8D - Preliminary Historic Context: Post WW II Residential Architecture MEMORANDUM
October lst, 2008
TO: Landmarks Board
PROM: Susan Richstone, Long Range Planning Manager
Chris Meschuk, Historic Preservation Planner
Allison Hawes, Historic Preservation Intern
James Hewat, Historic I'reservatioz~ Planner
SUBJECT: Preliminary I-listoric Context: Post WW II Residential Architecture
Boulder, CO
PURPOSE:
To provide the Landmarks Board with the opportunity to review and comment on the
preliminary historic context. General comments regarding the document will be the
L~asis of the meeting discussion. Specific edits should be made to the attached draft and
s~~hmittrd to staff after the meeting.
13ACKGROUNI~:
'The historic preservation program was awarded a grant to undertake a historic. resource
survey at~d historic contr~i of petit-ti~V41~ 11 architrrl~ire in Boul~lrr.
N~:xr sTEPS:
The attached document represents the' consultant's Eirst draft of the context.
l:econnaissance and select intensive level survey of architectural survey will commence
this tell with f final contra and survey being completed in the spring of 2009.
A"r~I'ACIIMENTS:
~~TTACHML:N1' A: Preliminary Historic Context, "Post WWII Residential Architecture
l3uulder, Colorado".
Post World War II Resictentiai Arcr~itecture in FSouloc~ Septemoer 2UOF3
Attachment A
Abstract
This Preliminary Historic Context defines the architectural, social, and physical environment in
which the post World War II residential neighborhoods unfolded in the City of Boulder, Colorado.
While the subsequent survey of ten residential neighborhoods within the city will focus on the
period of construction between 1947 and 1967, this historic context paints the broader historical
setting in which new ideas, construction technology, and architectural styles emerged after the
conclusion of World War II in the nation and in Boulder.
This document is divided into two sections. Part I describes the national historic context leading
up to and encompassing the postwar era of the 1940s through the 1970s. Examination of
national trends concerning urban planning, transportation development, residential construction,
and architectural trends illuminates Boulder's relationship with the national arena, and the
influences that impacted the city during this period. Part II of this document focuses on the
growth and development of Boulder leading to and encompassing the postwar period. This
. context describes the largest and most significant residential neighborhoods in Boulder during
this period and the people who helped shape them. Included is historical research concerning
patterns of development, commonly found housing styles, and other influencing factors on
residential development that were unique to Boulder.
This work is the result of primary and secondary historical research conducted at local and
regional repositories. Repositories included the City of Boulder Carnegie Library and archives,
Boulder County Library, Denver Public Library and its local branches, Prospector interlibrary
loan service, University of Colorado campuses (Boulder and Denver), the Daily Camera
archives, and the Colorado Historical Society's Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
Historic Context -DRAFT 1
~n,I VJ~r'd'v^!ar II F7r=.>i~lunlc~l lvchili;rturc in ft~_~ul~'~~r - t',,ru~~mLer 2QJ3
Table of Contents
Abstract ....................1
I. NATIONAL HISTORIC CONTEXT ON POST WORLD WAR II RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS .................6
1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................6
2.0 Growth and Suburbanization ....................................................................................................6
3.0 The Suburban Dream ................................................................................................................7
4.0 Middle Postwar Era 9
5.0 Late Postwar Era ......................................................................................................................11
6.0 Transportation Development ..................................................................................................12
7.0 Housing Shortage and Federal Assistance ..........................................................................14
8.0 Collaboration between Architects and Developers .............................................................17
9.0 Postwar Residential Architecture ...........................................................................................18
10.0 Construction and Building Materials ......................................................................................20
11.0 Interior Design ...........................................................................................................................22
12.0 Exterior Architecture ................................................................................................................26
13.0 Garages .....................................................................................................................................28
14.0 Landscape and Neighborhood Setting ..................................................................................29
15.0 Architectural Styles ..................................................................................................................30
15.1 Minimal Traditional ...............................................................................................................30
15.2 Colonial Revival ....................................................................................................................31
15.3 NeoColonial ...........................................................................................................................32
15.4 Ranch .....................................................................................................................................32
15.5 Split-Level ..............................................................................................................................34
15.6 Bi-Level ..................................................................................................................................35
15.7 Contemporary .......................................................................................................................35
15.8 Mobile Homes .....................................................................................................................36
II. HISTORIC CONTEXT OF BOULDER, COLORADO 37
1.0 Mining .........................................................................................................................................40
2.0 Agriculture and Ranching ........................................................................................................42
3.0 Early Settlers ...........................................................................................................................A3
- - - - - - - ~1i~;1,~n~: Gr,ntrxt - DR(~I ~
Post World War II Residential Architecture in Boulder -September 2008
4.0 Education ...................................................................................................................................46
5.0 Tourism ......................................................................................................................................48
6.0 Industry .....................................................................................................................................50
7.0 Planning in Boulder ..................................................................................................................53
8.0 Residential Development in Boulder .....................................................................................54
8.1 Baseline Subdivision ............................................................................................................57
8.2 Carolyn Heights Subdivision ...............................................................................................58
8.3 Edgewood ..............................................................................................................................60
8.4 Flatirons Park Subdivision ...................................................................................................61
8.5 Highland Park Subdivision ..................................................................................................62
8.6 Interurban Park Subdivision ................................................................................................65
8.7 Martin Acres Subdivision .....................................................................................................66
8.8 Park East Subdivision .........................•-----...........................................................................68
8.9 Sunset Hills Subdivision ......................................................................................................70
8.10 Table Mesa Subdivision ......................................................................................................71
8.11 Wagoner Manor Subdivision ...............................................................................................74
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...........................................................................................................................................79
Hisb~r ~:r •~~I~~~.t I I;~;FT - 3 -
F'~~ ;t '.."riri':~d~r li Rr.s ~:r~t-_;I ~~rc~iih . lnr~: ui !'•oul~irr :;:~;.'nmhEr lU;_~'.,
Table of Figures
Figure 1. General Electric Corporation's "It's a Promise!" advertisement helped sell appliances to young
couples who dreamed of their new homes, even before the war's end, in 1943 (Archer, 2005: 271)..........1
Figure 2. Levittown, Long Island, New York .................................................................................................1
Figure 3. Aerial view of Levittown shortly after construction (at left), and street view (at right) ...............9
Figure 4. People waited in line for the chance to see a new model home, as seen in this 1952 photograph
.....................................................................................................................................................................10
Figure 5. A stream of Model T's on the countryside (New York Public Library) ..........................................13
Figure 6. Concrete Highways and Public Improvements Magazine, in 1928. Smithsonian Institution........1
Figure 7. Young couples dreams of creating new homes on the cover of The Saturday Evening Post in
1959 (at IefiJ and in an advertisement for windows in House Beautiful magazine in 1945 (at right)
(Archer, 2005: 173) .....................................................................................................................................19
Figure 8: Cemesto wall paneling, ca. 1941, Courtesy of the National Archives (Albrecht, 1995: 72J 21
Figure 9. The popularity of prefabricafed homes drew hoards of curious buyers to the model homes, as
seen in this advertisement for the National Homes company. (Wright, 1981: 245) ....................................1
Figure 10. The backyard patio as on extension of the interior living space (Hess, 2004: 53) ....................24
Figure 11. The 1945, The Cromwell, o Minimal Traditional style house plan from the Sterling House Plan
company (Antique Home, 2008J 30
Figure 12. A Minimal Traditions! style house, as seen in the Sunset Hills neighborhood, Boulder, Colorado
31
Figure 13. A Dutch Colonial Revival style house, as seen in Manchester, Connecticut ..............................31
Figure 14. A Neocolonial style house, as seen in the Table Mesa neighborhood, Boulder, Colorado .......32
Figure 15. A Ranch style house, as seen in the Carolyn Heights neighborhood, Boulder, Colorado..........33
Figure 16. A Ranch style house in an American Colonial variation (Hess, 2004: 76J .................................33
Figure 17. The Ranch style, as seen with exaggerated trim and over-scaled brackets (Hess, 2004: 70)...34
Figure 18. A Split-Level style house, as seen in the Martin Acres neighborhood, Boulder, Colorado 34
Figure 19. A Bi-Level style house, as seen in the Table Mesa neighborhood, Boulder, Colorado ..............35
Figure 20. A Contemporary style house, built in Southern California in 1961 (Mason, 1982: 97J 36
Figure 21. The 42 foot 1954 Nashua mobile home (Atlas Mobile Home Directory, 2005) 37
Figure 22: Boulder City Plat Map circa 1868, Map Courtesy of the Carnegie Branch Library for Local
Nis tory 38
Figure 23. Baseline Subdivision, 2008 .........................................................................................................58
Figure 24: Carolyn Heights Subdivision, 2008 .............................................................................................60
Figure 25: Tyler House, Photograph courtesy of the Carnegie Branch Library for Local History ................60
Figure 26: Edgewood Subdivision, Photograph courtesy of the Carnegie Branch Library for Local History
61
Figure 27. Flatirons Subdivision, 2008 62
28: Arlington Model, 2008 ..........................................................................................................................63
Fiqure 29: Highlander Model, 2008 64
Figure 30: Coloradoan Model, Photograph Courtesy of the Carnegie Branch Library for Local History ....64
Figure 31. Interurban Park, 2008 ...............................................................................................................66
Figure 32: Martin Acres Subdivision, November 2, 1954, . ..........................................................................67
Figure 33: Martin Acres, 2008 68
Figure 34: Park Fast Neighborhood, 2008 ..................................................................................................69
Figure 35: Sunset Hills, 2008 .......................................................................................................................7 ]
Fiyure 36: The "New, Old Home" as it appeared in The Daily Camera, January 15, 1965 ..........................73
Post World War II R.~sidrrnUal Arrhitecturc in Boulder - Septcmlu•r 20UR
Figure 37: 1195 Ithaca Drive, "New, Old" Home, 2008 ...............................................................................73
Fiqure 38: Keith Neville of Keitf~ Homes, lnc., . ............................................................................................74
Figure 39: Brooklawn Drive, circa 1958, Photograph cocrrtesy of tl~e Carnegie Branch Library for Local
History 7 5
Figure 40. Wagoner Manor, 2008 ..............................................................................................................75
Hrao;ir. Ccmtext -DRAFT - -
Post 4^lrrl~l W.u II t-tes~dentia! Arrhitect_mz in E3uul:ler 5~~:~t,:~rnnar?CO&
I. NATIONAL HISTORIC CONTEXT ON POST WORLD WAR II RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISIONS
1.0 Introduction
Post World War II suburbanization in America fundamentally changed the landscape of cities
and towns from coast to coast. By definition, suburbanization is the proliferation of residential
communities on the outskirts of a city. This type of growth was the nation's answer to
accommodating a dramatically swelling population in the mid-twentieth century. The era began
as the United States was emerging from a costly world war in 1945. After struggling through the
Depression of the 1930s, the country began to rally from economic crisis, only to find itself
embroiled in a second world war abroad. The resulting engagement utilized millions of men and
women in the theaters of conflict in Europe and the Pacific, and in wartime production on the
home front. After four years of rationing and shortages, the war reached its conclusion and the
United States emerged exhausted but victorious. Servicemen and women began returning
home with aspirations for a better life and a place to settle.
World War II's end brought an immediate need for housing for the 6 million returning veterans in
1945, and an additional 4 million in 1946. Developers and builders began a period of postwar
residential development made possible by financial support from New Deal federal housing
programs. For the first time, single-family home ownership became attainable for millions of
young families nationwide. By the end of the 1940s, the country stood at the threshold of an
unprecedented period of growth and prosperity. Dramatic increases in the nation's population
during the baby boom years (1946-1964) impacted its built environment and its infrastructure.
Cities and towns in every state endeavored to meet the needs of a new generation of postwar
Americans by growing outward with suburban expansion.
These circumstances established the residential and commercial environment in which
residential development unfolded during the postwar era between 1945 and 1970. Federal
housing guidelines, new modes of transportation, technological innovation, and changing
lifestyles led to new approaches in home design and neighborhood planning. These changes
were far-reaching and had similar impacts from coast to coast. It is this national historic context
in which cities like Boulder, Colorado, grew and adapted to the needs of its ne~v residents.
2.0 Growth and suburbanization
Suburban development during the postwar housing boom differed from the character of the
prewar growth of the 1920s. Before the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) programs of the
1930s, developers bought undeveloped land, subdivided it into parcels for housing, and built
6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I',Istoric Gnntexl - I)HAF
F'~st'~,^di~rl : bNar it r?es~dc~~-ial Argil iitectur'F~ i•i Bc~lc~~r - ;~c:rern~_;r ~COU
streets and infrastructure. Many developers did not consider the neighborhood's full
development from start to finish as profitable. Consequently, after the infrastructure was put
into place, the developer sold all or a portion of the parceled land to a separate builder or to
individual homeowners (Wright, 1983: 248). An owner's control over the development of an
individual parcel allowed for greater architectural diversity in the pre-war suburb.
In the five years following World War II, the national rate of suburban growth outpaced urban
growth by a factor of ten. In 1954, Fortune magazine reported that 9 million Americans had
moved to the suburbs during the previous ten years (Jackson, 1987: 239). Spreading out from
the city, the suburban landscape took the form of aloes-density built environment, primarily
comprised of residential areas. Emerging cities in the Western states looked outside of their
downtown core and began to replace their "virgin Land" with large-scale building projects. The
• task of housing over 10 million Americans and their growing families called for visionary plans,
new ideas, and development schemes on a grander scale than had ever been attempted
outside of military construction projects. Between 1946 and 1956, 97% of all new residential
growth consisted of single-family, detached houses. Planners of these new neighborhoods
designed larger lots that pre-war suburbs, designated more acreage to open space, and
assumed all of its residents owned cars, a necessary possession of the suburban lifestyle
(Jackson, 1987: 239).
After World War II, FHA-financed development ,,f ~lv 2 : 2onr.~e~
allowed devebpers to create fully planned r;r,-~,, / 4v
nei hborhoods from the round u Since -
g 9 P• ~ ;
farmland on the urban frin es was relative) ~ ~ l
inexpensive, developers purchased thousands of t
j ~ -1C'_:~
acres for their large-scale residential - A-.z;3.
developments, enabled by FHA start-up funds. - ~ ' ~ ~ - - 7
The crux of these plans centered on housing ,t
developments that were realized in the form of
miles of curvilinear streets lined with a repetition of , y~_:~
single-family houses. - - -
3.0 °The suburban Dream ~ ~ _ = - ~4~
For many Americans, the realization of the ~ ~ ~ ~ -•~=J~~~~~°-~t'-."'
"American Dream" meant the ability to own a cEx~ERar, r;~;~Ei.ECTRic
home, preferably in a bucolic setting (Figure 1). _ i~~ - c"- ;T~~_~-.
They were fronted with an idealized image of the Figure 1. General Electric Corporation's "It's a
home from nearly every corner of their culture. Promise!" advertisement helped sell appliances to
from popular literature to household appliance Young couples who dreamed of their new homes, even
before the war's end, in 1943 (Archer, 2005: 271J
Historic Context -GRAFT 7
Post'VVo•lu !Nor I; Resi~~enl~~:' t\rc!tite'aur~ i.-i Ro~,l~'c;r - `~c:~t:;•nhFr iCi:~~S
advertisements, Single-family ownership nearly became the national ideal and a patriotic duty.
This vision came within reach for many young adults in dire need of housing immediately
following the war.
One of the first and most famous of developers was William J. Levitt, the founder of Levittown,
New York (Figure 2). In 1947, Levitt and his sons created Levittown on Long Island farmland 25
miles east of New York City. Levitt had anticipated the need for affordable housing at the close
of World War II. Naming the town for himself, Levittown made history by its innovative
application of efficient assembly-line methods to erect a large subdivision of modest-sized,
single-family houses virtually without the need for on-site skilled craftsmen. Construction speed
became the Levitt and Sons' credo. By one estimate, the company was able to complete one
house from start to finish every 17 minutes (Wright, 1983: 248). Harper's Magazine reported in
1948 that Levitt priced his homes $1,500 less than his competition, and s#ill managed to turn a
$1,000 profit on each house sold (Wright, 1983: 248).
~ While Levittown drew criticism for its
~ ' ~ ,
~~Y architectural monotony, the development was a
' 'r----•~ ~ ; „ resounding success in its popularity among
y... ;
[a sn , . ~ ~ ~ ' l home buyers (Figure 3). One source states the
,
~ - development drew as many as 1,400 real
~ ~ :V~ estate contracts on a single day, with many of
, . - the anxious home buyers waiting in line for four
. ~ days for the opportunity to purchase (Jackson,
~ ~ 1987: 236-37). When Levittown was
= rR~ .
C ~ ~ completed, Levitt and Sons had built over
r~~ t ~ !1 4:.~'~.~ : 17,000 single-family houses along miles of
.„~e.. ~ - t' ~.1' curvilinear new roads. The company went on
' - ~ r' i - to create similar Levittowns in New Jersey,
s =~~s~~,~ F ~ ~'s~ Pennsylvania, and Puerto Rico by the mid-
,t"`' may.. t-
~ ~ e ~ - , 1950s (Massey and Maxwell, 1996: 249).
4j~;,:`~ ~ .,~a,jt f ~~','1 ~ , ~ Similar master-planned, large-scale, FHA-
a,
~ ~
'j'~I ; r , ~w~ sponsored postwar housing suburbs
subsequently propagated nationwide, including
Figure 2. Levittown, Long Island, New York Panorama City, California, Oak Forest, Texas,
(Albrecht, 2995: 175) and Park Forest, Illinois (V~Jright, 1983: 248).
8 Historic, Context -DRAFT
Post World War II Hesiden6al Architechrre in Eso~lder -September X008
~y I t~pnp=r. ~
ti~
. r,- 'fir. f .7 ~ J ~ F` F J ~ ' - -n--- ~ _ ~ - .
-Ira J" ~ 1. y ms's- _
~ -
Figure 3. Aerial view of Levittown shortly after construction (at left), and street view (at right)
(New York Times, October 12, 2007)
4.0 Middle Postwar Era
Residential suburban development increased in the 1950s as the decade witnessed 15.1 rnillion
homes constructed. New forms of residential architecture in the Ranch, Contemporary, and
Split-Level styles captured the public imagination and fueled the fervor for a home of one's own.
The United States' military involvement in the Korean War caused a relatively minor slow-down
in housing production between 1950 and 1953. By the mid-1950s through 1960, residential
growth continued its strong and steady flow outward to suburban and exurban land.
While the housing shortage made the late 1940s a virtual seller's market, by the mid-1950s,
builders and developers had to become more aggressive in their marketing techniques. The
National Association of Home Builders began encouraging advertising tactics that encouraged
homeowners to "trade-in" their house for a better one. A glut of promotional tools and model
house demonstrations flooded the real estate market and offered the buyer an array of choices
and options to consider (Figure 4). The concept of "curb appeal" made its appearance by 1957
when developers saw elaborate landscaping features as competitive edge in a demanding
marketplace (Mason, 1982: 95).
H stouc Context -DRAT= Y 9
F'c~' V`!n I~l !N~;r II HF,;i~l~.~•ifnl Ar~hitect~irc'i~ f~t'~ul~!~a - SeptFmbor ?Q08
~
' ~-r r,
' i }i'` i y f~~ .
.~!4~~ r •rl
A
Y'i
` .
S _
Figure 4. People waited in line for the chance to see a new model home, as seen in this 1952 photograph
(Hess, 2004: 57)
Housing construction was not the only type of development that relocated to the suburban
fringes. New schools and shopping centers opened at the intersections of collector roads near
new neighborhoods. These collector roads generally lead local traffic to the larger arterial roads
in the region, such as highway systems. Businesses and institutions began to establish office
buildings and campuses far from urban centers. In turn, employees no longer required homes
that were located near the city. A worker could virtually avoid urban centers if he had
convenient access to an automobile and transportation route. These circumstances only
encouraged a continuation of growth outward from established neighborhoods in cities and
towns.
