01.22.24 PRAB PacketAGENDA
All agenda times are approximate
I.APPROVAL OF AGENDA (2 minutes)
II.FUTURE BOARD ITEMS AND TOURS (2 minutes)
III.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (15-30 minutes)
A.This portion of the meeting is for members of the public to communicate ideas or
concerns to the Board regarding parks and recreation issues for which a public hearing is
not scheduled later in the meeting (this includes consent agenda). The public is
encouraged to comment on the need for parks and recreation programs and facilities as
they perceive them. All speakers are limited to three minutes. Depending on the nature
of your matter, you may or may not receive a response from the Board after you deliver
your comments. The Board is always listening to and appreciative of community
feedback.
IV.CONSENT AGENDA (5 minutes)
A.Approval of Minutes from December 18, 2023
B.Parks and Recreation Planning, Design and Construction Updates
C.Parks and Recreation Operations Updates
V.ACTION ITEMS
A.None
VI.MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION/INFORMATION
A.Proposed Civic Area Historic District (45 min)
VII.MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT
A.Court System Plan (15 min)
B.Central Park Cultural Landscape Assessment (15 min)
C.BPR 2024 Action Plan (Verbal) (10 min)
VIII.MATTERS FROM THE BOARD
A.March Regular Meeting Date (5 min)
B.Board Membership (5 min)
C.PRAB Matters (Verbal) (5 min)
IX.NEXT BOARD MEETING:
A.February 26, 2024
X.ADJOURN
Parks & Recreation Advisory Board
Hybrid Meeting
6:00 p.m., January 22, 2024
Boulder Parks & Recreation
Advisory Board Members 2023
Andrew Bernstein
Charles Brock
Elliott Hood
Anna Segur
Anita Speirs
Jason Unger
Sarah van der Star
Mission Statement
BPRD will promote the health and
well- being of the entire Boulder
community by collaboratively
providing high-quality parks,
facilities and programs.
Vision Statement
We envision a community where
every member’s health and well-
being is founded on unparalleled
parks, facilities and programs.
Goals of the Master Plan
1.Community Health and Wellness
2.Taking Care of What We Have
3.Financial Sustainability
4.Building Community
5.Youth Engagement
6.Organizational Readiness
1
PRAB Future Board Items Agenda
January 22 February 26 March 25
Hybrid for members & staff.
Public Comment remains
Virtual.
Hybrid for members & staff. Public
Comment remains Virtual.
Hybrid for members & staff. Public
Comment remains Virtual.
Regular Mtg
(c) •Summary of Civic Area
Study Session with City
Council
•Scoping Universal Access Plan
Regular Mtg
(a) •None •None •None
Regular Mtg
(d/i) •Proposed Civic Area
Historic District
•2023 Year End Financial Review
•Pleasantview: Schematic Design
•Park on Violet: Planning Analysis
with Vision and Value
•Civic Area: Planning Analysis
with Vision and Values
•Fee Policy Updates
Regular Mtg
(md)
•Court System Plan
•Central Park Cultural
Landscape Assessment
•BPR 2024 Action Plan
(Verbal)
•BPR Climate Emissions
reporting/alignment
•Court System Plan: Conceptual
Design Alts with Preferred
Alterative
•Natural Lands System Plan Kick-
Off
•1st Touch: 2025 Budget
Development (Rev, Exp, Fee
Policy Updates, Fee Schedule,
CIP)
Regular Mtg
(mb)
•March Regular Meeting
Date
•PRAB Recruitment, Orientation
and Departing Board members
•May 27 is Memorial Day. New
May meeting date needed
Other Mtgs
or Topics
•Jan 29:
B&C application deadline
•Feb 5
PRAB Study Session:
-BPR Equity Work,
including Water Safety
Access
-B&C Report Debrief and
Discussion
-PRAB Handbook deep dive
-PRABs role and authority
-PRAB process
•Feb 12-Feb23:
B&C applicant interviews
Dept Events
& Items of
Interest
TBD: Pleasantview Public
Meeting
Feb 19:
COB President’s Day closure
Feb TBD:
Court System Plan Public Meeting
March 7:
City Council makes B&C
appointments
March 23-31:
SBRC Shut down
AGENDA SETTING
The PRAB Chair, PRAB Vice Chair and BPR staff set the agenda for the next month on Thursday directly following the regular PRAB meeting. PRAB members can
submit agenda requests to the Chair and Vice Chair by Wednesday following the PRAB regular meeting for consideration. If time-sensitive matters arise, PRAB Chair
and Vice Chair may amend the agenda as needed.
LEGEND
Action Item (a): A public hearing item to be voted on by the Board (public comment period provided).
Procedural Item: (p): An item requiring procedural attention.
Consent Item (c): An item provided in written form for consent, not discussion by the Board; any consent item may be called up by any Board member for discussion
following the consent agenda.
Discussion/Information Item(d/i): An item likely to be a future action item (or council item) and/or that benefits from an in-depth discussion.
Matters from the Department (md): Items that will be reviewed and discussed during the meeting but not requiring as much in-depth analysis.
Matters from the Board (mb): Items initiated by the Board that will be reviewed and discussed during the meeting but not requiring as much in-depth analysis.
City Council Item (cc)
Other Boards and Commissions (obc)
Community Engagement and/or Events (e)
21
TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
FROM: Alison Rhodes, Director of Parks and Recreation
Bryan Beary, Senior Manager, Community Building and Partnerships
Mark Davison, Senior Manager, Planning
Regina Elsner, Senior Manager, Natural Resources
Jackson Hite, Senior Manager, Business Services
Megann Lohman, Senior Manager, Recreation
Stephanie Munro, Senior Manager, Regional Facilities
Scott Schuttenberg, Deputy Director
Dennis Warrington, Senior Manager, Urban Parks
SUBJECT: Consent Agenda
DATE: January 22, 2024
A.Approval of Minutes December 18, 2023
3
CITY OF BOULDER
BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES
To listen to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meetings in their entirety,
please go to the following link
Name of Board/Commission: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and Landmarks Board Study
Session
Date of Meeting: December 18, 2023
Contact Information Preparing Summary: Rosa Kougl; 303-413-7223
PRAB Board Members Present: Charles (Chuck) Brock, Elliott Hood, Jason Unger, Andrew (Bernie)
Bernstein, Sunny van der Star, Anna Segur
Landmarks Board Members Present: Ronnie Pelusio, Renee Golobic, Chelsea Castellano, John
Decker, Abby Daniels,
PRAB Board Members Absent: Anita Speirs
Staff Present: Ali Rhodes, Scott Schuttenberg, Rosa Kougl, Mark Davison, Bryan Beary, Jackson
Hite, Regina Elsner, Jonathan Thornton, Jill Sobol-Kertz, David Choate, Tina Briggs, Shihomi
Kuriyagawa, Marcy Gerwing, Kristofer Johnson, Brad Mueller, Lucas Markley, Amanda Cusworth,
Clare Brandt
Guests Present: Angie Jeffords, PLAY Boulder
Type of Meeting: Joint Study Session
Agenda Item 1: Approval of Agenda
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. A PRAB quorum was present for the conduct of business.
A Landmarks quorum was present for the conduct of business. Motion to approve agenda. First motion
by Brock, second by Hood. The motion passed 6-0.
Agenda Item 2: Joint Study Session:
• PRAB and Landmarks Board Joint Study Session
Markley, Gerwing, Johnson, Kuriyagawa presented this item.
The purpose of the Dec. 18, 2023, Joint study session and presentation was to provide an update on the
process for the Proposed Civic Area Historic District, provide feedback on the draft design guideline
framework and review the Cultural Landscape Assessment (CLA) process and findings for Central
Park. The Proposed Civic Area Historic District application is a proposal to designate a portion of the
Civic Area as a local historic district. Reference the Dec. 18, 2023 PRAB Packet.
Mueller offered opening remarks. Markley presented the roles of the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board and the Landmarks Board and the quasi-judicial process. Johnson presented group agreements
and the meeting purpose. Gerwing presented an overview of the proposed historic district, including a
project update and draft design guideline framework. Kuriyagawa presented the Cultural Landscape
Assessment (CLA) process and findings.
Discussion Questions
1. Do board members have questions on the designation process?
4
2. Do board members have feedback on the draft design guideline framework (intent, table
of contents, guiding principles)?
3. Do board members have questions on the CLA process or findings?
PRAB and Landmarks Board had the following clarifying questions and feedback as noted in the
recording here:
Board Members asked for clarification on:
• Analysis of the Bandshell separately from the other landmarks within the proposed
boundary.
• The meaning of integrity in the context of historic district designation.
• Timing of the development of the design guidelines within the quasi-judicial process.
• What method PRAB’s recommendation will be conveyed to City Council (i.e. written
resolution, letter, verbal vote)
• The date of the last designation of parkland.
• Role of the applicant groups (Historic Boulder, Inc., Friends of the Bandshell, Friends of
the Teahouse) in the designation process.
• Clarification on “urban trees, park design standards, transportation networks, and
maintenance components” in guiding principle #1.
• How historic planting plans might apply to current and future selections.
• How designation impacts the management of the park, including costs to maintain
designated property.
• Role of the irrigation ditches related to historic district designation.
• The date the Broadway Underpass was created and how designation would impact its
location and status.
• Whether Boulder Creek is included within the proposed boundary.
• Who funds maintenance costs for designated properties, i.e. the Bandshell.
• The historic uses of the area, i.e. the Farmers’ Market and camping.
• The land use implications of historic district designation.
• Whether any part of the park has been considered to be “contributing restorable.”
Board member feedback included:
• If something is designated or landmarked, changes are permitted.
• Often it is very difficult to make changes to historic property, so we do not want to give
this false sense that it's easy to change things if it is landmarked, because based on a year
and a half on this board, that is not true.
• The guidelines should recognize the critical importance of the maintenance and work for
life safety elements.
• Regarding boundaries around 13th Street, the boundary might want to span all of 13th
from Arapahoe to Canyon.
• In the event of flooding and catastrophic change, are there any contingency guidelines to
deal with that?
• I am not prepared to respond to the CLA findings. I think I am more likely to really look
at the completed project because that is where we are going to see the substance and the
heart and soul.
• Regarding the fourth guiding principle around social and political history, it is very
important the full inclusive history is represented throughout the storytelling of the Park,
and even through some educational pieces that could be stood within the park, if this does
5
not go forward with historic designation at any point throughout the process, is that still
possible to include in the park design as it goes through renovation.
• I have not been given the information to make me understand the full history. I just want
to make sure as a community, we try to integrate this more into not just the external policies
and processes, but also the internal processes, so that we all have a baseline level of
knowledge and understanding of who and what we're talking about.
• I want to applaud everybody for the efforts that have been put in place for the
community outreach component, it does appear to me that it was a very robust effort.
• No formal vote or action was taken.
Next Steps
The historic district application will be reviewed by Boards and the City Council in early 2024. The
anticipated schedule includes:
• January 22, 2024 - Parks & Recreation Advisory Board
• February 7, 2024 – Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
• March 2024 – Planning Board (Land Use)
• March 2024 – City Council, 1st Reading
• April 2024 – City Council, 2nd Reading and Public Hearing
Adjourn 7:25pm First motion by Castellano, second by Pelusio.
Amendment to Agenda: Event at Boulder Recreation Center, December 17
Rhodes, Director of Parks and Recreation shared a timeline of events.
PRAB follow up questions or comments.
• How long the lockdown lasted before people were allowed to leave?
• Where in the building are people allowed during a lockdown?
Agenda Item 3: Future Board Items and Tours:
Rhodes, Director of Parks and Recreation, reviewed upcoming agenda items and events.
PRAB follow up questions or comments.
• The appropriate avenue for providing feedback to City Council on the Historic District
application.
Agenda Item 4: Public Participation
• Fran Mandel Sheets shared her history as a Landmarks Board member on proposed Historic
District in the Civic Area.
• Leonard Segel spoke on behalf of the preservation organization, Historic Boulder, as its
executive director.
• Patrick O’Rourke shared his thoughts on the proposed Historic District.
• Larry McKeogh shared his appreciation for BPR services and amenities.
• Emily Gonyou shared concern about the events that occurred on December 17 outside of the
North Boulder Recreation Center.
6
PRAB follow up questions or comments.
• One of the commenters suggested that the Parks and Recreation Department is somehow
working against the proposed historical distirct; is that accurate?
• We have never seen any indication from city staff in any of our prior discussions or meetings
about this suggesting that there is any such motivation on the part of staff or this board. This is
a transparent process and what we saw tonight is indicative of the kind of public discussion we
want to have about the proposed Historic District.
Agenda Item 5: Consent Agenda
• Approval of Minutes from November 27, 2023, Business Meeting
Motion to approve the minutes from the November 27, 2023, Regular PRAB meeting. First
motion by Hood, second by van der Star. The motion passed 6-0.
B, C, D. Updates from the Director, Project Updates, Operations & Development
PRAB had follow up questions or comments.
• The two photos, the before and after, of the reservoir related to ANS are alarming. What is a
high-level update on the control of this and what are our prospects?
• What is the effect on our water intake and quality.
• Would like to have more information on this, a full segment of our meeting should be
dedicated to addressing this.
• Are there other nearby towns in Colorado that are dealing with this?
• This increases concern in our aquatic nuisance species, mitigation protocols.
• Would like more details about what the danger is, both in terms of to the ecology of local
ecosystem, but also in terms of the drinking water.
Agenda Item 6: Items for Action
• No items
Agenda Item 7: Matters for Discussion
• No items
Agenda Item 8: Matters from the Department
• PLAY Boulder Foundation
Guest Angie Jeffords presented this item. PRAB had the following questions/comments:
• As a philanthropic organization, PLAY can go after money that the Parks and Recreation
Department itself cannot and they can also serve people who are not within the city limits of
Boulder. It expands the reach of some of the programs beyond just the city borders.
• This is a great organization and Angie has done a great job of re-energizing it after Covid had
strong impacts.
7
• Play Pass is a is a resource that a lot of families really appreciate.
• Are there any options or opportunities for the swim programs.
• Thank you to Angie for what she is doing, the programs are super exciting, and it is nice to
hear what is going on and feel the passion behind it.
Agenda Item 9: Matters from the Board Members
a. View of Final PRAB Handbook
PRAB had the following questions or comment:
• Change Chuck Brock to Chair from President on Cover Letter
b. PRAB Matters
PRAB had the following questions or comment:
• What happened to the portable restroom outside of Pleasantview?
• What are the hours of the bathrooms when Scott Carpenter is open to the public for those who
are at the playground?
• What is at the construction site from the Arboretum on the bike path as you approach the creek
on the south bank, there is a new chain link fence with signage that says, “open excavation”.
Agenda Item 10: Next Board Meeting
Next Board meeting: Monday, January 22, 2024, Hybrid
Agenda Item 11: Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at 8:42 p.m.
Approved by: Attested:
___________________ _____________________
Chuck Brock Rosa Kougl
Board Member BPR Staff
Date: ______________ Date: _________________
8
B. Parks and Recreation Planning, Design and Construction Updates
• The following information is intended to provide the PRAB with relevant updates on
specific projects as they reach major milestones. This section is not all inclusive of all
current projects and only illustrates major project updates. For a complete list of all
current projects and details, please visit www.BoulderParkNews.org.
• Overview of Project Status
Staff or contractors continue to work on the following projects and will update the PRAB as
major milestones are achieved.
Project Status
Civic Area – Phase 2 Contracting
Civic Historic District Evaluation Planning
Central Park Cultural Landscape Assessment Final Recommendations
Court System Plan Planning
Future of Recreation Centers Scoping
North Boulder Park Contracting
Flatirons Golf Course Facility Construction
Pleasantview Access Design
Park on Violet Design
Boulder Creek Safety Plan Anticipated Start 2024
East Boulder Community Park Anticipated Start 2024
Universal Access Plan Anticipated Start 2024
Pearl Street Place Making Anticipated Start 2025
Bouder Junction Pocket Park Anticipated Start 2025
Boulder Creek Management Plan Anticipated Start 2025
Planning
• Summary of Civic Area Study Session with City Council
The Civic Area Phase 2 Study Session with City Council on December 14th can be found here
(link) and the full summary with key takeaways council addressed and that the team will
incorporate into the project process moving forward with the design team can be found here
(link). An overview of the key topics council raised during the study session for the Civic Area
Phase 2 were:
1. Prioritize equity, diversity, inclusion, and access in the engagement process to ensure
effective public engagement
2. Prioritize the SER Framework in parallel to the seven Guiding Principles to ensure
Boulder’s goals for a resilient, sustainable, and viable future
9
3. Prioritize multi-modal and universal access to, through and in the Civic Area. Pedestrian,
bike, other mobility devises, ADA requirements, universal access and multimodal
transportation will be studied in the Civic Area to create a welcoming, accessible and
community-oriented Heart of Boulder, including connectivity to adjacent sites
4. Ensure and demonstrate how guiding plans and policies will inform the project as it
moves towards a final design (and how they intersect) to ensure accountability to the
city’s vision, values, and goals.
5. Work to provide clarity around the engagement process (including outreach, roles, input,
decision making, etc.), with each stakeholder, partner, and community-based
organizations.
6. Develop a process by which acceptable social behaviors are identified to reflect common
community goals for the Civic Area that ensure the space is viewed as welcoming and
safe for all members of the community.
C. Parks and Recreation Operations Update
Recreation Centers and Aquatics
Recreation Center hours have expanded in the new year as staffing levels and facility usage
continue to grow.
• North Boulder Recreation Center (NBRC) Hours
Monday – Friday 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Saturday & Sunday 7:00 a.m. to 6 p.m.
• East Boulder Community Center (EBCC) Hours
Monday – Friday 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m.
Saturday & Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
• South Boulder Recreation Center (SBRC) Hours
Monday – Friday 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Saturday & Sunday 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
The lap pool hours at the NBRC and EBCC are aligned with all open facility hours with pool
closure occurring 30 minutes before facility closure. The lap pool at the SBRC continues to open
at 11:00 a.m. Daytime leisure pool hours, between 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., during the week rotate
between NBRC and EBCC with all leisure pools open after 5:00 p.m. Leisure pools remain open
on weekends after 10:00 a.m.
Facility usage is gaining traction; usage per operational hour in December 2023 nearly matched
pre-pandemic levels at 33.5 visits per hour.
10
A 6,000-visitation gap remains in total facility usage across the three recreation centers for
December.
EXPAND Internship Program
The EXPAND program welcomes up to nine student interns from around the country each year,
studying undergraduate Therapeutic Recreation, to work with BPR’s staff of Certified
Therapeutic Recreation Specialists (CTRS) and participants with disabilities to facilitate
recreation and leisure based activities that assist participants in learning and practicing:
- Social and communication skills
- Physical fitness and sports
11
- Independence and self-confidence
- Building community
- Safety within programs and in the community
- Emotional well-being and appropriate expression of emotions
- Cognition skill such as decision making, understanding rules and sustained attention
- Leisure awareness, leisure education and having fun
EXPAND’s internship program meets all National Council for Therapeutic Recreation
Certification standards so students will be better prepared to earn a CTRS accreditation in the
future. Two to three student interns typically participate in each semester (fall, winter/spring, and
summer) and travel from colleges and universities across the country. In addition to the valuable
experience of the program participation and college credits earned, interns are provided a $1,500
stipend and a recreation facility pass.
This month, staff welcomed interns Alison Miller (Texas State University) and Samantha Thiele
(Arkansas Tech University) who look forward to assisting/leading programs and getting to know
participants. EXPAND’s service delivery model relies heavily on volunteers and interns to
provide appropriate support to participants and has a long history of building therapeutic
recreation practices across the county. Notable past interns include current EXPAND supervisor,
Lori Goldman, who began her tenure with BPR as an EXPAND intern over 20 years ago, and the
current Executive Director of the Colorado Parks and Recreation Association.
12
MEMORANDUM
To: Parks & Recreation Advisory Board
From: Brad Mueller, Planning & Development Services Director (P&DS)
Kristofer Johnson, Comprehensive Planning Manager (P&DS)
Teresa Tate, City Attorney’s Office
Marcy Gerwing, Principal Historic Preservation Planner (P&DS)
Clare Brandt, Historic Preservation Planner (P&DS)
Date: January 22, 2024
Subject: Proposed Civic Area Historic District
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This agenda item provides the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) the latest update on
processing of an historic district application, with the opportunity to provide comments on the
proposed Civic Area Historic District.
The application was submitted by three historic preservation organizations as allowed by Section
9-11-3, B.R.C. 1981, in May 2023. The Landmarks Board voted to initiate the designation
process at their meeting on July 12, 2023. The historic district process, including department and
agency coordination, community engagement, racial equity strategies, development of a draft
design guideline framework, and the preparation of a Cultural Landscape Assessment (CLA), is
described in the Dec. 18, 2023 LB-PRAB Joint Study Session Memo (link).
The City Charter outlines PRAB’s role, which includes making recommendations on the disposal
of park land and expenditures from the parks and recreation fund, granting or denial of licenses
or permits on park lands, and reviewing the annual budget. Additionally, the Parks & Recreation
department (BPR) may request a recommendation from PRAB on other park and recreation
matters. Historic district designation of the Civic Area, including Central Park, would introduce a
new review requirement by the city’s Historic Preservation staff and Landmarks Board (as
appropriate) of most physical changes within the district boundary. As such, Planning &
Development Services staff is requesting PRAB’s comments on the proposed historic district,
which will be included in the Landmarks Board, Planning Board and City Council memos.
After continued city stakeholder input, P&DS staff’s preliminarily determination is that the
proposed Civic Area Historic District meets the criteria for designation as a local historic district.
Furthermore, through evaluation of the significance, integrity, and best practices for establishing
historic district boundaries based on the city’s code and guidance from the National Park
Service, staff additionally recommends a modified boundary from what is submitted in the
13
2
application. Specifically, the boundary preliminarily recommended by staff includes the five
existing landmark structures, the length of 13th Street between Canyon and Arapahoe, and the
entirety of Central Park up to Boulder Creek (See Figure 7). The proposed revised boundary
considers the entire Civic Area’s larger history, beyond just the park and parkland, and its
geography in Boulder as a central city feature that connects that entire area. It therefore takes
into consideration the broader citywide context of the proposed historic district.
PRELIMINARY LANDMARKS BOARD STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning & Development Services’ preliminary staff recommendation to the Landmarks Board,
includes that the proposed district meets the criteria for local designation based on the Boulder
Revised Code, Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, and Significance Criteria for District
Landmarks, and recommends a revised boundary as described in the analysis below. This
recommendation will be finalized in advance of the Landmarks Board hearing on February 7,
2024, upon final stakeholder input, including that of PRAB.
POSSIBLE BOARD DISCUSSION TOPICS
1. Do PRAB members have comments on the proposed designation?
2. Would PRAB like to identify particular features within the proposed district that should
be preserved or identify alterations that would have a significant impact or be potentially
detrimental to the district for consideration to include in the designation ordinance? (See
Effects of Historic Designation section below).
BACKGROUND
• On August 27, 2021, the Landmarks Board received a letter from the Friends of the
Bandshell (link) requesting Landmarks Board consider an expansion of the landmark
boundary of the Glen Huntington Bandshell, an individual local landmark (Ordinance 5751),
to include the entirety of Block 13 (1236 Canyon Blvd.).
• In November 2021, the Landmarks Board initiated the process to expand the boundary and in
April 2022, the Landmarks Board voted to recommend expansion of the boundary. The Parks
and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) requested that the decision be postponed in order to
allow time for additional review and coordination with the forthcoming Civic Area Phase 2
planning and design process.
• On June 14, 2022, City Council held a public hearing to consider expanding the designation
boundary of the Glen Huntington Bandshell. The City Council gave a Nod of Five to “have
Landmarks staff investigate and explore the creation of a downtown area historic district that
would include this area, saying they would work with the Landmarks Board and Parks Board
moving forward.” See June 14, 2022 City Council recording (link).
• Following Council’s direction at the June 14, 2022 meeting (item 4B, page 70), Historic
Preservation and Parks and Recreation staff jointly established an approach to evaluate a
Historic District in the Civic Area that included developing a Cultural Landscape Assessment
(“CLA”), which has been used in the analysis of the proposed district, and will also be
14
3
integrated into the Civic Area Phase 2 process and timeline, to inform the next phase of park
design for the Civic Area. See the April 24, 2023 PRAB Packet (link), the April 12, 2023
Landmarks Board Meeting (link) and the May 18, 2023 City Council Information Packet
item (link).
• On May 30, 2023, the Planning & Development Services Department accepted a complete
application for a proposed historic district in the Civic Area from Historic Boulder Inc.,
Friends of the Teahouse and Friends of the Bandshell.
• On July 12, 2023, the Landmarks Board voted (3-1, C. Castellano dissenting) to initiate the
historic district process with the understanding that the applicants would extend the timeline
defined in sections 9-11-4 and 9-11-5, BRC 1981. See July 12, 2023 Landmarks Board
Minutes (link).
• On August 23, 2023, the applicant group and city signed an agreement to extend the public
process and hold the Landmarks Board designation hearing on February 7, 2024.
• On December 18, 2023, the Landmarks Board and Parks & Recreation Advisory Board held
a joint study session and reviewed the process to date, provided feedback on the draft design
guidelines, and reviewed the draft CLA findings. See December 18, 2023 LB-PRAB Joint
Study Session memo (link).
• The final CLA report is anticipated to be provided to staff the week of January 15, 2024.
• This January 22, 2024, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting provides the board
with the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed designation.
• The Landmarks Board will hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to Council on
February 7, 2024.
• In February, Planning Board will review the proposal and provide feedback on potential land
use implications of the designation (currently scheduled for February 20th)
• The City Council designation hearing is anticipated to occur in April 2024. The code requires
a City Council designation hearing be held within 100 days of the Landmarks Board
designation hearing (and, therefore, prior to May 17, 2024).
BOARD & COUNCIL ROLES
Roles of the city’s various boards and commission are outlined in the City Charter and Boulder
Revised Code. As it relates to historic designation:
• The Parks & Recreation Advisory Board does not have a formal role in the historic
district designation process as outlined in Chapter 9-11 Historic Preservation. Per the
City Charter, one of the PRAB’s functions is to make recommendations to City Council
regarding the protection and maintenance of park lands; the PRAB’s input will be
included in the Landmarks Board, Planning Board and City Council memos.
• The Landmarks Board’s role is to make a recommendation to the City Council on the
proposed designation and to adopt design guidelines. As stated in Section 9-11-5
Landmarks Board Designation Public Hearing, the criteria for the Landmarks Board’s
review is to determine whether the proposed designation conforms with the purposes and
15
4
standards in sections 9-11-1 Legislative Intent and 9-11-2 City Council May Designate
Landmarks and Historic Districts.
• As provided in Section 9-11-5(e) Planning Board Review, the Planning Board’s role is
to review the proposed designation and report to the City Council on its land use
implications.
• City Council designates landmarks and historic districts by ordinance. The criteria for
City Council’s review are to determine whether the proposed designation meets the
purposes and standards in Subsection 9-11-1(a) and Section 9-11-2, "City Council May
Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts," B.R.C. 1981, in balance with the
goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan. The City Council may
approve by ordinance, modify and approve by ordinance, or disapprove the proposed
designation.
EFFECT OF HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION
Local historic designation recognizes and protects areas significant to Boulder’s history, “to
enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest and foster
knowledge of the city's living heritage” (Subsection 9-11-1(a), B.R.C. 1981). Historic district
signs and landmark plaques identify designated areas recognized for their historic, architectural
or environmental significance. The program shares the history of these places through its website
and walking tours. Benefits of local designation include:
• Qualification for a 20% Federal Tax Credit for income-producing properties listed on
the National Register of Historic Places.
• Qualification for a 20% Colorado State Income Tax credit for individually
landmarked properties and those in a historic district.
• Exemption from city sales tax on construction materials when applying for a building
permit, as long as at least 30% of the material value is for the building's exterior.
• Access to grants through the State Historical Fund, with projects needing to show a
public benefit to be eligible.
• Possible exceptions or variances to certain building, energy and zoning standards, like
floodplain, height, solar, and residential growth management requirements in specific
circumstances, allowances for historic buildings related to floodplain, height, solar,
energy requirements.
• Newly-designated landmarks receive a bronze plaque in a public ceremony.
• Staff assistance for applicants going through development review, Landmark
Alteration Certificate, and building permit processes.
