, in the same spirit, has expanded on this tradition by building a Sister Cities Plaza for all of Boulder's Sister City relationships, some dozen of them, and also by funding Tajik artists to come to help maintain this piece of art in Boulder's sometimes harsh climate. And our story doesn't end there. Boulder would be, of course, be honor-bound to reciprocate with our own unique building, and we did so. Led by Don Mock of the Boulder Sister Cities Board, and by our City Council, Boulder architect David Barrett design a Boulder-style community building which now resides in Dushanbe as a center for English language training. With appreciation, Joseph F. & Caroline Holmes Stepanek, 720 11th St. 80302 303-544-0881 For elaborate detail and pictures, see the references below: George Peknik, The Meaning of the Boulder-Dushanbe Teahouse, 2004 Lara Ramsey and Kathryn Barth, Boulder-Dushanbe Teahouse - Historic Context and Survey, October 2010.