Increasir~yly suburban and remote workplaces provided further ir7~petus to draw new suburban
residential development away from the downtown when the federal government increased its
military infrastructure in the 1950s. The relationship between universities and the federal
government also strengthened due to mounting political tension of the Cold War when the
government significantly increased funding to university research projects "to ensure military
security in a troubled world" (Findlay, 1992: 123). Support for scientific and engineering
research led to the construction of new campuses to house these new programs. Many
institutions, like Stanford University, established satellite research parks on the open land at the
outskirts of town (Findlay, 1992: 122-25). Similarly, the federal military defense budget led to
new forms of nuclear weapon research and manufacturing sites. These facilities were typically
located on open spaces in America's sunbelt at sites such as Los Alamos, New Mexico, and the
Rocky Flats facility south of Boulder, Colorado. In turn, emerging private industries with military
1n - - - - --Hi~.(on~ (;u~itext I>f{/VI I
f O~t':~"JOrI~ `.'d I Ri:_;idi~nti,il Arrlnhi~_h_i'•:• i'i E:,~ 1!~r - ~i.r t.~~nbcr "JC8
contracts, such as aircraft and aerospace industries, also located their facilities at the edges of
cities and towns (Abbott, 1993: 57-58).
5.0 Late Postwar Era
By the late 1950s, single-family homebuilding had decelerated and the housing market began to
shift. The public blamed the slow-down on the lack of variety in housing types offered to the
consumer, rather than a reduced need for housing. A renewed interest in denser, urban-
influenced housing developments came to fruition in the 1960s. Ideas like those expressed in
Jane Jacobs's The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961) celebrated the diversity and
vitality of urban living, while criticizing lifestyles fostered in the suburbs as banal and isolating
(Wright, 1983: 260).
By the mid-1960s and into the 1970s, developers began to meet this interest with more multi-
family residences. Increasing costs of land drew developers to consider the higher-density
developments as an alternative to single-family homes. Developers began to build row houses
and apartment buildings for the first time since prior to World War II. In 1969, apartment
buildings accounted for nearly half of the housing market, and most of this occurred in the
suburbs. Developers increased the appeal of multi-family residences by providing more
spacious apartment floorplans, air-conditioning, patios, balconies, views, swimming pools, and
better landscaping in common areas (Mason, 1982: 110). All of these features could allow the
apartment dweller to enjoy many of the attractions of living in asingle-family home. Almost 20
million housing units built between 1963 and 1973 created more housing than any prior decade.
In a move away from exclusive support of single-family residential subdivisions, federal and
local government assistance supported master-planned, high-density housing that came to be
known as Planned Urban Developments (PUDs) (Wright, 1983: 260).
Race riots and violent reactions to racial discrimination during the 1960s also impacted new
development and access to affordable housing. The decade exposed the racism and racial
discrimination that continued in many of the VA and FHA housing developments. The Civil
Rights Movement advanced by mid-decade and Congress signed the Civil Rights Act 1968,
which banned discrimination in the sale of any housing nationwide. That same year, President
Lyndon Johnson signed the Housing and Urban Authority Act to provide low-income families
greater access to housing. The Act supported the development of new towns, model city
programs, and urban renewal (Mason, 1982: 135). Despite the legislative progress, by the end
of the decade, the racial tension contributed to the continuing stream of "white flight," as
working- and middle-class white Americans abandoned city neighborhoods for the increasingly
homogenous or segregated suburbs and exurbs.
Pnst World War II Residential Architecture in Boulder -September 20oII
The national housing market dipped again in the early 1970s, impacted by double-digit inflation,
high interest rates, and an energy crunch as the nation closed its prolonged chapter on the
Vietnam War. President Nixon's moratorium on federal funding allocated to housing projects for
low and moderate-income Americans sharply curtailed new home construction. The market
forced young families to consider alternatives for suburban detached dwellings, such as
cooperative housing, townhouses, or mobile homes. Many viewed the economic trade-off as
less than desirable in contrast to the postwar ideal of middle-class America (Wright, 1983:260-
61).
Housing patterns turned back to building single-family homes in larger volumes in the mid- and
late 1970s. This was due in part to many American's view of home ownership as a sound
investment against inflation. Interest in new housing types in new neighborhoods on previously
undeveloped land continued to encourage relocation to new suburban communities. Increasing
numbers of women in the workplace meant families had more income, and greater opportunities
to move into asingle-family home, or to upgrade from an existing home (Mason, 1982: 155-56).
For many, the single-family suburban home remained a symbol of progress.
6.0 Transportation Development
American cities experienced the most dramatic change in their built environment with the
transportation revolution. The railroad and steam ferry introduced during the nineteenth century
moved city residents out to the city's fringes and urban centers began to grow into metropolises.
Before the advent of the automobile, Main Streets thrived as the commercial centers at the
heart of cities and towns nationwide. As the United States grew during the nineteenth century,
an ever-increasing number of tourists set out from the city to discover the beauty and solitude of
the pastoral countryside. Trains, boats, and carriages afforded tourists some opportunity for
mobility and exploration, but their fixed routes and rigid schedules offered little flexibility on the
trip. Eventually, the automobile provided the freedom trains could not.
In 1901, Ransom Olds, the founder of the Olds Motor Vehicle Company, drove his Oldsmobile
from Detroit to the New York City Auto Show without incident, and proved to many the reliability
of the car. By 1903, 8,000 motor vehicles took to the roadway of the U.S (Figure 5).
12 Historic Context -DRAFT
F~ ~a_ ~rli ~ 'I R~= ~cr' a i1r h Ilr~.lu' ~ Ir lt~:u i ~ ;.r ..Il ;
-{~;-q~,
3'• ._+~i' Y'om`
I. , f r, ;.L~~--
~
~x~ c~ `hut 1 ~ ri ~ .i. ~ ~a ~ f, ~ ~
``.~f~ ~~i 1 j~~ ~ r~ ~n S ~r~ fir
Figure S. A stream of Model T's on the countryside (New York Public Library)
In 1908, thanks to Henry Ford's assembly-line Model T built from standardized, interchangeable
parts, the automobile became more affordable to the average citizen. Ford's developed a
monthly installment plan that permitted anyone with steady employment to afford a Model T. By
the 1920s, the ownership of an automobile became an attainable goal for many. In so doing,
they defined a new sense of self-identity and independence.
When city Main Streets could no longer support the growing number of cars, automobile owners
began looking away from downtown districts for parking spaces, repair shops, and filling
stations. During the Great Depression, one prevailing idea was the construction of new service
and recreational facilities accessible solely by car. The effect of these policies was far-reaching.
Businesses and entrepreneurs created developments at the outer edges of cities, and, as a
consequence, established a new built environment and a pattern of dispersed landscapes.
In 1904, 93°0 of roads were unpaved that had begin used by Conestoga wagons, horse-drawn
carriages and stagecoaches. The widespread use of the automobile for recreational touring
created a strong demand for better roads. Good Roads Magazine and the Good Roads
Movement began as early as 1908. American Motorist magazine advocated public investment
in roads and highway improvements (Figure 6).
Thirty-seven states had established highway departments by 1912, and citizens readily bought
federal highway bonds or levied new taxes, such as the gasoline tax, to obtain the necessary
rcads. Federal aid began in 1916 and allowed states with small populations to build the roads
that interstate travel required. By the 1920s, wealthier states had constructed good systems of
hard-surfaced highways, while thinly settled or less affluent states had graded and graveled
their roads. Improved road networks and road surfaces allowed year-round automobile travel to
become a reality.
N'_ ~ ~r-_ r - - ~ ~ - -
Modern superhighways began to appear by the 1940s.
After the wartime period of rationing gas and raw ('DE"1'E ,H IGH~1 Yc
materials ended, Americans happily retook their place CAN ~+J
behind the wheel. Primitive roads became tollways, ~uaLIC Ih1PRUVEMENrs
MAGAZINE
highways, and parkways that were designed by
engineers by the late 1940s. Although the first two
highways, the Pennsylvania Turnpike and the Arroyo
Seto Parkway in California, were completed by 1950,
construction of today's interstate highway system did ,h.:. r~
not begin until the mid-1950s. r r `
-
_ _ , ' ~ -
As federal funding for highways increased, commuting , - ~ ,;;,~x
to work from residential suburbs became ,":;.~:~'•r~~~~~ -
commonplace. The Federal Highway Act of 1956 t • _ _ tin
funded construction of 41,000 additional miles of ~ ~ ~ ~ `
limited access highways linking major cities from coast ~ 4
to coast. Conversely, little federal funding, about 1 Figure 6. Concrete Highways and Public
Improvements Magazine, in 1928.
went toward public transportation (Jackson, 1987: 8). Smithsonian Institution
At the same time, the Federal Housing Administration
(FHA) financed $4.5 million in residential suburban development (Wright, 1983: 248). An
important advantage to the new FHA-sponsored neighborhoods was their easy access to
transportation arteries. As a result, new communities were strategically located along the linear
lengths of transit corridors, and people began to reshape their cities into along the length of its
major arterial routes.
7.0 Housing Shortage and Federal Assistance
The Great Depression of the 1930s had eroded the nation's entire economic structure and left
more than 2 million construction workers unemployed, thousands of construction companies out
of business, and foreclosure rates that soared. Many financial institutions failed as the result of
mortgage defaults. President Herbert Hoover tried to assist financial institutions by passing the
Federal Home Loan Bank Act of 1932. This Act created a Federal Home Loan Bank Board to
supervise a series of discount banks to increase the supply of money available to make home
loans and serve as a reserve credit resource. By 1933, the peak of the Depression, home
foreclosures grew to a rate of one thousand per week, and residential construction nearly halted
for middle and working class Americans (Wright. 1983: 240).
American caizens pinned their hopes en newly elected President Franklin D. f~oosc:velt and his
approach to the nation's problems. Arnonq the many new agencies introduced by Nevr Deal
14 - - - - i-~ ,
_ _ Past Wor'•d War II f~esidential Architecture in Boulder - September 2008
legislation initiated in Roosevelt's first 100 days, was the Federal Housing Administration (FHA)
that was brought about under the landmark National Housing Act of 1934. The FHA would
become the most significant housing legislation in American history (Mason, 1982: 10).
Roosevelt signed the National Housing Act into law in June 1934 in an effort to stimulate the
construction industry in the private housing market. The FHA created a national market for
mortgages by establishing standards for insurance property and proof of economic integrity.
The agency's companion Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corporation created confidence in
the mortgage-financial structure of individual home ownership by guaranteeing protection to
banks who participated in the program. This ultimately gave middle-income families access to
home ownership by allowing insured, low-interest, long-term mortgages with low down
payments. Until that point, a home buyer needed to produce 40-50% of a home's appraised
value in order to obtain a loan (Wright, 1983: 241). In many cases, FHA loans essentially made
purchasing a home less expensive than paying rent (Jackson, 1987: 205).
At the same time, the FHA supported private developers who constructed large residential
subdivisions of much-needed affordable housing. The FHA encouraged developers to improve
methods of large-scale planning and construction, in addition to creating a mechanism for
employment at a time when 25% of the workforce was unemployed (Jackson, 1987: 203). The
FHA went as far as developing a series of technical design and land-use standards under the
direction of Seward H. Mott, the administration's first director. The FHA standards resulted in
better planned communities with higher quality homes in terms of design, materials, and
construction (Mason, 1982: 12, 13).
Just as housing construction began to improve, the nation found itself embroiled in a second
world war. Construction in the private sector was truncated by the shift to defense-worker
housing near active military installations. The wartime build-up in 1941 and 1942 hastily sped
up the slow pace of construction from the 1930s. Almost overnight, construction and
engineering firms were suddenly awarded large-scale, industrialized projects that utilized
innovative building techniques. A frenzy of construction ensued, and the nation became
immersed in the construction of munitions plants, barracks, tanks and aircraft, shipyards, and
industrial plants. The federal government asked architects, engineers, and builders to work on
this enterprise, taking them away from their own local projects.
In addition to the mission-centered military architecture, the U.S. War Department required
housing for workers at its insta?lations and defense plants. Backed by available financing,
builders and engineers were able to apply new ideas for prefabricated materials and panelized
systems in the form of defense housing. Speed through planning and efficient construction
techniques was the primary goal. Factories began building standardized window and door
Historic Context -DRAFT 15
F?~~,1 V.''niln',"J_tr it R•:r~ic~~nsia~ A~~!~i' :,.iiiri: ~~~.duer - S~:~t;'Gmtrer ?J~~B
units, prefabricated walls, duct systems and plumbing, and trusses, all of which reduced cost
and on-site labor time (Mason, 1982: 32, 56).
In 1945, the influx of returning men and women from World War II caused a national housing
emergency. The servicemen and women led to a nationwide surge in marriage and birth rates.
New families in need of affordable housing caused an immediate demand, and the Federal
government estimated a need for 12.5 million new housing units in ten years (Massey and
Maxwell, 1996: 248). By the end of 1946, 10 million veterans discharged from military service
struggled to find adequate shelter and most found lodging with family members. Many men and
women hastily rearranged surplus temporary World War II structures on the homefront as
housing. A U.S. Senate report identified hundreds of thousands of former G.I.s living in
outbuildings such as garages, Quonset huts, and even chicken coops. The need for decent
housing had become dire and government projections predicted that demand would only
' increase well into the 1950s (Wright, 1983:242).
Established by the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, the VA established a mortgage aid
program that was structured similarly to the FHA. The FHA administered the VA's housing
program, one of the most significant benefits of the GI Bill of Rights. The VA went further than
the FHA by enabling veterans to borrow loans for the entire appraised amount of a home,
without a down payment. The only caveat was that veterans could only apply for loans for
existing homes, which meant that they had to wait for builders to complete their housing. Thus
the scarcity of housing immediately after the war continued to be a barrier to young families
hoping to have a home of their own (Wright, 1983: 243). With the financial structure set in place
to provide assistance to servicemen who needed it, developers and builders to construct
housing quickly, cheaply, and in large quantities.
Housing development reached record highs in 1948 and the numbers steadily increased into the
1950s. Congress awarded the FHA another $750 million to continue and expand its housing
programs. At that point, the FHA was providing builders advance funding on entire large-scale
projects. An individual builder was able to take out as many as 100 mortgages at a time to fund
private housing ventures. FHA programs were so favorable by the late 1940s that legislators
could not gain support for their own public housing projects. In 1948, the FHA's financial
structure expanded further when Congress passed a bill that created a secondary market for
mortgages requiring as little as 5% down for 30-year loans under a newly formed Federal
National Mortgage Association (FNMA, later called Fannie Mae). In 1949, President Truman
signed another bill authorizing an additional $1 billion for the FNMA. The secondary market
resulted in a new liquidity that gave the VA and the FHA access to more long-term funds for
home building projects, thus fueling the housing boom of the mid-twentieth century (Mason,
1982: 51
16 - - - - - ; i~ `;o~,,N,, uF:;~F
Post World War 11 Residential Architecture ;n Boulder -September 2008
The Federal Housing Act of 1949 aimed to expand the reach of existing housing programs to
include apartment housing and other multiple-family housing units, rather than just single-family
middle-class housing units. The FHA would learn that builders took advantage of the bill and
built many poorly constructed and ill-suited apartment buildings. The FHA soon replaced that
program with one with more stringent oversight, causing many builders to abandon the second
program due to its low profitability. Similar scandals in suburban housing developments led to
the FHA instating new zoning codes that could prevent multi-family housing to be built with
single-family housing, or ensure that single-family houses were not used for commercial
purposes, such as a mercantile or even a rental housing unit (Wright, 1983: 246-47).
The FHA played a large role in the social formation of postwar residential developments. It
encouraged developers to adopt restrictive neighborhood covenants that ensured racial
homogeneity under fears that integrated neighborhoods would lower home values and stir racial
tension or violence. This move sparked protest from the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) who asserted that the FHA's neighborhood manual
was racially discriminating and moreover, causing black isolation and urban ghettos (Wright,
1983: 248). The federal government's response to the NAACP's allegations was slow, but the
FHA's restrictive covenants pertaining to race were outlawed by a Supreme Court ruling in
1948. The FHA continued to give preference to controlled, segregated neighborhoods in
suburban settings over diversified urban residential projects through the 1950s (Wright, 1983:
248). Despite the extensive reach of the FHA's housing programs, the lower middle class,
urbanites, ethnic families, or anyone who could not afford to meet program requirements were
left stranded without the support of a national housing policy (Wright, 1983: 256-57).
8.0 Collaboration between Architects and Developers
Housing developments of the 1920s can be generally characterized by a lack of collaboration
between architects and developers. Architects favored the more lucrative projects involving
custom homes that were often large in size, which would ostensibly allow the designer more
room for aesthetic expression. Builders of subdivisions, on the other hand, rarely considered
using an architect. Instead, they used stock plans to which they could make minor modifications
using an on-site draftsman. This allowed builders to keep construction costs low (Mason, 1982:
17).
The dynamic between builders and architects changed in the 1930s. A precursor to this
realignment occurred at the 1932 American Institute of Architects' (AIA) annual convention
when the AIA advised its audience of prominent architects and planners that architects should
become better acquainted with the planning and financial operations procedures of large-scale
housing projects. They argued that architects should better cooperate with land owners,
Historic Context -DRAFT 17
Fort b~Jcild :"J.+~ II Fic~s~~~~-ntial Arcrui~ c'~~e .n F<~.u~~~er - SvF~teribe.r 2U:i
developers, and banks, and that developers and builders should lead the entire process of
building a subdivision. To both, the AIA advocated large-scale operations for the goal of
maximum economy. Overall, it emphasized the importance of innovative design and quality
construction (Mason, 1982: 17).
In 1934, the FHA's new loan programs and construction and planning guidelines for residential
development opened the door, making the AIA's initiative possible. The FHA's first Director,
Seward H. Mott, spearheaded the agency's approach to improve standards in neighborhood
design and site planning that became influential for decades to come. Hampered by the
Depression, widespread realization of these ideals took more than a decade, but eventually, the
goals set forth by the FHA and AIA finally came to fruition during the postwar era.
During the postwar building boom developers began to establish residential subdivisions that
they oversaw from start to finish. Some developers hired architects to design a few basic
models to be used in each subdivision. A builder would typically hire an architect on retainer for
about $1,000, and then pay him an additional $100 for each house actually built. Larger
developments with more houses thus became more profitable for the architect. Architectural
periodicals championed this partnership on the basis that the participation of a professional,
registered architect would raise the design quality of the mass-produced development (Wright,
1983: 249).
Many architects regarded the housing of large-volume residential subdivisions with a degree of
disdain. They looked down on developers' taste in aesthetics and questioned some of the cost-
saving short-cuts. They also expressed frustration at the FHA's conservative approach to home
design that favored traditional over Modernist designs. Indeed, FHA handbooks rated
architectural conformity as part of its system of financing approval. The agency was wary to
recommend Modernist features such as flat roofs or asymmetrical facades in the 1950s. The
new styles heralded by architects still appeared to be a short-lived trend that was not conducive
to a sound investment at that time. Even Frank Lloyd Wright, whose domestic house plans
were featured in popular magazines such as House Beautiful, had his plans rejected due to a
lack of architectural conformity with the FHA's standards (Wright, 1983: 251).
9.0 Postwar Residential Architecture
What the Blandings wanted... was simple enough: atwo-story house in quiet,
modern good taste,... agood-sized living room with a fire place, a dining room,
pantry, and kitchen, a small lavatory, four bedrooms and accompany baths... a
roomy cellar... plenty of closets.
-Eric Hodgins, as quoted from Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House
(1939)
- 1 $ - Hc.;uric l;o next - UHAFT
Post World War I! Residential Architecture in Boulder -September 2008
After twelve years of hardship during the Great Depression of the 1930s, immediately followed
by World War II, parents of baby-boomers yearned for a home of their own. At every turn, the
federal government, builders, bankers, and magazines told young families that the single-family
suburban house was the only suitable way to provide a good family life. Encouraged by the
earnest buyer, the market presented homebuyers with a plethora of new home styles and
interior features designed specifically for the lifestyle of the postwar age (Figure 7).
l7l
r X ~ ~ An ExclusWC Gallup 1'011
~?~.a
:.`4. Ytg'~. Prrparud for Iho POST t' ~ ~p ~ = t
~j ~
1 ~ +
V~>;. ' r~ t7 -4'i~..F.i ;,1 r 7 ~ l~'I.] ,F..•`r u F IT. H~r < _
f ' ~ . .
I , ! ~ 3. ~'tr" ~ r ~ ..cry g J < ~ ~ ,~-}`f. ~ 1\ ?