Physical changes within historic districts and on individually landmarked properties require
design review by the historic preservation program to ensure the changes are compatible with
the site’s historic character and designation. In 2023, 88% of Landmark Alteration Certificate
(LAC) applications were approved, 11% are still in review, and only 1% were denied. Of the
approved LAC applications, 90% were approved within two weeks. (Note, that very few
applications are ‘denied,’ but rather applicants work with staff to resolve conflicts with the
design guidelines, or the application is withdrawn and resubmitted with changes.) In the rare case
16
5
the Landmarks Board denies an application, the decision is subject to review by City Council.
There is no application fee, and there are three levels of review:
• Administrative: Small-scale changes are reviewed by Historic Preservation staff on an
ongoing basis (average review time and approval rate in 2023: 12 days, 99%).
• Landmarks Design Review Committee (LDRC): A committee consisting of two
Landmarks Board members and a historic preservation staff member meets weekly to
review the majority of applications (average review time and approval rate in 2023: 3
weeks, 92%).
• Landmarks Board: The five-member board meets monthly to review applications for
demolition, new construction over 340 sq. ft., and applications referred by the LDRC
(average review time and approval rate in 2023: 3 months, 8 applications approved, 1
withdrawn)."
The criteria for review can be found in Section 9-11-18 Standards for Landmark Alteration
Certificate Applications, B.R.C., 1981. The Landmarks Board has also adopted design guidelines
to help facilitate the review of proposed improvements within a district. If the Civic Area
Historic District is designated, specific design guidelines would be developed to recognize the
unique character of the area. These guidelines can be different for different parts of the district
based on contributing and non-contributing features. The designation ordinance would also
identify important aspects of the district. Section 9-11-6 (c) provides the following guidance on
the landmarks ordinance:
Ordinance Designating Landmark or District: In each ordinance designating a landmark or
historic district, the city council shall include a description of characteristics of the landmark
or district justifying its designation, a description of the particular features that should be
preserved, and the location and boundaries of the landmark site or district. The council may
also indicate alterations that would have a significant impact upon or be potentially
detrimental to the landmark site or the district.
Prior to City Council review, staff will draft an ordinance describing particular features within
the district that should be preserved and identify alterations that would have a significant impact
or be potentially detrimental to the district.
Boulder has ten historic districts, and four of them include parkland: Chautauqua Park Historic
District (with Chautauqua Green, tennis courts, and a playground), Downtown Historic District
(Pearl Street Mall), Mapleton Hill (Campbell Robertson Park), and West Pearl (Fortune Park).
The city owns and manages seven out of the 215 individual landmarks that are managed by the
Parks & Recreation Department, including Columbia Cemetery, Harbeck-Bergheim House, Fire
Station No. 2, Roney Farmhouse, Platt Farmhouse, Boyd Smelter, and the Glen Huntington
Bandshell. Additionally, the Penfield Tate Municipal Building landmark boundary includes part
of the Boulder Creek Path, which is managed by the Parks & Recreation Department. PRAB
accepted the Historic Places Plan (HiPP) in July 2022 to serve as a guide in the management of
17
6
the 12 historic resources owned and managed by BPR. Reference the project website,
https://bouldercolorado.gov/projects/historic-places-plan, for more information.
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED DISTRICT
The proposed boundary of the historic district as submitted in the application (Figure 1) includes
Central Park, the 13th Street and Sister Cities plazas, five individually designated landmarks, and
portions of Broadway, 13th Street, the Boulder Slough and Smith and Goss Ditch, and Boulder
Creek. The boundary extends from the west side of the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building
(1777 Broadway) to 14th Street, and from Canyon Boulevard to Arapahoe Avenue. The privately
owned parcels on the northeast corner of Arapahoe and Broadway (1201 Arapahoe Ave. and
1724 Broadway) are not included in the proposed boundary.
Figure 1. Map of Proposed Historic District. Shaded areas indicate currently designated
individual landmarks.
History
The following section summarizes the area’s history. Explore the interactive StoryMap (link) to
learn more.
The history of the area extends much beyond the earliest constructed feature that remains today,
the 1871 Boulder Slough. The creek side land is a sacred and essential part of the ancestral
18
7
homelands of Indigenous Peoples who have lived on and travelled through them since time
immemorial. Boulder has an archival silence, or gap, in its historical record, for the Native
American/Indigenous perspective of history. Staff acknowledges that a majority of archival
materials focus on the perspective of the white and European settlers of the Boulder Valley. The
City of Boulder has recently embarked on an ethnographic study in collaboration with tribal
nations to better document the history of indigenous peoples in this area.
From the arrival of the train in about 1873, early industry in the area was predominately rail-
based. Residences (no longer extant) were clustered within a two-block area between 10th and
Broadway with a few scattered outside that area. The City Storage and Transfer Building (1906)
was constructed during this period as a warehouse for moving goods in and out of the city.
Land acquisition and development of Central Park was guided by the Boulder City Improvement
Association (BCIA), a community group whose state purpose was “the improvements of Boulder
in health, growth, cleanliness, prosperity and attractiveness through individual effort as well as
through cooperation with other organizations engaged in similar work” and the Park Commission
Board (later the Boulder Parks and Planning Commission), a City Council committee formed in
1918. The BCIA received advice from Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., in particular on flood control
measures in the area, but also on plantings and general design. The establishment of Boulder’s
municipal center included the removal of two blocks of buildings by 1928, leading to the
displacement of people and businesses.
The design for parkland along Boulder Creek was refined in plans developed by the Olmsted
Brothers firm between 1917-1923 and published in 1923 1 in The Improvement of Boulder Creek
in Boulder, Colorado.2 A number of failed attempts at municipal funding resulted in reducing the
scope of the “Improvements of Boulder Creek” to grading of the area between Broadway (12th
Street) and 13th Street from Boulder Creek to Canyon Blvd. (Water Street), completed by 1925.
BCIA volunteers attempted to complete additional improvements suggested by Olmsted,
including planting trees and perimeter vegetation, and grading paths through the park. The park
was used informally by city residents with a few formal events planned, including an annual
picnic held by the Girl Reserves from 1934 to 1937 for incoming students to the Preparatory
School.3
A second phase of municipal area and park planning began in 1938, influenced by Saco DeBoer.
DeBoer suggested Central Park as “the only suitable location for a bandshell” (Glen Huntington
Bandshell, constructed in 1938) and a new city hall (Penfield Tate II Municipal Building,
constructed in 1951) as part of a “city building group with flood protection, parking areas and
1 Olmsted Plans and Drawings Collection “Olmsted Job #3300 Boulder, Colorado Improvement Association Boulder, CO Plan
#3300-63 City of Boulder Preliminary Plan of Proposed Park Improvements Along Boulder Creek OBLA, October 1923.” National
Park Service, Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/olmsted_archives/35378272173/in/album-72157683458369472/
2 Olmsted Brothers. The Improvement of Boulder Creek in Boulder, Colorado. Brookline, Mass., 1923. Files; 3302; Boulder Creek;
Boulder, Colo., 1917-1924. Olmsted Associates Records: Job Files, 1863-1971. Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Page 76-86:
https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss52571.mss52571-02-186_0383_0484/?sp=76&st=image
3 “One Hundred Girls At G.R. Big-Sister Picnic.” September 20, 1935. The Prep Owl - BHS, Volume 23.
19
8
farmer’s market.” The intent was to create a focal point for municipal activity. The Boulder
Lions Club funded the construction of the bandshell and gifted it to the city as the first
permanent place for outdoor band concerts in Boulder. The bandshell was “dedicated to the
enjoyment of citizens of Boulder and to the advancement of music.” 4 Between 1938 and 1974,
the Municipal Building and Central Park were the site of a variety of political events, musical
concerts, cultural programs, educational presentations, and civic gatherings. Events in the park
were organized by different Boulder clubs, including the Optimists, Elks, Woman’s Club,
American Legion, Pow Wow and Rodeo, Soroptimists, Lions, Rotary and Kiwanas Club.5 The
Archuleta Family History recorded as part of the Boulder County Latino History Project
provides an account of the daily use of the park: “A popular place to hang out was the band shell
at Central Park. A group of kids would get together and put on shows and plays for each other.
Exploring Mackey Auditory and Chautauqua Park were always options. Although off limits, per
Mom, playing in Boulder Creek always seemed to happen. A chewing out by Mom was
guaranteed after a day at the creek, but that didn’t stop the fun.” 6
From 1961, the area was the center of municipal government with the construction of the public
library near 9th Street (Boulder Public Library, 1961), an expansion of the Municipal Building
and a “mall” designed to connect them. The construction of the Midland Federal Savings and
Loan bank branch (Atrium Building, 1969) utilized a pavilion design compatible with its setting
across from Central Park. As the downtown area “decayed” and counterculture advocates
confronted “the establishment,” the municipal area was the site of political protests and civic
discourse. In 1969, the large gatherings of people led the City to ban “Rock Concerts” in the
park, which the police enforced as the use of any instrument. When that failed to disperse the
groups of people, the City Manager closed Central Park for two weeks due to sanitary concerns
and passed laws to prevent camping and gathering in Central Park. The same year, Boulder
Tomorrow hosted a design competition for the Civic Area.7
The connection between the public spaces and surrounding buildings continued into the 1970s
with the adaptive reuse of the Larson Brother’s warehouse building (City Storage and Transfer
Building, 1906) into a public arts center and future museum. In 1987, the city was gifted the
Dushanbe Teahouse, which was constructed in Tajikistan and shipped in crates overseas. After a
decade of deliberation, the Boulder–Dushanbe Teahouse was reconstructed south of the Civic
Park Plaza and alongside the 13th Street Community Plaza. A public plaza dedicated to
Boulder’s six sister cities was added east of the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building in 2007. The
area continues its public function as the site of the farmers’ market, festivals, concerts, and other
planned community activities, and spontaneous gatherings in response to local, state, and
national events throughout the year.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF PURPOSE AND CRITERIA
4 Front Range Research Associates, Inc. Boulder Bandshell Historical Study, p.6-9. 1995.
5 Front Range Research Associates, Inc. Boulder Bandshell Historical Study, p.11. 1995.
6 The Archuleta Family History, 1932-2012, p.5. https://bocolatinohistory.colorado.edu/document/the-archuleta-family-history-
1932-2012-p5. Boulder County Latino History.
7 Taylor, Carol. “Design Competition in 1969 envisioned a Boulder Civic Center.” Oct. 12, 2014.
https://www.dailycamera.com/2014/10/12/design-competition-in-1969-envisioned-a-boulder-civic-center/. Daily Camera.
20
9
The Landmarks Board and City Council will determine whether the proposed designation meets
the purposes and standards in Subsection 9-11-1(a) and Section 9-11-2, "City Council May
Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts," B.R.C. 1981. City Council additionally
considers the balance with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan
(BVCP). The Significance Criteria for Historic Districts was adopted by the Landmarks Board in
1975 to help evaluate each potential designation in a consistent and equitable manner.
9-11–1 - Purpose and Legislative Intent
(a) The purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety and welfare by
protecting, enhancing and perpetuating buildings, sites and areas of the city reminiscent
of past eras, events and persons important in local, state or national history or providing
significant examples of architectural styles of the past. It is also the purpose of this
chapter to develop and maintain appropriate settings and environments for such
buildings, sites and areas to enhance property values, stabilize neighborhoods, promote
tourist trade and interest and foster knowledge of the city's living heritage.
9-11–2 - City Council May Designate or Amend Landmarks and Historic Districts
(a) Pursuant to the procedures in this chapter the city council may by ordinance:
(1) (Not listed -- this criterion relates to individual landmark designation and does
not apply to this application.)
(2) Designate as a historic district a contiguous area containing a number of sites,
buildings, structures or features having a special character and historical,
architectural or aesthetic interest or value and constituting a distinct section of the
city;
(3) Designate as a discontiguous historic district a collection of sites, buildings,
structures or features which are contained in two or more geographically separate
areas, having a special character and historical, architectural or aesthetic interest
or value that are united together by historical, architectural or aesthetic
characteristics; and
(4) (Not listed -- this criterion relates to amending designations and does not apply to
this application.)
(b) Upon designation, the property included in any such designation is subject to all the
requirements of this code and other ordinances of the city.
Staff Analysis – Code Criteria
A. Would the designation protect, enhance, and perpetuate an area reminiscent of past era(s),
event(s), and person(s) important in local, state, or national history or provide significant
examples of architecture of the past? Section 9-11-1(a)
Historic district designation of this area would protect an area historically, architecturally and
environmentally significant to Boulder’s history. The proposed district includes an area with
a history that precedes the 1871 founding of Boulder; had documented residential and
commercial uses from the 1870s until the 1920s; includes Central Park, an urban park
21
10
formally established in 1924 which include the five surrounding municipal buildings
constructed between 1906 and 1998; and represents a progression of architectural styles.
Furthermore, as described in the analysis below, the area retains integrity to a 1938-1974
period of significance, extending from the DeBoer/Huntington period of park design and the
construction of the Glen Huntington Bandshell, to a point 50 years in the past to recognize
the historic significance of the area’s social, cultural and political use.
The proposed district is historically significant for its continued public function as the
symbolic, political and municipal center of Boulder’s local government; as the site of
numerous social, cultural and political events; for its significance in the history of Boulder’s
park system development; and its contribution to the social and cultural life of the city for
over a century.
The proposed district possesses architectural significance for its notable examples of
architectural styles of the past, including a 19th century commercial building, Art Deco
bandshell, International style municipal building, a Rustic Modern bank building adaptively
reused for city offices, and the Central Asian/Tajik teahouse. The district includes significant
works by notable architects, landscape designers, builders, and urban planners representing a
progression of styles;
The proposed district is environmentally significant for its location at the historic center of
Boulder, as an established and prominent visual feature of the community at the intersection
of major transportation routes and adjacent to Boulder Creek, and for its planned and natural
site characteristics that have resulted in its distinct character as an open urban park space
surrounded by municipal buildings.
B. Does the proposed application develop and maintain appropriate settings and
environments for such buildings, sites, and areas to enhance property values, stabilize
neighborhoods, promote tourist trade and interest, and foster knowledge of the city’s living
heritage?
Designation of the area will maintain an appropriate setting and environment for the historic
area, enhance property values, stabilize the neighborhood, promote tourist trade and interest,
and foster knowledge of the city’s living heritage.
Furthermore, if the proposed boundary is modified to exclude the non-historic parking lots
along 14th Street and expanded to include the length of 13th Street between Canyon
Boulevard and Arapahoe Avenue, and the area between the Atrium Building and Canyon
Boulevard, the district will maintain an appropriate setting and environment for the historic
area. See Boundary Analysis section below.
Colorado Preservation, Inc.’s report, “Economic Benefits of Preservation 2017” (link) studies
the direct and indirect economic impacts of historic designation. Key findings related to this
proposed designation include:
22
11
• Heritage tourism accounted for approximately half of tourist spending ($7.2 billion
of a total $14.1 billion) spent in 2015.
• The report provides five case studies on the impact of local historic district
designation on property values, summarizing “the results of the analysis show that,
for the most part, the values of properties located within a local historic district
increased a similar or higher rate than in the comparison areas. Moreover, there is no
evidence that local historic district designation has had a negative effect on either
property values or sales prices within the five case study areas. In all cases, property
values increased following designation mirroring the results of similar studies from
other states.”8
• In a chapter on Effective Placemaking, the report states, “From small towns to big
cities, preserving historic buildings provides a foundation for creating and sustaining
memorable places.”
BVCP policy 5.09 Role of Tourism in the Economy states that “the city recognizes the
importance of tourism (e.g. heritage, cultural, sports and open space) to the Boulder
economy.” While less than 3% of properties in Boulder are locally designated, they are
among the most iconic in the community. Seven out of the nine activities featured in the
Boulder Convention & Visitors Bureau’s current list of must-see things to do in Boulder
(link) are in and around historic places:
• Pearl Street Mall (located in the Downtown Historic District designated as a National
Register historic district in 1980 and as a local historic district in 1999)
• The Flatirons from Chautauqua (designated as a local historic district in 1976, as a
National Register historic district in 1978, and as a National Historic Landmark in
2006)
• Boulder-Dushanbe Teahouse (designated as a local landmark in 2020)
• Boulder Theater (designated as a local landmark in 1980 and as part of the Downtown
Historic District in 1980 and 1999)
• University of Colorado (Norlin Quadrangle designated as a National Register historic
district in 1980)
• The Museum of Boulder (designed as a local landmark in 2013)
The list also includes the Boulder County Farmers’ Market, which is located on 13th Street
adjacent to four locally designated landmarks and within the proposed historic district.
The design review process stabilizes neighborhoods as physical changes are reviewed to
ensure compatibility with the area’s historic character. Historic district designation
anticipates change over time, and if designated, an effort would begin to develop district-
specific design guidelines that recognize the unique character and features of the area and
facilitate the review of proposed improvements. Use and function of a site is not regulated
through historic district designation; only the physical, exterior changes related to use are
reviewed. The proposed historic district highlights the value of urban parkland at the heart of
8 Colorado Preservation, Inc. Economic Benefits of Preservation 2017. https://issuu.com/coloradopreservation/docs/final_-
_econ_study_preservation.
23
12
the city, and its contribution to the social, environmental, and economic activity in the area.
If designated, the district design guidelines will anticipate changes to the immediately
surrounding land uses over time to yield new opportunities for the district to serve the
community in novel ways, while still maintaining its historic value and role in the on-going
story of Boulder’s heritage.
Historic designation fosters knowledge of the city’s living history through research and
sharing stories of Boulder’s history through virtual and in-person activities. This designation
process provided an opportunity to fill research gaps in the history of the area, in particular
the history of displaced residents. Staff accessed recently digitized information from the
Library of Congress and National Park Service, and other state and local sources. The
research was shared with community members through in-person walking tours, events, and
an interactive StoryMap (link). Historic Boulder, Inc. translated the walking tour script into a
free app-based tour on PocketSights: Proposed Civic Area Historic District - Boulder (link).
Community members and visitors learn about history of designated sites through the
wayfinding signs and plaques, interpretive panels (e.g. Pearl Street Mall, Chautauqua and the
Penfield Tate II Municipal Building), the city’s website and engagement events, such as
walking tours during Historic Preservation and Archeology Month in May.
STAFF ANALYSIS OF RELEVANT BVCP POLICIES
City Council will evaluate and consider whether local historic district designations are “in
balance with the goals and policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan” (Subsection 9-
11-6 (b), B.R.C. 1981). The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP) provides a general
statement of the community’s desires for future development and preservation of the Boulder
Valley. BVCP policies guide decisions about growth, development, preservation, environmental
protection, economic development, affordable housing, culture and arts, urban design,
neighborhood character and transportation. The following BVCP policies related to historic
preservation are relevant to this application (emphasis added):
• 2.27 Preservation of Historic & Cultural Resources – The city and county will identify,
evaluate and protect buildings, structures, objects, districts, sites and natural
features of historic, architectural, archaeological or cultural significance with input
from the community. The city and county will seek protection of significant historic and
cultural resources through local designation when a proposal by the private sector is
subject to discretionary development review.
• 2.30 Eligible Historic Districts & Landmarks – The city has identified areas that may
have the potential to be designated as historic districts. The Designated and Identified
Potentially Eligible Historic Districts map shows areas with designation potential as well
as areas that are already designated as historic districts (see Figure 6-1 on page 132).
These potential historic areas and historic survey information will continue to be assessed
and updated. There are also many individual resources of landmark quality both within
and outside of these eligible areas. Additional historic district and landmark
designations will be encouraged in accordance with the Plan for Boulder’s Historic
Preservation Program. Such resources may contribute to cultural and heritage
tourism values.
24
13
• 2.28 Leadership in Preservation: City-& County Owned Resources – The city and
county will evaluate their publicly owned properties to determine their historic,
architectural, archaeological or cultural significance. Eligible resources will be
protected through local designation, including secondary buildings or elements that are
part of and convey the cultural significance of a site, such as a farm complex and alley
buildings.
• 2.32 Preservation of Archaeological Sites & Cultural Landscapes – The city will develop
a plan and processes for identification, designation and protection of archaeological and
cultural landscape resources, such as open ditches (where practicable and in
coordination with the irrigation ditch company), street and alley-scapes, railroad
rights-of-way and designed landscapes.
Additionally, the following BVCP policies are relevant to the proposed designation of this
specific area of Boulder. Further analysis will be completed prior to Council’s review of the
application to address its balance with the goals and policies of the BVCP.
o 2.14 Mix of Complementary Land Uses
o 2.15 Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses
o 2.20 Role of the Central Area
o 2.33 Sensitive Infill & Redevelopment
o 2.41 Enhanced Design for All Projects
o 5.09 Role of Tourism in the Economy
o 5.10 Role of Arts, Cultural, Historic & Parks & Recreation Amenities
STAFF ANALYSIS OF DESIGNATION CRITERIA
Significance – Local Criteria
The Landmarks Board adopted the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks (link) in 1975 to
assist in the review of historic district applications. Three potential areas of significance are
established by the Significance Criteria including (emphasis added):
1) Historical Significance: The district, as an entity, should show character, interest or
value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of the
community, state, or nation; be the site of historic or prehistoric event(s) that had an
effect upon society; or exemplify the cultural, political, economic, or social heritage of
the community.
2) Architectural Significance: The district should portray an environment in an era of
history characterized by distinctive architectural period(s)/style(s); embody those
distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen, a good example of the
common; include the work of an architect or master builder, known nationally,
state-wide, or locally, and perhaps whose work has materials or craftsmanship which
represent a significant innovation; or include a fine example of the uncommon.
3) Environmental Significance: The district should enhance the variety, interest, and
sense of identity of the community by the protection of the unique natural and man-
made environments.
25
14
The following is a brief summary of the area’s significance as a local historic district based on
local regulations. See Attachment A: Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for
District Landmarks for detailed analysis that will be part of the Landmarks Board memo. The
proposed historic district is significant for:
1) Its historic significance for the public function of the area as the symbolic, political and
municipal center of Boulder’s local government, and as the site of numerous social,
cultural and political events, for its significance in the history of Boulder’s park system
development and its contribution to the social and cultural life of the city for over a
century.
2) Its architectural significance includes multiple significant works by notable architects,
landscape designers, builders, and urban planners representing a progression of styles.
3) Its environmental significance for its planned and natural site characteristics, its distinct
character, and its prominence as an established and visual feature of the community.
Significance – Cultural Landscape Assessment Report
As noted above, the CLA is a tool to assist in the analysis of the potential creation of a district,
particularly regarding the considerations of historic significance and integrity of a designed
landscape. The CLA was developed using the 1998 National Parks Service Guide to Cultural
Landscape Reports (link) and its findings are included in the Dec. 18 Joint Study Session Memo
(link).
The CLA found Central Park to have four periods of physical development:
• Historic Period 1: 1903-1922 Acquiring Land for Central Park
• Historic Period 2: 1923-1936 Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park
• Historic Period 3: 1937-1973 Huntington and DeBoer Designs for Bandshell Seating
• Historic Period 4: 1970-2023 Modern Updates
To evaluate the significance of these periods of development, the CLA utilized the National
Register Significance Criteria:9
A) Association with historic events or activities,
B) Association with important persons,
C) Distinctive design or physical characteristics, or
D) Potential to provide important information about prehistory or history.
The CLA determined two of the periods to be historically significant: the 1923-1936 Olmsted Jr.
Design for Central Park and the 1937-1973 Huntington and DeBoer Designs for Bandshell
Seating. The CLA found the Olmsted, Jr. period to be significant under Criterion C (design), “as
the work of a recognized master, landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted Jr.” The CLA
acknowledges the previous determination in the 1995 Bandshell study, and concurred the
Huntington and DeBoer period is significant under “Criteria A (Events) and C (Design) for its
9 PART 60—NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES, Fed. Reg. (Nov. 16, 1981) (to be codified at 36
C.F.R. pt. 60). https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/part-60
26
15
role in the social and cultural life of Boulder and the design improvements implemented between
1938 and 1950 by Glen Huntington and Saco Rienk DeBoer, including the bandshell, the
amphitheater, and the associated vegetation and grading.
Staff agree that the park has significance for its design and association with prominent designers,
and for its role in the social and cultural life of Boulder. P&DS staff also believe the period of
development prior to 1924 has historic significance, including its potential to provide important
information about prehistory or history. The CLA focused on the development of the park, and
research prior to 1903 was out of scope of the assessment.
Integrity
The historic integrity of an area relates to the ability of the landscape, buildings, sites and
features to convey their historical significance. Where the CLA and city’s local historic
preservation code differ on the criteria used to identify significance, both utilize the National
Park Service Seven Aspects of Integrity 10 in its assessment:
1. Location
2. Design
3. Setting
4. Materials
5. Workmanship
6. Feeling
7. Association
The CLA additionally evaluated Central Park’s landscape characteristics, including:
• Topography
• Vegetation
• Circulation
• Buildings and Structures
• Views and Viewsheds
• Land Use
• Spatial Organization
• Small-Scale Features (for the Huntington/DeBoer Period only)
Methodology
P&DS staff’s approach to the integrity analysis included:
• Researching the history of the area and assessing its historic, architectural and
environmental significance;
• Review of the CLA findings;
• Multiple site visits;
10 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf
27
16
• Comparison of historic and current aerials, plans and photographs;
• Use of NPS guidance to assess the area’s integrity, based on its local historic,
architectural and environmental significance.
• Consultation with the State and National Register Historians at History Colorado to
review our application of the guidance for determining integrity and boundaries.
Integrity Findings – CLA
The CLA summary of findings related to integrity includes:
Over the past century the Central Park landscape has experienced changes that include:
• Physical changes to the landscape, such as the realignment and redesign of the
vegetation and circulation systems, and substantial regrading of the topography.
• A change in use through the construction of the bandshell and its evolution as an
activated space for entertainment and performance.
These changes have resulted in a lack of historical integrity of design, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association, which are needed for Central Park to convey its 1923-
1924 design and association with Olmsted Jr. The character of Central Park relating to the
Olmsted Jr.-era has been altered to the point where it is no longer visible in the landscape.
Both historic significance and historical integrity are required to meet eligibility thresholds
for listing in the National Register. While Central Park has its origins in the 1920s and the
Olmsteds’ recommendations and designs for a park system in Boulder, it is no longer able to
tell that story through the existing landscape. As such, while the park’s history is significant
the lack of integrity in the landscape disqualifies the park as a whole for listing in the
National Register as the work of master landscape architect Olmsted Jr.
However, the northern portion of park is still able to convey its historic significance and
association with the 1938-1950 era of park development associated with Huntington and
DeBoer. Therefore, Central Park remains eligible for the National Register under Criteria A
and C for the period in which the bandshell and associated amphitheater seating were
designed and built (1938-1950). The area associated with these improvements is roughly
outlined in yellow in the graphic on page 3 of this memo; it does not constitute the full park
boundary as no evidence exists linking the southern portion of the park to the Huntington-
DeBoer improvements.
Integrity Assessment -- Proposed Historic District (1923-1937 Period)
P&DS staff agree with the CLA findings that the Olmsted, Jr. design of the park (1924-1937)
does not retain historic integrity due to the extent of changes over time. The following is an
assessment utilizing the National Park Service’s Seven Aspects of Integrity:
28
17
The location of Central Park has not changed.
The design of the park was substantially changed by the introduction of the bandshell in 1938
and its seating in 1950, which interrupted the distinctive circulation pattern of diagonal walks
that form a central green. The paths no longer cross at the northern end of the park and the
interior paths curving from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of the park no longer
exist. The Boulder Creek path introduced pavement north of the Boulder Slough that reinforces
the bisected condition of the park and altered the paths along Boulder Creek at the southern end
of the park to create the Arapahoe underpass. While many mature trees date to this period, and
the overall vegetation pattern remains with mature trees along the perimeter and concentrated on
the northeast, north and eastern boundaries of the site, some of the trees have been removed or
replaced with trees of a different species. Shrub plantings have been planted around the
Bandshell and its seating to help define the space and create screening from outside of the park
looking into the event venue. While viewsheds toward the Flatirons are visible across the park
green and along the perimeter of the park, the Bandshell is a prominent visual feature constructed
outside of the 1924-1937 period. Trees along the Boulder Slough partially obstruct the view
between the northern and southern portions of the park.
Little material remains from the 1924-1937 period, except for the Boulder Slough infrastructure
and the light pilasters (reportedly part of the 1920s Broadway Bridge repurposed as park light
fixtures when the bridge was replaced in the early 2000s). The date of construction of the stone
walls on the western edge of the park along Boulder Creek is unknown and may date to the
1924-1937 period. The paths have been repaved.
Little remains related to the workmanship of Central Park dating to the 1924-1937 period.
The Art Deco Bandshell has significantly altered the feeling of Central Park, as it is a prominent
feature visible both within the park and from the surrounding area. Its distinct 1930s design,
combined with the alteration of the original pattern of pathways, convey the sense of a later
period of time.
Central Park’s 1924 design is significant for its association with prominent landscape architect
Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., however, as described above, the park today does not retain the
physical features to convey retain the integrity of association.
29
18
Figure 2. Comparison of March 1924 planting plan 11 (left) with 1938 12 (middle) and 2023 (right)
Aerial Photographs of Central Park. City of Boulder.
Integrity Assessment -- Proposed Historic District (1938-1974 Period)
Planning & Development Services staff agree with the CLA finding that Central Park is
significant under criterion A (events) and C (design) for the 1938-1973 period of development.
In addition, based on consideration of the local criteria, the area as a whole meets local
designation criteria for its architectural, historic and environmental significance. Staff considers
that historic integrity is represented across the entire park, and not only the northernmost portion,
for this period, for the following reasons:
• DeBoer was commissioned to recommend the site of the bandshell and planned its
landscaping. In April 1937, he wrote “This is in regard to the matter of the location of a
band stand. I have checked over every possible site in the city, and I believe that Central
Park is the only location at the present time. With the location of the proposed City Hall
in the [east] end of the park, I would suggest that the band stand be located on the north
line against the railroad right of way, approximately in the middle of the park. If this site
meets with your approval, I shall draw up a sketch showing my ideas in regard to the
treatment of the band stand and the grounds around it.”
• As described in the 1995 Bandshell Historical Report13 prepared by Front Range
Research, Associates, the bandshell was “specifically designed to be compatible with its
site. As a component of the central urban park, the Band Shell was situated to provide
passersby with a glimpse of the intriguing figures to be found within the park and
11 Courtesy of the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/olmsted_archives/29558307807/in/album-72157683458369472/
12 United States Forest Service. Aerial Photographs of Colorado. Boulder. May 8, 1938. Photograph.
https://cudl.colorado.edu//luna/servlet/detail/UCBOULDERCB1~17~17~33252~102550
13 Front Range Research. Bandshell Historical Study, 1995. City of Boulder
30
19
encourage them to park their cars and walk into the site. The Band Shell faces south
toward Boulder Creek and away from traffic on the thoroughfare on the northern edge of
the park. The scope of the Band Shell and its associated seating area is in keeping with
the size of the park and provides a comfortable gathering space for concerts and other
cultural entertainment and is and open air amenity allowing users to enjoy the natural
beauty of the park while attending the Band Shell programs.”
• Central Park maintains its original boundary from its formal establishment in 1924 to
encompass a roughly four-acre area bound by Canyon Boulevard, Arapahoe Avenue,
Broadway and 13th Street. The bandshell was designed for its setting within Central Park,
and features of the full park in DeBoer’s sketches have similar characteristics to the
Olmsted Jr. 1924 plan with perimeter trees, contiguous circulation located on the outside
of the park and open lawn.
• The public function of Central Park and the surrounding municipal buildings and public
spaces is historically significant and reflects the changing social, cultural and political
activities of the Boulder community. Following the construction of the bandshell in 1938,
Central Park became a focal point for social activities, typically based around musical or
religious activities. During the 1950s and early 1960s, events in Central Park became
more nostalgic, including singalongs, the community-funded purchase of railcars as a
memorial to “Boulder Pioneers”, an annual “Huck Finn Day,” and Christmas programs.
Events in the late 1960s and early 1970s included experimental theater groups that
presented live performances in the bandshell that incorporated ambient and spontaneous
noises of Central Park and surrounding streets 14, protests and vigils including a Chicano
rally protesting police brutality and racism in 1969;15 Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial
Vigil in 1971;16 a candle-light march commemorating the 17th Anniversary of the atomic
bombing of Nagasaki, Japan in 1972;17 and bicycle rallies to demand safer bicycling.18
Consideration of the area’s eligibility for designation as a local historic district, the assessment of
its integrity is based on its historic, architectural and environmental significance. The proposed
historic district retains integrity to the 1938-1974 period of development as described below:
The location of Central Park and the five landmarked structures has not moved since their
establishment and therefore retains excellent integrity of location.
The setting of the Civic Area is integral to its significance. Located at the prominent intersections
of Broadway, Canyon, 13th and Arapahoe, the area is centrally located and is a prominent and
visual feature of the community. The view of the Flatirons directly influenced its landscape and
14 Kaiser, Kathy. “Free plays held in Central Park.” June 17, 1974. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 23,
Number 8.
15 “Chicanos Rally at Fountain March to Police Station.” September 8, 1969. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder,
Volume 18, Number 6.
16 “Storm chills King vigil, cuts turnout.” April 5, 1971. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 19, Number 124.
17 “Nagasaki memorial plans” August 9, 1972. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 20, Number 172.
18 Ham, Richard G. “Bikeways.” April 23, 1971. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 19, Number 138.
31
20
architectural designs and provides a mountain backdrop to the urban park, municipal structures,
and the public spaces in between. Two waterways remain prominent features of the area:
Boulder Creek creates the southwesterly edge of the park and runs south of the Penfield Tate II
Municipal Building, and the Boulder Slough bisects the central green of the park and runs north
of the Boulder-Dushanbe Teahouse. Additionally, the integrity of the five landmarked structures
within the proposed boundary remain high and contributes to the area’s integrity of setting. Staff
considers the changes to the park and public spaces, including the introduction of and
improvements to the Boulder Creek Path and the realignment of paths within Central Park do not
detract from the overall setting and feeling associated with the district’s historic significance.
The spatial relationship between Central Park and the surrounding municipal buildings retains a
high degree of integrity of design. Defining design characteristics of the district include but are
not limited to the urban street grid of Broadway, Canyon Boulevard, Arapahoe Avenue and 13th
Street; the park with its central green with trees planted in groves and along the perimeter of the
park; Boulder Creek and Boulder Slough as prominent water features; five architecturally
distinct structures in and adjacent to the park, many of which were designed and sited in relation
to their park setting.
The district’s historic workmanship is evident in the integration of art and architecture in the
Boulder-Dushanbe Teahouse, the high quality of masonry in the construction of the Atrium
Building and the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building, and the construction of the bandshell and
its seating.
The district retains its integrity of materials. The five existing landmarks retain their historic
material, with the exception of the Bandshell, which was rebuilt in 1995 using the same
materials. However, that alteration does not diminish the structure’s historic integrity.
The district retains sufficient integrity to convey its feeling of a historic urban park surrounded
by unique structures representing distinct architectural styles and periods.
As a result of the area’s historic physical features described above, the district retains historic
integrity to convey its association with the design of the park during the 1937-1974 period, and
the numerous social, cultural and political activities that occurred within the park and the
surrounding public spaces.
32
21
Figure 3. Aerial Photograph, 1958. City of Boulder.
Figure 4. Aerial Photographs, 1972 and 2023. City of Boulder.
Summary of Integrity Assessment – Local Criteria
In conclusion, P&DS staff agree with the CLA findings that the Olmsted, Jr. design of the park
(1924-1937) does not retain historic integrity due to the extent of changes over time. P&DS staff
considers the proposed historic district retains its historic integrity of location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling and association from the 1938-1974 period of development.
Boundary
The Boulder Revised Code describes a contiguous historic district as an “area containing a
number of sites, buildings, structures or features having a special character and historical,
architectural or aesthetic interest or value and constituting a distinct section of the city.” Section
9-11-2(a)(2) B.R.C. 1981. P&DS staff additionally utilize the guidance in National Register
Bulletin 16: Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties (link) in the analysis for
determining historic district boundaries. The bulletin provides the following summary:
33
22
Select boundaries that encompass the single area of land containing the significant
concentration of buildings, sites, structures, or objects making up the district. The
district's significance and historic integrity should help determine the boundaries. Consider
the following factors:
• Visual barriers that mark a change in the historic character of the area or that break
the continuity of the district, such as new construction, highways, or development of a
different character.
• Visual changes in the character of the area due to different architectural styles, types
or periods, or to a decline in the concentration of contributing resources.
• Boundaries at a specific time in history, such as the original city limits or the
legally recorded boundaries of a housing subdivision, estate, or ranch.
• Clearly differentiated patterns of historic development, such as commercial versus
residential or industrial.
Boundary Proposed in Current Application
The application received on May 30, 2023 requested the designation boundary encompass the
area west of the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building (1777 Broadway) to the west side of 14th
Street, and from the south side of Canyon Blvd. to the north side of Arapahoe Avenue, excluding
the privately owned buildings at 1201 Arapahoe Ave. and 1724 Broadway (Yocom Building);
and the buildings on 13th Street south of the City Storage and Transfer Building (a combination
of city-owned and privately-owned parcels).
Figure 5. Historic District Boundary Proposed by the Applicants
The applicants provided the following boundary justification in their application:
“This boundary incorporates five landmarked city-owned properties, the full extent of the
historic Central Park, and the plaza between the Teahouse and the Atrium Building. The
proposed historic district provides area integrity by combining these significant properties in a
34
23
cohesive whole and celebrates the sense of place. The proposed boundary intentionally includes
the parking lots to the east of the Atrium Building, Teahouse, and the City Storage and Transfer
buildings. Proposed development on these properties should be reviewed for potential impact on
the historic structures and features. The applicants do support change here that is sympathetic
and respectful to the adjacent historic buildings, especially as the city begins to
repurpose their buildings.”
Boundary Proposed in Cultural Landscape Assessment
The CLA finds Central Park is significant for two periods (1923-1936 Olmsted Jr. Design for
Central Park and 1937-1973 Huntington DeBoer Design) but that only the northern portion of the
site (currently designated as a local landmark), retains integrity. The Peer Review Draft Central
Park CLA Report, states the area associated with the 1938-1950 improvements “does not
constitute the full park boundary as no evidence exists linking the southern portion of the park to
the Huntington-DeBoer improvements. Therefore, a boundary encompassing only the northern
170 feet of Central Park is recommended to be included as part of a historic district.
Figure 6. Boundary Related to Central Park Recommended in the CLA.
Boundary Recommended by P&DS Staff
P&DS staff recommend the historic district boundary encompass the area west of the Penfield
Tate II Municipal Building (1777 Broadway) to the east edge of the landmark boundaries for the
Atrium Building (1300 Canyon Blvd.), Boulder-Dushanbe Teahouse (1770 13th St.) and the
Storage & Transfer Building (1750 13th St.), including the 13th Street Plaza, and from the south
side of Canyon Blvd. to the north side of Arapahoe Avenue, excluding the privately owned
buildings at 1201 Arapahoe Ave. and 1724 Broadway (Yocom Building) and the buildings on
the east side of 13th Street south of the City Storage and Transfer Building (a combination of
city-owned and privately-owned parcels). The recommended boundary includes the extent of
13th Street between Canyon and Arapahoe Avenue, and the parking area between the Atrium
35
24
Building and Canyon Boulevard. The proposed boundary would follow the midline of Boulder
Creek. Staff considers this boundary to meet the NPS guidance, in that it:
• Contains the significant concentration of contributing buildings and sites: the five
designated landmarks and Central Park.
• Central Park retains its original boundary from its formal establishment in 1924,
and the full extent of the park is historically significant for its social, cultural and
political use within the 1938-1974 period of significance.
• Utilizes Canyon and Arapahoe as visual barriers that break the continuity of the district
(note, Broadway has historically bisected Boulder’s civic center);
• Includes portion of 13th Street
• Includes the parking area between the Atrium and Canyon
• Follows the rear of the existing landmark boundaries of the contributing buildings along
13th to recognize the decline of concentration in the contributing resources.
• No buildings or features within the period of significance exist today, and the
parking lot itself is not historic. Inclusion of the parking lot as a “buffer” is
discouraged by NPS guidance.
• The southern boundary follows the mid-line of Boulder Creek, a contributing feature and
visual barrier.
Figure 7. Historic District Boundary Recommended by Staff
While this boundary includes areas, such as parts of Central Park, Broadway and 13th
Street that are non-contributing, the grouping as a whole achieves significance within its
historic context and the majority of the components that add to the district’s historic
character possess integrity.
36
25
PUBLIC COMMENT (OCTOBER 2023-JANUARY 2024)
The project team delivered walking tours and an online Storymap to raise awareness and
understanding of the layered history of the area, including stories of historically excluded
persons and communities that have not been part of the dominant narrative to date. The goal was
to provide the public with background information that could help people make a more informed
decision on whether they support the proposed historic designation.
Staff provided two main channels for feedback from the community, in addition to mandatory
hearings: (i) an online questionnaire and (ii) consultations with the Community Connectors-in-
Residence (CC-in-R) as part of the project’s deliberate racial equity strategies.
Online form. The online form was added to the project website in mid-October. Thirty
responses were received between Oct. 15 and Jan. 11, with 50% in opposition, 30% in support
and 20% unsure of whether they support this historic designation. Staff recognizes that this is not
a statistically valid survey and that the number of responses are relatively small, but that a
diversity of viewpoints has been shared.
Out of those who support the designation, the justifications included: (i) it would be good for
tourism and business; (ii) preservation is generally a valuable goal, (iii) this area represents the
best of Boulder (besides the mountain backdrop), and (iv) the designation could help improve
public safety in this area.
Out of those who do not support the designation, the justifications included: (i) that the district is
not aligned with the city’s equity and climate goals, (ii) a preference to focus on redevelopment
and programming here instead of further restrictions; (iii) parking lots are not historic and should
not be included; (iv) hope that parking lots could be used for community benefit such as
affordable housing; (v) the need to ensure that our civic spaces meet the needs of our community
today; (vi) insufficient benefit of a district, (vii) a desire for the city to focus on other priorities;
and (viii) a need to effectively addresses issues related to public safety and the unhoused here
before pursuing a district.
Out of those who are unsure if they support the designation, the justifications include: (i) needing
more information and understanding of the impacts, (ii) concerns that public resources would be
spent with little return, (iii) skeptical that the collection of disjointed buildings warrants a historic
district designation, (iv) likely to be more supportive if the use of current buildings can be
reimagined; (v) concerns that the designation glosses over the presence of unhoused in the area,
and (vi) a desire for the city to focus on public safety first and foremost.
A more detailed overview and list of all feedback received through the online questionnaire is
included as Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January
11, 2024.
37
26
Consultations with CC-in-R. Staff consulted with CC-in-R twice. The first meeting focused on
asking for input on the engagement plan from an equity perspective. The second meeting focused
on gathering feedback on the walking tour script and the general narrative of the area’s history.
Main feedback received by CC-in-R include: (i) concerns that written history is ‘white’ history;
(ii) that any educational materials should be developed with or at least reviewed by people from
diverse background to ensure it is inclusive and not offensive or hurtful; (iii) that preservation
should expand beyond the traditional purview of buildings; and (iv) that negative impacts should
be acknowledged. CC-in-R also had questions about how the proposed district benefits all
members of our community and how it can help the unhoused in Boulder.
Based on this feedback, staff undertook additional research to elevate the stories of historically
excluded or marginalized peoples in this process. Although not directly related to this project, the
feedback of CC-in-R has influenced the content of Landmark Board memos, which as of
November 2023 now recognizes the pre-settler history when describing the area. Staff is also
committed to further deepening the partnership with local people of color for the upcoming
update of the Historic Preservation’s 10-year Strategy in 2024.
NEXT STEPS
The historic district application will be reviewed by Boards and the City Council in early 2024.
The anticipated schedule includes:
• January 22, 2024 - Parks & Recreation Advisory Board
• February 7, 2024 – Landmarks Board Designation Hearing
• March 2024 – Planning Board (Land Use)
• March 2024 – City Council, 1st Reading
• April 2024 – City Council, 2nd Reading and Public Hearing
ATTACHMENTS
• Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District
Landmarks
• Attachment B - Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024.
38
Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District
Landmarks Dec. 15, 2024
The Landmarks Board adopted the Significance Criteria for Historic Districts (link) in 1975 in
order to help evaluate each potential designation in a consistent and equitable manner. The
following provides staff’s preliminary analysis of the proposed district in relation to the
Significance Criteria.
HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE:
The district, as an entity, should show character, interest or value as part of the development,
heritage, or cultural characteristics of the community, state, or nation; be the site of historic or
prehistoric event(s) that had an effect upon society; or exemplify the cultural, political, economic,
or social heritage of the community.
1.Association with Historical Persons or Events:
This association could be national, state or local.
Elaboration: The proposed historic district is associated with historical individuals and
events.
Individuals that were instrumental in the early formation of the area include:
•Maryette Kinglsey (c.1860-1902) owned four different properties in the area as
early as the 1890s, and from which she ran thriving businesses.1 Her brothels
were viewed by “civic improvers” including members of the BCIA as unsightly
for tourists and visitors arriving or departing by train.
•Jennie Johnson (c. 1866-unknown) owned two different properties in the area
from 1900 until 1928. She owned a cleaning business, which she ran from her
house near 11th Street north of Boulder Creek.2 Johnson was the last owner to sell
her residence to the city for “park improvements,” refusing for many years to
leave.3
•“Rocky Mountain” Joe Sturtevant (1851-1910) owned a studio at the approximate
location of the Municipal Building from 1900 until Sturtevant’s death.4 Sturtevant
made many photographs of the area, some of which were used to promote
“improvements.”5
1 “Flood in Boulder.” Boulder Daily Camera, May 31, 1894.
2 “Cleaning Done.” May 8, 1906. Boulder Daily Camera, Volume 16, Number 37.
3 “City of Boulder Buys Property In Jungles To Clean Up and Beautify.” April 11, 1921. Boulder Daily Camera, Number 22.
4 “View of the buildings on the west side of Broadway between numbers 1763 and 1777. In the foreground is Joseph Sturtevant's photography
studio with his wife, Anna Lyckman Sturtevant, standing in the doorway. A streetcar is visible in the distance (S-673).” 1900. BHS 207-3-54.
Boulder Historical Society/Museum of Boulder. https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A37675
5 “Views of what was known as Cigarette Park and is now Central Park.” 1870-1920. Call No. 207-3-48. Carnegie Library for Local History,
Boulder, CO. https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A40011
Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks
39
The Boulder City Improvement Association (BCIA) was a volunteer organization
originally established in 1898 by Ira M. DeLong, H. O. Dodge, Fred L. Williamson and
Neil D. McKenzie, with the purpose of “encouraging the culture of lawns and trees;
improving and ornamenting the public highways; opening public parks and drives;
maintaining a high standard of public neatness; and cooperating with every available
agency to increase the beauty and healthfulness of our city.”6 They reincorporated in
1903 with a focus on “the improvements of Boulder in health, growth, cleanliness,
prosperity and attractiveness through individual effort as well as through cooperation
with other organizations engaged in similar work.”7 The BCIA acted as a de facto
planning commission, strongly focused on the downtown creek area, until 1934 when
they dissolved, noting that “the Boulder Parks and Planning Commission has almost
identically the same purpose for which our Association exists.”8 Between 1903 and 1934,
many business and civic leaders served as officers of the BCIA, including Junius
Henderson, Eben G. Fine, Fred White, Herbert A. Shattuck, D. M. Andrews, Maud
Gardiner O’Dell, and William J. Baird. Many of these members were particularly key to
the development of the area as public space:
•Ira M. DeLong (1855-1942) was professor of mathematics at the University of
Colorado - Boulder from 1888 to 1925. DeLong was one of the founders of the
BCIA in 1898 and drew connections between aesthetics and morality.9
•Junius Henderson (1865-1937) Practiced law and was a county judge until 1902
when he became curator of the University Museum. He became a professor of
natural history in 1908. He was president of the BCIA in 1910, when the
organization commissioned Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. to propose improvements
for the city.
•Herbert A. Shattuck was a civil engineer who briefly worked for Thomas Edison.
He studied landscape design and designed “Shattuck’s Hillside Park” (now the
Hillside Historic District). Shattuck was instrumental in promoting Frederick Law
Olmsted, Jr.’s “plan for the city.”10
6 “Constitution of the Public Improvement Association of Boulder.” 1898. BHS 328-193-(7-8). Boulder Historical Society/Museum of Boulder.
Carnegie Library for Local History, Boulder, CO. https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A50763
7 “Records of Boulder City Improvement Association.” 1903-1914. BHS 300-1-10. Boulder Historical Society/Museum of Boulder. Carnegie
Library for Local History, Boulder, CO.https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora:50763
https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A7574
8 White, Fred. “Letter preceding Minutes of Meeting of Boulder Improvement Association.” Feb. 27th 1934. Carnegie Library for Local History,
Boulder Colo.
9 DeLong, Ira B. “Aim of the Association - Public Improvement Association Papers.” 1898. BHS 328-193-(7-8). Boulder Historical Society/Museum
of Boulder. Carnegie Library for Local History, Boulder, CO. https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A50763
10 Carrigan, Beverly Halpin. “Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. Maker of Parks-Planner of Cities: Visits-Plans-Suggestions-Goals for Boulder, Colorado
1907-1927.” Carnegie Library for Local History. Call Number 998-11-9.
https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A100249
Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks
40
•William J. Baird (1861-1934) was a physician and surgeon. He corresponded with
Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. between 1907 and 1934, mainly on the details for a
creek-side park.11 Baird additionally organized volunteers 12 and donations 13 for
Central Park.
Following the construction of the bandshell in 1938, Central Park became a focal point for
social activities, typically based around musical or religious activities that were seen by
the organizers as morally appropriate. In 1939, Central Park hosted a “Flander’s Field”
memorial that involved filling the park with memorial crucifix grave markers. During the
1930s and 1940s, the Boulder Rotary Club sponsored events like dance exhibitions,
educational talks and musical performances. The Boulder Lions Club was chartered in
1918 as a volunteer organization. By mid-1938, the Lions Club had spent more than
$20,000 on the improvement of local parks, including the construction of shelter houses in
Blue Bell Canyon and at the top of Flagstaff Mountain. In 1938, they donated the money
to build the bandshell, and sponsored religious and musical events. The Lions Club
donated picnic tables and a drinking fountain to Central Park in 1942.
During the 1950s and early 1960s, the events became more nostalgic. “Singalong”
concerts where “citizens of Boulder with any music ability” were invited to participate
were popular.14 In 1952, the community raised $5,095 in 1952 to purchase an engine,
passenger car, and caboose as a “monument to the pioneers of Boulder” and the Daughters
of the American Revolution sponsored a commemorative plaque. In 1953, members of the
Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) sponsored the first “Huck Finn Day” fishing contest and
pageant that included a march between the fishing pond and the bandshell. The annual
event continued for most of the 1950s. “Santa Claus” events for children included
crowning a “yule queen” or “Miss Noel”15 and the “lots” west of the Municipal Building
were used for community bonfires celebrating Twelfth Night.16
The late 1960s and early 1970s saw a decline in the maintenance of the park, and multiple
areas were fenced off, and the park closed for periods of time due to clashes between park
users and the police. During the summer of 1969, Sunday concerts in Central Park
welcomed “straights, hippies and unclassified” to “truck on down to the park.”17 Theatre
11 Files; 3300; City of Boulder Improvement Association; Boulder, Colo.; 1907-1909. Olmsted Associates Records: Job Files, 1863-1971. Library
of Congress, Washington, DC.: https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss52571.mss52571-02-
185_0146_0316/?sp=6&st=image&r=0.014,0.392,0.684,0.336,0
12 “Local Personal News.” May 10, 1924. Boulder Daily Camera, Number 48.
13 “DR. O. M. GILBERT GIVES $100 FOR NEW PARK” May 22, 1924. Boulder Daily Camera, Number 58.
14 “Boulder Summer Recreation Plans Include Swimming, Tennis Lessons.” May 14, 1948. The Owl - BHS, Volume 34, Number 26.
15 “Jingle Bell Miss Merry Christmas To Maintain Festive Tradition of Yuletide Season.” November 30, 1962. The Owl - BHS, Volume 49, Number
10.
16 “Tonight's Rally Features Bonfire and Snake Dance Cheerleaders to Lead Yells This Evening Directly West of the Municipal Building.” March 5,
1954. The Owl - BHS, Volume 40, Number 21.
17 “Sunday In The Park.” March 26, 1969. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 17, Number 108.
Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks
41
in the Park formed in the 1970s specifically to present live performances in the bandshell
that incorporated ambient and spontaneous noises of Central Park and surrounding
streets.18 The 1970s also saw rallies and protests including a Chicano rally protesting
police brutality and racism in 1969;19 Martin Luther King Memorial Vigil in 1971;20 a
candle-lit march commemorating the 17th Anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki,
Japan in 1972;21 and bicycle rallies to demand safer bicycling.22 In 1972, Mahatma
Krishnasukanand used “inspiring words” to “raise the vibration of Central Park.”23 A few
months later, The World Family Church sponsored a community fair that spanned the
length of the creek park from the public library to Central Park.24
2.Distinction in the Development of the Community of Boulder:
This is the most applicable to institutions (religious, educational, civic, etc.) or business
area, though in some cases residential areas might qualify. It stresses the importance of
preserving those places which demonstrate the growth during different time spans in the
history of Boulder, in order to maintain an awareness of our cultural, economic, social or
political heritage.
Summary: The proposed district has significance as the geographic focus of the
community-led movement to eliminate the mining-centric industry and direct Boulder
toward a health, education and tourist-based economy. Through the 1950s, Central Park
was the location for events that civic leaders of the time considered physically and
“morally” healthful and would develop a desirable community. The placement of the
municipal resources after 1951 demonstrates the growth of the municipal identity of
Boulder. A boom in population created conflict between those nostalgic for the “pioneer
days” and counterculture advocates wanting to confront “the establishment” embodied in
the municipal area.
Elaboration: Prior to the formation of Boulder, Colorado’s First Peoples relied on the
natural environment of the creek and creek-side land. Indigenous knowledge, oral
histories, and languages handed down through generations shaped profound cultural and
spiritual connections. These connections are sustained and celebrated to this day. Land
18 Kaiser, Kathy. “Free plays held in Central Park.” June 17, 1974. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 23, Number 8.
19 “Chicanos Rally at Fountain March to Police Station.” September 8, 1969. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 18,
Number 6.
20 “Storm chills King vigil, cuts turnout.” April 5, 1971. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 19, Number 124.
21 “Nagasaki memorial plans” August 9, 1972. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 20, Number 172.
22 Ham, Richard G. “Bikeways.” April 23, 1971. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 19, Number 138.
23 “Go Beyond Your Mind.” September 6, 1972. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 21, Number 4.
24 Photo caption. September 26, 1972. Colorado Daily - University of Colorado Boulder, Volume 21, Number 18. https://www.ppc-
historicnewspapers.org/?a=d&d=CDY19720926-01.2.28&srpos=43&e=--1938---1974--en-20--41-byDA-img-txIN%7ctxCO%7ctxTA-
%22bandshell%22-------0-----Boulder+%28CO%29-
Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks
42
within the proposed district is considered sacred to the First Peoples and is associated with
cultural beliefs, customs, and practices rooted in the community’s history and collective
historic identity.
After the formation of Boulder in 1859, distinct areas of residences and commercial
interests developed adjacent to Boulder Creek. As the city grew, this area was the focus of
the community-led movement to eliminate the mining-centric industry and direct Boulder
toward a health, education and tourist-based economy: It uniquely demonstrates the
growth of the municipal identity of Boulder.
The working-class residents that lived in the area and much of the industry were
considered counter to the health, education and tourist-based image that the “civic
improvers,” including the Boulder City Improvement Association (BCIA), promoted. The
BCIA hired Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. in 1910 to write a report on The Improvement of
Boulder.25 The report proposed a park along Boulder Creek and to “group together main
public buildings of a city.” Using the Olmsted report to validate and justify the
displacement, residences and commercial interests were systematically removed by the
city.
The proposal for parkland along Boulder Creek was refined in Olmsted Brothers plans
developed 1917-1923 and published in 1923 26 in The Improvement of Boulder Creek in
Boulder, Colorado.27 By 1925 much of the land to create the park had been purchased by
the city, but when a funding proposal failed to win community support the park itself was
never formally created. Instead, BCIA volunteers, led by William Baird, planted trees and
shrubs and graded the paths to create the park they considered worthy of Boulder’s new
health, education and tourist-based image.