/ 1 F ~ I.'~._ l
- ~~^1~ 1 .~3!':
n l.eum ~~~,fr~.l~.ir ~ /~1 j ••~,p~ t~~v i~.i
~I ' ~ / j pry ,c (;~~~1 .
I~~ I Ip5{7~~ T i ~
f ~ ;
~
~ l.~
~ ,mod <~a`LtF ~s~ ra ~ ~~J tf i ~71 ij~ ~ t~ 1 / ~
i'
~ t - ~~a~ ~i F ~ t~ fi ~U `N ` - wh ~a~ 1, t k l
- T ~p,fi,.s. t s N~" q,.,?,pr,;1S .ca K . J.,t S" ~'i ~ - . , ~ I 'r:
'w7P.•l:i' art
~c'`i ~ ~ ~ a 1. ~ _
Figure 7. Young couples dreams of creating new homes r ~ ~ '
/ 1
on the cover of The Saturday Evening Post in 1959 (at ~ " ~jf
left) and in on advertisement for windows in House ~ Y ' ~
~iJ...
Beautiful magazine in 1945 (at right) (Archer, 2005: -
173) ~ '
~~~/r
1 ~
Interest in house designs spurred sales of plan books while popular magazines expanded their
sections devoted to house design. Popular magazines of the #ime such as Better Homes and
Gardens, House Beautiful, and Good Housekeeping promoted these ideas and featured new
house plans each month. In 1945, Good Housekeeping commissioned 12 nationally prominent
architects to design house plans that were subsequently featured in the monthly periodical
throughout the year. Corresponding three dimensional models of these plan drawings were
Historic Context -DRAFT 1 Q
Post World War II Residential Arc!ntc~ct~.irrt in f3oulrier -September 200P
displayed at department stores, such as Macy's, for public viewing. The plans were
overwhelmingly popular, with more than 100,000 sold that year. Good Housekeeping continued
the program for the following eight years. Building manufacturers followed their lead by
promoting their model homes using well-known contemporary architects, and by publishing their
renderings in magazine and trade publications (Mason, 1982: 53).
The postwar house of the late 1940s and 1950s was modest in size, in part due to a demand for
building materials that caused a surge in the cost of labor and materials. New neighborhood
subdivisions were typically master-planned to offer only a limited variety of housing models,
usually four to six models from which a homeowner could choose. They were almost always
single-family dwellings, each with uniform street set-backs and buffered by agrass-covered
lawn. Higher-income postwar suburbs differentiated themselves by offering larger lots and more
individualized home designs and custom features.
Many characteristics of home design during the late 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s were
features that were originally introduced during the 1930s and early 1940s, but became
prominent in the postwar era. Conversations of consumer demands were freely discussed
among homebuilders as early as the 1930s in response to improved market data on home
consumer trends. Interest in new materials and home design would not fully take form until after
the end of World War II.
10.0 Construction and Building Materials
American housing manufacturers and builders made technological progress in the 1930s. The
1933 World's Fair in Chicago showcased the newest construction materials, such as walls of
plate glass, cable suspension systems, and steel framing. On the domestic scale, home
appliances and state-of-the-art kitchens presented the latest innovations in home design.
American Houses of New York was just one of many companies to introduce prototypes of
prefabricated housing using steel framing fit with two sheets asbestos-cement panels
sandwiching insulation (Mason 198: 24-26). Research in modular assembly and prefabrication
of housing became easily adapted to large-scale building projects during the war years, and to
suburban housing development following the war.
The 1939 New York World's Fair ended the decade with futuristic concepts for cities,
construction, and housing. The fair's theme blended the blessing of democracy with the
promise of technology under the theme "Science is the Determining Factor in Progress." The
Fair educated visitors with an array of colorful and exotic exhibits and even rides that foretold a
future rendered in glass, steel, and efficient construction using standardized parts such as
prefabricated paneling (Mason, 1982: 22-25).
20 I ir_.toric Context - (7fiAF I
~'ost U`Jorlcl'v~J~:r II Hcslce'itial Arch"~':;c:~.r~ n L~oulucr - Sr~.~l~•ii!xv~ 2OC3
Many of the accomplishments hailed at the 1939 World's Fair were the culmination of a small
number of researchers, architects, and engineers who had been pursuing new forms of building
technology throughout the 1930s by that point. Despite the Depression, hundreds of research
institutions and industrial manufacturing firms made advances in materials, technology, and
equipment. Examples of the most significant innovations from this period include modular
plywood panels, treated wood products, and elastic latex glues.
The prefab home industry had adopted many of the building techniques pioneered decades
earlier. Companies like Sears, Roebuck artd Co. sold between 70,000 and 75,000 mail-order
homes between 1908 and 1940. After selecting the house plan from the catalog, the customer
could order the pre-cut materials and fittings to be shipped to the home site. The precut
materials reduced the cost of building. Although the house styles were traditional, their
construction used new, cheaper materials such as asphalt shingles and drywall, and balloon
framing as a faster building method (Sears Archives, 2007). The Aladdin Company of Bay City,
Michigan, was another popular company that sold "kit homes" by establishing plants that
produced pre-cut panels from 1910 through the 1940s and continuing after the war (Mason,
1982: 32, 56; The Aladdin Company, 1995).
The concept of prefabrication received even greater public attention when the economy began
to recover in the late 1930s. Emphasis on achieving fast and efficient construction was the
goal, and construction using prefabricated materials appeared to be the solution (Figure 8).
While the economic downturn meant researchers were not given real world opportunities to test
their models on a large scale, their efforts were summarily utilized to the greatest extent
imaginable by the military during the massive build-up to World War II at the close of the decade
(Mason, 1982: 29).
i' .
;
V
. , Sr; 1
Figure 8: Cemesto vra11 paneling, ca. 1941, - ~ ~
Courtesy of the National Archives (Albrecht, ~ r~~` - _ '
1995: 72J •y: ~.••r,<.. ,.•r:. :~ms^"~!'^""-'r?^'~'~
F , .
Historic Context -DRAFT 21
Pcs- World lNar II Heside~tial Arrhiter_.ture i:i f3cu'der Septemher ?008
Spurred by the housing crisis following World War Il, the federal government placed a heavy
emphasis on the potential for new technology for solving many of the complex problems
presented by rapid home construction. Much of the developments introduced between 1945
and 1950 may be credited to advances in research and development. These advances were
carried out by manufacturing firms and research institutions during earlier decades. New
building methods included precut materials, site fabrication of parts, and modular construction
(Mason, 1982: 54-55). Additionally, the government put stock in the potential for prefabrication
and preassembled houses. Two of the best-known companies to pioneer prefabricated homes
in the early 1950s were Lustron and National Homes, which managed to ship a large number of
complete, preassembled homes to locations across the country (Figure 9). These companies
were the exception, however, as many -
rJirii,:i,,,,,
construction companies struggled to engage i~, ~
quickly enough or produce enough volume to
meet the high expectations. By the end of the "--~"-~'~.r--
1940s, the state of the nation's housin dal v°"~i~~~:'
shortage had only worsened (Wright, 1983: t~ A, ~~.i.
245, 246). 'i
~„K1-.r:
Although many of the materials and building - ~ * ~ ' = -
technologies were available before the war, - ~ ~ ~
home builders began using them on a large ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~~-r?
scale when the were final) resented the r Y ~ ti, ~ , .
opportunity. Building materials such as Then/ ('lir~t~~!
plywood, article board, and sum board Th~~r/ >~arr!
p 9Yp Theq /t~rre~l!
gained widespread acceptance in home Thy?~- Ko>t;f~;h[.!
~ TA,.v. o \eil.nM Il~w.~ !.r
construction by the 1950s. The U.S. Gypsum
~r,..„,..
ru~r~, u,..?uur, ..r .w~.su~s~. ~
Research Village introduced the use of
Figure 9. The popularity of prefabricated homes drew
standardized, pre-cut wall panels and metal hoards of curious buyers to the model homes, as seen
framing in 1954. California developer Joseph in this advertisement for the National Homes
company. (Wright, 1981: 245)
Eichler applied these innovations to real house
models that featured Modern design principals, and were used in large-scale residential
subdivisions across Northern California (Mason, 1982, plate; Wright, 1983: 249). Many large-
scale builders adopted power hand tools, such as nail guns, routers, and saws (Jackson, 1987:
238).
11.0 Interior Design
Homeowners tirelessly sought out new ideas on decorating, furnishings, and new appliances, in
addition to new architectural designs and styles. Home shows and National Home Week kicked
22 Historic Context -DRAFT
Post Word hJar II Hesident`al ~rcl~iteclure in Boulder SeptemberCOF~
off a major marketing event where model homes were open for display, and for sale. In Denver,
the annual Denver Parade of Homes began in 1953 to showcase new residential developments
in the city's metropolitan region. All the amenities and conveniences of new postwar housing
made it attractive to buyers, and the strategy worked. Home builders increased sales and the
model homes increased demand for the latest kitchen, bath, laundry, and heating utilities and
products.
Windows posed both opportunity and challenges in postwar house design. Nineteenth century
limitations in the size, placement, and use of windows were lifted during the first half of the
1900s. Production of window glass increased after World War II. One impetus to this change
involved technological advances in heating. New postwar houses typically featured central
heating through gas forced air systems or a hot water heating system. Before central heating
~ and cheap fuel, however, windows were a vehicle for heat loss, and thus were sized or placed
at a minimum. Access to inexpensive energy for central heating meant the loss of heat through
windows could be overcome by simply cranking up the heat. A home's orientation to face south
or west became less of a consideration for builders.
The home designer's second consideration of fenestration involved access to clean air and
natural light. Houses located outside of city centers were presumably located in areas with
considerably less pollution from the smoke and dust pollution that were omnipresent in industrial
centers. No longer burdened by the need to block out bad air from the home's interior, large
windows became an option in the modern home (Isenstadt, 2006:147-49).
A third aspect of the changing importance of windows involved the view from the window.
Afforded by large windows and unobstructed, low-rise landscapes, pastoral views gained
increased importance with the suburban home. Views thus became an important consideration
in a home's value and a desirable feature in home design. Architects responded to the public
demand accordingly. Early pre-war subdivisions acknowledged the importance of view to the
outside. Advertisements and plan books often described a particular house mode! in terms of
the attributes afforded by its wonderful view (Isenstadt, 2006:168-173).
Spaciousness, or rather the illusion of spaciousness, became an important feature of the
compact dwelling in the 1930s and 1940s. Architects discussed the importance of practical
accommodation of home interiors, and how to make the best use of small spaces. Windows
and views visually extended the perception of space and played a key role in the perception of
interior enclosure. Glass walls that erased boundaries between interior and exterior spaces
provided the ultimate realization of this ideal. Full-length sliding glass doors to a home's private
landscape-the backyard and "outdoor living room"-mitigated a house's small size (Figure 10)
(Isenstadt, 2006:173-74).
Historic Context -DRAFT 23
Post'dV.~i~d V~J:ir II IS~~.,uii:;uial Aii Irti:chn~' i ~ Bcw!d~r Sr:~,-cmhE'r 2G08
. M t.
;,r:
t ~
~
i i..
, i
TC4...~ , ~ -
i
V
' + ` ~ 1
• ~1C -Y` Y
Figure 10. The backyard patio as an extension of the interior living space (Hess, 1004: 53).
Concepts of spaciousness reached their highest pitch in the suburbs. Esteemed Modern
architects such as Richard Neutra of Los Angeles touted flexible living spaces that could be
used for more than one activity. The "open plan" promised the Modern ideal of independence
from formal structure. This was achieved by removed partitioning walls between dining and
living areas to suggest continuous spaces rather than a compartmentalized series of enclosed
rooms.
"Economy houses," which were 650 square feet as designated by the FHA, omitted the dining
room and instead slightly enlarged the kitchen to accommodate a dining table. Interior design
introduced kitchen breakfast bars, pass-through openings, or accordion folding doors as
flexibility for combining or partitioning spaces. The hearth, or fireplace, was no longer the
anchoring feature of a living space, but instead became an unnecessary feature of a house with
central heating. The overarching theme among the suburban tract home was economy and
informality (Isenstadt, 2006:179-214; Wright, 1983: 254)).
All of these concepts-spaciousness, landscape views, technological advances in glass
manufacturing, and the tenets of Modernism-converged to form the domestic picture window
that became the icon of the postwar single-family home. The picture window, a large window
usually comprised of plate glass, merged as a central feature of suburban home design in
residential developments from coast to coast after 1945. Popular interest in the plate-glass
picture window began first in commercial architecture at the turn of the twentieth century.
Architects began to embrace plate-glass' large-expanse of muntin-free glazing for its
functionality and unobstructed views. In the eyes of the Modernists, plate-glass dazing
Post World War Il Residential Architecture in Boulder -September 2008
achieved transparency, and stood in contrast to small-paned, multi-light windows of the
Victorian age. By the 1930s, the idea of the plate-glass picture window as an important
characteristic of the modern home was catching on among the consumer public, encouraged by
home designers, shelter magazines, and window manufacturing advertisements (Isenstadt,
2006:179-214).
While the Depression and housing shortage of the 1930s prevented many from attaining the
new modern use of glass, wartime production increased the national capacity for producing
glass. After the war ended, glass manufacturing plants turned their attention to the civilian
market and the new demands of the ensuing building boom. When this happened, new houses
with Modernist design influences readily utilized picture windows and plate-glass fenestration,
but historically influenced Neo-Traditional house styles adapted the plate-glass picture window
as well. A Colonial Revival house featuring five-bay symmetry, shingles, and a decorative
pediment over its central entrance could also feature a large picture window on its principal
facade and glass-block glazing for smaller windows at its side facade. Thus, even traditional
tastes were willing to embrace the new approach to glass in a tentative but important step
toward popular concepts of Modernity (Isenstadt; 2006:179-214).
Levitt and Sans' influential Levittowns introduced changes in house floorplans that were readily
adopted by many other mass-produced housing developments. The Levitts relocated the
kitchen to the front of the house, allowing the living room to open directly to the backyard and
patio. Open floorplans featured three-sided fireplaces at their center. A carport became an
inexpensive replacement for a garage. Each of the Levittown model houses featured special
"built-in" features, and indeed the phrase "built-in" was coined by the Levitt and Sons company.
Built-in appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines or added exterior features such
as a white picket fence were selling points for tract housing. One year, Levitt and Sons even
featured abuilt-in television set, which meant that the buyer added the cost of the TV to the
mortgage. Beyond the house, community amenities like swimming pools and tree-lined
landscaping made the neighborhood attractive to buyers (Wright, 1983: 253).
The architectural changes brought about by major new subdivisions came through observations
of modern lifestyles that were confirmed by current research on consumer desires and trends.
Social scientists conducted studies on livability in the suburbs, and outcomes of crime on family
life. All results pointed to the suburban subdivision as the safest, most nurturing environment
for young families. These studies were endorsed by high-profile Modern architects of the
period, including Richard Neutra and Eero Saarinen. They also point to the American Dream of
a single-family home. In 1945, the Saturday Evening Post reported that only 14% of Americans
wanted to live in an apartment or a "used house," leaving the vast majority preferring a new
house, and all the modern amenities and features that came with it. Reports also showed that
Historic Context -DRAFT 25
Post World W~u II flr,;idential ~rz;hi`echue in 13oul~ir~r ~ Septurnber 2GOF?
bathrooms outfitted with modern features and gadgets such as linen closets, laundry chutes,
decorative cabinets, and sun lamps boosted home sales (Wright, 1983: 254, 255).
New floorplans designed to appeal to young families provided rooms that centered around
children's activities. Utility rooms with modern washing machines could open to the backyard
and the kitchen to create an intermediate space where children could leave their dirty clothes for
washing. The multipurpose room was first labeled the family room by Parent's Magazine in
1947. Early versions of the family room featured linoleum flooring for dancing, comfortable
furnishings, and a television (Wright, 1983: 255). Taking cues from Levittown, basements
disappeared from many postwar residential developments, replaced with concrete slabs in the
1950s. This change was more a matter of construction efficiency than functionality.
12.0 Exterior Architecture
Postwar architectural styles of residential architecture unfolded tentatively at first. Common
styles immediately following the end of the war carried over familiar pre-war residential
architecture. In an effort to curtail construction costs, developers typically limited the variety of
architectural styles to six models or fewer. This resulted in a large degree of architectural
monotony in the postwar residential subdivision. Eventually, the homogeneity was tempered by
individualized landscaping established by residents themselves.
A second remarkable characteristic of postwar housing was its uniformity on a national scale.
Before World War II, regionalism existed as each area of the country favored its own, local
architectural styles. After the war, however, the entire nation pursued similar housing forms and
styles as a collective whole, with only minimal regional variations. Americans living in all
regions pursued in unison the Minimal Traditional of the late 1940s, followed by the Split-level
the Ranch, and the Neocolonial. As a result, regional differences and a unique sense of place
began to erode within the realm of the nation's suburbs.
A subtext of postwar residential architecture was the influence of the Modern movement.
Before World War II, architectural tastes were commonly rooted in historical architectural styles,
forms, and ornamentation. This mode of architecture proved both popular and profitable for the
architect and its financier. Interest in the emerging realms of Modernist architecture that began
to take form in Europe during 1920s began to creep into small circles of the American
intelligentsia and a few prominent and outspoken American architects and their supporters by
the 1930s. The unique design approaches of Modernism had yet to take hold in popular
American culture and design.
26 - - - Historic Cn'il,~x~ DRAFT
f
ost World War II Residential Architect.ire in Boulder - Septemf;er ~C08
By that time, the basic principles of the Modern architectural movement were distilled into
several tenets ascribed by Modernist architects. Architecture should emphasize function and
utility. Sculptural form and volume was preferred over physical mass. Abstract beauty and
honesty of materials should replace the use of unnecessarily applied ornamentation. Finally,
modern materials, such as glass, steel, plywood, or concrete, and technology, such as
cantilevered structural systems and steel framing, should be used whenever possible as an
expression of the Modern age. All of these approaches to design and construction, they
argued, would result in a new form of abstract architecture that could fully express the new
Modern Age. The combination of these characteristics was popularly called the ?nternational
Style in reference to the style's seeming international scope and apparent avoidance of
regionalism.
Modernists disseminated their ideals by teaching and reshaping the curriculums of the nation's
leading architecture schools where many European Modernist emigres made their home during
World War II. Architectural journals furthered the Modernists' rallying message to design
professionals nationwide. The movement began to achieve growing acceptance in the postwar
years as the nation yearned for new technology and a new lifestyle for Modern living. Popular
culture began to warm up to the new, spare architectural style. Flat roofs, large panes of plate
glass windows, and removal of applied ornamentation were widespread influences on everyday
commercial and residential postwar architecture.
Across all of the postwar architectural styles was an emphasis on reduced applied
ornamentation. This move was both out of cost savings and stylistic tastes. Removing the
added exterior decoration and features such as door surrounds, entrance porches, or trim
helped keep material costs low and construction speed high. The influence of Modern tastes
and exterior surfaces free of non-functioning ornamentation helped make this practice
acceptable to consumers.
(n domestic architecture, the Modern movement reached its fullest expression with the custom-
designed homes commissioned to architects that granted the luxury of a flush budget and
creative freedom. For mass-produced residential subdivisions, however, the builders called the
shots. Moreover, builders and developers limited themselves to choosing only a handful of
house styles in order to keep construction profitable and housing costs low. With this in mind,
builders were also well aware of the desirability of certain house types and which styles were
most popular with the homebuyer. To this end, the numerous variants of the Ranch style
proved to be the most popular residential style during most of the postwar era. The
Contemporary style, however, featured architecture that was closely aligned with the Modern
movement. Featuring the style's flat or angular roof types and facades completely free of
applied ornament, the Contemporary home became awell-selling house style by the 1950s. It
Historic Context -DRAFT 27
('USt WOrld'l~L'.fr I P,ct,~~c~nLLit l\rChiteCtu~e in L'uiil~l~d - SeE~u:•n-fiber 708
can be found in postwar subdivisions nationwide, but achieved its greatest popularity in the
Western states, and particularly in California where many of the most influential proponents of
Modernism participated in the postwar subdivision design and development.
The Minimal Traditional and Neocolonial styles were the most common architectural styles of
the first stage of the postwar period between 1945 and 1950. They were conservative
carryovers from the pre-war period, and the FHA encouraged their construction as safe financial
investments. When the nation's economy began to improve, builders introduced a greater
variety of new house styles. By the 1950s, the height of new houses became lower, more
horizontal, and elongated or rambling. Roof pitches often lowered to less than 45 degrees.