The area was modified by 1932, and the “improvements” identified on a map created by
George Hubbard (city surveyor and building inspector) for a Daily Camera article on
Dec. 31, 1937. These amenities illustrate the slight shift in public sentiment and
community needs: in addition to open lawns and gardens around which to promenade, the
park included active recreation spaces like tennis courts and a softball field.28 Through
the 1950s, the area was used for recreation to keep both mind and body healthful.
25 Olmsted, Jr. Frederick Law. The Improvement of Boulder, Colorado. Brookline, Mass., 1910. Google Books:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Improvement_of_Boulder_Colorado/Qx4UMxP33pUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PP9&printsec=frontco
ver
26 Olmsted Plans and Drawings Collection “Olmsted Job #3300 Boulder, Colorado Improvement Association Boulder, CO Plan #3300-63 City of
Boulder Preliminary Plan of Proposed Park Improvements Along Boulder Creek OBLA, October 1923.” National Park Service, Frederick Law
Olmsted National Historic Site. https://www.flickr.com/photos/olmsted_archives/35378272173/in/album-72157683458369472/
27 Olmsted Brothers. The Improvement of Boulder Creek in Boulder, Colorado. Brookline, Mass., 1923. Files; 3302; Boulder Creek; Boulder, Colo.,
1917-1924. Olmsted Associates Records: Job Files, 1863-1971. Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Page 76-86:
https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss52571.mss52571-02-186_0383_0484/?sp=76&st=image
28 “Photo 4 - Boulder from Flagstaff Mountain taken 1937 or early 1938. 1933 courthouse at left center, Valmont Power Plant visible in the
distance. Identified buildings are listed on the reverse of the photo.” C. 1937. Boulder Historical Society/Museum of Boulder.
https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A67946
Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks
43
The post WWII years in Boulder saw huge population growth. The general shift in the
type of events held in the park and the proposed addition of monuments and memorials
show a community nostalgic for “pioneer days” and simpler times. The construction of
municipal resources including the “city hall” in 1952, which housed the police station and
jail, newly centered the municipal identity of Boulder in the area. Through the 1950s and
1960s, counterculture advocates wanting to confront “the establishment” clashed with the
nostalgia of the area, culminating in the vandalism of Central Park’s train “Memorial to
Boulder’s Railroad and Mining Pioneers” in 1958.
By the late 1960s, the area was firmly established as the municipal center of Boulder. As
downtown was termed “decaying” and complaints about “hippies” living in Central Park
rose, Boulder’s voters were asked to decide whether to redevelop Central Park with a
second municipal building, exhibition hall, conference center, auditorium, science
museum, and theater. The bond issue failed and Boulder retained the institution of a
public gathering space anchored by municipal buildings.
3.Recognition by Authorities:
If a number of structures are recognized by Historic Boulder, Inc., the Boulder Historical
Society, local historians (Barker, Crossen, Frink, Gladden, Paddock, Schoolland, etc.)
F.L. Olmsted, or others in published form, as having historical interest or value.
The proposed district includes five structures that have been previously designated as
individual landmarks, recognizing their historic, architectural and environmental
significance. In addition, the area has previously been considered potentially eligible for
designation as a historic district.
Previous determinations include: Glen Huntington Bandshell (eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places (1995, 2016, 2022); Atrium Building (Eligible for
the State Register, 2000), Penfield Tate II Municipal Building (eligible for the State
Register, 2000; recognized in the December 1953 issue of Progressive Architecture), the
Boulder–Dushanbe Teahouse (eligible for the National Register, 2005).
Additionally, the Greenways Plan (2011) identifies Central Park as eligible for listing in
the State and National Registers with comment “possibly eligible as component of a
historic district”29 and a 2001 Historic Resources Survey Report prepared for the State
Historic Preservation Office identified Central Park as a “cultural landscape.”30
4.Date of Construction:
This area of consideration places particular importance on the age of the structure.
29 City of Boulder. Greenways Plan, 2011. https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/407/download?inline. Pg 116.
30 Hermsen Consultants. “Historic Resources Survey Report: Broadway Reconstruction, Boulder, Colorado.” October 2001. Prepared for State
Historic Preservation Office.
Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks
44
Summary: While the history of the site extends beyond the late 19th century, key dates
within the proposed district include 1871 (construction of the Boulder Slough), 1906
(construction of the Storage & Transfer Building), 1925 (design and initial grading of
Central Park), 1938 (construction of the Bandshell), 1950 (Amphitheater seating), 1951
(construction of the Municipal Building), 1969 (construction of the Atrium Building) and
1998 (placement and dedication of the Dushanbe Teahouse).
Elaboration: Grading of Central Park began in late summer, 1924 31 and the park’s paths
creating diagonal circulation patterns laid down by 1925.32 Between 1925 and 1938 the
area developed informally as the city acquired additional land. Volunteers planted trees
that included elm, oak, mountain ash, hawthorn, crab-apple, and pine.33 William Baird
donated a white oak, and Mrs. Cheney and Eben G. Fine each donated red oaks.34
The bandshell was added to Central Park in 1938, and the area re-landscaped the
following year, removing the perimeter hedges and adding a small lawn for seating in
front of the bandshell. By 1940, 13th St. and the northeast side of Broadway included a
sidewalk and boulevard of trees. Volunteers continued to modify Central Park, adding
picnic benches and a water fountain in 1942 (no longer extant).
A multi-year plan for relocating the municipal seat to the area was developed by Saco R.
DeBoer and adopted by City Council in 1945. Implementation of the plan began in 1950
with the installation of an amphitheater seating at the bandshell. Construction on the new
city hall (called the Municipal Building after 1952) began the following year after delays
due to costs. The “master plan” included new circulation paths from the recreation areas
west of the Municipal Building through Central Park. The City placed the train car
monument next to the Boulder Slough in 1953. A honey locust tree was donated by
Boulder High Students to commemorate the tenth anniversary of the United Nations and
planted in the lawn in front of the Municipal Building in 1955.35 The lawn area was re-
landscaped in 1958.36
In 1961, the tennis courts, softball lots, and remaining building to the west of the
Municipal Building were removed to create to the municipal mall (no longer extant) and
31 “Local News.” July 28, 1924. Boulder Daily Camera, Number 114.
32 “Boulder City Park from 12th Street bridge.” 1925. Call number BHS 141-2-48. Boulder Historical Society/Museum of Boulder.
https://localhistory.boulderlibrary.org/islandora/object/islandora%3A30084
33 “Field Trip Is Made By Geography Class.” April 5, 1937. The Prep Owl - BHS, Volume 24.
34 “Local Personal News.” May 10, 1924. Boulder Daily Camera, Number 48.
35 “BHS Students Give Donations for Tree.” December 9, 1955. The Owl - BHS, Volume 42, Number 12.
36 Photo caption. Aug. 1, 1958. Daily Camera, Boulder.
Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks
45
parking lot to connect the Municipal Building to the public library (constructed 1961).
The City broke ground on an addition to the west side of the municipal building in 1962.
The construction of the Midland Federal Savings and Loan bank branch (Atrium
Building) in 1969 further established the streetscape character along 13th Street.
5.Other, if applicable:
ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE:
The district should portray an environment in an era of history characterized by distinctive
architectural periods or styles; embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural
type specimen, a good example of the common; include the work of an architect or master
builder, known nationally, state-wide, or locally, and perhaps whose work has materials or
craftsmanship which represent a significant innovation; or include a fine example of the
uncommon.
1.Architectural Identity:
The area should display common characteristics or continuity, and represent a
distinguished entity that possesses integrity of appearance, and/or feeling (mood).
The area is unique for its inclusion of a variety of distinct architectural styles spanning
the twentieth century. The district’s architectural identity is unified by its setting, mass,
scale and use of simplified geometric forms. The five individually landmarked buildings
retain a high degree of integrity.
Its character is defined by an urban park along the banks of Boulder Creek and bounded
by major throughfares, with municipal buildings situated along the park edge. The Atrium
Building, completed in 1969 and used as city offices for nearly 40 years, and the
construction of the Boulder–Dushanbe Teahouse in 1998 contribute to the area’s historic
character.
2.Recognized Period(s)/Style(s):
It should exemplify specific elements of an architectural period/style, or contain good
examples of more than one period/style, thereby preserving a progression of styles; i.e.:
Victorian Revival styles, such as described by Historic American Building Survey
Criteria, Gingerbread Age (Maass), 76 Boulder Homes (Barker), The History of
Architectural Style (Marcus/Tiffin), Architecture in San Francisco (Gebhard et al),
History of Architecture (Fletcher), Architecture/Colorado (Thorsen et al) and any other
published source of universal or local analysis of “style”.
The district uniquely exemplifies distinct architectural and landscape styles spanning the
twentieth century.
Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks
46
•The Storage & Transfer Building, constructed in 1906, is an example of the 19th
century commercial style.
•Central Park, designed by Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. in 1924 and modified by
Saco DeBoer’s 1938 design, including the construction of the Bandshell, reflects
planned and natural site characteristics representative of the 1938-1974 era.
•The Bandshell, designed by Glen Huntington and completed in 1938, is a rare
example of the Art Deco style in Boulder.
•The Penfield Tate II Municipal Building, designed by James Hunter and
completed in 1952, is an example of the International Style. Hobart Wagener’s
1962 addition was designed in the Formalist style.
•The Atrium Building, designed by Hobart Wagener in 1969, is an example of the
Rustic Modern style.
•The Boulder–Dushanbe Teahouse is an exceptional example of a Central Asian
(Tajik) Teahouse and reflects the political climate at the time.
The Bandshell, Municipal Building, and Atrium Building reflect progressive and
forward-looking styles and are significant for their association with the development
of the Modern movement in architecture in Boulder. As a whole, this area represents
an eclectic municipal character that is unique to Boulder’s history, location and
climate.
3.Architect(s) or Builder(s) of Prominence:
A good example of the work of architect(s) or builder(s) recognized for expertise
nationally, state-wide or locally.
The district includes works by the following notable architects and designers:
•Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., considered the forefather of the procession of
landscape architecture in the United States,37 authored the 1910 report,
“Improvement of the Boulder, Colorado,” which shaped not only this area in
Central Boulder, but also influenced the broader development of the community
related to flood mitigation, city planning and zoning. In 1924, his firm, Olmsted
Brothers, designed plans for Central Park, followed by a grading plan and
planting plan.
•Saco R. DeBoer, Denver landscape architect and city planner, was commissioned
in 1937 to select a site for the bandshell and design the landscaping around it. His
designs for the amphitheater seating were realized in 1950.
37 Kluas, Susan. Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. https://olmsted.org/colleagues-firm/frederick-law-olmsted-
jr/
Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks
47
•Glen Huntington, locally prominent architect responsible for numerous historic
buildings, including the Boulder County Courthouse and the Huntington Arms.
•James Hunter, locally prominent architect who worked in Boulder between 1940
and 1973 and designed the Municipal Building (1777 Broadway; 1951), the
Boulder Public Library (1001 Canyon; 1961) and the Masonic Lodge (2205
Broadway, 1948);
•Hobart Wagener, locally prominent architect active in Boulder in the 1950s to the
1980s. Notable works include the Atrium Building (1300 Canyon; 1969), Fire
Station No. 2 (2225 Baseline Rd; 1958); the Green Shield Office Building (900
28th St.; 1959), the Labrot House (816 6th St.; 1954) and the Methodist Student
Center (1290 Folsom; 1957).
•Teahouse
4.Artistic Merit:
A skillful integration of design, detail, material, and color which is of excellent visual
quality and/or demonstrates superior craftsmanship.
Central Park, including the Bandshell and its amphitheater seating, the Dushanbe
Teahouse displays high artistic value as seen in its intricately handcarved and brilliantly
painted wood trim and decorative exterior “faïence” tile panels. The Atrium and the
Municipal Building are significant for the high quality of stone work.
5.Example of the Uncommon:
Elements of architectural design, detail, material, or craftsmanship that are
representation of a significance innovation.
Dushanbe Teahouse: The Teahouse ceiling was constructed using only traditional hand
tools and without any electric tools. The Teahouse is significant as the only “chaikhona”
(Central Asian/Tajik Teahouse) in the Western Hemisphere.
The Bandshell is a rare example of the Art Deco style in Boulder and one of only two in
Colorado.
6.Indigenous Qualities:
A style or material that is particularly associated with the Boulder area.
Local stone is utilized in the design of the Penfield Tate II Municipal Building, Atrium
Building, and landscaping walls within Central Park.
7.Other, if applicable.
Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks
48
ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE:
The district should enhance the variety, interest, and sense of identity of the community by the
protection of the unique natural and man-made environments.
Summary:
1.Site Characteristics:
The site should be of high quality in terms of planned or natural vegetation, and
streetscape objects, i.e.: lighting, fences, sidewalks, etc.
The proposed district has environmental significance for its planned and natural site
characteristics, including:
•Spatial relationship of the civic buildings and Central Park
•Boulder Creek and the Boulder Slough
•Circulation Paths with the park creating a relatively flat central green
•Mature trees planted in groves and lining the perimeter of the park
•Views toward the Flatirons
•The Teahouse was sited as part of the City of Boulder’s 1993 Civic Park Master Plan, a
comprehensive plan of the civic use and public buildings in the downtown campus area.
Plans for the area placed the Teahouse at the center of the Civic Park Plaza which
included the Civic Plaza (north of the Teahouse site) used for Farmers Market exhibits
and performances and the 13th Street Community Plaza (the street west of the Teahouse
site) used for public events such as the Boulder Creek Festival and the Farmers Market.
Changes within the proposed boundary, including the replacement of the Broadway Bridge
(c. 2002), the addition of the Boulder Creek Path (1980s), tree and vegetation planting and
removal, removal of commemorative train cars, the establishment of the Sister Cities and
13th Street plazas, and the addition of small scale features including decorative boulders,
artwork and light fixtures, do not detract from the overall historic character of the area.
2.Compatibility with Site:
Consideration will be given to scale, massing, placement, or other qualities design with
respect to its site.
The scale, massing and placement of structures in the proposed district is generally
defined by one and two-story buildings surrounding a central urban park with mature
trees and a green lawn. The Municipal Building is a prominent visual feature, sited
appropriately for an important civic structure. The park surroundings provide an
appropriate setting for the public use of the buildings, and area complementary to their
functions.
3. Geographic Importance:
As an entity it represents an established and familiar visual feature of the community,
having unique and irreplaceable assets to the city or neighborhood.
Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks
49
The area is an established, familiar and prominent visual feature of the community, its
location near major thoroughfares. Situated prominently along Broadway, Canyon and
Arapahoe, major thoroughfares in Boulder, as well as 13th Street, a dedicated bike route
(named for advocate Al Bartlett).
4.Other, if applicable.
Attachment A – Preliminary Staff Analysis of the Significance Criteria for District Landmarks
50
Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024
CIVIC AREA HISTORIC DISTRICT
Online feedback (as of Jan. 11, 2024)
The project website has hosted an online form since Oct. 16, 2023 for community members to express their views on the proposed
historic district.
Thirty people have provided feedback through this channel as of Jan. 11, 2024. The project team recognizes that this is not a
representative sample of our community. The online form asked whether people support a designation.
Out of the 30 respondents:
-30% support the designation
-50% do not support the designation
-20% are unsure if they support the designation.
The sections below summarize the main reasons provided as well as some supporting quotes. A table with the full list of input received is
also provided.
1.Out of those who support the designation, the following reasons have been provided:
-It’s good for business and for tourism.
-Preservation is a valuable goal for our cities
-This area represents the best of Boulder (besides the mountain backdrop)
-It will help improve safety and allow people to use the spaces currently dominated by the unhoused and substance abusers
-Central park is important for community gatherings
“Such a district will act as a deterrent against the spread of any radical changes…”
“Perhaps this newfound designation could also help drive some of the seedier elements of that area out of the downtown area (or at least to a place
that is not so visible or beloved).”
“Why are we so eager to get rid of historical stories of Boulder? The Italians would never tear down an article of Art or History.”
“Thank you to these organizations and the landmark committee for seeing the civic center as something that should be protected.”
Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024
51
2.Out of those who do not support the designation, the following reasons have been provided:
-This area needs redevelopment and programming, not further restrictions.
-Parking lots are not historic. Affordable housing should be built on the parking lots.
-We need civic spaces that meet the needs of our community today.
-There is limited benefit of a district designation.
-The city should focus on other priorities.
-This is not aligned with the city’s equity and climate goals.
-Not worthwhile to pursue a district until issues of unhoused and public safety are addressed in the area.
“There is no benefit to landmarking the parking lots and lawn areas around these already landmarked buildings.”
“I think we can recognize the history without making this a historic district that would make future improvements harder to complete.”
“The results are clear – landmarking these spaces has simply crystallized their nonfunctionality. Now it’s [the bandshell] a relic that has little relevance
to the performing arts.”
“..the plan seems aimed at preserving Olmsted’s exclusive version of this area…Why is his version of the use of this land the one that gets preserved?
…Why do three groups that don’t include the communities or people with deeper historical ties to this area get to dictate the future of this area for
generations to come?”
“If we are going to spend taxpayer money on this area, it should be done in a way that repairs past harms and oppressions, rather than preserve them.”
“Please do not do this. It was a good intention in the past, but not now. Especially because the City owns and manages the resources. Our Downtown
needs more cultural interest and creative facilities that expand water related experience, entertainment, art and robust and diverse markets. But a HD
designation at this point is a constraint.”
“Pointless to do this until the issues around homelessness and safety are addressed – otherwise the designation is pointless window dressing and
propaganda.”
“Are you spending all of this money for the homeless to have a beautiful place to occupy?”
3.Out of those who are not sure if they support the designation, the following reasons have been provided:
-Need more information and understanding of the impacts
-Worried that significant public resources would be spent here with little return
-Skeptical that the collection of disjointed buildings warrants designation of a historic district
-Would support if the use of current buildings can be reimagined
Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024
52
-Worried that the designation glosses over the presence of unhoused in the area and the impact on safety and access to this area
for the general public
-Worried that unless the challenges with the unhoused and substance abuse onsite are addressed, the positive impacts of a
historic district cannot be realized
-Desire for the city to prioritize public safety
“I oppose the idea if the inclusion of certain buildings within the proposed historic district will prevent the possibility of replacing or reimagining some of
the buildings within that district [reference Penfield Tate and Atrium].”
“As far as I know the specific area on the map, it’s a lot of random generic buildings. If anything, Pearl St fits the bill and we already have that.”
“One thing everybody hates, is a grand expenditure of resources on something that is not terribly important.”
“And I think as long as there are homeless encampments along that whole park area- which seem to be growing – it will never be a vibrant destination.
Fact.”
“If the area was cleaned and made safe I would support the designation.”
“Advertising and promoting this area will increase the danger to citizens and visitors until this area is managed and drugs are banned from these sites.”
“No desire to preserve the lawless, degraded and dangerous place this area has become.”
“Total disconnect between lack of care and lack of law enforcement in downtown civic areas and this effort to create historical designation of an area
the City has allowed to become trashed and dangerous….Is this an effort to obfuscate and detract from working on fixing the problem?”
Table 1 is the full list of input received through the online form.
Table 1 Feedback from the online form (as of Jan. 11, 2024)
Do you
support
the
proposed
historic
district? Please explain the reason for your selection.
Please share any other concerns, questions or comments you have related to
this proposed designation.
Yes
Historic Districts are support tourism and is good for
business.
Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024
53
Do you
support
the
proposed
historic
district? Please explain the reason for your selection.
Please share any other concerns, questions or comments you have related to
this proposed designation.
No
A lot of this area needs to be redeveloped. Too many
parking lots and empty buildings. Really need to build affordable housing on the parking lots.
Yes
It's historic, and it reflects a Boulder that so many of us
wish were still there. Such a district will act as a
deterrent against the spread of any radical changes to a
place that was already perfect. Perhaps this newfound
designation could also help drive some of the seedier
elements of that area out of the downtown area (or at
least to a place that is not so visible or beloved).
Yes
It is vital to preserve the history of Boulder and
remember all of those who came before us.
Yes Central Park plays a huge role in Community Gatherings
Yes
I remember going to the Bandshell as a child. There use
to be a train engine there, that just amazed me. Why are
we so eager to get rid of historical stories of Boulder? The
Italians would never tear down an article of Art or
History.
https://youtu.be/xevBo6gfafA?si=4k4LYPwLr0uxVpnJ
I suggest you watch this video done by Denver CBS on the Huntington
Bandshell.
No It's a terrible idea...
This is just an extension of PLAN's nimby reaction to the Civic Area Plan which
contemplated improvements and construction of new buildings in the area to
make space for civic uses such as an indoor farmers market...landmarking the
bandshell, seats, atrium building, etc is a non-sensical approach to making civic
spaces that can meet the needs of our community. The results are clear -
landmarking these spaces has simply crystalized their nonfunctionally. When
the city met with users of the bandshell, the main request was to add green
room space. By moving it and adding that space, it could have had life. Now it's
a relic that has little relevance to the performing arts.
Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024
54
Do you
support
the
proposed
historic
district? Please explain the reason for your selection.
Please share any other concerns, questions or comments you have related to
this proposed designation.
There is no benefit to landmarking the parking lots and lawn areas around
these already landmarked buildings.
No
I think we can recognize the history without making this a
historic district that would make future improvements
harder to complete.
Yes
It has so much history and really represents the best part
of Boulder besides the mountain backdrop.
Yes
The buildings to be included in the historic district,
because of their significance, need to have landmark
protection.
Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024
55
Do you
support
the
proposed
historic
district? Please explain the reason for your selection.
Please share any other concerns, questions or comments you have related to
this proposed designation.
No Not consistent with the city's equity and climate goals
This area spent far more time in the hands of the Indigenous people who had
stewarded it since time immemorial. After the Indigenous people were forcibly
removed from their land, this area was dominated by workers, low-income
people, and people of color.
Yet the plan seems aimed at preserving Omlsted's exclusive version of this
area. Olmsted is a noted racist whose plans for this area led to the
displacement of those who had long used it for shelter, gathering, and other
purposes. Why is his version of the use of this land the one that gets
preserved? Why has there apparently been no input from BIPOC people and
especially from those with much deeper ties to this area than any non-
Indigenous people here now on the creation of this historic district? Why do
three groups that don't include the communities or people with deeper
historical ties to this area get to dictate the future of this area for generations
to come? How does memorializing a racist's vision of Boulder's civic area align,
created through traumatic displacement of Indigenous people, poor people
and people of color, mesh with our city's racial equity goals?
People from groups that have been and continue to be traumatized by
displacement from this area ought to be the ones deciding how this area is
used. Resources spent creating a historical area would be better used offering
housing support or reparations to the descendants of those displaced by
Olmsted's vision of a neat and tidy area that destroyed natural ecosystems and
excluded BIPOC residents, low income people, and laborers.
If we are going to spend taxpayer money on this area, it should be done in a
way that repairs past harms and oppressions, rather than preserves them.
Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024
56
Do you
support
the
proposed
historic
district? Please explain the reason for your selection.
Please share any other concerns, questions or comments you have related to
this proposed designation.
Not sure Is that area really "historic"?
It sounds like Boulder just wants to have a "historic district" like other cities.
Historic districts are usually a focal destination for restaurants, shopping,
walking. As far as I know the specific area on the map, it's a lot of random
generic buildings. If anything, Pearl St fits the bill and we already have that.
Boulder has MANY other things that could use improvement and
development. One thing everybody hates, is a grand expenditure of resources
on something that is not terribly important.
And I think as long as there are homeless encampments along that whole park
area - which seem to be growing - it will never be a vibrant destination. Fact.
I think the band shell should be demolished (it's small, dirty, inadequate, and
how often is it really used?) and a bigger stage area could be established for
outdoor events.
No
This area has so many opportunities for redevelopment
that can anchor a variety of community focused and
cultural mixed uses. Establishing a vital snd creative
mixed use East Bookend will strengthen the urban
downtown. By establishing a historic district it will
prevent so many good things for an equitable downtown.
The bandshell influence along the public front door to
Boulder is an underwhelming civic experience. The stories
and histories of the civic area can be expressed so
creatively without the constraint of a district.
Please do not do this. It was a good intention in the past, but not now.
Especially because the City owns and manages the resources. Our doentown
needs more cultural interest and creative facilities that expand water related
experiences, entertainment, art and robust and diverse markets. But a HD
designation at this point is a constraint.
No Why designate parking lots as historic?
Most of the block between 13th St and 14th St is parking lots, which makes
that block unworthy of designation as a historic district, particularly when the
city can just landmark the existing buildings. Better to prioritize filling in those
unattractive empty spaces with something useful (housing would be nice)
rather than make it harder to develop anything by creating another historic
Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024
57
Do you
support
the
proposed
historic
district? Please explain the reason for your selection.
Please share any other concerns, questions or comments you have related to
this proposed designation.
district. Also, the Atrium building wasn't worthy of being landmarked, doubling
down on that would compound the mistake.
No
This area needs redevelopment and programming, not
further restrictions on use
Please invest in public use--including programming, infrastructure and public
safety--in this area.
No
This area is TRASHED - totally unsafe currently - certainly
no longer "historic"
Pointless to do this until the issues around homelessness and safety are
addressed - otherwise this designation is pointless window dressing and
propaganda.
No Not until it is safe and the
Not sure
Concern for safety of area given drug use and resulting
violent behaviors
I have great concern over lack of acknowledgment that this area is unsafe to
visit and enjoy based on out of control drug use and aggression of people on
meth and similar stimulants that cause aggression. Advertising and promoting
this area will increase the danger to citizens and visitors until this area is
managed and drugs are banned from these sites. If the area was cleaned and
made safe I would support the designation. The history provided in the report
is very beautiful and well done.
No no support until the area is safe on an ongoing basis.
The civic area is disgusting and unsafe. All this beautiful accumulation of
history yet, for the past few years, it has turned into a sh*thole with the City's
blessing. The intersection of Broadway & Canyon, through which nearly every
visitor to Boulder passes, is an embarrassment. Do better and stop normalizing
the situation.
Yes
Because hopefully if this happens, the area will be
cleaned up and I can return to walking along the Boulder
Creek in that area, as well as bringing guest and children
to play. The sooner the better
Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024
58
Do you
support
the
proposed
historic
district? Please explain the reason for your selection.
Please share any other concerns, questions or comments you have related to
this proposed designation.
No
Are you spending all this money for the homeless to have
a beautiful place to occupy?
As a citizen of Boulder for over 50 yrs I do resent the intimidation I feel when I
want to enjoy our lovely river walks. I am not referring to those who are
unfortunate in losing their homes, I am referring to those who live that life by
choice. They delight in getting as much as they can from society for free, as
you well know. They regularly harrass the Boulder High students coming to
and from school on their bikes, as you also well know.
Untill you figure out a way to create these wonderful spaces for us the citizens
to enjoy, why spend all that tax money?
No
This area is currently an embarrassment to the city,
designating as Historic will only elevate the hypocrisy in
how this area is being managed
This area is a complete embarrassment, one of many black eyes on the city of
Boulder. Central Park is home to open drug use, open defecation, regular drug
overdoses, a multitude of encampments, harassments, physical altercation,
etc. etc. Designating as "Historic" may lead residents and visitors coming to the
area under the presumption there is some significance/beauty to the area,
cultural relevance, or just an enjoyable site with something to be gained
(historical perspective). Visiting the area will not fulfill any of these things
interests and will likely lead to visitors leaving the area with a less than stellar
view of Boulder. Until the city takes a proactive approach to cleaning and
maintaining any of the public spaces I am not in support of any of the efforts of
this city to designate or elevate our public spaces to anything other than what
they are, unsafe and unsanitary areas much of the public chooses to avoid.
Not sure
I no longer feel safe in most of our public spaces and have
stop enjoying our public spaces. I used to love taking my
kids to Pearl Street, but we have been harassed by drug
addicts (been yelled at) and the public bathrooms are not
accessible (as meth users use these public spaces). We
also wtiness someone defecating on Spruce Street. A civic
area would not be enjoyed by most given that our public
safety is precarious!
The City's efforts need to prioritize public safety so that ALL can enjoy our
public areas. I don't see how a civic area wouldn't just be plagued with drug
addicts and unhoused citizens.
Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024
59
Do you
support
the
proposed
historic
district? Please explain the reason for your selection.
Please share any other concerns, questions or comments you have related to
this proposed designation.
No
Get your priorities straight. This town is pathetic
nowadays.
How can this even be a consideration with the rampant meth, fentanyl, and
violent crime that has plagued this area (and entire town). Needles all over the
place. Feces in the river that's covered in trash. You guys really think meth
addicts need affordable housing? Addicts need treatment, not housing.
Addiction is the root of all of the problems here, and in 15 years of living here
I'm repulsed by it nowadays. As a business owner I pay an ungodly amount of
taxes and I can't even comfortably take my son to the majority of places
downtown. People using meth in public bathrooms. Pathetic. The law only
applies to taxpayers. Park your car and your parking goes 3 minutes over, you
have a ticket within seconds. Meanwhile right around the corner a meth head
is committing grand larceny and BPD just shrugs it off - back to harassing
skateboarders and taxpayers. Your priorities are so far from reality. Everyone
in Boulder is so fed up with this crap.
Not sure
Will the designation insure that regular citizens can use it
safely?? And the city will stop prioritizing the use of the
are to the meth / fent head zombies that terrorize the
passerbys?
This area has been in rapid decline the last couple of years- open drug use, sex,
violence, trashing of the land and structures. I don't go down there any more
due to the lack of safety. Are you going to clean it up? have security guards?
eliminate drug use? eliminate camping? pick up needles? feces? it is absolutely
disgusting what has happened the this city in the last 30 plus years.
Not sure
Only if the area is first returned to a safe, clean and actual
civic place. No desire to preserve the lawless, degraded
and dangerous place this area has become.
Total disconnect between lack of care and lack of law enforcement in
downtown civic areas and this effort to create historical designation of an area
the City has allowed to become trashed and dangerous. It does not make
sense that resources are being expended for this type of designation without
first fixing it. Is this an intentional effort to obfuscate and detract from working
on fixing the problem?
Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024
60
Do you
support
the
proposed
historic
district? Please explain the reason for your selection.
Please share any other concerns, questions or comments you have related to
this proposed designation.
Yes
to preserve the beauty of our civic center, and prevent
the area from being turned into dense concrete
apartment, blocks, or a larger, drug-filled homeless
encampment
Concerns: open air meth and fentanyl use. Encampments. Propane tank fires.
Stabbings and shootings. Clean up this area. It's a disgrace.
The current council majority that opposes the police and cleanup resources
required to keep this area safe are turning Boulder into a dump.
Thank you to these organizations and the landmark committee for seeing the
civic center as something that should be protected.
No
The designation totally ignores the current situation in
this area: that citizens actively avoid the area due to
crime and harassment by transients.
I and my neighbors with whom I have spoken are deeply offended by this. The
city spends my time and money on this designation, but not on the unsafe
conditions there??? I am outraged by your tone deafness.
This tells me my city staff are more effective with the past than the present. I
am so sorry to see the decline in our city staff and elected officials mirroring
the decline in our public spaces. I am now motivated -- after many years of
support -- to work for an entirely new roster of all of you.
You are supposed to LEAD.
Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024
61
Do you
support
the
proposed
historic
district? Please explain the reason for your selection.
Please share any other concerns, questions or comments you have related to
this proposed designation.
Not sure
I oppose the idea if the inclusion of certain buildings
within the proposed the historic district will prevent the
possibility of replacing or re-imagining some of the
buildings withing that district.
It is clear to me that there are two problematic buildings within the district
boundary:
1. The current functions of the Pennfield Tate building should be moved to the
Western City Campus on Broadway, as that campus is built. Doing so will allow
the Pennfield Tate location to be re-imagined or re-built into a facility that can
serve various new public functions - including the function as a central hub for
festivals held within the district boundary.
2. The current functions of the Atrium building should also be moved to the
new Western City Campus on Broadway, as that campus is built. This would
allow the Atrium location to be re-imagined or re-built as a year-round
indoor/outdoor Boulder Farmers Market facility. Imagine a facility at the
Atrium location with large opening overhead doors - open during the warmer
months - and closed in the colder months - enabling a year-round Farmer's
Market. Look to the success of the Santa Fe, NM Farmer's Market as a great
example of such a facility.
No
The area doesn't feel special anymore due to safety
concerns.
Would designation make it much more difficult and expensive for tax payers
anytime a project occurs within the "landmark"?
Will the "landmark" receive the extra help it already needs in terms of
encampments and feeling safe?
Once it becomes a "landmark", are there elements that would be restored to
represent or educate visitors on the history of the area (not just a few signs)?
How will the "landmark" designation work with the next phase of the
implementation of the Parks department vision for the area? What has
recently been implemented seems to conflict with "landmark" implementation
as well as other department visions for the future.
Attachment B – Public Input Received between October 16, 2023 and January 11, 2024
62
TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
FROM: Alison Rhodes, Director of Parks and Recreation
Scott Schuttenberg, Deputy Director
Bryan Beary, Senior Manager, Community Building and Partnerships
Mark Davison, Senior Manager, Planning
Regina Elsner, Senior Manager, Natural Resources
Jackson Hite, Senior Manager, Business Services
Megann Lohman, Senior Manager, Recreation
Stephanie Munro, Senior Manager, Regional Facilities
Dennis Warrington, Senior Manager, Urban Parks
SUBJECT: Matters from the Department
DATE: January 22, 2024
A.Court System Plan
The intent of this item is to update PRAB on the Court System Plan being developed for the
city’s tennis and pickleball courts. This includes development of recommended Level of Service
(LOS) for tennis and pickleball, analysis of sites where potential courts may be located if
additional funding is identified, and updating Capital Improvement Plans (CIP) planned actions
for 2024 and beyond.
Background
The Court System Plan analyses the growing demand for both pickleball and tennis in the
community and the city’s contributing role in providing courts for both sports. In addition, the
plan evaluates the changing court supply – including the closure of a private tennis facility at the
Millenium site and pending development of CU South - impacts to the Boulder racket playing
community. The Court System Plan will provide recommendations utilizing a three-pronged
approach that blends input from the community, data, and policy guidance.
Previous PRAB touchpoints include the following:
•May 2023 PRAB meeting (starts on pg. 17)
•July 2023 PRAB meeting (starts on pg. 12)
•September 2023 PRAB meeting (starts on pg. 7)
•October 2023 PRAB meeting (starts on pg. 14)
•November 2023 PRAB meeting (starts on pg. 229)
Process and Timeline
The graphic below details the project timeline, the deliverables and community engagement
process.
63
Figure 1: Timeline of Tennis and Pickleball Court System Plan
Best Practices and Market Study
Initial research on best practices provides recommendations for specifications, maintenance, and
operations.
•As staff previously identified, use of post-tension concrete for the foundation is
recommended to increase lifecycle, reduce maintenance costs, and create greater
playability for courts over the current asphalt slip sheets.
•Dedicated courts, those with lines and nets for only one sport or the other, are
recommended for both tennis and pickleball to best accommodate each sport. To a lesser
degree, multi-sport courts can also be accommodated based on the fiscal reality faced by
the department and the ability to accommodate the widest use.
•Parks and recreation agencies recommend establishing a Level of Service (LOS) to guide
what resources are needed for parks and recreation facilities and activities to meet
community needs.
Peer Agency Comparison
BPR uses cities of similar size and situation to benchmark different recreation activities and
amenities. The seven agencies compared here are: Ann Arbor, MI; Asheville, NC; Bend, OR;
Berkeley, CA; Bloomington, IN; Naperville Parks and Recreation District, IL; Tempe, AZ.
Based on BPR’s seven peer cities, the average population served by a single tennis court is 5,275
people. The average population served by a single dedicated pickleball court is 11,383 people.
Regional Cities Comparison
BPR uses six cities in the front range to benchmark different recreation activities and amenities.
The six agencies compared here are: Broomfield; Foothills Park and Recreation District; Fort
Collins; Longmont; South Suburban Park and Recreation District; Westminster.
Based on six Colorado comparison cities, the average population served by a single tennis court
is 9,235. South Suburban Park and Recreation District is an outlier, with each tennis court
64
serving 25,542 people. When South Suburban is removed, the average is 5,973 people served by
each tennis court.
While the six Colorado municipalities considered vary, the average population served by a single
dedicated pickleball court in these communities is 15,011.
Table 1: Agency Comparisons for Dedicated Outdoor Tennis and Pickleball Courts
Agency Population Outdoor Dedicated
Pickleball Courts
Outdoor
Dedicated Tennis
Courts
1 court per X
population
1 court per X
population
Boulder, CO (City Courts Only) 108,663 NA 5,400
COLORADO AGENCIES
Broomfield, CO 76,976 25,659 6,415
Foothills Park and Recreation District, CO 93,000 9,300 5,813
Ft. Collins, CO 167,554 21,250 6,800
Longmont, CO 101,561 12,300 4,300
South Suburban Park and Recreation
District, CO 157,261 7,663 25,542
Westminster, CO 111,153 13,894 6,538
COLORADO AVERAGE 15,011 9,235
OTHER PEER AGENCIES
Ann Arbor, MI 119,570 10,870 3,986
Asheville, NC 97,949 12,244 4,664
Bend, OR 107,305 6,312 13,413
Berkeley, CA 112,643 22,529 3,313
Bloomington, IN 80,332 8,033 3,651
Naperville, Illinois Park and Recreation
District 149,540 8,308 4,154
Tempe, AZ 190,889 NA 3,743
OTHER PEER AGENCY AVERAGE 11,383 5,275
Level of Service (LOS)
The LOS describes the minimum desired number of an amenity or facility that a department
wants to provide based on population served. Using LOS can also help agencies prioritize needs
between different recreation activities and identify gaps in service.
Some recreation organizations provide recommended LOS. While the United States Tennis
Association (USTA) and USA Pickleball do not provide a targeted LOS, in communication with
both organizations, they did provide support for the LOS BPR developed in working with the
consultant on this project.
65
As with many other recreation services, the city is not the sole provider for the community. The
city focuses resources on providing services that provide the most community benefit. In the case
of tennis and pickleball courts, this may translate to courts that are free or low-cost to use, open
to the public. While the Court System Plan will explore opportunities for an indoor court facility,
outdoor dedicated courts are the focus of this LOS for tennis and pickleball in Boulder. The LOS
also accounts for the community access others provide in Boulder.
Other data and standards considered in the development of LOS includes:
•Demographic projections.
•2022 Boulder Parks and Recreation Master Plan (Equity and ReinvestmentPrioritization).•2022 United States Tennis Association City of Boulder Assessment.•2023 Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA) Pickleball Report.•2023 Tennis Industry Association Annual Report.•2023 Pickleheads City of Boulder Court Report.
•Community and stakeholder input
•Current and planned tennis and pickleball court capital improvements.•USA Pickleball/Pickleheads Recommendations for Boulder –•USTA Recommendations for Boulder•USTA – Statement of Guidance for Tennis Court Development•BPR Community Access Rating
Based on the above sources, 7-8% of the United States population plays tennis and 3-5% plays
pickleball. This amounts to approximately 2.7 tennis players for every 1 pickleball player.
An estimated 10-11% of Boulder’s population currently plays tennis with 5-6% playing
pickleball. This means that the percentage of population that plays these sports is higher in
Boulder than the national average. This is consistent with many other recreational activities in
Boulder. The ratio of tennis players to pickleball players in Boulder is closer to 2:1. As shared in
the November PRAB memo, growth trends for each sport indicate that the number of players for
each sport may continue to rise in the next several years.
Following the completion of courts at East Boulder Community Park in 1991, BPR’s supply of
tennis courts remained stable for several decades as the population of Boulder and number of
tennis players grew. Multi-striping of courts began in 2016 as a response to the emergence of
pickleball. This creation of multi-use courts provided interim space for this new growing sport
quickly and at a low cost.
Creating multi-use courts did reduce the LOS for dedicated tennis courts. Before the multi-use
courts, BPR was providing 1 dedicated tennis court per 2,349 people in 2015. With the creation
of multi-use courts and the growth of tennis, the LOS for BPR courts is 1 court for every 5,200
people. BPR only provides a portion of the community accessible tennis courts in Boulder. When
accounting for these additional courts with community access, the overall LOS in Boulder is 1
tennis court for every 3,176 people in 2024.
BPR is aware of the upcoming closure of private tennis courts at Rocky Mountain Tennis Center
and CU South that will further reduce the number of courts and community access to tennis
courts. While BPR’s role is not to replace private industry, staff recognizes that these closures
will likely increase demand for BPR tennis courts. The amount of community access lost is
anticipated to further reduce the LOS in Boulder to 1 court per 3,406 people in 2025.
The target LOS for the city factors in other providers of community accessible tennis and
pickleball and looks to define BPR’s contribution to this overall LOS. The LOS aims to, at a
minimum, restore LOS for dedicated tennis to before courts were multi-striped and then adjust 66
for growth of the sport and population. Pickleball LOS is based on this tennis target and then
adjusted for the relative number of players and growth as well.
Target LOS
Using the above methodology, the LOS for BPR in providing courts for tennis and pickleball is
described as such:
•The target LOS for the city for dedicated outdoor tennis courts is 1 court per 1,750
people. To achieve this LOS, BPR’s contribution goal would be to add 22 tennis
courts by 2039.
•The target LOS for dedicated outdoor pickleball courts in Boulder is 1 court per 3,500
people. To achieve this LOS, BPR’s contribution goal would be to add 22 pickleball
courts by 2039.
To reach the goal of 44 additional outdoor dedicated courts by 2039, BPR would need to identify
additional funding outside of the current six-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP). There is
funding within the current CIP to partially fund new dedicated courts for both Tennis and
Pickleball. As part of this plan, BPR will also investigate indoor tennis, which would also require
additional funding and/or partnerships to achieve.
In developing new and dedicated courts over the next six years, BPR recognizes the need to retain the current multi-use courts. BPR recognizes the community benefit provided by these courts which allows locals and casual players to play either sport at one location. The number and placement of multi-use courts will be evaluated as new dedicated courts are added to the system.
Youth, Equity and Accessibility
In 2024, BPR is starting a Universal Accessibility Plan. BPR facilities follow the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) with a focus on going beyond these laws to create universal access and
an equitable playing experience for all. Additional focus will be placed on serving people
experiencing disabilities such as additional gate width at court entrance to allow tennis
wheelchairs that may be wider than other wheelchair types to enter. In addition, as courts are
developed, BPR will follow best practices in serving youth, including painting of lines for Junior
tennis on courts.
BPR will also consider equity when delivering on this LOS. Below is an example of mapping
that combines the 1,750 people served by each court with priority areas for parks and recreation
investments shaded in darker blue.
67
Figure 2: Dedicated Outdoor Tennis Court LOS Equity Mapping
Site Analysis: Potential Additional Outdoor Dedicated Courts
As discussed in the 2022 BPR department plan, action and vision level plan alternatives for
courts include potential for additional facilities if additional funds can be identified. Following
the LOS, BPR will look to add 22 new dedicated tennis courts and 22 new dedicated pickleball
courts by 2039. Adding this quantity of courts will require development of courts at multiple
sites. To plan for these potential new additions, staff chose six park sites to analyze the
opportunity for new courts.
The six chosen sites are:
•East Boulder Community Park (East)
•Valmont City Park (Valmont)
•Tom Watson Park (Tom Watson)
•Gerald Stazio Fields (Stazio)
•Foothills Community Park (Foothills)
•South Boulder Recreation Center (South)
68
These parks were chosen from all BPR properties because they are community parks, city parks,
or recreational facilities with potential space for 4 or more additional courts after analysis of
topography, floodplain, access, and noise limitations. These six sites were then evaluated based
on: •Property ownership•Adequate space•Proximity to residential properties•Utilities•Topography•Environmental Impact•Parking and Multi-modal Access•Current and Planned Uses•Equity•Existing Amenities
Of the six sites studied, South Boulder Recreation Center site was found to have too many
limitations, including current competing uses and environmental factors in a constrained
footprint. The site also has acoustic concerns as emerging best practices recommend pickleball
courts be at least 500 feet from residences without significant mitigation measures. While the
recreation center blocks some of the pickleball noise, much of the surrounding park is within 500
feet of residential areas. The site evaluation based on the above criteria showed that this site is
not a good candidate for locating four or more additional courts. The multi-use courts currently
on site will continue to be maintained in 2024.
The other five sites will receive concept plans as part of this Court System Plan.
Planned Actions and Funding
Immediate Actions
In 2024, staff will continue with replacement of courts at Arapahoe Ridge and Columbine with
post-tension concrete. The court renovations at these two parks increases the playability of these
two sites where poor conditions currently hinder play.
BPR staff, working with the consultants, also recommend that no changes are made to the
distribution of courts in 2024. Any change to the current distribution would only increase the
level of service for one sport and reduce the number of courts available to the other sport.
Additionally, maintaining the current distribution allows staff to focus on planning for
construction of new additional courts that will increase the overall LOS in 2025.
BPR Capital Investment Program (CIP) Actions
BPR has identified a series of actions in the current six-year CIP to fulfill policy direction to
“take care of what we have” in terms of existing courts, and through the park renovation
program, identified sites where new dedicated pickleball and tennis courts can be added. As park
renovations require thoughtful planning, including community engagement, to get to
construction documents, the quantity and location of courts will be determined though the
planning process. Staff are able to identify the total amount BPR could add, and as staff work
through the planning and design process, BPR will engage with the community on the right
balance to support recreation needs at each park.
69
2024-2030 Six-Year CIP
Note: only 2024 funding is approved by Council, years 2025 to 2030 are projected workplan for BPR
Year Funding CIP Type Action Location
2024 $400,000 Asset Maintenance Post-tension concrete court conversion of
existing courts
Arapahoe
Ridge and
Columbine
2024 Planning & Design Plan and Design up to 8 dedicated tennis
courts and 16 dedicated pickleball courts
East Boulder
Community
Park
2025 $400,000 Asset Maintenance Post-tension concrete court conversion of
existing courts
TBD
2025 Approx. range
of $1,750,000
to $2,250,000
million*
Construction Build up to 8 dedicated tennis courts and 16
dedicated pickleball courts. *Note: the cost
estimating is at an order of Magnitude stage
and is only a guide. Class C estimates will
be developed to identify budget for project
at a later stage.
East Boulder
Community
Park
2026 $400,000 Asset Maintenance Post-tension concrete court conversion of
existing courts
TBD
2027 $400,000 Asset Maintenance Post-tension concrete court conversion of
existing courts
TBD
2027 Planning & Design Plan and Design up to 12 dedicated tennis
courts
Valmont South
2028 $400,000 Asset Maintenance Post-tension concrete court conversion of
existing courts
TBD
2028 Approx. range
of $1,000,000
to $1,500,000
million**
Construction Plan and Design up to 12 dedicated tennis
courts. **Note: the cost estimating is at an
order of Magnitude stage and is only a
guide. Class C estimates will be developed
to identify budget for project at a later
stage.
Valmont South
2029 $400,000 Asset Maintenance Post-tension concrete court conversion of
existing courts
TBD
2029 Planning & Design Build up to 8 dedicated tennis courts and 4
dedicated pickleball courts
Tom Watson
2030 $400,000 Asset Maintenance Post-tension concrete court conversion of
existing courts
TBD
2030 Approx. range
of
$1,250,00,000
to $1,700,000
million***
Construction Build up to 8 dedicated tennis courts and 4
dedicated pickleball courts. ***Note: the
cost estimating is at an order of Magnitude
stage and is only a guide. Class C estimates
will be developed to identify budget for
project at a later stage.
Tom Watson
T2031-2039 CIP
2031-
2029
TBD Planning & Design Consider addition tennis and pickleball
courts as needed at identified park locations
in system plan
Stazio and
Foothills
Long-term Actions
Potential Indoor Courts Facility: BPRs 2024-2025 workplan will include the exploration of an
indoor facility for recreation activities including but not limited to aquatics, courts, and other
aspects of fitness and wellness in the community.
To develop a future indoor recreation facility there are three key steps ahead: 70
1.Understanding what the community wants: When BPR looks at the incredible
investment in a new facility, staff need to explore the needs of the whole community such
as but not limited to youth, older adults, people with disabilities, and those with low
income. A key priority is to ensure that the outcome provides welcoming space that
benefits the whole community.
Previous planning has identified Valmont City Park as a location for a future indoor
recreation center that could meet needs where current supply isn’t adequate – such as for
swimming and indoor sports. The 2015 Aquatics Feasibility Plan community engagement
identified a desire for additional swimming capacity, a competition facility, and other
amenities – the intent of upcoming engagement would be to more specifically confirm
needs given changes in supply and trends since then. Upcoming engagement will also
help BPR prioritize other activities for the current facilities and a potential new facility –
such as indoor tennis or pickleball.
2.What would it cost to build and then operate a new facility? Building on the
community engagement, research, and guidance for leadership, staff will develop
rigorous costing. City policy requires that before building anything new, BPR carefully
considers the costs of capital construction and the annual ongoing operating and
maintenance costs. BPR must also consider the impacts on city sustainability, equity, and
resilience goals.
Developing a robust and clear understanding of what the community prioritizes in a new
facility and what it would cost will enable us exploring the third question with city
leadership and community:
3.Is the community interested in paying for a new facility? This will be a policy
conversation with city leadership when the planning work can support careful decision-
making.
This is a 50-year decision, and to support the policy conversation well requires major planning
work. Coming out of the Courts system plan staff will use the baseline information gathered to
inform planning for a new indoor facility beginning in 2025.
Next Steps
Staff will share the five concept plans for East Boulder Community Park, Valmont South, Tom
Watson, Foothills, and Stazio through Engagement Window 2 from March 4 - March 15. Three
of the parks, East Boulder Community Park, Valmont South, Tom Watson, are in the current six-
year CIP and a wider community engagement for each of these parks will occur to support the
park planning and design process at each site. The Engagement Window 2 will include a public
meeting and sharing online. Staff will share the concept plans at the March PRAB meeting.
PRAB will review a final document of the plan in May 2024 along with responses from
engagement window 3. This plan will provide technical information that is not subject to
community review, however, it will also outline priorities and investment strategies that will be
considered in budget development and identifying alternate funding. The PRAB's role is to 71
provide input on the investment strategies at the request of the department. Approvals for
individual projects will be part of future budgets.
B.Central Park Cultural Landscape Assessment
The Cultural Landscape Assessment (CLA) has been finalized, and MIG, a nationally recognized
historic preservation consultant reviewed and informed the methodology, content and
determinations regarding historic significance and integrity of Central Park. The diagram below
outlines in green the area of the park where the CLA findings identified historic significance and
integrity for the 1937-1973: Huntington/DeBoer historic period for the Central Park study area
(the blue line denotes the study aera). Findings from the CLA for the 1923-1936: Olmsted Jr
historic period identified historic significance, however that there was no historic integrity. A
property must be determined historically significant and retain sufficient historic integrity to be
listed.
Figure 1. Study Area of Cultural Landscape Assessment
(blue boundary) and final recommendations for the CLA boundary
in the historic district (green boundary).
BACKGROUND:
Following Council’s direction at the June 14, 2022 meeting (item 4B, page 70), Historic
Preservation and Parks and Recreation staff jointly established an approach to evaluate a Historic
District in the Civic Area that includes developing a Cultural Landscape Assessment (CLA),
which will be integrated into the Civic Area Phase 2 process and timeline, and inform the next
phase of park design for the Civic Area. See City Council 05.18.2023 information packet item
(link). Upon receiving an application for a potential Historic District, staff also confirmed that
the CLA would be a consideration in evaluating boundaries for the proposed district.
The CLA documents the history of the area, inventory the existing landscape contributing and
noncontributing features and evaluate the area’s historic significance integrity with findings 72
informing the historic boundary for the park. In historic preservation world, some terms are
helpful to understand:
Significance: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology,
engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that
possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association,
and:
A.That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
B.That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C.That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction,
or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction; or
D.That has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Integrity: Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance.
Contributing Resource: Contributing resource means a building, site or structure that adds to the
historic significance of a historic property or historic district.
Non-contributing features: A non-contributing structure is one that was not built during the
period of significance for the district (generally less than 50 years ago), or, if built during the
period of significance, has modifications that compromise the feature's ability to convey its
historic appearance.
ANALYSIS:
This process and products for the CLA is described below in terms of the final products that are
in the report:
•Evaluation of the site history in chronological order with identification of historic
periods,
•Existing conditions inventory with identification of contributing and non-contributing
features tied associated with the historic potential and identified periods of significance,
•Evaluation of landscape character and features of the entirety of Central Park,
•Evaluation of historic periods for significance according to National Register criteria A,
B, C, and D,
•Evaluation of integrity covering landscape characteristics and seven aspects of integrity
according to the Secretary of the Interior Standards,
•Findings for significance, and
•Findings for integrity covering landscape characteristics and seven aspects of integrity
according to the Secretary of the Interior Standards.
To ensure BPR followed best historic preservation practices for the report, a nationally
recognized consultant, MIG with expertise in historic preservation practice and cultural
landscape assessments, was contracted to work with city staff on the methodology, content, and
findings for the CLA. The CLA is the first of its kind for BPR, however, as affirmed by MIG, it
follows Secretary of Interior defined practices and standards.
The study area for the Central Park (boundary in blue in the above diagram) covers an area of
approximately 4 acres and encompasses the current Glen Huntington Bandshell landmark
boundary (boundary in yellow within the blue boundary in the below diagram). The park is 73
bounded by Canyon Blvd. to the north, 13th Street to the east, Arapahoe Ave. to the south, and
Broadway to the west.
The chronological site history for the CLA provides an overview of the timeline of the major
events that had an impact on the design and development of Central Park area. Four eras of
physical development were identified and include the acquisition of the park, its initial
development, and major redesigns or alterations. The major historical periods the CLA outlines
in its research are:
• 1903-1922: Acquiring the Land for Central Park
• 1923-1936: Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park
• 1937-1973: Huntington/DeBoer Design for Bandshell and Seating
• 1970-2023: Modern Updates
Conclusion and Recommendations
1923-1936: Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park: Central Park has potential significance under
National Register criteria A and C for its early role in the development of the park system in
Boulder and as the work of master landscape architect Olmsted Jr in 1923-1924. due to loss of
the landscape features from this period, major alterations and improvements that have taken
place in Central Park since the Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park Historic Period, it no longer
retains integrity to convey this era of significance. While local criteria are different, including the
whole park in a Historic District is not supported by the CLA. The CLA also finds the Olmsted
Jr. historic period is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places for these
associations. A property must be determined historically significant and retain sufficient historic
integrity to be listed.
1937-1973: Huntington/DeBoer Design for Bandshell and Seating: The northern third of Central
Park containing the Huntington/DeBoer Band Shell and associated seating are significant under
criteria A and C and retain historic integrity, with a few of the seven aspects of integrity
diminished. The current boundary for this historic period of significance with integrity is the
green line described in Figure 1 above. The research in this report has indicated that, in addition
to the Bandshell and seating, there are two diagonal paths and the screening trees behind the
Band Shell that also date to this historic period, and should be managed as contributing features
in the landscape. The period of significance, as described in the site history in Part 1 and outlined
in further detail in the previous documentation mentioned above, is 1937-1950. The CLA found
that the southern two thirds of the park do not retain historic integrity.
Next steps
The final CLA:
• Can inform the historic integrity of Central Park in respect of the contributing and
noncontributing features identified in the existing conditions analysis;
• Establishes a practice for evaluation of designed cultural landscapes in Boulder;
• Provides a valuable tool to inform the design of Central Park in the context of the Civic
Area Phase 2 project;
• A guiding principle of the 2015 plan for the park is “Celebration of History & Assets”
and the park design will preserve, reflect, and celebrate the area’s fully inclusive history
(e.g. indigenous populations, mining, the railroad, Olmsted’s linear park and landmarked
structures). The information and research in the CLA will help inform the story of this
site,
74
Attachment A Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
C.BPR 2024 Action Plan (verbal presentation)
75
BOULDER CENTRAL PARK
CULTURAL LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT
January 12, 2024
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
76
2
CONTENTS
Part 1 Introduction and Historical Chronology ......................................................................... 4
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4
1.1.1 Purpose and Goals ............................................................................................................. 4
1.1.2 Existing Historic Status ...................................................................................................... 4
1.1.3 The City of Boulder Historic District for Band Shell Designation ........................................ 4
1.1.4 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 5
1.1.5 Summary of Conclusions ................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Description of Study Boundaries ............................................................................................. 6
1.3 Site History .............................................................................................................................. 7
1.3.1 1903‐1922: Acquiring the Land for Central Park ............................................................... 7
1.3.2 1923‐1936: Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park .............................................................. 13
1.3.3 1937‐1969: Huntington and DeBoer Designs for Band Shell and Seating ........................ 21
1.3.4 1970 – 1924: Modern Updates ........................................................................................ 24
1.3.5 Description of Existing Conditions ................................................................................... 27
Part 2: Analysis of Significance and Integrity & Evaluation of Landscape Features ................. 30
2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 30
2.1.2 Study Area Boundary ....................................................................................................... 30
2.2 Analysis of Significance and Integrity .................................................................................... 31
2.2.1 Evaluation of Significance ................................................................................................ 31
2.2.2 Evaluation and Analysis of Contributing Features ........................................................... 33
2.2.4 Analysis of Integrity ......................................................................................................... 48
2.3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 54
3.1 References ....................................................................................................................... 55
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
77
3
This report recognizes some documented views, ideas, language and actions caused harm to
different populations found within and around the area of Boulder Central Park at the time and
still perpetuate harm today. This report would like to acknowledge this sensitive information and
does not condone these past ideas and actions but documents these historical events. It is not
the intention of this report to perpetuate this harm but to shed light on these events and not
preclude these happenings from historical record.