New modes of architecture included Modern influences such as flat roofs, a clear reduction in
exterior ornamentation, and asymmetrically arranged facades. New house forms, such as the
Split-level and the Tri-level introduced new shapes that were unquestionably modern in profile.
Builders and homebuyers, however, were often reluctant to let go of their favorite historical
details even for the most modern of house styles. Nonfunctioning stationary windows were
among the most ubiquitous decorative details, and they were used for nearly every postwar
domestic style, with the exception of the Contemporary style.
13.0 Garages
When the automobile took center stage in the postwar lives of Americans, finding convenient
places to park became a priority. Thus, the attached garage became an important feature of the
postwar house. Although the garage was a relatively recent building type, it had undergone a
quick evolution over the previous 40 years. Adapted from carriage houses, the earliest
detached, one-car garages were located at the rear of a lot for easy access to the existing
alleys, and to separate the car from the house in light of the fact that many cars caught fire.
Large homes built in the 1920s included elaborate designs for garages, but these were limited
to affluent homeowners. The majority of garages were instead small, portable structures barely
larger than the cars themselves, and people preferred to keep them from public view (Jackson,
1987: 252).
By the mid-1930s, homeowners began to accept the garage's place in the residential
landscape, along with that of the increasingly popular personal motor car. Rear alleys began
disappearing from neighborhoods along with horse and carriage transportation. By the postwar
era, the area previously relegated to the alley had vanished in new neighborhoods and space
was instead incorporated into the backyard. By then, cars had become a source of pride, and
an object of attention and care (Jackson, 1987: 252).
r'o~t`~O~Id'...,- II R;.ni,nh~~l ,'~i,.'iilr _';~n~ i'i 1?rnil~lr~r ~ . :~;:emb2' ~~03
The attached carport or one-car garage became a desirable feature of the early postwar house.
The carport was simply an inexpensive adaptation of the early carriage pone-cochere, and was
best-suited to warm climates. Many consumers soon preferred the attributes of the enclosed,
attached one-car garage during an era when families owned one car per household.
Economical home building allowed the attached garage to be built as efficiently and
inexpensively as the suburban dwelling, making garages attainable for the middle classes. The
one-car garage need not be attached to the side of the house, as they could be incorporated
into the lowest level of a Split-Level house. They offered direct access to the house, and
usually entered into the kitchen.
When families became owners of two automobiles in the 1960s, house designers responded
accordingly with larger, attached two-car garages. Garage space consumed approximately 400
square feet of living space by that time, which was about one-third of the average home itself.
The garage was becoming an increasingly dominant part of the suburban home and landscape.
The position of the forward-facing garage took its greatest prominence in the 1970s through the
present. Earlier garages of the 1950s and 1960s took their place with a degree of modesty at
the side of the house. If they projected forward from a house to form an L-shaped plan, the
garage entrance then demurred and faced to the side, allowing the garage's front facade to face
the street with domesticated windows that matched the rest of the house, and perhaps even
included curtains. In contrast, garages built after 1970 projected boldly forward, with their
garage door facing forward, which had the effect of shortening the house's setback from the
street. House facades narrowed with shrinking lot sizes as land values became a premium in
most suburban communities nationwide. Since the garage size remained a constant due its
functional necessity, they began to comprise the majority of the house facade, sometimes
completely obscuring the house's entrance that was recessed, and to the side. Garages thus
became the dominant feature of the post-postwar era.
14.0 Landscape and Neighborhood Setting
Planners of new residential subdivisions followed the model of its predecessors and composed
curvilinear streets to emphasize picturesque views while discouraging heavy traffic. Trees
planted along the streets' edges achieved apark-like setting. Cul-de-sacs were created to keep
out through-traffic and provide a safe area for children to play. All automobile traffic was
circumvented out from the neighborhood toward collector thoroughfares at the neighborhood
periphery.
Planners positioned individual houses on the lots using standardized setbacks, creating a
uniform alignment of housing from the street. Lots in the first influential-and widely copied-
F'cst World Warll R6sidcnh~~l '1rr,fiil~ ;~.atne in (S~iai:ar -September2oo8
Levittown suburb each measured 60 x 100 feet. Typical lots sizes thereafter were generally
homogeneous across the country, measuring between 40 x 100 feet at the smallest end, and 80
x 100 feet at the larger end. The further the neighborhood was from the city center, the cheaper
the land, and by consequence, the larger the lot. Each house had both a backyard and a front
yard, and smaller side yards as buffers between the houses. The front yard was the semi-public
domain, typically featuring a grassy lawn and formal ornamental plantings. The backyard
allowed for informality, was considered part of the private domain, and served as a spatial
extension from the interior of the house. In accordance with many neighborhood covenants, the
backyard was also the only area where clotheslines were permitted (Jackson, 1987, 237-39).
15.0 Architectural Styles
The following descriptions are a brief summary of the most common architectural styles found
among postwar residential subdivisions.
15.1 Minimal Traditional
New homes built for the working and middle class during the 1930s typically echoed traditional
designs. This was in part due to the FHA's newly instated standards for home designs that
favored modest, traditional architecture, such as the Colonial Revival style. As the FHA set
forth to shore up home building with their progressive financial support, their approach was to
remain conservative in consideration for projected resale values (Wright, 1983: 242). Early
postwar housing developments like the famous Levittown featured variants of the conservative
Minimal Traditional style, but built them using the latest techniques in construction (Figure 11).
y t
t.
"fir ~ J.+f
llf • i `i{'i'`' 0!'~+~- t I i 3,
1 i ~f . Srri, -
Figure 11. The 1945, The Cromwell, a Minima! Traditional style house plan from the Sterling House Plan
company (Antique Home, 2008)
Minimal Traditional houses were boxy in plan and were typically one-story or one-and-one-half-
story with side-gabled or cross-gabled roofs (Figure 12). Exterior materials could vary from
30 i ~~~,~~>c c-,w~Xt - uR.aFT
Post VJorid War II Residential Archite::iure in t3oulder -September 2008
wood siding to stone veneer, and exterior ornament was limited to a minimum, and usually
included decorative shutters. Many featured a large, street-facing picture window, which might
also have stationary shutters (despite the improbability that they could ever be used to enclose
a large picture window). This style allowed for amodest-sized house that evoked traditional
exterior aesthetics while featuring the latest modern gadgets and appliances on the interior.
~ xi3 ~ - ~ i '~S ~ i
F4 a•,
ITS` , , .
i -E y ~~~p1 ~lgl~~!!~~~~~ I.f `l'~~`fi~' Z f z,~~~~~~'~I
~ i-4 ; t . ~ ~ ~..°c;~ ~r~ t ~ ~
~ ~ 'rya-` ~i
rr J1:i ti 'r~
r d
_ ~r NN3d
r. y~-> f ~1 r ti~V ~ jam!? J
3`~ '
~ -
Fiqure 12. A Minimal Traditional style house, as seen in the Sunset Nills neighborhood, Boulder, Colorado
The Minimal Traditional house style emerged during the mid-1930s and was built in great
volume in postwar subdivisions immediately before and following the war. Favor for the style
sharply declined in the early 1950s, when it was replaced by the popular Ranch and Split-level
house styles (Mr,Alester, 2003: 478).
15.2 Colonial Revival
The Colonial Revival style house continued its popularity from its pre-war roots, and probably
has the longest period of popularity over any other style in American architectural history. The
Colonial Revival was often spacious, and it connoted a degree of affluences in its stately
aesthetic. it also provided Americans a symbolic visual link to its historical roots, even if the
Colonial Revival suburban home was a remote derivative of its Colonial ancestor (Figure 13).
y ~ A~~'Y
I ~ ~ ~rY .
{ r _ Y
1 7~~\~t,~~; f ~ l
r c
- ~ r. ski"-.
.;s
Figure 13. A Dutch Colonial Revival style house, as seen in Manchester, Connetticut
Historic Context -DRAFT 31
. _ II F;r .-1•n(~.i; ,;i, ~ its r,~u. _ F:~,~.~ _i~:r - c":i`~~:~
15.3 Neocolonial
The Neocolonial evoked similar associations as the Colonial Revival in the American mindset
(Figure 14). Architecturally, however, the Neocolonial was a loose interpretation of Colonial
architecture, and differs from the Colonial Revival in its few historically accurate architectural
details, such as exterior trim, door surrounds, or the proper placement or dimensions of its
fenestration. Instead, the Neocolonial house could have features such as relatively short
windows, irregularly spaced windows, or low-pitched roofs. Overall, Neocolonial houses
continued to retain symmetry and multi-tight windows. The Cape Cod Neocolonial house was a
common variant of this style, featuring aone-and-one-half story house with gabled dormer
windows.
.-kK ..~~_wV
=5 sr ~i
h N,1~ Y
+~F
Figure 14. A Neocolonial style house, as seen in the Table lvtesa neighborhood, Boulder, Colorado
15.4 Ranch
The rambling, single-story character of the Ranch style took widespread appeal by 1950 and
continued its popularity through the late 1960s (Figure 15). When larger lots became affordable
and attainable in the postwar era, people were able to build sprawling, elongated houses that
hugged the landscape. Parents' Magazine espoused the ranch style's "homey character" and
its suitability to the "new ways of life" that were informal and comfortable (Wright, 1983: 251).
Sunset magazine published a book on Western Ranch Houses in 1945, idealizing the new
Californian style while noting its Spanish Colonial origins. Unlike its southwestern Spanish
Colonial predecessor, the postwar American Ranch did not feature a substantial porch along the
length of its long fapade, but instead tucked a shallow, recessed porch under the house's main
roof. Other Ranch houses omitted the front porch entirely. The Ranch style's elongated,
horizontal profile and deep overhanging eaves also borrowed from Frank Lloyd Wright's Prairie
Style house.
Post World War II Resid2rtinl Architecture in Boulder - Septe,nber 2008
•d;..
t~,`{ ,r
a -.:h..
~1°~ _ _ a
~ t, fir.
a .tan" IUIII ~ ; ' _
-1 - ~ ~ - _
_ r ~
~ t r. J - III IY ~ 6 I!tr' i y ~ - ` i;
i. t, i ;r: ,,-.tr.-?,-_s.-•-=-.:'.'mss`?.,.:.
,rz-^~.-,..~._ .i_i~~
b.. ~ 'c; ~
~ Tyr- ! ~ Y ~ f! t- _ y ,'~:v { :e 'T.C+f~
-
Fiqure 15. A Ranch style house, as seen in the Carolyn Heights neighborhood, Boulder, Colorado
While the Ranch style was uncommon before the war, its popularity following the war made it a
dominant domestic style in the postwar era. The relative narrowness of the Ranch permitted
interior access to light and air. With the exception of a picture window, windows at the street-
front fapade were typically reduced in size when compared with traditional house styles. The
windows at the rear fapade, on the other hand, were larger and often opened to the private rear
patio or backyard as an extension from the interior of the house. Absent were front or side
porches, which was indicative of the absence of street life in the suburban, car-oriented
subdivision.
Ranch houses have achameleon-like ability to assume a wide range of architectural variants. A
Ranch house can be Modern by avoiding all superfluous applied ornamentation. It could also
assume traditional aesthetics with decorative window shutters, scrolled wrought ironwork, or
even scalloped bargeboard along the edges of the eaves (Figures 16 and 17). Ranch roof
types could be gabled or hipped, and were almost always low-pitched. Floorplans were
commonly either reotanglil~r i~~~ pl~~n, car L-shaped.
-
~ ~
c
Y
X w C s f` ` ~BnYnt~r~. ~ 1~ ~ ~1 `l' * kl
_'t ~ i X51. € ~ ~ ~ y~~ ~ 7 1~)
L;{ ~ . , -
_ fit. -+t ~-'may - 3' ~ - c. ~ r~- r+, _
Figure 16. A Ranch style house in an American Colonial variation (Hess, 2004: 76J
Historic Context - DRAr-T 3~
Past NJorld Nlar II Resider•.;ial Architecture in Boulder - Septemoer 2Q0~3
r,r-
s~ ~ 1r- F - z
+...`1
!Y
S- ,-'e. it
~l' f~! l it ~ . ~ C i i ~ 1.-
y ~5S ~.S 11 .u~ i .1ii- r~ 14. Y.~! 1... t F
~ -fit -
L
l-
Figure 17. The Ranch style, as seen with exaggerated trim and over-scaled brackets (Hess, 2004: 70)
15.5 Split-Level
The Split-Level style emerged in the 1950s as a more compact version of the Ranch style house
(Figure 18). It divided zones of interior living areas by relegating certain zones of household
activity to each of the three levels. The upper level was the quiet zone for the bedrooms. The
open-plan middle level occupied by the living and dining areas held moderate noise levels. The
lowest level could accommodate an informal recreational room for the noisiest zone, also called
the recreation room, and often also included a sunken garage.
4 ,y
_ -
_ r 7 7
-
-
-I r
y- ~ Y J.
ry, _
f }"may ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ti- -
y ""~a
Figure 18. A Split-Level style house, as seen in the Martin Acress
neighborhood, Boulder, Colorado
Architectural styles of the Split-Level vary similarly to that of the Ranch house, and exterior wall
cladding often mix a variety of different materials that visually break up the mass of the house.
34 Historic Context -DRAFT
Pos: b'Vorld V~,~ar II fie:; denlia~ Architecture in r~culder - September 20Q8
As a house type, the Split-Level was more common in areas outside of the Western and
Southern states (McAlester, 2003: 481).
A subset of the split-level house is the Tri-Level, which describes Split-Level style houses where
the lowest third level is fully exposed to the exterior, rather than consisting of asub-basement
level. Tri-Levels and Split-Level nomenclature, however, can be interchangeable.
15.6 Bi-Level
Not to be confused with the Split-Level, the Bi-Level house features a central entrance at mid-
level and an upper story that covers the entire lower story (Figure 19). In contrast, the Split-
Level features the upper story in an off-center arrangement, leading to a more rambling,
elongated massing. The Bi-Level is thus boxier and more compact than the Split-Level. It is
also derived from the Ranch style, and is sometimes called a "Splanch," an apparent contraction
of the Ranch and Split-Level house styles. Other names for this house type include "two-level"
or "raised ranch" (OAHP, 2008).
J:,J
•
~ *,iai.'~i3 Itn ~~,,f ~~'Y-,~ _ ~ tic
C r
r,,
w rte,-~~„' , ` ~ ~+'1„~.~Yx~~.~3-. _ :.'a 4
j ~ ~w.~,.
_1~. J
'i ~ `tL ~ ~ r
l .
~ h ~
Figure 19. A Bi-level style house, as seen in the Table Mesa neighborhood, Boulder, Colorado
The Bi-Level is divided into zones similar to the Split-Level. The entrance opens onto a mid-
level landing that faces a short flight of stairs to the upper level, and a second set of stairs down
to the lower level. The upper level contains the bedroom, living, kitchen, and dining areas. The
lower level is a raised basement, where a noisier family room and an additional bedroom benefit
from large windows afforded by this garden level.
15.7 Contemporary
Interest in Modernist architectural prir~cipals impacted everyday architecture and development
for the first time on a large scale in the postwar period. The Contemporary housing style was
among the few domestic styles of this era to fully embrace all of the tenets of Modern design
(Figure 20). Because of this, the style was favored among architects for custom-designed
houses (McAlester, 2003: 482). The Contemporary style is split into two subtypes depending on
one of two roof types: flat or front-gabled roof. The flat roof subtype is a derivative of the
Historic Context -DRAFT 3J
Post World 1Nar II Rr,•s~rr.nti~il A~cr~itechrre `n Boulder - Sept~:rr:~er 2008
International Style, rendered in a domestic form. The gable-front roof subtype sometimes
features overhanging eaves with exposed rafters. Although exterior materials could include
stone, brick, or wood siding, a!1 applied ornamentation is absent. Facades were asymmetrically
composed. The vast majority of Contemporary houses are single-story during the postwar era,
with the two-story variants appearing in the mid-to-late 1960s.
~y
J ,
i~ ~
_ r ~~ti j :rid ~ '
r
Figure 20. A Contemporary style house, built in Southern California in 1961 (Mason, 1982: 97)
15.8 Mobile Homes
Mobile home parks first appeared in the 1920s and 1930s, but only gained widespread
development after World War I I (Figure 21). The individual housing units were manufactured or
at least prefabricated, and delivered to their home site fully complete. They met the immediate
housing needs of the postwar era by providing the most affordable means of housing to the
masses, which is a testament to their continuing popularity. Derived from early house trailers
that were pulled behind cars, the mobile home was rectangular, designed to be lined up along a
street. By the nature of their narrow width, the interiors were one-room deep, featuring built-in
appliances to maximize interior space. While the earliest mobile homes retained their wheels,
they inevitably lost their mobility when they grew in size by the late 1950s, when the average
width increased to ten feet (Figure 18). By the late 1960s, trailers increased to 12 feet, then 14
feet in width, and had gained interior amenities including fireplaces, skylights, and vaulted
ceilings (Jackson, 1987: 262).
36 Historic Context - L)RAr T
Post bVorid War it ResiduiUal Architecture in r3ouider -September 2C08
R - - - _r-+4 ~ ~ -
- ~
Figure 21. The 42-foot 1953 Noshuo mobile home (Atlas Mobile Nome Directory, 2005)
II. HISTORIC CONTEXT OF BOULDER, COLORADO
The history cf Boulder, Colorado, revolves around the themes of mining, agriculture, education,
and industrial expansion. The first non-native settlement in Boulder is reported to have
occurred on October 17, 1858, when the Aikins Party set up camp near the entrance to Boulder
Canyon, which they called Red Rocks (Prink, 1965:7). The Aikins Party consisted of
prospectors lured to Colorado by the discovery of gold in 1858. After stopping at Ft. Vasquez,
near the present town of Platteville, the group travelled northwest out of Denver and set up
camp in the Nebraska Territory at the fool of the Rocky Mountains.
According to the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, the split between tt~e United States-controlled
Kansas Territory and the Native American-held Nebraska Territory occurred along the 40th
parallel. Despite this, the members of the Aikins Party decided to stake their claim and were
soon joined by other prospectors. Shortly after the Aikins Party set up camp, they decided to
build more permanent structures and constructed approximately 12 cabins. A lucky prospector
struck rich gold deposits on January 16, 1859, while panning 12 miles west of Boulder in the
Gold Run stream (Prink, 1965: 9). This discovery fed to the creation of the Gold Hill Mining
district, one of the first mining districts in Colorado. Due to the lack of government in the
territory at that time, each mining district served as aself-governing community and had
jurisdiction over all individuals living in the district (Pettem, 1980: 29). By 1866, Boulder County
i~ad ten organized mining districts including Boulder, Ward, and Central (Jamestown). Each
district had administrative control over the name, boundary, size, and ownership of the mining
claims as ~,vell as of`icer elections to enforce tine laws.
Shortly after the Gold Run discovery in January ' 859, :~~e Bo~~lder City Town Company formed
with A.A. Brookfield, a n~enrbe~ of Use Akins party, as preside~~t. Upcr creation of Boulder City
Post World War II Residential Arci'~i~echire in E3oulder - 5oplorroer 700f3
on February 10, 1859, H. Chiles laid out 4,044 lots at $1,000 each hoping to entice buyers to
settle in Boulder City (Noel and Corson, 1999: 30). Although Gold Hill experienced a heavy
growth during the 1860s, Boulder City grew at a much slower pace. When the town was
platted, the Town Company created lots measuring 50 by 140 feet, a considerably larger lot size
than those found in Denver and other settlement towns, which typically measured 25 by 125
feet (Figure 22) (Noel and Corson, 1999: 30). The large lot sizes combined with their high
prices per lot kept many settlers from buying in Boulder City. After noticing the lack of people
interested in purchasing lots in Boulder City, the Town Company reduced the price of lots,
regaining the interest of settlers.
u i.>tPl;i 6 rv 1 /J(/>'f•T/Ti:~s'cs~" ~h. ~-~Y,
413,,~,t+' r ` ~ 7 f; f, ~ ~~11< 3 ~1 j ` ~ j~jr~~j
.T
\o - P ~S
Vi ' z`,1 ~1
~~1~"~ y P'
"S,~Syt~ 1v j j~ f\ ~ ~ L' fL 1 ~3,st~'Y 7, ',y`~~Ilt~t ld ,j• 1
1y' ~t 1 ~ y ' ~ ~ ~ I' 11t?
cr` ' I \ S. q I'`•
~ - rY E~ ~:.5 a ~1-'~ `~tj rid/ ht
I i Q
7:~L ~~1 1y~~S S`'Q~ ; h 3~, ~1t ,y S It 1 1 ' 15
~~t r ! y~, L ~ / T 4 1`a~1~~" ~ t
;1
' q 1'1
`~^`t ~ ~ ~ ' 1~ ~1 ~
`1~~~' t j ~ ~l' J 1 ~'4 t•14.
i~ l ~ ~~,li 7 { F, ~1 r 4
.Z (!d ~^Jr ~3 , .`~rc 1~ ii t y .l- \ `s ~'t,~3 S lu f~ 1.. ` ` 11.