The City of Boulder acknowledges the city is on the ancestral homelands and unceded territory of
Indigenous Peoples who have traversed, lived in and stewarded lands in the Boulder Valley since
time immemorial. Those Indigenous Nations include the: Di De’I (Apache), Hinono’eiteen
(Arapaho), Tsétsėhéstȧhese (Cheyenne), Nʉmʉnʉʉ (Comanche), Caiugu (Kiowa), Čariks i Čariks
(Pawnee), Sosonih (Shoshone), Oc'eti S'akowin (Sioux) and Núuchiu (Ute).
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
78
4
PART 1 INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Project Overview: This Cultural Landscape Assessment (CLA) has been conducted by the Boulder
Parks and Recreation department to make a determination as to whether any historic periods
for Central Park have historic significance and integrity. The two main questions to be addressed
in this report are:
1)What Central Park historic periods are significant, following guidelines of the U.S.
Department of the Interior’s Cultural Landscapes Program?
2)Does Central Park have integrity from a historic period(s) following guidelines of
the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Cultural Landscapes Program?
This (report/project/landscape assessment) has been divided into two distinct sections:
Part 1 – Introduction, a description of the project boundary, and a detailed site history
Part 2 – Analysis and Evaluation
1.1.1 Purpose and Goals
The findings of this report will be integrated into Reimagining Civic Area East, Phase 2, and the
historic significance documentation and integrity analysis will help inform this next phase of park
design.
1.1.2 Existing Historic Status
Currently the northern portion of the park (see diagrams below) has been previously reviewed
and the Band Shell and seating area were found to have historic significance and designated as a
City of Boulder Historic landmark in 1995. The south portion of the park has not been previously
evaluated for historic significance.
The CLA will review the whole of Central Park through the cultural landscape assessment
including the existing City of Boulder historic district area.
1.1.3 The City of Boulder Historic District for Band Shell Designation
The 1995 landmark designation, the 1995 Historical Study and the 2016 Determination of
Eligibility from the Keeper of the National Register determined that the Glen Huntington Band
Shell and its setting have significance:
Designation Boundary Description: Central Park (Southeast Corner of Broadway and Canyon
Boulevard) North 170 feet of Block 13, Original Townsite to the City of Boulder.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
79
5
The Modern Architecture Preservation
League (MAPL) proposed the landmark
boundary for the designation of Glen
Huntington Band Shell in May 1995. In July
1995, the City of Boulder Landmarks Board
amended the boundary to the 300'x170' site
south of Canyon Boulevard. This boundary
included the Band Shell and amphitheater
seating along with a portion of the park
associated with Saco Rienk DeBoer's design
circa 1947. In October 1995, the amended
boundary was approved by City Council, and
the Band Shell was designated as a Boulder
Individual Landmark by Ordinance 5751.7.
The designation boundary includes the Band
Shell, the open space between the stage and
the seating, the amphitheater seating, two
concrete paved sidewalks leading to the Band Shell, and the berm and retaining wall south of
the stage.
The above figure shows the designation boundary for Glen Huntington Band Shell including adjustment by the
Landmark’s Board, 1995. (source: Landmark Designation Submittal); Edited for clarity by Mundus Bishop, 2021.
1.1.4 Methodology
City staff carried out research for this report from April to September of 2023. As part of its
research, City staff reviewed files, images, and reports from Carnegie Library, the Denver Public
Library, the National Archives, and the Library of Congress. Staff also reviewed existing research
on Central Park and consulted with experts familiar with the park’s history and changes through
time.
This report builds off objective evaluations made by cultural resource specialists, outside
consultants, and city planners. The Boulder Central Park Cultural Landscape Assessment has
been prepared by BPR staff and reviewed by a professional consultant in the field of cultural
landscape as well as other City staff.
1.1.5 Summary of Conclusions
Central Park has potential significance under National Register criteria B and C for its early role in
the development of the park system in Boulder and as the work of master landscape architect
Frederick Law Olmsted Jr in 1923‐1924. However, due to major alterations and improvements
that have taken place in Central Park since Historic Period 2, it no longer retains meaningful
integrity to convey this era of significance. The northern portion of Central Park containing the
Huntington/DeBoer Band Shell and associated seating are significant under criteria A and C and
retain historic integrity. The current boundary for these features and full description of
significance is described in the above sections under Part 2. The research in this report has
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
80
6
indicated that, in addition to the Band Shell and seating, there are two paths and the screening
trees behind the Band Shell that also date to Historic Period 3 and should be managed as
contributing features in the landscape.
1.2 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY BOUNDARIES
This assessment covers the entirety of Central Park, an area of approximately 4 acres that
encompasses the current Band Shell landmark boundary. The park is bounded by Canyon Blvd.
to the north, 13th Street to the east, Arapahoe Ave. to the south, and Broadway to the west.
Below is the diagram outlining the boundary of the study area in blue for Central Park. The
yellow areas identify existing historically‐designated structures and landscapes under the
Boulder Revised Code for Historic Preservation.
Study Boundary Map
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
81
7
1.3 SITE HISTORY
The site history provides a timeline of the major events that had an impact on the design and
development of Central Park. Four eras of physical development were identified that cover the
acquisition of the park, its initial development, and periods of major redesigns and alterations.
1903‐1922: Acquiring the Land for Central Park
1923‐1936: Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park
1937‐1969: Huntington Design for Band Shell and Seating
1970‐1924: Modern Updates
1.3.1 1903‐1922: Acquiring the Land for Central Park
Period Summary: This historic period covers early plans for city improvement with a stream‐side
park, as well as the city’s acquisition of land for the area covering the future Central Park:
February 1903: The Boulder City Improvement Association (BCIA) formed.
1907: BCIA sought advice from Frederick Law Olmsted Jr.
1910: Olmsted Jr. produced the “The Improvement of Boulder, Colorado” report.
1912 Olmsted Jr. produced an addendum to the 1910 report.
1916: Olmsted Jr. produced a “Planting Plan” covering Central Park area that was not
implemented by the city.
1918: The first city commission for parks and planning was formed.
1921: The city acquired land for Central Park.
1903: Establishment of the Boulder City Improvement Association (BCIA)
Starting in February of 1903, Boulder established the Boulder City Improvement Association
(BCIA). The group was formed to promote “the improvement of Boulder in health, growth,
cleanliness, prosperity, and attractiveness” (Boulder, Colorado Improvement Association.
National Park Service, last modified April 20, 1924, https://www.nps.gov/places/boulder‐
colorado‐improvement‐association.htm).
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
82
8
1904 Map of The City of Boulder
Please add an icon or even a rectangle where Central Park is over the historic city plan
“Map of the City of Boulder”. 1904. Carnegie Library. Boulder, CO.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
83
9
1903: Railroad ownership of land known as Railroad Park
The site for the northern area of Central Park was originally owned by the railroads whose tracks
ran along the north edge of the site (present day Canyon Blvd.). Central Park was colloquially
known as Railroad Park (City of Boulder, Greenways Master Plan, 2011, Appendix II, p. 100).
Railroad Park was made up of lots 1‐6 of block 13. Adjacent lots 7‐12 were privately owned by a
family with a business that transferred luggage and contained a house and greenhouses.
1906: City begins acquiring the land
The City of Boulder began acquiring the property from the Colorado and Southern Railway in
1906. The city Parks Board, which was created in 1907, resolved “to make something better of
the dump and trash heap known as ‘Railroad Park’. Further parcels were acquired in 1915 and
1933.
1906 Map of the City of Boulder
Please add an icon or even a rectangle where Central Park is over the historic city plan
“Map of the City of Boulder”. 1906. Carnegie Library, Boulder, CO
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
84
10
1907: Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. hired
In 1907, the BCIA formed the Parks Board and hired Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. to survey Boulder
and provide “advice, and the best obtainable, as to how to improve our city as to Parks,
Boulevards and general plans for Civic betterment.” Olmsted was also asked to explain “what
physical improvements within the reach of the city will help to make it increasingly convenient,
agreeable, and generally satisfactory as a place in which to live and work” (Olmsted Associates.
Olmsted Associates Records: Job Files, ‐1971; Files; 3300; City of Boulder Improvement
Association; Boulder, Colo.; 1907 to 1909. ‐ 1909, 1907. Letter of March 15, 1907.
Manuscript/Mixed Material. https://www.loc.gov/item/mss5257102407/).
1910: Olmsted Jr. report
The report produced by Olmsted Jr. was issued in 1910 and called “The Improvement of Boulder,
Colorado.” The 106‐page report focused primarily on suggestions for streets, waterways, public
open spaces, and preserving the natural scenery. In a section titled “Fundamentals of Park
Design for Boulder,” Olmsted wrote about a “Boulder Creek Park” and said “the plan of keeping
open for public use near the heart of the city a simple piece of pretty bottom‐land of the very
sort that Boulder Creek has been flooding over for countless centuries, of growing a few tough
old trees on it and a few bushes, and of keeping the main part of the ground as a simple, open
common, where the children can play and over which the wonderful views of the foothills can
be obtained at their best from the shaded paths and roads along the embankment edge – this
would give a piece of recreation ground worth a great deal to the people. And, at the same time
it is probably the cheapest way of handling the flood problem at Boulder Creek” (p59, Olmsted,
1910). Olmsted suggested that Boulder Creek could be reimagined as a "pretty, shady spot with
a clean park path running beside the murmuring waters” (p68, Olmsted, 1910).
Olmsted Jr.’s 1910 report made further recommendations for city‐wide improvements including
planting trees to screen for what at the time was deemed a “rather unattractive class of
occupancy” that resided along the creek (p68, Olmsted, 1910). Describing the area just east of
what is now Central Park, Olmsted also wrote that whatever happens with the “little bits of
pastured ground along the creek above the railroad, where gypsies or other campers have been
in the habit of gathering and turning loose their animals to graze” he hoped that “the city will
not be led into the foolish extravagance of trying to make an artificial clipped lawn of these
areas” (p17, Olmsted, 1910).
As a proponent of reinforcing the views to the foothills, Olmsted supported “the careful studying
out of the best views and the limiting of all other tree and shrub growth to locations that will
never interfere with these views but merely afford them pleasing frames” (p17, Olmsted, 1910).
As an advocate for “equitably distributed” public recreation grounds in every neighborhood
(p24, Olmsted 1910), Olmsted wrote that “every home in the city ought to be within about a
quarter of a mile of a good playground and of a spot where older people can take their exercise
or their ease in the open air under pleasant surroundings and in the presence of a fine view of at
least of such breadth of sunlighted open space as is wholly beyond the means of most to attain
on their own property” (p22, Olmsted, 1910).
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
85
11
He also wrote that public recreation grounds should be planned to secure certain elements of
design (such as densely shaded promenades) “generally surrounding and always contiguous to
an open space… which shall be of such size and shape… as to afford permanent views of the
foothills from the promenade and preferably from the open space itself, over a pleasing
foreground” (pp16‐17, Olmsted, 1910).
In his 1910 report, Olmsted identified three specific areas for park development: (1) “the vacant
land on the south side of Boulder Creek just east of the 12th Street lots”; (2) “the vacant meadow
lying between the creek and the Lincoln School”; and (3) "the west half of the block lying
between Nineteenth Street and the line of Twenty‐First Street” (p24, Olmsted, 1910).
The report provides no detailed plans for the area that would become known as Central Park but
does describe enhancements associated to 12th Street [Broadway] and at the banks of Boulder
Creek. Regarding the area around what is now Central Park, Olmsted suggested that “beginning
at the Twelfth Street bridge where the land values are high, we advise limiting the control of the
banks to a very narrow strip on each side, enough only to provide an adequate channel for the
stream, with substantial walls to protect its banks in place of the present wooden bulkheads
whenever their reconstruction is justified, with an ample foot‐path shaded by a single row of
trees along the north embankment and with some planting along the Twelfth Street lots on the
south embankment. After getting beyond [downstream, east of] Twelfth Street lots the breadth
of the embankment could be increased at small expense, giving more room for trees and for
benches, etc.” (p17, Olmsted Jr., Frederick Law, "The Improvement of Boulder, Colorado",
Boulder City Improvement Association, 1910).
1912: Olmsted Jr. report addendum
Olmsted produced a report on April 22, 1912 outlining his suggestions, although most, if not all,
were never implemented. It included his recommendation to cover the surface of the flood
channel in alfalfa or other low green crop and to put a three‐foot‐high fence along the berm at
the top of the flood channel (Olmsted Jr., Frederick Law, "File 3300, Plan 21" 1912).
1920: Purchase of the land for a future park
Starting in 1920, the City began to clear the area which was known at the time as “The Jungle”
just east of Central Park, of what was deemed unsightly houses, filling in the land with dirt from
the paving district. The following summer, the City purchased all the land except three lots
between 11th and 9th, the railroad tracks, and Boulder Creek. A July 29, 1921 article in the
Boulder Tribune stated that the City was “given a lot highly desired for park purposes by Mrs. C.
A.Butsch. The Colorado & Southern railroad gave an indeterminate lease on a parallel tract of
land and also over the land lying between Eleventh and the main C & S line into Boulder. All of
this section is being filled in with dirt and leveled up so that it can be used for park purposes.
There will be enough dirt from the Pine‐Spruce district to complete the job and also to permit
other improvement work along the creek” (Boulder Tribune, July 29, 1921).
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
86
12
The following depiction of the area adjacent to Central Park and the community that resided in
this area is not a current idea supported today but a reflection of ideas and events that were
publicized at the time: "The section...was once a disgrace to the city, and a gathering place of
undesirable people. In the early days, it was a red light district, later became the tramp quarters
of Boulder. The most undesirable section of the district [adjacent to present day Central Park
between 10th and 11th Street] was wiped out by the city in purchases made several years ago....
The acquirement [of this area] completes the task that was inaugurated a few years ago of
cleaning up the "jungle" (Boulder Daily Camera, 13 April 1928).
1920 Photo Showing Settlement
in the Area of 1042 Water Street
Carnegie Library, Boulder, CO. The Jungle, photo 2, 1920
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
87
13
1920 Photo Showing Demolition of the
Settlement in the Area of 1042 Water Street
Carnegie Library, Boulder, CO. The Jungle, photo 4, 1920
1921: City acquisition of “Railroad Park” land
In 1921, the City began to lease the land of what is now the north half of Central Park from the
railroads. It was not until 1933 that the City acquired the land in full (Pollock, Peter. Frederick
Law Olmsted, Jr. and the Improvement of Boulder, Colorado. 2022. National Park Service.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/ncptt/upload/FG_Peter‐Pollock.pdf).
1.3.2 1923‐1936: Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park
This historic period covers the design and construction of Central Park by Olmsted Jr. up until
Huntington and DeBoer altered the north section of the park.
1923 Olmsted’s 1923 Report
In 1923, the Olmsted Brothers completed “A Report on the Improvement of Boulder
Creek in Boulder, Colorado.” The report provides details for flood protection measures along
Boulder Creek from 9th to 17th Street and presents a unified plan for civic improvements
including a new city hall and athletic field.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
88
14
1923 Topographical Survey and Plan
“City of Boulder Topographical Survey”. February 23, 1923. Department of Public Service. Boulder, CO.
1923 Proposed Park Improvements by Olmsted Brothers
Olmsted Brothers. “Preliminary Plan of Proposed Park Improvement Along Boulder Creek”. October 1923. Boulder,
CO.
In the report, Olmsted Jr. explained his ideas for a streamside park and greenway. Ultimately, a
bond measure to fund the project was passed by such a slim number of votes that the State
ruled the results could not stand, and the bond then failed when put up for city election
afterward. This lack of funding led to a much smaller park in the area bounded by present day
Broadway, Canyon, Thirteenth, and Arapahoe known as Central Park (p14, Pollock, 1922).
In 1923, several letters were sent by the City of Boulder to Olmsted requesting more advice on
flood control measures (Library of Congress, Olmsted Associates Records: Job Files 1863‐1971;
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
89
15
Files; 3300; Boulder City Improvement Association; Boulder, CO; 1923‐1931
https://www.loc.gov/item/mss5257102411/).
1924: Olmsted Jr. Presents Design for Park
In early 1924, Olmsted Jr. presented plans that focused on what is now Central Park as an area
for park development. Olmsted first developed a grading plan for the site. Eleven days later, he
presented his planting plan complete with a list of plant species he envisioned for the park.
Though there were trees on site at the time, Olmsted presented plans to add new plantings and
incorporate existing trees.
1923 and 2024: Olmsted’s Plan of Park Improvements and Grading Plan
The 1923 plan shows that the purpose of the
green, berms, and pathways was to serve as a
backdrop for the war memorial (located just off
the green) that would serve as the main feature
of the park. The intentional off‐center
placement of the war memorial enabled an axis
path across the park that would line up with the
main entrance of the proposed City Hall (located
on the other side of Broadway). Another major
axis path was planned north of the memorial to
connect with the diamond paths.
However, the central features of the park, the
Veterans’ Memorial and associated axis paths, were not built because of the failed bond
measure. Therefore, when we review the 1924 grading and planting plans, we can see the
memorial has now been removed, and the axis path has become a dashed line (showing it is
removed) The green area with the culverted ditch remains. (p35, Carrigan, Beverly "Frederick
Law Olmsted, Jr., Maker of Parks ‐ Planner of Cities" Boulder Historic Context Project, 1992).
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
90
16
1924 Grading Plan for the Park at Boulder Creek
Olmsted Jr., "Grading Plan for Park at Boulder Creek". February 29, 1924.
(File 3300, Plan 64)
The Olmsted grading plan a year later shows the updated layout for the site without the war
memorial and the axis paths and includes a central green area created by a culverted ditch. A
berm runs along the east side, and shallow berms are proposed on the west side (in the
northwest section of the park). These are likely added since the formal east/west axis paths are
removed. Informal paths run around the site with a diamond path retained above the central
green area, and tree locations are identified around the edges of the property. A proposed
walking path, set back from the creek, runs parallel and away from the sloping banks of the
water course. The grading plan shows the location of three structures on site at the time, and
they were presumably removed as part of the grading and park development.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
91
17
Olmsted’s 1924 Planting Plan
Olmsted’s 1924 updated planting plan also shows the war memorial removed and was produced
in concert with the grading plan submitted to the City two weeks before. The plan shows trees
and shrubs along 12th Street (Broadway), Water Street (Canyon Blvd.), and 13th Street, as well as
trees and shrubs concentrated in the eastern and northern parts of the park, affording the
greenspace in the middle of the park with the culverting of the ditch. This space would afford
limited views, due to surrounding development and park tree canopy, across the creek to the
foothills beyond.
1924 Planting Plan for Park at Boulder Creek
Olmsted Jr., "Planting Plan for Park at Boulder Creek"
(File 3300, Plan 64) February 29, 1924
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
92
18
On March 12, 1924, Olmsted submitted to the city a planting list that identified the name of
suggested plants and trees, as well as notes on their shape, pruning, and care. This included a
variety of large shade trees, small ornamental trees, and a large variety of woody shrubs and
perennials that flower in different seasons.
City of Boulder Planting List
Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., “Planting List to Accompany Plan 3300‐65", March 12, 1924, p. 1
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
93
19
Frederick Law Olmsted Jr.’s “Planting Plan for Park at Boulder Creek, File 3300, Plan 65” (March 10, 1924)
1929: The Completion of The Park
Photos taken from 1929 show the newly designed park from two angles: one from Canyon Blvd.
looking towards Broadway, and the other from the corner of Canyon Blvd. and Broadway. The
images show the construction of the diamond paths and two paths along the east, north, and
west edges. They also show new tree plantings around the periphery and the hedge to the west.
The central green area is missing, since the canal culvert was never installed, and the space is
divided by the ditch and existing plantings. The berms to the northwest were also not completed
according to the plan, and the west‐side berm is smaller than specified (both in height and size).
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
94
20
Photo of Railroad Park looking SW from North, May 31, 1929, Boulder Historical Society 141‐3‐93
Photo of Railroad Park from freight house, May 31, 1929, Boulder Historical Society 141‐3‐94
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
95
21
1933: A New Name for The Park
Beginning in 1933 the site became known as
Central Park (p5, Boulder Band Shell Historical
Study by Front Range Research Assoc., 1995).
1930s: Further Park Construction
There are no records showing who did the
additional park construction occurring
between the Olmsted Jr. Plan and the
development of the Band Shell Area.
However, a 1937 aerial image of the park
shows perimeter circulation with sweeping
crisscrossing paths through the center of the
park. Additionally, the path along the east
side does not reflect Olmsted’s plan for the
informal path and berms. Instead, it enters
central to the east side and appears to
redirect around something—likely the ditch
that was never culverted. A social path
running along the creek, parallel to the path
Olmsted originally laid out, can also be seen
in the aerial image (Colorado Aerial Photo
Service, 7/23/1937 Aerial Photo of Central
Park).
1.3.3 1937‐1969: Huntington and DeBoer Designs for Band Shell and Seating
This historic period covers the design and construction of the Band Shell by Glen Huntington and the
arrangement/siting of the Band Shell by landscape architect, Saco DeBoer, through a series of
improvements that relate to the siting and construction of the Band Shell within the park.
1937: Initial discussion on funding for the construction of the Band Shell
The Boulder Planning and Park Commission received notice that the Major Activity Committee of
the Lions Club sought to fund the construction of the Band Shell for public concerts. On April 15,
1937, City Manager H.C. McClintock reported to the Boulder Planning and Parks Commission
that the Lions Club suggested they undertake a project to construct a Band Shell for public
concerts.
1937: Initial ideas on locating the Band Shell
Saco R. DeBoer, Landscape Architect for the City of Denver, consulted on the location of the
Band Shell. He recommended the area south of the railroad right of way which included the
location of City Hall at the west end. In June 1937, DeBoer reported to the city manager that
“Central Park is the only location at the present time… I would suggest that the band stand be
located on the north line against the railroad right of way, approximately in the middle of the
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
96
22
park. If this site meets with your approval, I shall draw up a sketch showing my ideas in regard to
the treatment of the band stand and the grounds around it” (p5, Boulder Band Shell Historical
Study, 1995).
1937: The Band Shell and its landscape design
In July of 1937, the city manager presented to the Planning and Parks Commission preliminary
sketches of the Band Shell prepared by Lloyd Lear of Chicago, who had been retained by the
Lions Club. The commission approved the project and requested a recommendation for the
location of the structure from DeBoer (from Band Shell Historical Study 1995; Boulder Daily
Camera, 11 June 1937.; Boulder Planning and Parks Commission, Minutes, 15 July 1937; Boulder
Planning and Parks Commission, Minutes, 12 August 1937).
1938: Glen Huntington design for the Band Shell
Glen Huntington developed plans for the Art Deco style Band Shell (p9, Boulder Band Shell
Historical Study, 1995).
1938: Construction of the Band Shell
In June of 1938, construction of the Glen Huntington‐designed Band Shell was completed.
According to the Boulder Band Shell Historical Study, the Band Shell “faces south toward Boulder
Creek and away from traffic on the thoroughfare on the northern edge of the park. The scale of
the Band Shell and its associated seating area is in keeping with the size of the park and provides
a comfortable gathering space for concerts and other cultural entertainment” (p18, Boulder
Band Shell Historical Study. 1995).
1939: Vegetation alterations
In the spring of 1939, DeBoer was asked to consult on landscaping around the Band Shell.
The Planning and Parks Commission had expressed a desire for a screening effect
around the site, and DeBoer's original plan to plant pine trees and evergreens was revised
to include faster growing trees such as Chinese elms and Lombardi poplars. DeBoer’s new
landscaping plan included deciduous trees adjacent to the structure, with pines in front of those.
The first phase of landscaping around the Band Shell was completed in 1939 with the allocation
of $125 for shrubs and trees to be planted near the structure (Boulder Planning and Parks
Commission, Minutes, 11 May 1939 from p4 Band Shell Historical Study, 1995).
1939: Path alterations
Paths were altered in the area around the Band Shell to prevent people from taking shortcuts to
the site (p10, Boulder Band Shell Historical Study).
1945: Unrealized plan for civic area
In 1945, DeBoer developed a plan for the larger civic area, which included planting trees around
the Band Shell to screen the structure from adjacent streets and a curving parkway along
Canyon Boulevard and 13th Street. This plan was never realized.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
97
23
1947: Amphitheater style seating
DeBoer proposed amphitheater style seating to the south of the Band Shell.
1949 to 1951
The area in front of the amphitheater was redesigned to include amphitheater seating. The
seating was constructed in 1950 after the area was regraded to accommodate the sloped bench
seating and a retaining wall. The seats had concrete bases and wood tops, and they were
reinforced with rebar. A concrete sidewalk was installed on the south edge of the amphitheater.
1952 to 1953
In September of 1952, Locomotive #30, coach #280, and caboose #04990 were put on display at
the north end of Central Park. A train dedication ceremony was held in the park on August 6,
1953 (p1, City of Boulder Train History, formal citation needed to be identified).
1953
In 1953, the Denver, Boulder, and Western Railroad's Engine No. 30 was moved to the area
south of the Band Shell (Carnegie Branch Library, Boulder Daily Camera, Engine No. 30 in Central
Park, 1950‐1953).
1956
The first photograph of the rectangular concrete lighting piers added in front of the stage is
published (p4, Carnegie Branch Library, Boulder Band Shell Historical Study, 1995).
1960s
Aerial Imagery shows the alterations of the paths on
the north section of the park to accommodate the
Band Shell and seating. The diagonal paths have been
removed and new curving paths have been provided
for access to the seating area on the south side. Trees
have also infilled across the park; original
cottonwoods along the ditch remain in place. (1965,
Colorado Aerial Photo Service)
circa 1960s
The color scheme for the Band Shell changed from
green and light beige (original) to cream and gray
which can still be seen today (p4, Boulder Band Shell
Historical Study, 1995).
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
98
24
1.3.4 1970 – 1924: Modern Updates
This period includes the addition and upgrades of multi‐use path connections, underpasses, and
vegetation alterations.
1970
The Band Shell was proposed for relocation, but the plan was never implemented (p13, Boulder
Band Shell Historical Study, 1995).
1972 Aerial Image
(1972, Google Aerial Image)
The 1972 aerial Image shows the paths
around the Band Shell have been
reconfigured again to simplify circulation into
the open area north of the seating. The
curvilinear path around the back of the Band
Shell is no longer present and a distinct
hedge row was planted along the backside of
the seating.
1980s
The Band Shell general maintenance efforts
took place and include the replacement of
interior cladding, floor repair and
replacement (not in full), and touch‐up
painting (p4, Boulder Band Shell Historical
Study, 1995).
1980s
Trains were relocated near the Band Shell
berm with the help of the Boulder Model
Railroad Club (p1, City of Boulder Train
History, formal citation needed to be
identified).
1984 to 1987
Boulder Creek Path was built along the south
edge of the site boundary and north of the Boulder and Left Hand Ditch (pg. 2 Appendix,
Greenways Master Plan, 2011).
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
99
25
1987
Boulder County Commissioners considered moving Band Shell to fairgrounds in Longmont (p13,
Band Shell Historical Study, 1995).
1988
Boulder Train Depot Task Force, local officials, businesspeople, and historians recommended
removing the Band Shell and relocating the train depot to Central Park (p13, Boulder Band Shell
Historical Study, 1995).
1995
Parks and Recreation Department completed Band Shell rehabilitation. Rehabilitation and
stabilization efforts included replacement of the roofing and plywood sheathing, minor repairs
to the framing and foundations, fresh coats of paint, waterproofing the stage flooring, and
removing all cementitious panels due to asbestos (p2‐12, Structural Review and Boulder Band
Shell Historical Study, May 2023). This study suggested the Band Shell and its site were
potentially eligible for listing on the National Register.