. j~;z
Ir ji''Y..r' ` ? b\ C 1 b; 1 yay \ 't
,,+..,Y rt ,~`-j Y~y<,-^-~ `F ,,4j j 1 , rote ~ ~ .1'','
y~1'lehll"' i~ b\ t,{v. "4{111 J ` t1 4 3 I t ~,t
~ X1'1 \ ? ~4 t? ` ~f'~ t1 1/\ 1` Ali \ .7 •}'i1 1 Y'..-.
~rI a , \I, 6 S~H ~ ~Q,~rl ~ ` ~~.1F13.r1,~~!} o,~~c1`
fd" t ''~~,5 2, t . ?`g ` U ,1! b l t ~ ~7\j 9` o .\Y \
e f At F_ '3i 1 ~ A
0 r ,tn+
`~,q1t/:•'~~•1 ~k ice, f\,I13~}` ~\.t~` 1
~
` G s i ~j~ \g1 ~ 1d~,
7
i, h `3 ` ~ r j r
l~~ ~`yt Y i
R
.1
Figure 22: Boulder City Plai Map circa 1868, courtesy of the Carnegie Branch Library for Loca! History
During the 1860s when many mining communities in Colorado resembled unfinished towns, the
members of the Boulder City Town Company wanted their town to appear more finished, in the
similar fashion to towns in the Eastern U.S. This resulted in some of the first building
38 Historic Context -DRAFT
Post World War It Residential Architecture in Boulder -September 2008
regulations in the state of Colorado. The strict regulations called for interior chimneys, exterior
wall heights of at least eight-and-one-half feet tall, completion of the foundation within seven
days, and the complete construction of the entire building within 60 days (Noel, 1999: 30).
Additionally, cabins were to be built along public streets oriented to the north and south to
project a finished appearance. The public streets in Boulder City measured 80 feet wide and
alleys measured 20 feet wide, which was a larger width than most frontier towns of the time.
Large lot sizes, wider-than-average roads, and building requirements reflected the town
founders' desire to fashion Boulder City after the finished towns of the U.S. East Coast, as well
as a focus on retaining open {ands in the area.
After lobbying the United States Congress, the Territory of Colorado was created in February
- 1861. This change from the Nebraska Territory to the Territory of Colorado allowed for a
territorial government, and Boulder City took advantage of this by lobbying to house the
proposed University of Colorado, winning the bid in October 1861. As Boulder City continued to
expand, the original two-mile long city absorbed four extensions which, along with the original
city plat were incorporated as Boulder in 1871.
Boulder has rebounded from difficult times to become a stronger community throughout its
existence. Its agricultural fields were faced with crippling damage from grasshoppers almost
every year during the late 1800s, and in 1894, Boulder Creek flooded, washing away all bridges
in town and damaging residences and businesses. Following World War I, Boulder, like much
of the country, faced difficult times as the Great Depression swept the nation. Although times
were hard during the 1930s, Boulder benefitted from the emphasis on its university, the ability to
obtain land and buildings through federal aid programs, and by the improvements made by the
Civilian Conservation Corps (Perrigo, 1946: 38-39).
The outbreak of World War II and the United States' involvement in it brought the Navy's
Japanese Language School to the University of Colorado and increased the population of
Boulder significantly. Following the war, the University remained a leading institution of higher
education and continued to attract intellectuals and students to Boulder. In the decades after
World War If, Boulder became a strong supporter of governmental agencies and institutions
such as the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the National Bureau of Standards.
Boulder's continued growth in the mid-twentieth century forced the city to adjust its strict growth
standards. This led to the annexation of many of the surrounding ranches and farms into
subdivisions created to house an increasing population relocating to Boulder. Despite the steps
taken to increase the city's housing stock during the last half of the twentieth century, Boulder
has since limited it growth, causing the city to remain small in comparison to Denver and its
metropolitan suburbs.
Historic Ccntext -DRAFT 39
~C-..`ti'1Ur~i '~^J.n . <ar1~:n?!J Arr!~itc~ch:rc ri 6r;ii~li.r is t,i=n,.ber ?OU;>
1.0 Mining
The discovery of gold in Colorado in Dry Creek 1858 by the Russell Party led to what has been
called the Pike's Peak Gold Rush (also known as the Colorado Gold Rush) and an influx of
prospectors to the rivers and mountains of Colorado (Ubbelohde, 2006:57). A party of
prospectors led by Thomas A. Aikins moved northwest out of Denver to mine the area now
known as Boulder. The party set up camp at Red Rocks near the entrance of Boulder Canyon
and became the first non-native settlement in Boulder. Named Boulder for the large rocks in the
river and along the canyon, the Boulder Creek served as a good panning river for prospectors.
As most prospectors knew, when gold is found downstream, it is likely that a larger deposit is
located upstream. With this in mind, a few members of the Aikins Party, including Thomas
Aikins' son headed upstream from their camp at Red Rocks to Four Mile Creek where at Gold
Run, they discovered a large gold deposit in January 1859. The prospectors named the district
surrounding Gold Run the Gold Hill District. As an established district, the miners within it were
able to govern themselves similarly to a small town, electing officers and registering claims.
The Boulder City Town Company formed on February 10, 1859, with the goal of profiting from
both the sale of land and from providing supplies to prospectors. Within a month's time the two-
mile long town of Boulder City was platted and prospectors began settling. Gold Run and other
areas west of Boulder continued to prosper from mining during the 1860s bringing a number of
prospectors to the region. Although a number of mountain communities became self sufficient
through farming, the majority of communities still relied heavily on the supplies brought from
Boulder. Additionally, the mining communities tended to send their ore for processing on routes
that passed through Boulder providing business for merchants and hotels. The Colorado
Territory formed in 1861, and Boulder County soon followed in 1862, naming Boulder City as
the county scat.
During the 1860s Boulder County continued to experience small gold finds; however, these
discoveries did not lead to an increased population in the county. The 1860s actually saw a
number of early prospectors head to Boulder to try their hand at farming, or leave the Boulder
County gold fields altogether.
The Caribou silver strike occurred in 1869 bringing a renewed interest in mining to Boulder
County, and increasing the need for food and transportation. The northernmost silver mine in
Colorado, Caribou attracted international attention and increased visitation to Boulder and the
region (Ubbelohde, 2006: 114). This strike ushered in the silver boom in Boulder, increasing the
need for smelters and other ore refining technologies. Although the Caribou mine did not
Post World War II Residential Aro:nitecturr; in Boulder -September 2008
contain as much silver as was originally believed, the impact it had on the area and Boulder in
particular was long-lasting.
Although the Caribou strike brought a renewed interest in mining to Boulder, it was not until the
1872 discovery of tellurium at Gold Hill that the town began focusing on the needs of the miners.
Tellurium is a conglomerate of silver and gold and can be very profitable if correctly processed
and refined. Beginning shortly after the tellurium discovery, Boulder began focusing on its
future as an ore processing and refining center, with the construction of the Boyd Smelter on
Boulder Creek. Not long after its completion, the Boyd Smelter began to find competition from
the recently retrofitted Hunt and Barber Smelter located at the convergence of Boulder Creek
and Four Mile Creek (Pettem, 1980: 34). These smelters allowed Boulder to keep a larger profit
from the nearby mines.
In the late nineteenth century, at least eight custom mills and ore-buying stations were located
between 9"' Street and Boulder Canyon in Boulder (Cobb, 1988: 105). These eight sites were:
Preston (Aggregation) Reduction Works, Mann Mill, Kilton Gold Extraction Company, Boyd
Smelter, Atlas/Delano Mill Complex, and the Marshall Mill. Two railroad tracks ran behind the
Boyd Smelter along present day Canyon Boulevard to 9th Street where they then continued
west. The tracks accommodated both the main fine narrow gauge railroad and the standard-
gauge trains traveling between Boulder and the mining communities to the west (Cobb, 1988:
107).
The need for easy transportation between Boulder and Denver was answered in 1873 when the
railroad came to town. Although the Denver and Boulder Valley Railway began building toward
Boulder in 1870, its completion stalled in Erie and did not reach Boulder until 1873. Additionally
at that same time the Colorado Central was making its way north from Golden to Boulder and
then on to Longmont (Perrigo, 1946: 10). Boulder's rail connection to Denver allowed it to
become the economic hub of the county and added to its position of county seat. In addition to
the new railroad lines, new roads were created out of old trails, many of which radiated outward
from Boulder, in order to access the mountain mining communities.
The continued discoveries in the mountains around Boulder led to increased tourism in the
region. The railroad lines which had been utilized primarily for transporting ore were retrofitted
to transport passengers to the mining communities. Using the railroad for tourist related
activities began almost as soon as the railroad was constructed and continued through the first
half of the 20t" Century. However, as the Great Depression spread throughout the United
States, this trade almost ceased, leading to the closure of a number of metal mines prior to the
conclusion of World War II (Abele, 1988: E8). Although many of these mines did not return
following World War II, a few of the surrounding towns were able to rebound their tourist trade.
Historic Context - DRAFr 41
f'os! Worlcl Nlar II Rrsidrntial Ar~,l•i(ci:hin~ in I?~wl~ier - Sc~tr~mbi:r 200~i
The loss of the mountain mining communities was difficult on Boulder and resulted in the
closure of a number of smelters and other ore processing centers in town. However, mining
was not the only undertaking keeping the citizens of Boulder employed.
2.0 Agriculture and Ranching
Colorado's agricultural undertakings did not reach large-scale until the Pike's Peak Gold Rush
of 1858. Prior to the influx of prospectors, Colorado farming was limited to subsistence levels
and those who did not farm purchased goods from Santa Fe. However, as Colorado's
population boomed in response to the discovery of gold, some settlers chose to make their way
by raising the food needed to feed the miners or as the middleman between farmers and the
miners. The first non-subsistence farming in Boulder occurred in August 1859 when the
Wellman Brothers arrived in the county and began plowing lands two and a half miles east of
the mouth of Boulder Creek (Agricultural Resources of Boulder County, E3). The brothers'
farmstead quickly became a boarding center for prospectors, in addition to supplying the area
with fresh food. Although the foothills of the Rocky Mountains have a number of rivers and
streams, few run through the agricultural areas of Boulder County. In response to the need for
water, Boulder's first irrigation ditch, named the Smith and Goss Ditch, was dug in 1859. The
Wellman Brothers' success with crops like the Mountain June potato led them to construct
Boulder's first frame barn in 1861. Although Boulder County's mining industry was modestly
successful, not all prospectors were able to make a comfortable living.
Wheat became a large crop following Andrew Douty's success raising wheat and potatoes on
his land along South Boulder Creek. Due to the large amount of wheat grown in Boulder, the
Douty Flour Mill was built in the 1870s to process the crop. In addition to wheat, Boulder farms
produced vegetables to be sold in the mountain mining camps and nearby communities.
Although a number of mountain farms sold their produce to the local communities, many of the
mining camps continued to buy their produce from Boulder area farms. In comparison to other
Colorado counties, Boulder's farms were relatively successful during the late 1800s and early
1900s. In 1870, Boulder farms were the highest valued farms in the state, and Boulder's
prominence in farming continued through the 1920s (Agricultural Resources of Boulder County,
E10). Despite Boulder's success in agriculture, early farmers were not immune to difficulties.
Year after year, Boulder fields were attacked by large numbers of grasshoppers who ate and
suffocated the crops (Smith, 1981: 25). Additionally after living through a number of springs
where rain was not abundant, farmers began to focus on planting their crops near rivers in order
to ensure the crops had enough water.
The lack of abundant water sources led settlers to dig irrigation ditches throughout the area, and
by 1862 a seven mile long ditch with the capacity of irrigating 1,500 acres was completed and
named the Farmers Ditch. In addition to growing crops such as wheat and potatoes, a few
- - 42 - - - - - - - i r s,ron, c~;~,:~~~ - uHnFT
Post World War II Residential Arci~itecture in Boulder -September 2008
farmers ventured into fruit cultivation. Although the soil in Boulder was rich and of a good
quality for growing fruits, Boulder's dry winters killed many of the fruit plants before they could
produce large amounts of food. Although Boulder experienced many difficulties while engaged
in agriculture, this did not deter the efforts of farmers or the willingness of miners to purchase
Boulder's products.
Lands in and around Boulder were also utilized for ranching ventures with early ranchers raising
cattle, horses, and Merino sheep. One of the earliest ranchers in Boulder was Anthony Arnett, a
prospector who traveled to California for the California Gold Rush and then moved to the Pike's
Peak region of Colorado following the discovery of gold in 1858. Although Arnett followed
prospecting opportunities across the country, he chose to focus on ranching for his career and
in 1859 he began wintering his cattle on lands near Boulder. By the spring of 1860, Arnett had
moved his entire operation to Boulder (Fetter, 1983: 151). The grasslands around Boulder
allowed Arnett and other ranchers to harvest the natural prairie grasses in the region to feed
their herds instead of planting and harvesting hay. Utilizing the naturally occurring plants in the
area allowed ranchers to cut down the cost of operating large-scale ranches in Boulder County.
Additionally, local feed lots were also able to use the prairie grasses to feed their charges,
allowing the lots to show a larger profit. The native prairie grasses around Boulder proved to be
a source of wealth for the settlers as well. It is believed that the early settlers cultivated these
grasses to sell to the mountain mining camps as feed for their horses (Agricultural Resources of
Boulder County, E5). By the late 1860s, the native grasses were being harvested by the
ranchers who came to the region. The use of native plants was also an intelligent way to avoid
being reliant on water sources and good weather since the native plants had adjusted to the
region's weather patterns. The naturally occurring grasses in Boulder were able to withstand a
higher degree of weather changes than the hay plants which did not withstand the winter and
arid conditions of the area.
Agricultural enterprises steadily decreased during the 20th Century as technology became the
focus of Boulder's economy. Lands which were once large ranches or farms have, for the most
part, been divided into commercial and residential neighborhoods. Two examples of this come
in the form of the Mount Saint Gertrude Academy located on part of the Arnett Ranch, and the
Martin Acres and Highland Park subdivisions, located on the Martin Farmlands. Small garden
plots are still located in backyards around Boulder, and some home owners also raise small
farm animals such as chickens within the city limits; however, any large scale operations are
located outside Boulder in the surrounding county.
3.0 Early Settlers
The earliest settlers in Boulder were prospectors who decided to become farmers or
businessmen in the new town. One of the most well known settlers in Boulder's farming
Historic Context DRAT T 43
{'~,.;+!rJ~~~lri'J~~ :r II RisiCjgnfi~ I ArCtnt~.,rUirr~ in L~rnil~lr~r - S~;r,t~rrber?~~CS
community was William Martin. Born in Sussex County, England in 1841, as a child Martin
moved to New York and then Ohio. At the age of 18, Martin abandoned Ohio for the gold fields
of California and entered into a partnership with a man who eventually stole his money and fled
to Colorado. Martin followed his former partner to Colorado and instead of seeking revenge,
went to work for the Mishler Timber Company in Central City. There he made the acquaintance
of a group of prospectors who decided to begin mining in a new area known as Boulder.
Joining the group, Martin and George Lytle were chosen to establish a base camp, and by 1869
were members of the group of prospectors who discovered the Caribou deposit mentioned
above. Originally from Ohio, Lytle prospected in California for a decade before moving to
Colorado where he proceeded to become part owner of a number of mines (City of Boulder,
2008: Columbia Cemetery). Although history has awarded discovery of the Caribou strike to
Samuel P. Conger, it is believed that Conger sent Martin and Lytle to the area around Caribou
instead of traveling himself. The group of six men formed the Caribou mine and then proceeded
to lay out the town of Caribou on September 26, 1870. Martin remained in Caribou for a
number of years, with his first son Samuel being born in Caribou.
In 1872 Martin purchased a farm in Boulder from Henry Green with the intention of becoming a
gentleman farmer. Prior to the construction of Martin's farmhouse, the farm served as a
camping ground and watering hole for stagecoaches travelling between Denver and Boulder,
with the main road being located on the property. The exact date Martin moved his family from
Caribou to Boulder is unknown; however, the family had moved onto the farm by 1876 when
their second son Harold P. Martin was born. Martin's wife Ida S. Wilson came from a New
England family and upon moving to Boulder requested a New England style farmhouse. The
frame house was constructed by New England carpenters specifically brought to Colorado for
that purpose. The farm contained the main farmhouse, a bunkhouse, icehouse, sheds, stables,
an apple orchard, and a stand of willows which served as a windbreak for the house. At its
peak, the Martin farm encompassed over 400 acres and was encircled by South Boulder Creek,
from which Martin irrigated his crops. In addition to his orchard, Martin also raised timothy hay
on his acreage south of Boulder. However, farming was not his only undertaking. He quickly
settled into breeding horses, one of which -Sir Collin- was ridden by President Ulysses S. Grant
when he visited Boulder in 1880. The Martin farm remained in the family until the 1950s when
the majority of the land was sold for the development of the Martin Acres subdivision.
The Kohler family is another important pioneer family in Boulder. Born in Saxony, Germany,
Frederick W. Kohler moved to the United States in 1849 and traveled to California to mine for
gold. After losing all his earnings when the California bank he invested in folded, Kohler moved
to Boulder in 1862. Upon reaching Boulder, Kohler decided to try ranching instead of again
seeking his fortune in the mines. As a result, Frederick acquired nearly 800 acres of land south
44 - - - r 1~,51%rn; C'on(Fxi - L1NiAr'
Pos: World War II Residential Architecture in Boulder -September 2008
of Boulder where he proceeded to operate one of the most successful cattle businesses in the
county. In addition to ranching, Frederick Kohler served as a two-term County Commissioner
beginning in 1885, as well as a school board member (Schooland, 1980). Additionally the
Kohler family used their wealth to help organize the Boulder National Bank.
The Kohler farm was located directly south of Baseline Road and it has since been turned into
subdivisions including Highland Park. Frederick Kohler married Rosetta Viele in 1868. Rosetta
was the daughter of another Boulder pioneer (discussed below) and the aunt to William Viele
who owned a farm south of town which later became the Table Mesa subdivision. Frederick W.
and Rosetta Kohler left their home on the ranch and built a house behind their son Fred Jr.'s
residence on Spruce Street beginning in 1903. Following Frederick W. Kohler's death in 1904,
Rosetta remained in the house with her son Ed and his wife Rose. Frederick W. Kohler, Jr.
served as President of the Boulder National Bank for many years.
The Viele family possessed lands which became the Table Mesa Subdivision. James B. Viele
brought his family to Colorado in the early 1860s from their home in Illinois. In addition to
James B. Viele's wife, two daughters including Rosetta, and three young sons, James' oldest
son Thomas Jefferson Viele came west with his wife and children. Prior to bringing his family to
Colorado, James and Thomas had purchased lands in Boulder as the start of their farms. Upon
leaving Illinois, the Viele's purchased a large steam threshing machine which was shipped to
Boulder via the railroad. When it arrived in Boulder, the machine became the county's first
threshing machine, and the Vieles went to work offering their service to the farmers in the area.
After building a home on Pearl Street, James homesteaded land south of Boulder, establishing
one of the first ranches in the area. In 1876 Thomas Jefferson followed in his father's footsteps
and homesteaded a tract of land south of Boulder. Their ranches were located near present-
day South Broadway and Table Mesa Drive. Thomas's son William married Mary Ida Huff in
1891 and homesteaded lands near his father and grandfather. After James and Thomas's
deaths, William combined all the tracts and created a ranch which operated on 922 acres (The
Daily Camera, 1976). Following William's death, the land was sold to the William Toedtli family.
This family operated the ranch until 1955 when they sold the land to the developers of the Table
Mesa subdivision.
Another Boulder pioneer, Captain Clinton Monroe Tyler, moved his wife Sarah and daughter
Lillian to Colorado by way of a wagon train in i 860 with Sarah's family. Originally from
Livingston County, New York, Tyler was born in 1834 and attended college in Michigan after his
family moved there in 1844. Following his graduation in 1856 Tyler moved to Wisconsin where
he worked with his future father-in-law and partner Nelson K. Smith. When Tyler returned east
from Colorado for provisions in 1861, he purchased a sawmill that he brought back to Colorado
PCs' bti'orlci :^Jtir II RPS'~d!~nli.~l 4irlut~,~;~urE~ ~n 6~~ul~b:r - Seutrmber ~0~8
and started a company with his brother-in-law on South Boulder Creek. Although the sawmill
ceased operations in 1867, Tyler's involvement in Boulder continued through his partnership in
the Central City Toll Wagon Road and the Boulder Valley Wagon Road (Chapman Publishing
Company, 1898: 718-719).
Tyler purchased the Decker ranch northeast of Boulder in 1874 where he raised Merino sheep.
At one time, the Tyler family owned all of the land from Tyler Hill to Alpine Street in Bou{der, and
Tyler chose to donate a portion of that land to the University of Colorado where he served as a
regent. Following Tyler's death in 1886 his land in Boulder was sold. The Tyler house still
stands at 2940 20r" Street in Boulder and has been designated a Boulder Historic Landmark.
The Edgewood subdivision is now located on the Tyler ranch lands.
4.0 Education
In 1860, the first schoolhouse in Colorado was erected at the corner of 15th and Walnut Streets
in Boulder. Called the Pioneer Schoolhouse, the frame building was constructed by Abner Roe
Brown and a group of Boulder citizens. A school teacher and carpenter, Brown first passed
through Boulder on his way to the mines west of town. A few months later, he returned to
Boulder with the intention of building a school, and of providing employment for himself. The
citizens of Boulder held a "Gold Dust Dance" to raise money in order to pay Brown to stay in
Boulder and teach their children. The Pioneer Schoolhouse operated until 1872 when the
original structure was replaced by a $15,000, two-story brick school called the Central School in
the same location. This new school was meant to accommodate the growing needs of Boulder;
however, the population soon outgrew the school and the structure was enlarged in 1873.
Additionally, the original cupola was replaced with a pitched dormer prior to 1929. The school
was razed in 1972 (Boulder Public Library - BHS 210-9-3 PHOTO). Four additional public
schools were constructed in Boulder between 1900 and 1937 including a high school.
Boulder's first private school, the Mount Saint Gertrude Academy was built in 1892 on lands
purchased from Anthony Arnett. Bound by Aurora and Cascade Avenues between Lincoln
Place and 10`" Street, this two-story brick structure was operated by the Sisters of the Charity of
the Blessed Virgin. Upon its completion, the school welcomed boys and girls of all faiths;
however, a high enrollment caused the school to eventually become an all-girls institution,
housing grades 1-12. Despite the stricter enrollment guidelines, the Academy continued to
expand and in 1919 two additional stories were added to the original structure, along with two
large wings, a music conservatory bungalow, and a chapel. The Mount Saint Gertrude
Academy remained the leading private school in Boulder until its closure in 1969. The
University of Colorado purchased the property and utilized the buildings as a social club until a
fire damaged the property in 1980. The University then abandoned the property which sat
vacant until 1998 when it was reopened as The Academy, a retirement community.
46 - - - - ~-.~,~,~~-x~ u~~~F ~
Post Wnrid 4^Jar II fiesidenti?.I Architecture in f~ocacer - Se, ternnr~r ?C08
In addition to having both public and private schools for grades 1-12, Boulder is also home to
the University of Colorado. Beginning in 1861 with the creation of the Territory of Colorado,
Boulder and several other locales across the territory lobbied the governor to become the
chosen site of the University (Allen et al, 1976: 16). The governor approved the "Act to
Establish the University of Colorado" in November 1861 and designated Boulder as its future
location. Although the decision to create the university, its location, and the appointment of a
Board of Trustees was made in the early 1860s, all action concerning the actual construction
and operation of the University was delayed as a result of the Civil War and the associated
economic distress.
The outbreak of the Civil War in 1861 slowed the numbers of settlers relocating to Colorado and
decreased economic advancement as a result of wartime inflation. Although the war ended in
1865, Colorado continued to feel the effects of it through the end of the decade. By 1870,
Colorado experienced an economic revival which led to other towns developing a renewed
interest in the University. Once Colorado regained post-war stability, multiple towns decided to
lobby for the University's relocation. Burlington, Colorado was one of the towns dedicated to
gaining the University; however, the plan was not approved by the territorial government. On
January 29, 1870, the new Board of Trustees of the University of Colorado met to choose
officers and review land offers. Construction began on the first University building in 1875 and
the first classes were held in fall 1877 (Allen et ai, 1976: 32).
As the University grew, it stabilized Boulder's economy which kept it from going through the
dramatic highs and lows experienced by the rest of the country. While many cities in the United
States were faced with decreasing populations as a result of the Economic Panic of 1893 and
the Great Depression of the 1930s, Boulder retained its urban population. Prior to the opening
of the University in 1877, the city's population numbered 300 and by 1880 it had grown to 3,000.
By 1910 the city's population had doubled to 6,150, and in the following decade had grown to
11,006.
During World War II, the United States Navy transferred its Japanese Language School from
Berkeley, California to the University of Colorado. As a result, the University taught over 6,000
students in an accelerated three-term system for the Navy during the war (Allen et al, 1976:
122-123). The increased military presence in Boulder during World War 11 allowed the
University to retain its staff and maintain housing and classrooms for its students. Fortunately,
the successes of the University were reflected in the stability of Boulder's economy and
population levels.
Historic Context -DRAFT 47
F~~st `:'florid V,~-v II Rw~nl~rn'r~l i+~;hifficb.ir, in B~nil~,i~~~ - SeGr~r~iberJG~'~~~
Following the conclusion of World War II, a large number of veterans chose to take advantage
of the GI Bill and relocated to Boulder to attend the University of Colorado. At that time, the
University housed one of the foremost programs in the Japanese language as a result of
hosting the Navy's Japanese Language School. The language school at the University drew
government employees and former soldiers to Boulder and led to a population boom of 20,000
by 1950.
The University of Colorado continued to align itself with the United States Government and
attracted high industry during the 1950s and 1960s. The result of this was an increased
population and a need for affordable housing to accommodate students and professionals.
Another aspect of the increased population growth in Boulder was the need for primary and
secondary education facilities. In 1948 the School Board put a bond issue to voters to
undertake improvements at six schools and build three new primary schools in the city
(Reppelier, 1959: 162-163). The bond passed by 842 votes and three new primary schools
broke ground beginning in 1950 (Reppelier, 1959: 163-165). In 1951 another bond was passed
which set aside money to purchase land and build a new junior high school which architect
James M. Hunter designed. Boulder completed construction in 1953 (Reppelier, 1959: 178).
Although these bonds accounted for the educational needs at the time, once the Bureau of
Standards, and Atomic Energy Commission plant opened, it brought an even larger population
to the city which included a significant number of school age children. Thus, in 1954 the
Committee of Fifty, a citi2en committee, aware of the School Board's needs, developed a
program of growth to provide adequate facilities for the growing school district. This program
included the creation of three new primary schools as well as additions to three schools to
accommodate growing secondary classes (Reppelier, 1959: 181).
5.0 Tourism
The thrill of touring the "Wild West" appealed to many during the 1800s and increased in
popularity during the 1870s. Tourists travelled west from around the world hoping to experience
the adventures they read about in penny papers and newspapers. As a result of the burgeoning
interest in Colorado during the 1860s and 1870s, the services and facilities necessary to cater
to the tourist trade became a distinguishable aspect of the growth and development of the
region. This was particularly true of Boulder during the latter half of the 19'" century (Abele,
1988: E6). The railroads which were built to service the mountain mining towns served as
access for tourists to the remote areas of Colorado. As tourism increased throughout the
region, competition between transportation companies lowered the cost of travelling by railroad
and increased the comforts found aboard. The appeal of Boulder resulted in the eventual
irr~ir~igration of many tourists to the community.
48 - - - - - - - - fi:.trr. i; ~ihirl f)RAFI
_ Post world V~43r II Residential Architecture in Boulder -September ?008
As early as the 1890s Boulder became a resort town and in 1895 the Colorado Sanitarium
opened for business. The Sanitarium was a branch of the Battle Creek Sanitarium and catered
to individuals seeking a healthy environment. The success of the Colorado Sanitarium led to
other healthful minded businesses locating in Boulder. Dr. Place's Lakeside Sanitarium as well
as the H.H. Hadley Health Community opened in 1903 followed by the Chicago and Kansas City
Holiday houses by 1934 (Perrigo, 1946: 24). These health resorts led to an increased interest
in Boulder, and with the help of the railroad, a large number of tourists were able to visit Boulder
and the surrounding mountains.
In addition to attracting sanitariums, the city of Boulder actively vied for attention from groups
such as the Chautauqua Association which built retreats around the country for its members.
These retreats provided opportunities for learning as well as rest and relaxation for the residents
of communities across the country. In 1897 educators from the University of Texas at Austin
decided to open a summer school iri Boulder and the Texas-Colorado Chautauqua Association
was created. Chautauqua was established on 75 acres of the Bachelder Ranch located at the
western end of Baseline Road along the southern side of the road in 1898, and featured an
auditorium and dining hall as well as a movie house. When it opened, Boulder's Chautauqua
became the only Chautauqua west of the Mississippi (City of Boulder, 2002:1.3}. In 1899, sixty
private cottages were built to house visitors and staff (Runnells, 1976: 24). After the initial
success of the program an additional 96 acres were purchased by the city on the west side of
Chautauqua. A streetcar line was built to the compound in addition to the permanent structures
constructed to appeal to visiting tourists. In 2006 the Colorado Chautauqua was designated a
National Historic Landmark after having been listed on the National Register of Historic Places
since 1978 (http://www.nps.gov/nhl/designations/IistsofNHLs.htm).
Beginning in the late 1800s, Boulder began purchasing land outside its city boundaries, creating
mountain parks for citizens and tourists to enjoy. In 1908, the city of Boulder arranged for
landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. to visit Boulder to master plan the city parks.
Upon arriving, Olmsted hiked along Boulder Creek, rode a horse through Boulder Canyon and
up Flagstaff Mountain, climbed Mount Sanitas, and bicycled around town (Noel, 1999: 141).
After thoroughly examining the city, Olmsted created "The Improvement of Boulder, Colorado:
Report to the City Improvement Association" in 1910 which has been Boulder's guide to
planning and parks. Boulder continued purchasing lands to create parks and by the early 1930s
the city owned 62 acres of parks within its boundaries and 6,300 acres in the surrounding
mountains. This large amount of land served as a tourist destination for individuals hoping to
hike and go horseback riding in the mountains as well as to the Arapaho Glacier, purchased by
the city in 1929 (Noel, 1999: 140).
Historic Content -DRAFT 49
F'~st'J~orld !rd;ir II RC"~ k~~il~:il l+o.h~h~ r:uni in Eou!'!2i - Stp[i,.r~:,cr 2C~CF.
Although Boulder focused on tourism for a number of years through its parks and railroad lines,
it still lacked a first class hotel. The solution to this problem was the construction of the Hotel
Boulderado. Funded by a 1906 subscription drive, the new hotel was opened to the public on
January 1, 1909. Automobile tourism to Boulder increased between 1910 and 1935, bringing
weekend tourists to town and creating new industries catering to the automobile. During
summer, it was not uncommon for Denver families to rent cabins by the week which allowed the
mother and children to enjoy the sights of Boulder while the husband would commute to work
(Abele, 1988: E7).
When the Great Depression struck in the 1930s, tourism almost ceased entirely, and did not
return to the levels of the 1920s until the conclusion of World War II. Following World War II,
Boulder again became a tourist destination. In addition to housing the University of Colorado
which brought large numbers of people to the city, Chautauqua garnered attention across the
country, as did the mountain parks owned by the city. In the years after World War II, fewer
people traveled to Boulder by rail and instead chose to utilize the automobile; however, until
1952 the only way to reach Boulder from Denver was through back roads. Thus the completion
of the Denver-Boulder Turnpike in 1952 allowed tourists easy access to Boulder. Originally
opened as a toll road, the Denver-Boulder Turnpike paid for itself by 1967 and ceased requiring
tolls. The road travels along the northern suburbs of Denver west to Boulder and turns north
within town. From the Turnpike, it is easy to reach Chautauqua, located at the western end of
Baseline Road, as well as the open-air Pearl Street Mall. The increased numbers of students at
the University of Colorado during the post war years brought national attention to Boulder, and
increased the levels of tourism the town experienced during the 1950s and 1960s.
6.0 Industry
Industry in Boulder began in the 1870s and was typically tied to the agricultural or mining
endeavors in the surrounding areas. In 1874, the first mill and smelter was erected along
Boulder Creek to process the ore coming to Boulder from the mines in western Boulder County.
Also during the 1870s, the Douty Flour Mill opened at the mouth of Boulder Creek to handle the
wheat being farmed in Boulder. Throughout the 1880s, Boulder saw an increase in industries
including flour mills, smelting plants, machine shops, brick manufactures, breweries, and even
and oil refinery {Perrigo, 1946: 19). Similar industries flourished in Boulder throughout the
remainder of the 19"' century and into the early part of the 20`h century despite the disparate
factions in Boulder who wanted to keep tiie town small without any major industrial plants.
The success of local farms allowed Boulder's wheat industry to grow; althorigh the changing
economic landscape of the Great Depression caused many farms to cease production and
revert to open lands. These struggles led Boulder to focus on another form of industry to
continue their economic success. Due to the lack of enthusiasm shown by many Boulder
Post N,brld UJar II Residential Architecture `u Lioulder - SeptE~rnber 2008
citizens when industrialists ventured into town, by 1940 the city only boasted fourteen
manufacturing plants producing cutlery and food products (Perrigo, 1946: 20). As the end of
World War II brought an increased number of people to Boulder, the town discovered a new
need for industry. In the 1950s Boulder began marketing itself as the perfect place for "clean"
industry (City of Boulder website, accessed May 9, 2008). Instead of relying on the land for
products to process, Boulder looked for industries which focused on electrical, engineering,
environmental, or computer science.
Boulder's bid for clean industry put them in competition with a number of other cities also hoping
to alter their economic environment. In 1949 Boulder and two other like-minded towns
competed to house the National Bureau of Standards' (NBS) Central Radio Propagation
Laboratory (CRPL). NBS realized that in order to study how radio energy travels the lab needed
to be in a location that did not have much radio transmission (something which was impossible
to find in its current location in Washington, D.C.) and was close to a university which would
allow for growth. Boulder's citizens supported the goal to obtain the lab and raised over
$90,000 in two weeks to purchase land for the sole purpose of attracting the lab. The resulting
217 acre site was then deeded to the Federal government for the CRPL's use. Boulder
received the Central Radio Propagation Laboratory, and construction on the facility began in
1951. In March 1954 the Radio Building was completed and President Eisenhower dedicated
the building in September (Runnells, 1976: 24). By the time it opened for business, the CRPL
had moved over 450 people to Boulder from Washington, D.C.
CRPL operated under the control of the NBS until 1965 when it joined other similar agencies in
the Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA). In 1970 ESSA became the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In 1967 an additional reorganization
at the site created the Institute for Telecommunications Sciences (ITS), and in 1978, ITS
merged into the National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
At their Boulder location, NBS (later renamed the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, or NIST) developed methods for testing materials, advised on scientific and
technical problems, and determined the physical constants and properties of materials (Prink,
1965: 74}. Boulder's close connection to NIST became the impetus for housing other similar
industries. Eight miles south of Boulder along Highway 93 (Broadway in Boulder), the then
secret Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Factory opened in 1952 to process and machine
plutonium and other materials into detonators for nuclear weapons. Although located outside of
Boulder, Rocky Flats had a direct impact on the population of a number of nearby communities,
including Boulder. By 1959, Rocky Flats employed 1,813 who lived in the surrounding area
(Rocky Flats History).
Historic Context -DRAFT 51
Post Vdurlrl W~:r II Fii~"~i~!ent.51 Arclii(ectur~~ ire f~aul~ler - Sei~l[~niber 20;)i'~
Boulder's tie to high industry continued throughout the 1950s as first Beech Aircraft and then the
Ball Brothers Research Corporation (now the Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corporation)
located offices in Boulder. The Beech Aircraft Plant, located north of Boulder opened in 1955
on a 1500 acres site where its Cryogenics Facility employed 500 people to work on a variety of
air related equipment including missiles, space vehicles, and airplanes. That same year the
newly dedicated Boulder Industrial Park opened two and one half miles east of town. Ball
Brothers became the Industrial Park's first tenant and Boulder's largest employer with over
3,000 on the payroll (Noel and Corson, 1999: 145). By 1968 the Park experienced growth and a
20 acre addition was added to the original 18 acre site. At the time of its expansion, the
Industrial Park housed firms such as: Transformer Electronics, Bolind, Inc, Western Cutlery,
Cryogenic Research, Thompson Engineering Products, and Binks Research and Development
(Boulder Chamber of Commerce, 1968).
While the aerospace industry focused their sights on Boulder, other industries also noticed the
benefit of relocating to Boulder. Northeast of Boulder along the Longmont Diagonal Highway,
the International Business Machines (IBM) Company decided to construct a facility for
manufacturing the System-360 Computer in 1965. The company purchased 640 acres along
the highway with the intention of building a plant. By 1968 the facility boasted a number of
buildings containing 1,002,000 square feet and employed 4,200 people.
The expansion of Boulder's industrial employers continued through the 1950s and 1960s with
the location of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) on the 530-acre Table
Mesa site in 1964. Designed by I. M. Pei and Associates, the NCAR laboratory was dedicated
May of 1967. The location of the International Business Machines (IBM) plant along the
Boulder-Longmont Diagonal in 1965 added another type of industry to Boulder (Noel and
Corson, 1999: 145-146). Boulder utilized its association with these high-tech industries not only
for the jobs they produced, but the possibility to create a partnership between the industries and
the University of Colorado. The University succeeded in this and created apublic-private
partnership with NCAR and the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics as well as with
compatible industries such as the Ball Brothers Research Corporation, Beech Aircraft, and IBM.
New industries altered Boulder's educational landscape and affected the residential landscape
by increasing the population of the area. Although Boulder only encompasses 25.37 square
miles, by 1970, the population had grown to over 72,000. The city's housing could not sustain
this growth, thus the real estate business expanded to accommodate the new industries and
individuals in town.
52 f L7J. a ~i;r'~r.:' Uf'i1FT
Post Word War II Residential architecture in Boulder -September 7008
7.0 Planning in Boulder
From its earliest days, the city of Boulder had legislation controlling construction and growth
within its boundaries. Beginning as early as 1858, the town leadership instituted a ground-
breaking building restriction code which affected every building constructed in town. Instead of
allowing the town to develop organically, as many other frontier towns did, founders decided
they wanted Boulder to resemble an eastern city. To achieve this goal, the town enacted
building restrictions which limited the length of time settlers had to construct their homes, as well
as the details of the construction of the home itself. Although the town did not impose stylistic
restrictions on its residents, which would require a resident to build a specific style of house
such as a Ranch style, it did require specific construction rules. These rules included requiring
that the foundation be laid within seven days of breaking ground, that the house be fully
constructed within 60 days, that exterior walls had to be eight-and-one-half feet tall, and that all
chimneys must be interior, without an exposed wall on the exterior of the house. Boulder's
building restrictions were some of the first in Colorado, being created prior to both the
establishment of the Colorado Territory in 1861 and the formation of Boulder County in 1862.
Boulder's growth starts and stops since the 1870s when seventeen additions were laid out to
Boulder due to real estate promoters and by 1878 an additional fourteen were incorporated
(Perrigo, 1946: 11). The clash of individuals who wanted Boulder to remain a small, quiet
community and those who wanted growth has been an ongoing fight, which began almost as
soon as the town was platted. The faction who wanted growth saw the expansion of industry
along Boulder Creek as a necessary step toward pushing Boulder into the forefront of industry.