1995
The Boulder Band Shell and the northern 170 feet of Block 13 was designated as a local
landmark through ordinance 5751 which was the same year the Band Shell had been officially
renamed the “Glen Huntington” Band Shell.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
100
26
2002 Aerial Image
The 2002 aerial image shows the trains located
south of the Band Shell. Major changes to the
circulation were added to the southern section
with the construction of the Boulder Creek path in
the 1980s. The center of the park was further
dissected with the addition of a wide path now
running parallel to the north side of the ditch. The
shrubs in front of Band Shell stage had been
removed with angled parking added along 13th
street (2022‐2004 Google Earth)
2003‐2004
The southwest section of Block 13 was redesigned
to include a bus stop and access to the Boulder
Creek Path. A curvilinear sidewalk and staircases
were constructed in between the western walkway
and the Boulder Creek Path (31 Dec 2002 Google
Earth)
2003‐2008
Trains adjacent to the Band Shell were relocated
offsite (Landmarks Board Memo, 9 Q. Golden
Railway Museum).
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
101
27
2008 Aerial Image
The 2008 aerial image shows the new wider paths
now dominating the west side of the park acting as
a thoroughfare rather than providing access to
amenities within the park. The trees to the north of
the Band Shell are conifers acting as a screen and
backdrop for the Band Shell. The hedge around the
park is also no longer present (2008, Google Earth).
2014
The railroad tracks and fence associated with the
trains were removed from the site
(Google Earth Aerial Imagery, 2013 – 2014).
2019
Sandstone paving was added at the southeast
corner of the Band Shell seating area
(pp2‐13, Historic Places Plan, Boulder Parks and
Recreation, 1924).
1.3.5 Description of Existing Conditions
Central Park is positioned just south of the main downtown area in Boulder. It is located two
blocks away from Pearl Street, and it encompasses Boulder Creek. This centrally located park
space provides recreational opportunities, access down to the creek, multi‐modal transportation
options, and spaces for respite and gathering.
The northern end of the park has undergone several transformations from an open grove to the
construction of an outdoor event venue with amphitheater‐style seating. Along the western
edge adjacent to Broadway, the park includes perimeter streetscape trees and has undergone
large transportation improvements with regrading for a multi‐use bike path and underpass. On
the eastern side of the park along 13th Street, large mature trees — possibly dating back to the
original 1924 Olmsted Jr. park plans — still exist today. The southern edge of the park along the
creek and Arapahoe Ave. has been modified again by a transportation improvement that
includes terraced walls and a multi‐use trail and associated underpass to continue south beyond
Arapahoe Ave. and the park.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
102
28
Topography: The topography of the site consists of the sloped berm around the amphitheater
seating and raised grades on the eastern edge with an open‐air ditch running west to east down
the center. Major grading modifications have been made at the eastern bank of Boulder Creek.
They include terraced walls and steps down to the north‐most location for creek access.
Vegetation: Large mature trees flank the two streets on the western and eastern edges with two
prominent groves of trees interior to the park along 13th Street and Canyon Boulevard, and
screen the Band Shell on its north side. Newly planted trees have been included along the
eastern bank of the Boulder Creek transportation improvements and the understory remains
turf grass in the majority of the park. Smaller junipers and deciduous shrubs can be found at the
northern end of the park around the Band Shell area and the north corner at Broadway. The
large majority of the park’s understory includes turf lawn with open central greens (two split by
a ditch) and some minor shrub plantings along the Broadway edge and Band Shell site.
Circulation: The circulation has been largely defined by the Boulder Creek Path which cuts
through east to west along the ditch, along the eastern bank of the creek. Circulation has been
altered by the Broadway underpass grading project which included the addition of stairs and
ADA ramps. Perimeter circulation in the streetscape encompasses all four sides of the park with
diagonal sidewalk access from the north corner into the Band Shell site.
Two diagonal concrete paved sidewalks extend from the northeast and northwest corners of the
park towards the Band Shell. These paths terminate at a large, level area between the Band Shell
and the amphitheater seating that is paved with loose gravel.
Buildings and Structures:
The major buildings and structures that exist in the park today include the Band Shell, the small
stone wall at the south end of the amphitheater seating, the ditch diversion infrastructure, and
the pedestrian bridge crossing.
The Band Shell is set on the north edge of Central Park and oriented to the south. The setting is
characterized by sloped amphitheater seating—a concrete terrace with fifteen rows of wood
and concrete benches—that faces the Band Shell. An approximately 20 foot‐wide landscaped
berm and remnants of a sandstone retaining wall south of the Band Shell's seating define the
southern edge of the seating area.
Views and Viewsheds: Prominent views include those towards the Band Shell from the
surrounding streets. Views from Glen Huntington Band Shell include vistas towards the Boulder
Flatirons. Views from Broadway and 13th Street to Glen Huntington Band Shell are significant.
Land Use: The land use of the park today includes recreational gathering, civic and cultural event
programming and gathering and seating spaces for all.
Spatial Organization: The general elements of spatial organization today include an open space
consisting of two green lawns with a ditch that runs through the middle of the park; large groves
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
103
29
and tree plantings around the north, east and western edges of the park create a strong
perimeter; and the Band Shell and event space located to the north of the park. Boulder Creek
runs diagonally from Broadway down to the southeast end of the site.
The Band Shell is prominently sited at the north edge of Central Park with the amphitheater
seating oriented towards it. Concrete paved sidewalks at the northern corners connect the
perimeter walks to the Band Shell's amphitheater, similar to the overall appearance of the
original Huntington design
Small‐Scale Features: Contemporary small‐scale features across the site support daily park
functions and include regulatory signage, trash and recycling bins, and lampposts.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
104
30
PART 2: ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY & EVALUATION OF
LANDSCAPE FEATURES
2.1 INTRODUCTION
This section consists of three parts. The first presents an evaluation of the significance of the
Central Park landscape based on the criteria provided by the National Register of Historic Places.
The second part includes analysis and evaluation of the existing conditions and identification of
contributing features based on significance. The third is a summary of historic integrity. Even if
the park has historic significance, the landscape must also possess historic integrity to make it
eligible to be classified as a significant historic landscape. Below is the diagram outlining the
boundary of the study area in blue for Central Park. The yellow boundaries are existing
historically designated structures and landscapes under the local Boulder Revised Code for
Historic Preservation.
2.1.2 Study Area Boundary
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
105
31
2.2 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY
2.2.1 Evaluation of Significance
A cultural landscape embodies the associations and uses that define the history for a specific
place. Physical features of cultural landscapes can include trees, buildings, pathways, site
furnishings and water bodies. The features define the cultural landscape for a historic period. A
historic period begins with the date when significant activities or events began. This is often the
date of construction. Each historic period identified in Part 1 is considered in the assessment
that follows.
Historic Period 1 ‐ 1903‐1922: Acquiring the Land for Central Park
Historic Period 2 ‐1923‐1936: Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park
Historic Period 3 ‐1937‐1969: Huntington / DeBoer Design for Band Shell and
Seating
Historic Period 4 ‐1970‐1924: Modern Updates
Criteria for Evaluation
As defined by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the criteria for the National
Register of Historic Places, a cultural landscape must be shown to be historically significant for
one or more of the following Criteria for Evaluation:
A.That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C.That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values,
or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack
individual distinction; or
D.That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
Based on the research conducted on behalf of this Cultural Landscape Assessment, it appears
that Central Park has potential for historic significance under Criteria A and C.
Criterion A: Events
The establishment of Central Park helps to illustrate the city‐wide park and Civic Center planning
efforts that took place in the early 20th century and influence of the Olmsted brothers during
Historic Period 1, the installation of one of Boulder’s early public parks during Historic Period 2.
Additionally, the installation of the Band Shell in the northern section of the park is significant
for the role it has played in the social and cultural life of Bouder since 1938 (Historic Period 3), as
the site of numerous concerts and other varieties of community entertainment and social
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
106
32
gatherings.
Criterion B: Persons
Central Park appears to be significant for any persons that are associated with the lives of
persons significant to the development of Boulder. While the Park is associated with several
important designers, their contribution is best understood under the discussion of Criterion C as
the work of a master.
Criterion C: Design
Central Park appears to meet the threshold for significance under Criterion C as the work of
master landscape architect Olmsted Jr. during Historic Period 2 and for the installation of the
Band Shell and associated landscape for its distinctive Art Deco‐style design and as the work of
master designers Glen Huntington and Saco R. DeBoer during Historic Period 3.
Olmsted, Jr., began his career as an apprentice on two projects: the 1893 World's Columbian
Exposition in Chicago and the George Vanderbilt estate, "Biltmore," in North Carolina. He
became a partner in his father's Brookline, Massachusetts landscape architecture firm in 1895,
and with Olmsted Sr.'s retirement, took over leadership with his stepbrother, John Charles
Olmsted. The Olmsted brothers' firm completed thousands of landscape projects over the next
fifty years including plans for metropolitan park systems and greenways across the nation. For
example, Olmsted, Jr. was appointed by the Senate Committee on the District of Columbia in
1901 to help update the L'Enfant plan for Washington, D.C. He also established the first formal
training in landscape architecture at Harvard in 1900.
Olmsted Jr. put forward a concept, grading plan and planting plan for Central Park between
1923‐1924 that led to the initial development of the park and complemented earlier
recommendations for a park system and civic center in Boulder. He was a founding member and
later president of the American Society of Landscape Architects.
(https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/sontag/olmsted.htm#:~:text=Olmsted%2C%20
Jr.%2C%20also%20established,Acadia%2C%20Everglades%2C%20and%20Yosemite.)
According to the Boulder Band Shell Historical Study, the Band Shell is significant under NRHP
Criterion C for its representation of the Art Deco Style in Boulder; as an example of Band Shell
construction and park architecture from the 20th century; and as a representative work of
master designers. The Band Shell's Art Deco Style is reflected in its streamlined composition,
compound arch, and simplified design. Few Art Deco style buildings were erected in Boulder and
the Band Shell is one of the best preserved structures. It is one of only two Band Shells in
Colorado (pp2‐9, Historic Places Plan, City of Boulder, 1924).
Criterion D: Information Potential
Criterion D is typically reserved for archaeological resources, which is outside the scope of this
report.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
107
33
2.2.2 Evaluation and Analysis of Contributing Features
Based on the evaluation of significance outlined in section 2.2.1, the following discussions
compare Central Park during historic Periods 2 and 3 to existing conditions in order to determine
what, if any, landscape characteristics and features remain extant. Both discussions are
accompanied by diagrams that illustrate how the landscape has changed over time. This
provides a basis of understanding that supports the analysis of historic integrity in section 2.2.4.
Historic Period 2. 1923‐1936: Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park
Topography:
Historic Condition: The original proposal for grading at Central Park included one
contiguous, flat lawn that would capture sunlight and connect the north end to the south
end by undergrounding the ditch that splits the lot into two. On the west side of the park
along 13th Street, Olmsted Jr. proposed a continuous berm—reaching 4 feet high at
various points—most likely to keep views on this edge interior to the park. The proposal
reflects his report that states parks should have views both internal and external to the
park. On the northeastern corner, he proposed a gentle slope along the northern edge,
mimicking the feeling of a landform surrounding the flat plane.
o Planned But Not Implemented: It is unclear what grading was implemented from
the 1930’s imagery above but the grading that was clearly not installed from this
era was the undergrounding of the ditch to create one open lawn space.
o Implemented: Evaluating the 1937 aerial image of the Olmsted Jr. design (pg. 22),
topography that was implemented at the time might have followed the proposed
grading in the 1924 plans in regard to matching existing street elevations,
maintaining open and flat lawns and possibly the natural occurring bank grading
down to Boulder Creek. Undergrounding the ditch did not take place (as shown in
the image with the ditch still daylighted and circulation paths around the ditch)
and it is unknown if the berm by 13th Street and gentle landforms to create the
north most space was completed.
Existing Conditions: Today, the existing ditch remains an open channel, splitting the park
into two. Major grading improvements have been completed for the Boulder Creek
underpass beneath Broadway, causing the grading plan to be reconfigured on the west
edge of the park (Broadway and Canyon Blvd). At this corner, stairs are required to
access Central Park and there are larger grade differences along Broadway, Boulder
Creek’s eastern bank and Arapahoe.
Evaluation:
o Contributing Elements: The grading that remains intact from the original design
intent include the following:
Two areas where open lawn remains
The interior channel of Boulder Creek
A small grade change between 13th Street and the eastern edge of the
park
o Elements that have been Modified Over Time:
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
108
34
4’ continuous berm along the eastern edge of the park is lower and not
continuous for passage of the ditch infrastructure.
Berming to surround the northern section of the park to create
encompassed space
Gentle sloping from Broadway down to the open lawn
Undergrounding the ditch to create one open lawn space
Existing bank and slope conditions down to access Boulder Creek on the
south end of the park
Siting, grading, and construction of the Band Shell in the northern section
of the park
The multi‐use path under pass at Broadway and the multi‐use path under
pass at Arapahoe.
Topography Evaluation Diagram
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
109
35
Vegetation: Tree Plantings
Historical Condition: The intended purpose of the tree plantings, according to Olmsted
Jr.’s report, is to create shade so that people can find shelter from the elements, as well
as sit and look out onto a vista or sunny open space. The general layout of the plan
included dense groves along Canyon Boulevard, 13th Street, Boulder Creek and
Broadway, lining the perimeter of the park and framing open sunny lawns.
o Implemented: Evaluating the 1937 aerial image of Central Park (pg. 22), tree
plantings were implemented closely following the proposed 1924 planting plans
in regard to matching existing species that can be seen still standing today and
the clustering of trees to create major groves of canopy per the original design.
Groves of shade trees were implemented along 13th Street (this being the densest
area of tree plantings), along Broadway splitting the two circulation paths,
following Boulder Creek and a secondary grove along, what is now, Canyon
Boulevard to the north.
Existing Conditions: Central Park has existing trees along the perimeter and concentrated
on the northeast, north and eastern boundaries of the site. On the interior of the site
where the trees remain (shown in green on the Tree Planting Integrity Diagram), they
correlate to the original planting plan designed by Olmsted Jr. in 1924. The plans show
street tree planting as well, but due to street widening and other causes, they have been
replaced by other species of trees not included from the Olmsted Brothers’ 1924 design.
o Contributing Elements: Trees identified as contributing have the following
characteristics that coincide with the Olmsted Brothers design:
Match the approximate location of the tree planning on the 1924 planting
plans (within 10’ of the original placement).
Match at least the genus of the planting design or the genus and the
species of the intended design.
o Modifications: In the below diagram, trees that do not exist today are highlighted
in red and have been out‐competed by the existing tree canopy, removed or
never planted. Some of these locations do not have any plantings on site, while
other locations do have tree plantings, but the trees themselves are not the same
genus or species as the original design. The greatest difference in the planting
plan occurs around the Band Shell to the north, where the addition of this
structure removed half of the northern grove and to the east where there were a
large gardens and dense groves of trees designed along 13th Street.
o Non‐Contributing Elements: Trees that are identified as non‐contributing have
been planted outside of the original design intent and historic period, after the
1924 planting plans were implemented, and they do not match the location,
genus, species or overall design intent.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
110
36
Vegetation ‐ Tree Plantings Evaluation Diagram
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
111
37
Vegetation: Groundcover Plantings
Historical Condition: The plant list included with the 1924 proposal included a mix of
groundcover along the perimeter of the park at the west, south, and eastern edges of the
park. General guidelines were noted for park design in his report and gardens were noted
to provide color and interest as well as to provide internal focal points.
o Implemented: It is unclear whether the majority of the groundcover was ever
implemented per the 1924 plans. Aerial photographs show dense tree cover, and
the extent of the gardens below cannot be seen from these photographs. In
reviewing the 1937 aerial image of Central Park (pg. 22), groundcover plantings
might have been somewhat implemented per the proposed 1924 planting plans
in regards to the garden bed layout, but it is unclear if these gardens truly existed
beneath the canopy of the trees. There is a darker and dense looking aspect to
the imagery that may lend itself to some understory plantings beneath the trees
along the 13th Street interior path and along the north more path on Broadway.
There are areas that look to have less groundcover beneath the trees that directly
align with 13th Street and Boulder Creek.
Existing Conditions: Due to various park improvements that include regrading for the
Boulder Creek path in two locations and adding a tree canopy to create deep shade along
the east side, groundcover plantings do not exist in the park today (except for three
smaller plantings on the west side).
o Contributing Elements: Plantings along Broadway provide some screening of the
street but do not match the original species in the plant list provided by Olmsted
Jr.
o Modified: It is unclear whether the majority of the groundcover was ever
implemented, but today, the extensive upgrades to the multi‐use paths,
streetscape enhancements, and heavy shading from the existing canopy could
have contributed to the removal and/or loss of almost all of the garden beds from
the proposed design.
o Non‐Contributing Elements: Shrub plantings outside of the original 1924 planting
design, layout and species recommendation have been planted around the Band
Shell and its seating to help define the space and create screening from outside of
the park looking into the event venue.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
112
38
Vegetation: Groundcover Plantings Evaluation Diagram
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
113
39
Circulation
Historical Condition: Olmsted Jr.’s proposal for circulation included perimeter sidewalks
on all sides of the park and diagonal walks that cut through the north end to connect
users to the gardens, creek views, and open lawn.
o Planned But Not Implemented: The majority of the circulation paths were
implemented with the modification of interior circulation around the ditch
infrastructure on the east side of the park.
o Implementing: Evaluating the 1937 aerial image of Central Park (pg. 22), the
original circulation was closely implemented per the proposed 1924 layout plans.
Perimeter walks were built along with the crisscross design to the north of the
park that sweeps paths on the interior of the park on both the west and east side,
offset several feet from Broadway and 13th Street. Two paths were also created to
follow the upper and lower bank of Boulder Creek with one additional path added
along a north‐west diagonal axis.
Existing Conditions: The current sidewalk layout is interrupted by the Glen Huntington
Band Shell from the original northern crisscross alignment and the addition of the
Arapahoe/Broadway underpass for the Boulder Creek Pathway has disrupted the original
north south alignment along Broadway. Today the existing perimeter sidewalks remain
with only a small connection sidewalk from the northwest and northeast corners of the
park into the Band Shell seating area. The interior park circulation has been removed
along Broadway, 13th Street and Boulder Creek.
o Contributing Elements: The contributing circulation that exists today can be seen
through the remnants of the diagonal paths that connect the Broadway and 13th
Street corner (where the Band Shell is located) as well as the perimeter paths
along the Right‐of‐Way on the edges of the park. A portion of the south‐end walk
adjacent to Boulder Creek on the south end of the park remains, but it is visually
separated from the creek due to high retaining walls and plantings constructed
for the Arapahoe underpass work.
o Modified: Large portions of the circulation paths were removed or modified due
to transportation improvements and the addition of the Glen Huntington Band
Shell and regrading of the Boulder Creek multi‐use path.
o Non‐Contributing Elements: The non‐contributing circulation is outlined in
orange as the major connector that runs east‐west along the ditch (splitting the
park in two) as well as the multi‐use path that runs south and continues as the
Arapahoe underpass enhancement.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
114
40
Circulation Evaluation Diagram
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
115
41
Views and Viewsheds
Historical: Olmsted Jr.’s report mentions the importance of key views for all park design
internal to the park itself (of open sunny spaces, gardens, or groves) as well as external
views of major landscape elements such as the foothills along the Front Range.
o Implemented: Evaluating the 1937 aerial image of Central Park (pg. 22), the
original design intent between tree planting and circulation was implemented and
so might have afforded views to the Flatiron Mountains at the northwest corner
of the park. It is unclear whether there were ever internal views to gardens within
the park. The ditch the separated the lawn into two spaces included trees that
might have blocked some views across open space. The original paths along the
Boulder Creek would have had the intended views and access down to Boulder
Creek.
o Planned But Not Implemented: Since the ditch was never undergrounded per the
proposed 1924 plans, views across the contiguous open lawn were interrupted by
the ditch and vegetation that grew here over time. Eventually, views of the
Flatirons were blocked with invasive tree species taking over at the site of the
ditch.
Existing Conditions: Some of the prominent views can be seen throughout the park
today, but there are multiple views that have been lost over time. The views that do exist
are associated with prominent features outside of the park as well as views to Boulder
Creek. The views that have been lost correlate to the many gardens that were not
implemented or lost over time due to transportation improvements completed
throughout and adjacent to the park.
o Contributing Elements: Some of the prominent views can be seen throughout the
park today which includes:
Views out to the Flatirons – mostly captured along the perimeter of the
park
Views to Boulder Creek – located at the south side of the ditch where the
creek bends south
o Non‐Contributing Elements: Views to the Band Shell are the only non‐
contributing elements that exist.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
116
42
Views and Viewshed Evaluation Diagram
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
117
43
Buildings and Structures
Historical Condition: The proposed War memorial in the 1922 design plan from Olmsted
Jr. was never realized. For the ditch infrastructure, a portion of this system was built with
a similar pedestrian cross and diverting dam to pull off water from the Boulder Creek was
constructed.
o Planned but Not Implementation: The war memorial, along with the ditch
infrastructure to underground the water resource, was never constructed per the
1922 and 1924 proposed plans.
o Implementation: The pedestrian crossing at the dam and diverting infrastructure
was constructed, as shown the 1937 aerial.
Existing Condition: Some of the ditch infrastructure is in existence today from the
proposed sketches from Olmsted Jr. In 1924. The sketches show the dam and pedestrian
crossing without piping the water access below the park.
o Contributing Elements: The ditch infrastructure could be considered a possible
contributing element to structures in the park but was not realized with the full
intention of creating an underground utility with contiguous park space above.
Land Use
The organization, form, and shape of the landscape in response to land use.
Historical Condition: The proposed city block was envisioned as a stand‐alone park with
creek access running through with opportunities for recreation, passive activities, garden
viewing and seating under shaded areas. This was seen as a respite away from urban
conditions.
o Planned but Not Implemented: The war memorial and axial circulation that
connected the park to the municipal building was never implemented along with
unifying the space as one with one great lawn.
o Implemented: The internal and external circulation along with shaded grove trees
and access to the creek was realized from the 1937 aerial photos.
Existing Condition: Today the park remains an open space for recreational programming,
pedestrian circulation and passive gathering.
o Contributing Elements: The park space is a contributing feature for recreation,
circulation and passive gathering.
o Not Implemented and/or Modified: Large gardens and easy access to the creek
have been removed through transportation improvements. Large areas of
gardens might have also been implemented and lost under the dense shading of
tree canopy along 13th street.
Spatial Organization
Historical Condition: The proposed spatial organization of the 1924 plans was
implemented closely with the exception of the great lawn in the center of the park. The
ditch remained daylighted with larger trees that existed, separating the space into two.
o Planned but Not Implementation: Undergrounding the ditch was not
implemented from the 1924 plans to create on centralized lawn, and neither was
the war memorial (from the 1922 plans) as a major focal point int the space.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
118
44
o Implementation: The pedestrian circulation around the exterior of the park and
cutting through the site was constructed along with the major grove of trees on
the perimeter. The open view into the center of the space and access down to the
creek was all organized and implemented per the 1924 plans.
Existing Condition: Today some of these perimeter elements still remain with an open
view to the center of the site.
o Contributing Elements: The perimeter grove of trees and outer pedestrian walks
remain as contributing features of the existing characteristics of the design intent.
o Non‐Contributing Elements: The added structure of the Band Shell, seating and
grading disrupt the views to a north grove of trees along with the consistent
diagonal circulation in this area.
Historic Period 3. 1937‐1969: Huntington Design for Band Shell
Topography:
Historic Condition: The original proposal for grading around the Band Shell was to
accommodate amphitheater style seating with a sloping grade from the flat area
between the stage and first row of seating, and it transitions higher for best viewing
purposes for all rows of seating. The topography also created a flat area in front of the
stage, again for the best viewing experience, and included a low stone‐stacked wall on
the backside of the seating that ‘holds’ the berms’ semi‐circular shape.
o Implemented: It is unclear what specific grading was designed for the Band Shell
seating by Saco Deboer from the 1947 sketches, but the amphitheater seating is
shown surrounding a large flat area in front of the stage, the grading that was
implemented was approximately 3 feet and higher from the first row of seating to
the last row on the outer semicircle.
Existing Conditions: Today this topography of the site for the seating, flat area in front of
the stage and terrace in the back remains today. The terracing at the back has degraded
over time and the wall has collapsed with about 1/3rd of the wall missing or buried
throughout the length of the terrace.
Evaluation:
o Contributing Elements: The grading that remains intact from the original design
intent include the following:
Flat area in front of the stage
Amphitheater berm – for seating
Terrace at the back of the seating
o Not Implemented and/or Modified Over Time:
The terrace wall has degraded and the majority of the stone and
prominence of the terrace is gone.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
119
45
Vegetation: Tree and Groundcover Plantings
Tree plantings of human‐influence—both native and introduced —include ornamental, shade, or
specimen trees and are of a deciduous or evergreen species. Tree plantings can be used to
provide shelter, frame views, and create a sense of place in a park.
Historical Condition: Groupings of mature trees frame the north, east and west sides of
the Band Shell site. At the Band Shell, mature trees define the edges of the sloped
concrete terrace. A planting bed of low shrubs along the amphitheater berm defines the
southern edge. Groves of trees frame the amphitheater and screen the park from Canyon
Boulevard, Broadway, and 13th Street. Photographs from the 1940s and 1950s indicate
that the area in front of the Band Shell's stage was planted with evergreen shrubs.
o Implemented: Mature trees include Austrian Pine, Douglas Fir, Northern Red Oak,
White Oak, English Oak, Shumard Oak, American Elm, Norway Maple, Silver
Maple, Honey Locust, Crabapple, Rocky Mountain Juniper, and American Linden
trees. The lawn is the prominent groundcover to the south of the Band Shell.
Existing Conditions: It is unknown when these were removed, but plantings appear in
aerial photographs as late as 1984.
o Contributing Elements: The Vegetation remains similar to Saco Rienk DeBoer’s
landscape design:
A backdrop of evergreen and deciduous trees surround the Band Shell
amphitheater at the north and east edges of Central Park.
o Not Implemented and/or Modified: The low evergreen shrubs that surrounded
the front area of the Band Shell have been removed.
o Non‐Contributing Elements: There are some junipers, deciduous shrubs and one
crab apple that were recently planted on the backside of the seating on the berm
that are not part of the original design intent of the site.
Circulation
Circulation for pedestrian access is identified as any defined pathway where specific materials
have been laid to promote movement of people throughout the site. This includes concrete
walkways, crusher fine paths, and multi‐use trails.
Historical Condition: During the period of significance, pathways were aligned to access
the Band Shell. The two concrete paved sidewalks that extend from the north corners of
the site to the Band Shell are in a similar alignment to those in place in the 1940s.
Historic aerial images indicate that there were paths at the southern corners of the
amphitheater that connected the park diagonally to the Band Shell toward Broadway and
13th Street. A remnant stone path on the berm, south of the amphitheater connects the
south lawn to the amphitheater seating. It is unknown if the remnant stone path is
original to amphitheater or a later addition.
o Implementing: The circulation paths were implemented with modifications to the
diagonal path at the south end when the seating was constructed to the south of
the stage.
Existing Conditions: Circulation at the Band Shell site has been altered to meet the
changing needs of the park and the surrounding urban context. The amphitheater does
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
120
46
not currently have a designated accessible route or accessible seating. Concrete paved
sidewalks appear to be ADA‐compliant in slope for accessible pedestrian access. The
slope of the amphitheater is greater than 5% and is not ADA‐compliant for accessible
access or seating. The large level terrace between the seating and stage is ADA‐compliant
in slope. The nearest existing ADA‐compliant accessible parking space is approximately
200‐feet from the Band Shell on 13th Street.
o Contributing Elements: The contributing circulation consists of:
Northeast concrete paved walk
Northwest concrete paved walk
Southeast sandstone pavers /Remnant stone path
o Not Implemented and/or Modified: It is unclear if the original walkways were
paved concrete or composed of other materials. Historic aerial images indicate
that there were paths at the southern corners of the amphitheater. These
walkways were removed when pathways were realigned across the park in the
1960s.
o Non‐Contributing Elements: Sandstone paving was installed at the southwest
corner of the amphitheater in 2019.
Views and Viewsheds
Viewsheds show the environment or a focal point visible from one or more viewing areas,
created intentionally by using foreground elements for framing and by ensuring no obstruction
is permitted to block a specific focal point.