The opposition believed the mills and factories should not be located in prominent places within
town. Despite the argument, those in favor of keeping Boulder small generally triumphed and
by 1907 they passed a resolution limiting the city's physical size. In 1917 the Boulder Planning
and Parks Commission was created to handle development within the city. Following the 1926
United States Supreme Court case of Village of Euclid v. Ambler Really Company, which ruled
city zoning as being legal, Boulder heard a zoning proposal from Saco R. DeBoer.
A well knotivn Denver planner, DeBoer recommended 17 neighborhood shopping centers, as
well as building height restrictions based on location be put into effect in Boulder (Noel, 1999:
143). Although not popular with all citizens, the 1928 plan by DeBoer set a new wave of
planning and zoning into effect in Boulder. As early as 1938 DeBoer recommended a highway
between Denver and Boulder, as well as a direct route between Boulder and Longmont (Noel,
1999: 143-144). Following the continued population growth in Boulder, the city's size resolution
was altered in 1941 when they agreed to annex additional land as long as developers partially
paid for the necessary infrastructure for this new land (Noel, 1999: 134).
Following World War II, the University of Colorado's population more than doubled from 3,846 in
1940 to 8,866 in 1950 (Noel; 1999: 144). This rapid growth along wiilt new industries locating in
H~~;,~ r~~: ~~;~v~xt r~w~~ r - - - 53
Pus_=,' ;":~orlrJ Wr3r II f;es~r.'~~nh;il A~cf~it~:r_h!re .n C~ow~l~~r - ;r-~(rrnb~:r_'!!0~-'
Boulder added to the need for planned growth and expansion. In 1958 the City Council adopted
a "Guide for Growth" map showing areas of increased density, industrial zones, and
neighborhood shopping areas (Noel, 1999: 146). Additionally any developers who wanted their
land annexed to the city were required to donate parks to the city to add to the park program. In
1959 a new citizen's initiative developed in order to stop development in the foothills above
Boulder. This group sought to pass legislation which would create a "blue line" at 5,750 feet
stopping city water services above this line in the hope that it would deter building above this
line. The initiative formed by University of Colorado professors Robert McKelvey and Albert
Bartlett who led the People's League for Action Now (PLAN-Boulder) to push for planned
community development.
The "Blue Line" initiative passed by 2,735 votes to 852 and led to further legislation to protect
Boulder from certain types of development. In 1962 PLAN-Boulder helped pass a measure to
purchase the Enchanted Mesa to save it from development. In 1967, the city earmarked two-
fifths of a one-cent sales tax for the acquisition of open space. The remainder was allocated for
road improvements. This undertaking was supported by PLAN-Boulder and has been
recognized as the first open space tax in the United States. The city followed through with this
endeavor, and had purchased 17,500 acres at the edges of the city at a cost of $53 million
(Cullingworth, 1997: 131).
The success of PLAN-Boulder led to further legislation meant to protect the visual landscape of
Boulder including a 55-foot building height restriction which was passed in 1971. These zoning
laws were important to Boulder due to the continued growth during the 1950s and 1960s. By
1960 Boulder had more than tripled its 1940 population with 37,718 people and by 1970 this
population had almost doubled. Although Olmsted recommended not developing land south of
Baseline Road in 1910, lands south of the road have since been developed into a number of
subdivisions as well as industrial centers including NIST and NCAR. Additionally, Olmsted's
belief that 28'h Avenue would become a major thoroughfare was realized in 1963 when
Crossroads Mall opened along the eastern edge of the roadway.
8.0 Residential Development in Boulder
Residential building in Boulder began immediately following the creation of the town in 1859.
The original 2-mile long town was divided into 4,044 lots measuring 50 feet by 140 feet at a cost
of $1,000 (Noel and Corson, 1999: 30; Frink, 1965: 12). Although the price of these large lots
was later reduced due to a lack of buyers, the precedent for future building in Boulder was set.
These earliest lots had requirements for a large set-back from the road and had stringent
building guidelines.
54 - - - l is t~ Inc C:rrucxt - DRi1~
Post World War II Residential Architecture in Boulder -September 2008
Boulder incorporated in 1871 and by 1880 the population increased to over 3,000, which
allowed it to be incorporated as a city of the second class (City of Boulder, 2008}. The main
attributes of a city of the second class were that Boulder was divided into four wards and that
the election procedures and salaries of the officers were governed by state law. Additionally the
elected officers following this incorporation were the mayor, treasurer, along with four aldermen
who were to serve for two years (Perrigo, 1946: 66). The growing population put demands on
the housing market which was soil required to comply with the building restrictions. Additionally,
due to a 1907 resolution, Boulder's physical size was limited in order to maintain its park-like
setting. The population increased to around 11,000 by 1920, which increased the need for
closely built homes. These new residents needed living space and a number of new
subdivisions, or residential areas appeared during the early 1900s. In some cases older homes
were used as boarding houses to accommodate the growing population. By 1941 the city finally
accepted its need for additional land and chose to annex nearby plats of land with the provision
that developers help pay for the new infrastructure (Noel, 1999: 134).
Although the population of the University of Colorado grew during World War II, the overall
population of Boulder remained fairly static until 1950 when the population grew to about
20,000. This number increased to 37,718 by 1960 and almost doubled by 1970 (1960 and 1970
census). in part, this population boom was caused by the increased number of students
attending the University of Colorado; however, a large number of young families moved to
Boulder at the time to take advantage of the jobs brought by the new industries which moved to
town. The dramatic increases in population resulted in the creation of several post-World War II
residential subdivisions.
These post-World War 11 subdivisions developed along roadways such as Baseline Road, Table
Mesa Drive, Broadway Avenue, and 28"' Avenue in Boulder. This is yet another indication of
the changes undertaking the United States in the years after World War II. Boulder was termed
a bedroom community for Denver, and the creation of the Denver-Boulder Turnpike in 1952
allowed for easy commuting between the two towns. As a result, many of the new subdivisions
built around Boulder were located at easy access points to large transportation lines. Many
individuals commuted by car and thus needed access to main thoroughfares.
Architectural styles in Boulder from the turn of the twentieth century through the postwar era
followed a path that mirrored the evolution of popular design and styles of the rest of the United
States. Residents realized elements of the Edwardian, Queen Anne Victorian, and
Richardsonian Romanesque styles in residential architecture during the first decade as carry-
overs from the nineteenth century. Bungalows rendered in brick, stone, and wood frame
propagated across the city's steadily expanding residential districts of the 1910s and 1920s.
More affluent residents typically pursued historical revival styles such as the Colonial Revival,
Historic Context DRAFT-j5
I'r,i'.t 4V~,r!d ~^J'ir I H~~sirientia! ArcYr'tr;aun~ in Ioulder - Sr:ntemi'~er 2UOf?
English Cottage, and Tudor Revival. Exceptions during the 1920s were a few notable sir~gle-
family houses that were constructed in the Prairie Style.
Residential architecture was the most numerous building type established in Boulder during the
postwar period between 1945 and 1970. While the vast majority of this housing was created in
the residential subdivisions described in this historic context, Boulder is also noted for its
relatively large number of custom-designed Modern homes that lay outside of the master-
planned neighborhoods. The city became rich in Modern architecture when compared with
other cities in the Rocky Mountain region in the postwar period, including Denver. Boulder
stood out in Colorado for its willingness to experiment with progressive intellectual concepts in
Modern architecture during the 1940s, 50s, and 1960s (Paglia, Segel, and Wray, 2000: 4-12).
Boulder benefited from the presence of the University of Colorado and its School of
Architecture, the only collegiate architectural training program in the state at the time. It also
claimed a proportionally large number of architects living and working in the city. Many of these
design professionals were recognized to be the most avant garde architects in the state at that
time. Among the most noteworthy architects were Charles A. Haertling, James M. Hunter,
Hobart D. Wagener, and L. Gale Abels. These circumstances established a critical mass of
architectural interest in Boulder, and in turn, the community was generally supportive of avant
garde or experimental new residential architecture in the city. The result was a variety of
architectural residential styles. The Usonian style, as inspired by Frank Lloyd Wright, is the
most frequently pursued in the city, and therefore remains the most dominant. Other Mid-
century styles represented in domestic buildings included the International Style,
Expressionism, Rustic Modernism, Formalism, Brutalism, and variants of Late Modernism
(Paglia, Segel, and Wray, 2000: 4-12). These custom-designed expressions of Modernism may
have had an impact on the progression of more mainstream residential postwar subdivisions in
Boulder. These individual Modern houses were dispersed throughout the city and thus their
visual impact on the city's broader setting was far-reaching.
Many of the subdivisions in Boulder were created between 1945 and 1967 and typically include
Ranch and Split Level styles. Scattered throughout Boulder near major thoroughfares for the
most part, five of these subdivisions were large with over 200 houses per subdivision. A map
published in 1957 notes that at least 18 new subdivisions were created between 1950 and 1957
all with easy access to the Denver-Boulder Turnpike, Broadway Avenue, and Baseline Road
(The Denver Post, 1957). Four of these subdivisions, Edgewood, Flatirons Park, Highland Park,
and Martin Acres, are part of this survey.
56 I listoric Context -DRAFT
Post World War II Residential Architecture in Boulder -September 2008
Table 1: Boulder Subdivisions by Builders
Subdivision Builder Known Dates of
Construction
Baseline Highland Park Builders 1958-1962
Carolyn Heights Assorted 1953-1967
Edgewood Assorted 1953-1959
Flatirons Park Assorted 1947-1962
Highland Park Turnpike Builders, Inc 1952-1962
Interurban Park Assorted 1947-1967
Martin Acres Highland Park Builders 1954-1962
Park East Melody Homes 1963-1967
Sunset Hills Wilkins Construction 1946-1962
Table Mesa Highland Park Builders 1962-1967
Melody Homes
Keith Homes, Inc.
Wagoner Manor Wagoner Construction 1954-1957
Company
8.1 Baseline Subdivision
Baseline Subdivision is located between 30"' and 40t'' Streets from Baseline Road to Colorado
Avenue (Figure 23). Within the subdivision there are 345 homes constructed between 1958 and
1967. According to the Denver Parade of Homes Database, Keith Homes, Inc built one of the
model houses (700 33`d Street}. This house was a Ranch style valued at $15,000. it has 1,040
square feet, including three bedrooms, one-and-one-half baths, and an attached one car
garage. The subdivision was considered expensive at the time, with a high end price of
$26,500 (Database of the Annual Denver Parade of Homes, 1953-1963, 2006: 7).
The Baseline subdivision went through a number of boundary changes before reaching its final
size. The first filing occurred on July 15, 1939; however, very little adjustment was made at that
time. The second change occurred on March 3, 1960 tivith four expansions added by July 6,
1962 (Legal Titles of Subdivisions, 1963).
Historic Comex; -DRAFT _ 57
f'.-- .;~rlri II R.='.i ~1[i?I r I~,',~~.aU'e •i Lt„ = - ..I• i
7 .l
1:. yr,3` r / - '6 ~ t~
` _ ` ~
~ s y e.
,tY : _ 7
P" ~
= i < _ _ -'i
' .
~ ~ ~ -
~ r _ -
~ ~ ~ -
Figure 23. Baseline Subdivision, 2008
The majority of homes located in the Baseline subdivision were constructed by Highland Park
Builders. This company was also responsible for constructing the custom built homes in
Highland Park West following the disbandment of Turnpike Builders, Inc. By December 1960,
the Baseline subdivision contained 150 homes, including two models called the "Fairview" and
the "Western." Although John R. Wheeler and C. Howard Murphy, owners of Turnpike Builders,
Inc disbanded the company in 1955, Wheeler continued to play a large part in the development
of Boulder. His company Wheeler Realty Co. acted as a sales agent for Highland Park Builders
in the Baseline and Highland Park West subdivisions. At the time Highland Park Builders began
construrtion in the Baseline subdivision, the area was undergoing its fourth addition.
8.2 Carolyn Heights Subdivision
Carolyn Heights Subdivision is located between 21''' and 26'h Streets from Kalmia Avenue to
Norwood Avenue (Figure 24). There are 36 homes within the subdivision that were constructed
between 1953 and 1967 with the majority built between 1963 and 1967. The original filing date
for Carolyn Heights was February 27, 1954 (Legal Titles of Subdivisions, 1963). The land
occupied by Carolyn Heights was owned by the Taussig family who sold the lots to perspective
builders. They also served as developers, constructing and selling several homes within the
subdivision.
The Taussrg family moved to Boulder in 1916 and purchased ,he land current~y known as
Carolyn Heights from Mr. and Mrs. W. Merton Stoffle, who had bought the land from Carl H.
Behling. Once established in Boulder, the Taussig's began operating an Aberdeen-Angus cattle
ranch. They also began remodeling their new house which had been built in 1922 by Ed Euler.
Prior to moving to Boulder the Taussigs owned and operated a dairy and truck garden farm near
Boston, Massachusetts and had an interest in a sugar and molasses business in New Orleans.
`~8 - - - - r-
R~,st!~lcrici ;~d.i' II R~_r;..±:=n(~ ~I Ar~;h.!::Ch,r~: in f;oul_7r.r Se;Stemt~er200fi
Louisiana. John Taussig started his Aberdeen-Angus herd with 25 heifers shortly after moving
to Boulder and became known throughout the state for his animals.
In 1953 the Taussigs began looking to sell their property and move to a lower elevation due to
the poor status of John's health. The first portion of their property to self was located on the
mesa northwest of the Taussig house. Shortly after that, the Taussigs platted the remaining
acreage for large residential lots. They charged A.J. Critz, a Boulder real estate agent with
handling the sale of the lots and improvements within the new subdivision, named Carolyn
Heights in honor of John's wife Carolyn.
When platted, the lots were each one acre in size with an option for the buyer to purchase a
smaller portion of the lot. Nine houses had been constructed in Carolyn Heights by June 1954,
and five additional lots had been purchased. Plans were made to construct homes and the
remaining lots were priced dependent on their location. The lots located along Kalmia, and
Linden, south of Meadow Avenue were priced at $2,500 in 1954 while the lots north of Meadow
Avenue and West of Twenty-Third Street were priced at $2,750. Two lots east of Twenty-Third
Street and the lots north of Naples Court were offered for $3,000 each with the two lots on
Twenty-Third Street containing wells. The Taussig house was located at the corner of Naples
Court and Nineteenth Street.
According to an advertisement for the Carolyn Heights subdivision in May 1954, the subdivision
boasted "country estate" features including spacious grounds, and inspiring views of the
mountains. Additionally the subdivision was located outside Boulder city limits at that time and
thus was not required to pay city taxes. Other benefits to the Carolyn Heights subdivision were
excellent television reception, zoning protection to assure property value, the ability to buy on
long terms and build at a later date, as well as the ability to choose your builder (The Daily
Camera, 1954). The Taussigs worked exclusively with realtor A.J. Critz whose offices were
located at 1225 Pearl Street in Boulder.
Post World War II Residential Architecture in Boulder -September 2008
~ r'
~ ;
i,~'
ti. ~ :r .rye
•
1 _ f i...:1
Y'~ t _
~y.~. ~
~ ~ ~•-G . ice. 't,:'~.C~`_"~~~:
s~_i
i
Figure 24: Carolyn Heights Subdivision, 2008
8.3 Edgewood
The Edgewood subdivision is located from Balsam Avenue and Edgewood Drive to Iris Avenue,
between Broadway Avenue and Folsom Street. The neighborhood boasts homes primarily built
between 1953 and 1959 on land which was originally part of the Tyler Ranch (Figure 25). The
Tyler Ranch house remains at 2940 20th Street.
,i: .l ,
u~i
;.~~s ff
E` 'i' 9 a 3j ~ .,r;~. d u. Ifa•J"'.~•. 1 J~~' y~
+ > ~1 , ' ~ y`~ Ala-t~•`.~
~ii+~,: J,, r I\~'. 'fir .p
}.3' .~'hki~~>,~~~ "S7 1~'•~ ~ -f~ %,~.:y-~~~77ltRi:~~a~ti~,(I7.~„ ~''f s~N'_
•~~~'t~'..~s.F~l. ~"~~Y'!j_~?Y:?.'" cK
-~Y 'T'~rri~yt-r'r'~.+~a'
f±
~.t'~'~..c'.~;~~
~ , t,
~J~~V'~^i 7i~jr t~ . i _ ,~~1~ -y. `+s ~ .<~.ai a -.,Y•!`,.1'{l~`
f ' 1-+"'.~. ~.si'S ;i_
> :.4 . t t ~ tel. ~rY . t , v w.
Figure 25: Tyler House, Photograph courtesy of the Carnegie Branch library for Locol History
One of Boulder's pioneers, Clinton M. Tyler purchased the land that is now Edgewood from J.H.
Decker in 1874 and proceeded to build his two-story house. When the house was completed it
cost $10,000 and featured two fireplaces, a bay window, multiple dormer windows, and a large
front porch (The Deily Camera, January 15, 1875).
60 - - - - - - ~;,_~,t,~x~-~r~.~~i
Post World War II Residential Architecture in Boulder -September 2008
The land surrounding the Tyler house was platted into a subdivision and construction began in
1951 (Figure 26}. The area consists of single family homes on curvilinear streets. The homes
in Edgewood, as the subdivision was named, are primarily ranch style, and are between 1,000
and 1,600 square feet in size, with most of the homes featuring cone-car garage or a carport.
Fes' a ~i -r ry~•;.~ r j,v 7:.n. ~ f S~„ ~ ~i,.~' ' 4..r4~
Figure 26: Edgewood Subdivision, Photograph courtesy of the Carnegie Branch Library for Local History
8.4 Flatirons Park Subdivision
Located between Flagstaff Road and 5th Street from Cascade Avenue to Aurora Avenue, the
Flatirons Park Subdivision houses 29 residential buildings constructed between 1947 and 1967
(Figure 27). The official formation for the Flatirons Park subdivision occurred on March 12,
1951 (Legal Titles of Subdivisions, 1963}.
Ffisto:ic Context DRAFT 61
I'o;;l 1Npiid Wflr II Hesidenria! n:ct;itecLui: ui F3in4id~=r~ Se~t~~mber 2:)09
{
sl o~ 4yJy~~c,, yi~'l,' 7 i
3~};1, r~'~ oi- ti F7ri!(r~~ - ~ Ir't tF~1l~ I i 'i
_.~i C~-~i• ~ ,L; Yi/ti~~. ~1~~~:~ ~ ,`yam ~4~ ~
r j,~~ . s.•:ytll~+l~{ ~'4 ~ r";? /~'t ~ t ~ :F i :ti lit ni ~ r~F- F ~ _Y.~ -
3l ~~F< t 'j ~ I i( ~ J lilt ~ !6i `~.~J - .a ~X ?~~rY ~
ti ~ a ~~C+`Fl - s.,y Vii.--„ yt~
~ ~ mss., r ` ~ ~ u~ i. R _ - '~~I
x
fair ~ ~ 1 ~ C"- >i ~ ~l',}~.',
r v..w v
, ^r
p~ r r Jar. t r'` z i i«~f ~C , it J ~ i.A.
r s, {~l~'~-,...~~.y r'.'j,v?rur:.•~.,.,.f~~~v}~Y.T??.~;~~`:r~."M.'z•
c 2~' ~ ~.~rr~'
r.-,r,., f r.r~' r~. ~ d1 tr ~ ;liAh~ .f~~
Figure 27. Flatirons Subdivision, 1008
8.5 Highland Park Subdivision
The Highland Park subdivision is located on lands which were once the Kohler Ranch. The
subdivision is divided into two sec#ions; one section is located between Marshall Road and the
Denver-Boulder Turnpike from Dartmouth Avenue to Elm Avenue. The other is located from
Regis Drive to Dartmouth Avenue between Eastman Avenue and Moorhead. Boulder
businessman Bauldie Moschetti purchased the land from the Kohler family intending to sell the
property to construction companies. Prior to selling the property, Moschetti allowed Lloyd
Downing to farm the property until Downing's lease expired on May 1, 1952. Then, Turnpike
Builders, Inc. purchased 72 acres from Moschetti in the early 1950s and immediately began to
form a community.