Historical: Prominent views include those towards the Band Shell from the south lawn
and frame areas within Central Park. Views from Glen Huntington Band Shell include
those towards the Boulder Flatirons from the stage, amphitheater seating, terrace, and
south lawn. Views from Broadway and 13th Street to Glen Huntington Band Shell are
significant.
o Implemented: All viewsheds out to the Flatirons and into the Band Shell space
itself were implemented while the tree plantings framed the shell and stage
views. Screening from Canyon Boulevard was also provided around the back side
of the Band Shell.
Existing Conditions: Some of the prominent views can be seen today from the stage
outward to the Flatirons. Over time some of these views have been slightly altered due
to the mature tree canopy growth. The same can be said for views into the site of the
Band Shell. The majority of the views to the main shell architecture can be seen from
Broadway and across the park at the south end, but they have been slightly altered by
the growth of maturing trees and tree growth coming out of the ditch. Many invasive
tree species were removed in the last decade at the ditch, revealing the historic views of
the Band Shell from the south lawn of the park.
o Contributing Elements: Some of the prominent views can be seen throughout the
park today which include:
Views out to the Flatirons – from the stage
Views from Broadway to the Band Shell
View to the Band Shell from the south lawn
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
121
47
Buildings and Structures
Historical buildings and edifices are the human‐made structures on‐site that provide shelter
from the elements, serve as memorials, or provide cultural or commercial services and civic
programming.
Historical Condition: Character‐defining features of the Band Shell include its original
location, architectural design and role as a focal point and cultural venue within Central
Park. Located on the northwest corner of Central Park, the structure is a prominent
landmark on Canyon Boulevard. Character‐defining features of the amphitheater seating
include its sloped concrete terrace with 15 rows, and its three sections. The
amphitheater seating is defined on its south edge by the low berm.
o Planned but Not Implemented: The War memorial along with the ditch
infrastructure to underground the water resource was never constructed per the
1922 and 1924 proposed plans.
o Implementation: The pedestrian crossing at the dam and diverting infrastructure
was constructed, as shown in the 1937 aerial.
Existing Condition: Some of the ditch infrastructure is in existence today from the
proposed sketches from Olmsted Jr. In 1924. The sketches show the dam and pedestrian
crossing without piping the water access below the park.
o Contributing Elements: The ditch infrastructure could be considered a possible
contributing element to structures in the park but was not realized with the full
intention of creating an underground utility with contiguous park space above.
Small‐Scale Features
The organization, form, and shape of the landscape in response to land use.
Historical Condition: The sandstone wall at the edge of the planting bed is a part of the
original construction.
o Implementation: It is unclear if the sandstone wall was inherent to the original
design intent after reviewing the 1947 sketches from DeBoer but might be
original to the design of the seating later, once the implementation of the seating
moved forward.
Existing Condition: Today, the sandstone wall has degraded in places, either missing
stone elements or the stone is completely buried for some of the sections of the wall.
o Contributing Elements: The sandstone wall at the back of the berm is considered
a contributing element and is part of the original character of the seating.
o Non‐Contributing Elements: Contemporary, non‐contributing small‐scale features
across the site support daily park functions and include regulatory signage, trash
and recycling bins, and lampposts.
Spatial Organization
Arrangement of elements creating the ground, vertical, and overhead planes that define and
create spaces per a specific design intent.
Historical Condition: The spatial organization of the Band Shell and associated site
remains similar to the end of the period of significance. In the 1940s, the spatial
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
122
48
organization of the site was altered by Saco Rienk DeBoer's Central Park's design that
added amphitheater seating to the Band Shell. This inclusion created a defined space for
entertainment and performance separate from the south lawn, which remained open for
flexible use. The Band Shell is sited at the north edge of Central Park with the
amphitheater seating oriented towards it. A sloped berm gradually transitions into a
south lawn creating a visual connection between the spaces. Concrete paved sidewalks
at the northern corners connect the perimeter walks to the Band Shell's amphitheater.
o Implementation: All elements relating to spatial organization were implemented
including the siting of the Band Shell on the north end of the park, the open area
between the seating and the stage, the seating to the south end of the site and
the mature trees surrounding the north and edges of the Band Shell.
Existing Condition: Today the overall appearance of the landscape reflects the original
design intent with seating added later by Saco Rienk DeBoer:
o Mature trees for screening at the north end of the Band Shell
o Location of the Band Shell at the north end of the park
o Location of the open space between the stage and seating
o Seating rows to the south end of the Band Shell
2.2.4 Analysis of Integrity
The seven aspects of historic integrity are considered in this section to determine whether or
not the park retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance. The seven aspects of integrity
are informed through the analysis of existing conditions and the evaluation of the identified
landscape characteristics outlined in the previous section.
In addition to demonstrating historic significance under at least one of the National Register
criteria, a property must retain sufficient historic integrity to be considered eligible for listing in
local, state, and national registers. If a site does not retain sufficient integrity to convey its
significance, it may not be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
Integrity is evaluated based on the property’s ability to convey its historical significance. To
retain integrity, a property must exhibit some or all of the seven aspects of historic integrity as
defined by the National Register of Historic Places, including:
Association: is the direct link between an important historic event or person and historic
property.
Design: is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and
style of a property.
Feeling: is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period
of time.
Location: is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where
the historic event occurred.
Materials: are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a
particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic
property.
Setting: is the physical environment of a historic property.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
123
49
Workmanship: is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people
during any given period in history or prehistory.
Analysis of Landscape Integrity for Historic Period 2:
1923 ‐ 1936 Olmsted Jr. Design for Central Park
Location: Central Park, as purchased by the City of Boulder, is still in the same location today.
Finding: Has Integrity
Design: The initial 1922 plan included a war memorial and three axis paths, with the aim of lining
the west access path up with the civic building. This design was never realized. In a letter to
Olmsted, dated November 12, 1923, William J. Baird wrote that since the bonds failed to carry,
“the Memorial feature is to be omitted, that is dead.” In the same letter, Baird wrote that “our
only hope of doing anything along the Creek is to begin in a very small way.”
(https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss52571.mss52571‐02‐186_0166_0382/?sp=72&r=‐
0.074,0.276,1.036,0.353,0).
In the following year, an updated plan created a large central green for the park with trees
around the edge. The green was never realized since the ditch and large trees associated with it
were retained. In addition, the Bandshell from a later historic period also impinged upon this
area and there was a large concrete multi‐use path added, parallel to the ditch, that is
approximately 10ft wide cutting across the park.
Finding: No Integrity
Setting: The park was initially designed to contain a large war memorial as the central feature of
the park that would have been a focal point for the surrounding environment. The war memorial
was never constructed including the three formal axis paths that would have been the main
thoroughfare to access the main features planned for the park. In addition, one of the main axis
paths was to connect with the proposed entrance to the civic building over the road. Again,
since this path was never built, and the entrance to the building was relocated, this formal axis
was never realized. The creek still runs through the southwest section of the park, yet the
addition of the multi‐use commuter path with the large retaining walls on either side has cut off
access to the banks of the creek in this area. Major new buildings have been built around the
edges of the park enclosing it in a vertical envelope, and the multi‐use commuting paths that
approach and run through the park also affect the setting.
Finding: Diminished Integrity
Materials: The many major components of Olmsted Jr’s design for Central Park were never
realized, so there is no material evidence for them. The peripheral features (including informal
paths and trees around the edge of the park) have been greatly altered or contain features that
were added from later periods (including the addition of the Bandshell at the north end of the
park which removed half of the existing grove of trees and interrupting the circulation paths in
this area).
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
124
50
Finding: No Integrity
Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or
people during any given period in history. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in
constructing or altering a building, structure, object or site. It may be expressed in vernacular
methods of construction and plain finishes, or in highly sophisticated configurations and
ornamental detailing.
Finding: No Integrity
Feeling: The construction of the Bandshell and associated seating was a major addition that took
away from the integrity of the 1924 Olmsted Jr. Park design. The landscape character analysis
also shows that, of what was implemented from the 2023 plan, peripheral elements of the
design (including informal paths and vegetation) are intact but major elements interior to the
space have since been removed or altered with the ditch cutting through the center of the park
dividing it in two and all of the understory gardens removed or not implemented. Other modern
additions to the site include two multi‐use concrete paths that are 16ft wide, one path includes
two large retaining walls approximately 5ft and higher, that were added by the Transportation
Department as commuting routes. These major circulation routes cut diagonally through the
south end of the park. Additionally, a 10ft wide concrete multi‐use path with an associated bus
stop has been added to the north side of the ditch cutting across the park. The setting has been
severely impacted by the modern additions and Bandshell. With the major components of the
design not implemented like the green, memorial and axis paths, that desired feeling was never
actually realized.
Finding: Diminished Integrity
Association: The park is associated with Olmsted Jr for this historic period due to the design he
laid out for the park. However, the lack of implementation for the major features (the large
green as a central gathering space, the war memorial, and the formal access paths) mean the
design was never realized. Although peripheral elements like trees and some paths were built,
the park as a whole does not represent a design plan that reflects the typical body of Olmsted’s
work that has been fully implemented.
Finding: No Integrity
Summary of Integrity: The many major components of Olmsted Jr’s design for Central Park were
never realized, and the peripheral features (including informal paths and trees around the edge
of the park) have been greatly altered or contain features that were added from later periods
(including the addition of the Bandshell at the north end of the park which removed half of the
existing grove of trees and interrupted the circulation paths in this area). Therefore, there is no
integrity to the design features that were built, and their significance is limited since major
components of the design were never implemented.
The initial 1923 plan included a war memorial and three axis paths with the aim of lining the
west access path up with the civic building. This design was never realized. In a letter to
Olmsted, dated November 12, 1923, William J. Baird wrote that since the bonds failed to carry,
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
125
51
“the Memorial feature is to be omitted, that is dead.” In the same letter, Baird wrote that “our
only hope of doing anything along the Creek is to begin in a very small way.”
(https://www.loc.gov/resource/mss52571.mss52571‐02‐186_0166_0382/?sp=72&r=‐
0.074,0.276,1.036,0.353,0).
In the following year, an updated plan created a large central green for the park with trees
around the edge. The green was never realized since the ditch and large trees associated with it
were retained.
The main design components of the site were never realized: the war memorial, formal axis
paths, bermed topography along the north and eastern edges to screen the roadway and all
understory gardens and the connected green in the middle of the park. Instead, periphery
features such as edge tress and informal paths were built.
The construction of the Bandshell and associated seating was a major addition that also took
away from the integrity of the 1924 Olmsted Jr. park design. The integrity analysis also shows
that, of what was implemented from the 2023 plan, peripheral elements of the design including
informal paths and vegetation have since been removed or the majority altered, and the ditch
still cuts through the center of the park dividing it in two. Other modern additions to the site
include two multi‐use concrete paths that are 16ft wide, and one path includes two large
retaining walls approximately 5ft and higher that were added by the Transportation Department
as commuting routes. These major circulation routes cut diagonally through the south end of the
park. Additionally, a 10ft wide concrete multi‐use path with an associated bus stop has been
added to the north side of the ditch cutting across the park.
Based on the above summary, the findings show the major features of Olmsted’s plan were not
implemented including the war memorial, the formal axis paths, and the large green. Peripheral
elements have since been removed or greatly altered and the ditch, multi‐use path and large
trees cut across what would have been a large, green gathering space central to the park that
was never realized. In addition, modern additions to the site, especially the multi‐use
commuting paths with the high concrete retaining walls show there is no integrity for this
historic period.
Finding: No Integrity
Historic Period 3 ‐1937‐1973: Huntington DeBoer Design for Bandshell and Seating
Location: The Bandshell and associated seating is still in the same location today.
Finding: Has Integrity
Design: The Bandshell and associated seating with the two diagonal connecting paths and the
screening trees have been implemented according to the design and retained.
Finding: Has Integrity
Setting: Major new buildings have been built around the edges of the park enclosing it in a
vertical envelope, and the multi‐use commuting paths that approach and run through the park
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
126
52
also effect the setting. The screening envelope next to the Bandshell is still intact, as are the two
main diagonal paths built to access this performance space.
Finding: Diminished Integrity
Materials: The many major components of DeBoer’s design are intact including the Bandshell,
the regrading of the slope for the seating and the seating itself. In addition, the screening trees
on either side of the Bandshell and the circulation paths are still intact and retain integrity if not
diminished.
Finding: Has Integrity
Workmanship: The physical evidence of the art décor crafts exhibited in the Bandshell design
and the innovative seating construction have been retained.
Finding: Has Integrity
Feeling: The construction of the Bandshell and associated seating was a major addition that gave
the park a focal point it never had before.
Finding: Has Integrity
Association: The Bandshell area is associated with DeBoer for this historic period due to the
design he laid out for the bandshell and associated setting.
Finding: Has Integrity
Summary of Integrity: The Bandshell and associated seating are significant under criteria A and
C and retain integrity. The current boundary for these features is also correct as originally
described. Research has indicated that, in addition to the Bandshell and seating, there are two
diagonal paths plus the screening trees behind the Bandshell that also have integrity and should
be managed as such. There was a circular path around the Bandshell that has been removed, but
this does not affect the overall integrity.
Finding: Has Integrity
Summary of Integrity:
Overall, Central Park has diminished integrity. This is due largely to the fact that many major
components of Olmsted Jr’s design for Central Park have been altered or removed entirely
(including the addition of the Band Shell at the north end of the park which removed half of the
existing grove of trees and interrupted the circulation paths in this area). Therefore, there is no
integrity to the design features that were built during historic Period 2. Analysis shows that, of
what was implemented from the 1923 plan, peripheral elements of the design including informal
paths and vegetation have been removed or the majority altered, and the ditch still cuts through
the center of the park dividing it in two, which has impacted the design, materials, workmanship
and feeling of Central Park.
The construction of the Band Shell and associated seating was a major addition that impacted
the integrity of the 1924 Olmsted Jr. park design. Other modern additions to the site include two
multi‐use concrete paths that are 16ft wide, and one path includes two large retaining walls
approximately 5ft and higher that were added by the Transportation Department as commuting
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
127
53
routes. These major circulation routes cut diagonally through the south end of the park.
Additionally, a 10ft wide concrete multi‐use path with an associated bus stop has been added to
the north side of the ditch cutting across the park.
However, the Band Shell and associated seating during Historic Period 3 retain integrity to that
period. The boundary for these features is limited to the north half of Central Park. Research has
indicated that, in addition to the Band Shell and seating, there are two diagonal paths plus the
screening trees behind the Band Shell that also have integrity and should be managed as part of
the historic landscape. Therefore, the north portion of Central Park retains historic integrity to
the years during which the Band Shell and seating for planned and built, starting in 1937 through
1950.
Process and Findings
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
128
54
2.3 CONCLUSION
Central Park has potential significance under National Register criteria A and C for its early role
in the development of the park system in Boulder and as the work of master landscape architect
Olmsted Jr in 1923‐1924. However, due to major alterations and improvements that have taken
place in Central Park since Historic Period 2, it no longer retains meaningful integrity to convey
this era of significance and is therefore not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places for these associations. A property must be determined historically significant and retain
sufficient historic integrity to be listed.
However, the northern portion of Central Park containing the Huntington/DeBoer Band Shell
and associated seating are significant under criteria A and C and retain historic integrity. The
current boundary for these features and full description of significance is described in the above
sections under Part 2. The research in this report has indicated that, in addition to the Band Shell
and seating, there are two paths and the screening trees behind the Band Shell that also date to
Historic Period 3 and should be managed as contributing features in the landscape. The period
of significance, as described in the site history in Part 1 and outlined in further detail in the
previous documentation mentioned above, is 1937‐1950, which spans the years in which the
Band Shell was first proposed and designed through the completion of the associated landscape
design.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
129
55
3.1 REFERENCES
City of Boulder, Parks and Recreation Department “The Masterplan for Boulder’s Civic Area.”
June 2015. https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/9432/download?inline=
Front Range Research Associates. “Historic Building Inventory Record: Broadway and Canyon
(sec).” November 1995. blob:https://gis.colorado.gov/8e4f5832‐077d‐4822‐9b67‐1f82bd2db3f7
Front Range Research Associates, Inc. Boulder Band Shell Historical Study. Prepared for the City
of Boulder. 14 July 1995.
Olmsted Jr., Frederick Law “The Improvement of Boulder, Colorado.” 106p, March 1910– History
Colorado Object ID 978.84 B663i
Olmsted Associates Report “A Report on the Improvement of Boulder Creek in Boulder,
Colorado.” This report specifically details flood protection and park improvements to be made in
what is currently the Civic Area 1923
Planning and Development Services “Memo to the Landmarks Board – Proposal to amend the
designation boundary to include all of Block 13 of 1236 Canyon Blvd., the Band Shell, an
individual landmark.” April 6, 2022.
A Guide to Cultural Landscape Reports: Contents, Process, and Techniques – Robert R. Page,
Cathy A. Gilbert, Susan A. Dolan – U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1998.
https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/Reference/Profile/2198422
Cultural Landscapes Inventory Professional Procedures Guide – Robert R. Page – U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 2009.
Pollock, Peter. Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. and the Improvement of Boulder, Colorado. 2022.
National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/ncptt/upload/FG_Peter‐Pollock.pdf
Preliminary Property Evaluation Form, Colorado OAHP
CU Boulder’s Historical Aerial Photos Of Colorado (Digital Collection)
Index to Colorado School of Mines Historical Aerial Photos of Colorado
City of Boulder Public Tree Map
https://boulder.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5ecc3d671d264b5aadff76
cd89f3e4b0
Burrell, Dave “S.R. DeBoer Historic District: Application for Landmark Designation(link is
external),” DeBoer Neighborhood Preservation Committee, n.d. chrome‐
extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://rootedincheyenne.com/wp‐
content/uploads/2022/07/DeBoerDistrict‐DLPCApp‐v3.0.pdf
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
130
56
Taylor, Carol “Saco DeBoer Hired for Zoning Study in 1927(link is external),” Daily
Camera (Boulder, CO), June 16, 2012.
Corson, Dan W., Boulder’s First Zoning Ordinance, 1997.
Oral history interview with S. R. DeBoer
Maker Elinor Kingery; Mrs. Henry Knight
Dates Date Made, 11/22/1963
Description
Description of content: In this interview, DeBoer discusses his career in city planning and as a
landscape architect in Denver, Colorado. And Grand Junction; Mayors Robert Speer and Ben
Stapleton; Jacob Fillius; Denver Botanic Gardens
Physical Description: Available in digital format on SoundCloud.
Recording length: 1 hour, 48 minutes.
Object ID AR.OH.94
Preferred Citation
Oral history interview with S. R. DeBoer, AR.OH.94. History Colorado, Denver, Colo.
https://soundcloud.com/historycolorado/oral‐history‐interview‐with‐s‐r‐deboer‐aroh94
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
131
to Shihomi Kuriyagawa and Mark Davison (City of Boulder)
from Eleanor Cox and Laurie Matthews (MIG)
re Peer review of DRAFT Central Park Cultural Landscape Assessment Report
date 12/13/2023
Certification of Peer Review and Summary of Findings
Peer Review
In September of 2023, Shihomi Kuriyagawa and Mark Davison from the Parks
Department at the City of Boulder contracted Laurie Matthews at MIG to provide
peer review for a department-authored cultural landscape assessment of Central
Park. Eleanor Cox is providing technical guidance on the report content to the
City while Laurie Matthews is providing QA/QC on MIG deliverables. Our
professional qualifications are attached to this memo.
On Oct 27, 2023, MIG received a copy of the DRAFT Boulder Central Park,
Cultural Landscape Assessment from the Parks Department. Minor comments
regarding missing context and organization of the report were provided in
response, and on November 29 MIG received a revised draft for full peer review.
After reviewing the revised report, MIG finds that sufficient evidence is presented
to support the findings. Further refinement and organization of the content is
needed before the report should be considered final, but the chronology is well
researched and the integrity analysis presented meets professional standards.
MIG concurs with the findings as described below.
Summary of Findings
The design and development of Central Park in 1923-1924 is historically
significant under National Register Criterion C (design) as the work of a
recognized master, landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. Additionally,
the northern portion of Central Park is already an established historic district that
has been determined historically significant under National Register Criteria A
(Events) and C (Design) for its role in the social and cultural life of Boulder and
the design improvements implemented between 1938 and 1950 by Glen
Huntington and Saco Rienk DeBoer, including the band shell, the amphitheater,
and the associated vegetation and grading.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
132
MIG, Inc.
Over the past century the Central Park landscape has experienced changes that
include:
▪Physical changes to the landscape, such as the realignment and redesign
of the vegetation and circulation systems, and substantial regrading of the
topography.
▪A change in use through the construction of the bandshell and its evolution
as an activated space for entertainment and performance.
These changes have resulted in a lack of historical integrity of design, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association, which are needed for Central Park to
convey its 1923-1924 design and association with Olmsted Jr. The character of
Central Park relating to the Olmsted Jr.-era has been altered to the point where it
is no longer visible in the landscape.
Both historic significance and historical integrity are required to meet eligibility
thresholds for listing in the National Register. While Central Park has its origins in
the 1920s and the Olmsteds’ recommendations and designs for a park system in
Boulder, it is no longer able to tell that story through the existing landscape. As
such, while the park’s history is significant the lack of integrity in the landscape
disqualifies the park as a whole for listing in the National Register as the work of
master landscape architect Olmsted Jr.
However, the northern portion of park is still able to convey its historic
significance and association with the 1938-1950 era of park development
associated with Huntington and DeBoer. Therefore, Central Park remains eligible
for the National Register under Criteria A and C for the period in which the
bandshell and associated amphitheater seating were designed and built (1938-
1950). The area associated with these improvements is roughly outlined in yellow
in the graphic on page 3 of this memo; note that the graphic is approximate and
included for general reference only. The National Register-eligible portion does
not constitute the full park boundary as no evidence exists linking the southern
portion of the park to the Huntington-DeBoer improvements.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
133
MIG, Inc.
Aerial view of Central Park with the approximate National Register-eligible bandshell area
roughly outlined in yellow. North is up. Courtesy City of Boulder Parks Department.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
134
MIG, Inc.
Attachments:
Professional resumes for Laurie Matthews and Eleanor Cox. Both staff meet the
Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualifications Standards in the areas of
history, architectural history, and/or historical landscape architecture.
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
135
EDUCATION
»MLA, University of Oregon
»BLA, Landscape Architecture,
University of Oregon
»BFA, Lewis & Clark College,
Portland, Oregon
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
»American Society of
Landscape Architects
»Alliance for Historic
Landscape Preservation
»National Trust for Historic
AWARDS
»Oregon ASLA Distinguished
Practitioner Award, 2022
»Oregon Recreation and Parks
Association, South Park
Blocks Master Plan, 2022
»Oregon ASLA Award of
Excellence, Lithia Park
Master Plan, 2019
»Oregon ASLA Award of
Excellence, Willamette
Falls Cultural Landscape
Report, 2019
»Historic American
Landscape Survey Challenge
Award, Gaiety Hollow
Documentation, 2014
Laurie Matthews, FASLA
DIRECTOR OF PRESERVATION PLANNING AND DESIGN | MIG
Laurie Matthews is a nationally recognized expert in preservation
planning and cultural landscapes. Her work has helped to maintain and
manage some of the most iconic and precious historical sites in the
country such as Hearst Castle, Ellis Island, and Yosemite National Park.
Laurie is fascinated by the complexities and stories associated with
landscapes and the history they reveal. Her expertise and experience
are invaluable in assisting clients interpret and apply The Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards and the National Register of Historic Places
guidelines to the cultural properties under their stewardship. Laurie’s
analytical and communication skills enable her to readily identify issues
and clearly outline potential choices and tradeoffs related to design and
management. She is inspired by the passion of her public and private
clients and recognizes the impact the planning and design projects she
prepares have on cultural landscapes. Laurie has garnered national and
regional awards for her work, and she frequently speaks at national
conferences on historic preservation and design.
SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
»Willamette Falls Cultural Landscape Report, Oregon City, OR
»Yosemite Lodge Cultural Landscape Report, Yosemite National Park, CA
»South Park Blocks Master Plan, Portland, OR
»Dorris Ranch Master Plan, Springfield, OR
Preservation Sand Creek Cultural Landscape Inventory, Sand Creek Massacre
National Historical Site, CO
»Lithia Park Master Plan, Ashland, OR
»Point Reyes Light Station Cultural Landscape Report and Rehabilitation,
Point Reyes National Seashore, CA
»Oliver Kelley Farm Master Plan, Elk River, MN
»Bassett Farms Cultural Landscape Report, Kosse, Texas
»Denali Park Road Cultural Landscape Report, Denali National Park and
Preserve, AK
»Scotty’s Castle Cultural Landscape Report, Death Valley
National Park, CA
»Minidoka National Historical Park Visitor Center, ID
»Menlo Community Residential, Menlo, CA
»Greasy Grass Battlefield Cultural Landscape Report, Little Bighorn
Battlefield National Monument, MT
»Curry Village Cabins Rehabilitation, Yosemite National Park, CA
»Gaiety Hollow Cultural Landscape Report, Salem, OR
»White Pass Cultural Landscape Report, Klondike Gold Rush National
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
136
EDUCATION
»MS, Historic Preservation,
Columbia University in the
City of New York
»BA, History, University of
California, Santa Cruz
CERTIFICATIONS
»Certificate of Cultural
Landscape Preservation and
Management, University of
California, Berkeley
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
»Vice-President, California
Garden and Landscape
History Society
PRESENTATIONS
»"Understanding Cultural
Landscapes and Planning for
Change at the National Mall,"
National Trust for Historic
Preservation Conference,
2023
»“Climate Adaptation for
Buildings and Landscapes,”
National Trust for Historic
Preservation Conference,
2022
»“Landscapes Lost or
Forgotten: University Mound
Nursery in San Francisco,”
California Garden and
Landscape History Society,
2020
Eleanor Cox, MS
PRESERVATION SPECIALIST | MIG
Eleanor Cox is a highly accomplished preservation specialist and project
manager dedicated to broadening the application of cultural landscapes
as a framework for holistically managing and maintaining historic sites and
resources. An internship with the National Park Service put Eleanor on the
path to graduate school and a 10-year career in historic preservation planning
and cultural resources management spanning the United States. Using
cultural landscapes as a lens to examine a project, she helps clients consider
a place and all its layers and components—historic and archeological,
social and spiritual, natural and man-made—as they decide upon its future.
Combined with her research, analysis, and writing skills, Eleanor’s expertise
and experience enable her to efficiently guide clients through often complex
planning processes that require balancing client and stakeholder needs
with cultural resources. She is passionate about applying her knowledge to
create effective long-term stewardship strategies that allow for change while
recognizing and maintaining the significant past.
SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
»Bear Lodge Indigenous Cultural Landscape Report, Devils Tower National
Monument, WY
»Keys Ranch Historic District Cultural Landscape Report, Joshua Tree
National Park, CA
»Camp Namanu National Register of Historic Places Nomination,
Sandy, OR
»Ukiah Railroad Depot Historic Resource Evaluation, Ukiah, CA
»Bacon Ranch Historic District Cultural Landscape Report, Pinnacles
National Park, CA
»Bassett Farms Cultural Landscape Report, Limestone County, TX
»Thousands Cabins Determination of Eligibility and National Register
Update, Yosemite National Park, CA
»Merced Manor Reservoir and Pump House Historic Resource Evaluation,
San Francisco, CA*
»Capitol Annex Replacement Project Landscape Evaluation and Historic
Context Statements, Treatment Report, and Environmental Review,
Sacramento, CA*
»Capitol Extension Group Historic District National Register Update,
Sacramento, CA*
»Camp Locket Cultural Resources Technical Report, Campos, San Diego
County, CA*
»Golden Gate Village Maintenance Projects, Section 106 Compliance and
Memorandum of Understanding Between the Marin Housing Authority
and County of Marin, Marin City, CA*
* Completed prior to joining MIG
Attachment A: Cultural Landscape Assessment for Central Park
137
3198 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80304 | www.boulderparks-rec.org | O: 303-413-7200
TO: Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
SUBJECT: Matters from the Board
DATE: January 22, 2024
A.March Regular Meeting Date. The regularly scheduled March meeting falls on Monday, the
25th, the beginning of BVSD’s Spring Break.
a.Discussion Needed: PRAB’s input on rescheduling if necessary to allow BVSD
families Spring Break with their children.
B. Board Membership
C.PRAB Matters (Verbal)
138