Turnpike Builders, Inc was a corporation formed by John R.P. Wheeler, C. Howard Murphy, and
Kathleen Feuerstein to build the Highland Park subdivision. Wheeler and Murphy served as the
company's president and vice president, organizing the construction of 330 homes on the 72
acres. Both men were from Greeley and involved in the housing market in different capacities.
Wheeler took over management of his family's business, Wheeler Realty in 1940 and
immediately began moving the company toward large-scale projects such as entire
subdivisions. By the time Wheeler became involved in the Highland Park subdivision, he had
already built 250 homes in Greeley (The Daily Camera, April 1, 1952;
4vww.wheelermgt.com/about.shtml). Additionally, while in the midst of organizing the creation of
Highland Park, in 1953 Wheeler served as the President of the Colorado Association of
Realtors. C. Howard Murphy was a building contractor from Greeley where he had designed
and built over 200 homes prior to working on Highland Park. In 1956 Howard joined a group of
contractors as a member of the founding board of the Weld County Builders Association-
62 - - - - - - - - Hr;tnric conrexc - UHAFT
Post World War II Residential Architecture in Boulder -September 2UU8
Construction began on 330 of Highland Park's homes immediately following the purchase of 72
acres. The company filed incorporation papers on April 11, 1952 and by May 17, an office had
been moved onto the property, the lots had been divided, and the roads had been laid out (The
Daily Camera, May 17, 1952). The footings for five houses had been poured and excavation on
five other properties began by June 6, 1952 and the company was expecting the first homes of
the Highland Park subdivision houses to be complete by July 20, 1952 (The Daily Camera, June
6, 1952). Turnpike Builders, Inc contracted the Trolinger and Henley-Terrell real estate
agencies to represent them in selling the properties (The Daily Camera, May 28, 1952). The
cost of living in Highland Park was meant to be in the middle range with homes costing between
$10,850 and $15,500 depending on the preferred model (The Daily Camera, June 23, 1980).
The original plans for Highland Park called for five different home models each with a 60 foot
frontage; however, by 1954 the subdivision was only advertising three models: Arlington,
Highlander, and Coloradoan. The Arlington model was the smallest of the three with 816
square feet of living space (Figure 28). The house had two bedrooms, one bathroom, an
outside terrace-barbecue pit, and gave the buyer the option to have a carport. This model sold
for $11,250 to $11,450 depending on the buyers finishing choices.
~
s jT~
I;.iX`~~~••s~ ^.~a.1 r • 4~.'"-S 'a!' `C, °a~~'[jv L'.i~~„
t~y~ ~~t-dfrr~ ~
28: Arlington Mode% 2008
Tl~e mid-level model was the Highlander (Figure 29). Built with 960 square feet of living space,
the model boasted two bedrooms, one bathroom, and a convertible room which could be utilized
as a third bedroom. An additional perk of the Highlander was the inclusion of Formica Top
Cabinets in the kitchen. The Highlander sold for $12,000 to $12,200 in 1954.
f Ic;'~,,ru: Cuntcxl Uf3/1FT - 63
i'tlst Word War II f~e~denf~al Arrl~~tl~c'inrr in li~~ii,rinrSe~temoer 2008
z
f , ~ L~
,"i ,
~ ~ ~ r r
~,-1:1~_\~ ~ - x ~ mac. ! j.! f'~ +
~n~R~ ~ 7.r 1 1 }f X55. r~~h ;:4 S t~. " `^3~ /1;`
i ~ + z~ 1
f ~ti.F " . ~ ~ ~',II - i 9~ Q ~f ~ ' line ~
~~rr r ~
;w V. M:
t ?_.•L w
~ rv
fi a ~ j '.tit-~ ~ ~ ~ `~'E'u i ,
i T 4 • 4 [
Figure 29: Highlander Model, 2008
The largest model offered to Highland Park home buyers was the Coloradoan (Figure 30). This
house contained 988 square feet of living space with three bedrooms, one bathroom, and the
option for a carport or garage. Added benefits to purchasing the Coloradoan included an
exhaust fan in the kitchen as well as a dishwasher and garbage disposal. The Colorado cost
$13,200 to $13,500.
M~
l y..:..:
-~~7~`~'•'_ _ ~ _t~t (YIi~~. _
r~,T.:g ter.
• ~ r [ r
• "~~d~t'{~_:i.'Y.J •?-~j~:'~.?~,'w'i!`f~~C'. ~ ''"Tee
r', 3 *~!_~,3^-" ~}•1`~t A~iEy1,~~{sa•- !.yam ` •+~~r
r.
Figure 30: Coloradoan Model, Photograph Courtesy of the Carnegie Branch Library for Local History
While the models differed in size anti some options. all houses in Highland Park built by
Turnpike Builders, Inc had G-E Air Wall and Janitrol furnaces, Bendix Economat washing
machines, colored bath fixtures, tiled bath and shower, copper plumbing, Youngstown kitchens
and cabinets, the sills, oak floors, and insulation (The Daily Camera, April 9, 1954). Additionally,
all I~ornes to be bunt in Highland Park were to have sixty-foot frontages to the neighborhood
I iistoriC Context -DRAFT
Post World 4Var II Residential Architecture in f3ouider -September 2008
streets. Although Highland Park was advertised as being glow-cost modern community, buyers
still needed financing to purchase a home in the subdivision. The homes could be financed in
one of two ways. The first was to use a Federal Housing Authority (FHA) loan and put 20%
down. The second option was reserved for military veterans who could use the GI Bill to qualify
for a GI loan which only required 5% down.
By 1954 Highland Park already housed 312 families with a combined 222 children (The Daily
Camera, October 18, 1954). The concerned citizens of Highland Park decided they needed a
forum with which to make their needs known to the community and the city at large. As a result
on August 24, 1954 the Citizens Committee of Highland Park was officially organized to deal
with matters of interest such as: bus service, school facilities, traffic safety measures, park area,
and taxation (The Daily Camera, October 18, 1954). The Highland Park News, a newsletter
produced by the community became the Highland Park and Martin Acres News by December
1954, showing the close connection between the two adjacent subdivisions.
The overall goal of Turnpike Builders, Inc was to create alarge-scale subdivision to house the
increasing number of Boulder citizens during the 1950s and i 960s. Turnpike Builders, Inc
operated out of their office at 3055 Moorhead (an Arlington model) until the completion of
construction on December 16, 1955 and #hey disbanded.
Following the dissolution of Turnpike Builders, Inc., John Wheeler joined with other builders and
created the Highland Park Builders. This new company built homes in a number of subdivisions
around Boulder, including the later additions to Highland Park. In 1957, Highland Park Builders
made plans to subdivide the 156 acres south of NCAR into 275 new lots. These lots were to be
zoned for residential and retail purposes (The Daily Camera, April 6, 1957). These homes were
to be similar to the houses built east of Broadway in Highland Park.
8.6 Interurban Park Subdivision
Located between 15th Street and Sunnyside Lane from King Avenue to Baseline Road, the
Interurban Park Subdivision houses 135 homes constructed between 1947 and 1967 (Figure
31). Although the subdivision was developed primarily in the post World War II years,
Interurban Park was originally created as an addition to the City of Boulder by David E. Dobbins
on December 31, 1908. The land was originally purchased in 1874 by John C. Fisher who
failed to pay taxes on the property. In 1875 the land was purchased by Thomas Danford, who
was also the Boulder County Clerk and Recorder. The county purchased the land from Danford
in 1890 to build a large brick, poor house, on 22"d Street south of Baseline which has now been
demolished.
Historc Cor;text - uHnF T 65
f'ust World VJar II Residerllial An,hila:hirr• in BuuliJ~~r -SeptC•rnber 2003
The County was unable to make a success of the Colorado Osteopathic Sanitarium it was
operating on the land and sold it to David Dobbins. Beginning in 1906, Dobbins began platting
the Floral Park (named for his wife Flora) and Interurban Park subdivisions. Dobbins cleared
the land of boulders, sowed alfalfa in the southern fields, and opened roads to the area.
Following the creation of roads, Dobbins sold a number of lots to individuals. Interurban Park
was named for the interurban line which ran from #his area to Denver (The Daily Camera, July 1,
1955).
I ,,tom{ ..i` ~ .~3~'~~~ M J. _
~~yy S4 a N , v
~~-r° f'~,~T' ~~6?. .H~f~~i 1`1't!- ~ - ~.lA~r~11 ``~iS '.`lnt
p r ~ ,
h ~ ~ ~ r S~ci~e i~ ~`a~~ i
~ 1 r- ,Mai' ti~it ~A ~ t l^ i.~.
I t~~', ~ 3.
Iti~V..'";,QT ?J ` CJ~T,i,, c,•:~ . iv I\~~8~~~;, \ ~ , y'~+Yt > f I ~'~'C~,~ 1 i
II 4t t Z. 1i n > A{ ~ b i r'F~ ~ ~ q~ i ~
t:. i R I
i~ ill, ~~r .
~ F
_ Y~._;
~
, 7 _ - ,.n.. ~
s
/k
fii.S.r~?i+r ~ Kyy,,~t/ f^ ~~f~ i `cam jya ~ _..a, _ Y
t ~s,Y ~.1L1M ' ~s{ !~y~ t'n'r i.: ~.-Y~ ~.H.w~i~M.~..fr_1 ~'~is.+as:r,
wYr~tM+...y.' i
~r ~ ?emu ~
Figure 31. Interurban Park, 2008
8.7 Martin Acres Subdivision
The Martin Acres subdivision is located between South Broadway Road and the Boulder
Turnpike from Hanover Avenue to Moorhead Avenue (Figure 32). The lands were originally part
of the Martin farm which was purchased by William Martin, one of the founders of the Caribou
mine and later developer of the town of Caribou, in 1872. By 1876 Martin and his family were
living in a farmhouse on the land which at its peak encompassed 400 acres and a number of
structures.
Initially, Martin sold land that was to become the Denver-Boulder Turnpike right of way.
Although the Martin family did not support the Turnpike, which would cut a portion of the farm off
from the remaining lands, they chose not to oppose the project as it would help others in their
community. In July 1954 the second portion of the land, 17 acres adjoining the Highland Park
subdivision, was sold to developer Francis Williams. The official creation of the Martin Acres
subdivision occurred on August 26, 1954. By 1960 when the William Martin Homestead
Addition opened to development, all that remained of the original farm was the farmhouse and
four lots.
66 - - - - - F~istoric context - URA~r
Post World War II Residential Architechire in {3oulder -September 2008
_
.A..
,1 ~p c ~
S ~
c:.,~
T l
c _
- - ti-o r ti a. 1iJ ~ - t.
kr ~~Kk ;~~`r1 -..-~.~~'R
~ ~w~ ,~"'Ci S-t S_y,.~1T°
~ Y ~ti ~ - YY ,t ? ~~~-~iZ~~~cr
r~: ~~~~~'%7~ ~ ?N _ rte.-
Figure 3Z: Martin Acres Subdivision, November Z, 1954,
Photograph courtesy of the Carnegie Branch Library for Cocal History
The completion of the Martin Homestead Addition enlarged Martin Acres to 1,200 homes
ranging in overall price from $12,000 to $26,000. Prior to construction, the land was engineered
by the Boulder firm of Williams and Woodward to lower the water table to ensure dry basements
for the subdivision (The Daily Camera, August 26, 1960). The primary builder of Martin Acres
was the Francis & Williams Company, also known as Melody Homes or High Country Homes.
The homes are typically Ranch or Split Level styles with carports or garages. Two homes which
served as model homes for the Denver Parade of Homes in the early 1960s are still located
along Moorhead Avenue. The Split Level style model home was located at 3375 Moorhead and
consisted of 1,150 square feet, three bedrooms, and one-and-one-half baths. Additionally the
house boasted aone-car garage underneath the second level. This Split Level house cost
$16,900 in 1961. The second model home was a Ranch style located at 3405 Moorhead
Avenue. This house contained 1,204 square feet, five bedrooms with one full bath and two
three-quarter baths. Additionally the house had an attached one car garage. The homes were
featured in the Denver Parade of Homes in the early 1960s. According to the Denver Parade of
Homes, prices for the homes in Martin Acres ranged from $15,000 to $20,000 in 1963.
In addition to housing workers from the Bureau of Standards, students from the University of
Colorado, and other people who were employed within Boulder, Martin Acres was also home to
at least two professional athletes. Carroll Hardy, a former University of Colorado football player
chose to live in Martin Acres during his off season from the Boston Red Sox. Additionally,
Hardy's teammate Frank Bernardi, who was a defensive half back for the Denver Broncos, also
lived in the neighborhood (Figure 33).
Histori;; Context -DRAFT 67
Post VJOrld Way II He;irlnnlial ~lichifCCtur~ ui E3~~ulricr - S.~~tember'~OU8
J ~ ~ ~ ci
ri r
f~ ~ ~
~
f1 1 a ~t ~ ' / ~ 1 / , 1 `
it ~
~/~a~~-,,,,-~_~~~~4~~ ~,j~+',` ilf lrY~ k it.~~~s~~,'f t~-,'~. ~M ~ }i,~r};~i~. t~~-~
jiw- -
f!~.+~i, ~,_.isLtsrot - 2 z:l ~.~ir 1 t~; ; h v - t ~ ';sue--;;\
y~
~ S~ L y~! ~ r ~n J ~ ~ 1 y L? ~ , ~~.''l '~~j/y~..,~ , ~5=~... ~ 1
t:t' ,irn~-f r f;`~.c'~'11L1' _ _ _.+w6. ~ JJ,~.;~~C ~;'"'Ii~;~~~,~1, ~Y,
i-, 3 ~.a g.- 1 -
i _ '~1 ~-M
Figure 33: Martin Acres, 2008
8.8 Park East Subdivision
The Park East Subdivision was primarily constructed between 1963 and 1967, though the
official creation occurred after 1963 (Figure 34). It consisted of 289 homes and is located
between 39th Street and McIntire Street from Baseline Road to just south of Colorado Avenue.
The subdivision has two parts, located east and west of Foothills Parkway, and the entire
subdivision was not fully completed until 1970. The homes west of Foothills Parkway were built
between 1963 and 1967. East of Foothills Parkway only 16 homes were built during that same
time frame, with the majority of homes built in 1968.
Formerly known as the Burke and Weaver property, W.H. Williams of Melody Homes purchased
the land in 1963 and immediately began planning for a subdivision. The plat and engineering
plans were submitted for a neighborhood of medium priced homes and Gilpin Drive was the first
street constructed. In 1964 it was believed the company would add $1,200,000 in sanitary
sewer lines, water mains, curb walks, and paved streets to this area. The company had paid
the city $26,000 by May 1964 toward this goal (The Daily Camera, May 16, 1954).
68 - ~ - - - Flistoric Conn xt - Df;.4FT
Post World War II Residential A.chitecture in Boulder -September 2008
s y~
1~yp , uJi~vf
} S'r srz =
',,mil i s 7~~ ~ 1 ~ i `s~~~".
4
L ~~v - - -
_ ~•t'~' s"'~ i- r y~ ~[!T-n; ~f ~ _ '-{-yM -11St~Ly~F~S.., ti . .
. _~~~~Y«ry~t may,. ~ Y;~~~~~ ^
~ ~J~ 1
Z.'A~.. ra~S~l~~ r, y - ~t ~[~~-I~d~s„`il~ t r
~7
Figure 34: Pork East Neighborhood, 2008
Vance Harrington was hired as the sales manager and Harlan Danforth was to serve as a sales
counselor to all prospective buyers and beginning in May 1964 the Park East Subdivision held
its Grand Opening for three full weeks. The event allowed home buyers to view the new Melody
Homes model the Mayfair 11. This model was a rambling L-shaped Ranch style home with
double front doors, a family room with mahogany paneling and fireplace, double front doors, a
twenty foot long master bedroom with its own three-quarter bath and sliding doors leading onto
the patio (The Daily Camera, May 16, 1964).
Constructed by Melody Homes, the Park East subdivision contains home models available in
the other Melody Homes subdivisions such as the Table Mesa subdivision southeast of Park
East. In 1965, Melody Homes debuted two new models in the Park East subdivision, the Lyric
and the Prelude. The Prelude featured a new development in home design, the combined
family room and kitchen areas. Although the two areas were not completely combined in the
Prelude, the kitchen featured a balcony to overlook the family room, uniting the two rooms in
feeling if not actuality. On the other side of the kitchen, the dining room opened onto the living
room. Additionally, the Prelude featured three bedrooms, including a 15-foot master bedroom,
two baths featuring ceramic tile, a laundry room, a built in telephone area, and an attached two-
car garage (The Daily Camera, September 10, 1965).
The Lyric was a three bedroom home featuring a 24-foot living room and a kitchen adjacent to
the family room. Melody Homes allowed the buyer the choice to change the family room into a
dining room. Additionally, the Lyric featured a balcony separated from the dining room and
family room area by a sliding glass door (The Daily Camera, September 10, 1965).
Unlike other builders at the time which featured one-year warranties, Melody Homes decided to
feature five-year warranties which covered all structural components which were found defective
Historic Context -DRAFT gg
Post VJcrlo War II Residential Architecture in Boulder -September 2008
in material or workmanship. Home buyers simply needed to notify Melody Homes if any
structural problem arose and the issue would be resolved either by reparation or replacement.
Although this new warranty was received warmly by buyers, there were conditions which had to
be followed. The warranty could not be assigned or transferred and any manufactured product
within the house such as a garbage disposal for which the manufacturer's warranty did not
extend to five years was only covered for the period of time insured by the manufacturer (The
Daily Camera, July 25, 1964).
8.9 Sunset Hills Subdivision
The Sunset Hills Subdivision is located between 13'h and 19"' Streets from Mapleton Avenue to
Alpine Avenue and consists of 113 homes constructed between 1947 and 1962 with the
majority being built through 1952 (Figure 35). The Sunset Hill Improvement Corporation was
formed in 1944 by Boulder contractor Ted McPherson who renamed the western portion of the
bluff previously known as "Lovers Hill" to "Sunset Hill". Along with Boulder's city planning
consultant Saco R. DeBoer, McPherson designed lots that fit the winding nature of the streets in
the area. The subdivision extended from First Avenue (now Alpine) to High Street and from the
alley between Broadway and 13'" Street to 19'h Street (The Daily Camera, May 13, 2007).
Although McPherson purchased the property in 1944, the subdivision was not officially created
until June 5, 1946.
McPherson sold the entire Sunset Hill property to George White, a Nebraska real estate
developer who moved to Boulder in 1948. When White set about determining the style of
subdivision he wanted to construct, he decided the homes on Sunset Hill should range in price
from $15,000 to $20,000 (The Daily Camera, July 12, 1948). The typical lot size in Sunset Hills
was 75 by 150 feet with some being 90 by 100 feet in size.
White added all utilities to the properties and hired architect Glen H. Huntington (the son of
famed Denver Architect Glen W. Huntington) to design six homes along High Street, with the
first being constructed at 1608 High Street. These six homes were located on the north side of
the street and had hardwood floors, gas heat, modern kitchens and baths, as well as large
windows. Two of the six structures included basements and a few included fireplaces. Each of
these six homes had a different appearance and room layout to suggest individuality. The
homes were constructed by L. Marvin Wilkins' company Wilkins, Inc and were completed in
March 1949 (The Daily Camera, May 13, 2007; March 19, 1949). The Huntington homes have
since been demolished and replaced with newer structures.
Following the completion of the Huntington homes in 1949, White commissioned the
construction of eight new residences along North Street. These less expensive homes cost
between $8,500 and $8,700 in the early 1950s. Wilkins Construction proceeded to build 9 new
7O - - - - - - Iii Icr r. C~u°~lex' - L)f~AFr
Post Word War II Residential Architecture in Boulder - September 2008
houses on Sunset Hill and 12 along North Street in 1952 (The Daily Camera, May 1, 1952).
Although Wilkins was the primary builder for Sunset Hills, at least three other construction
companies completed homes in the neighborhood. Following the completion of ten new homes
in 1950, Sunset Hills was considered one of the most rapidly developing residential areas of
Boulder.
a
~5 . ~ t _ ~ ,fJr _ y .
ti .
* 1~
a ~t r , V ~ -1
~'kSti ~ ii:t c ,7,~ i~a"~"R~
e
P< -~h~=...h~, i~'r ril~jx~f'~7"}r *.t~.y R} ~'`y~.~°r-,~' .~Z ~ 4:- 7~ ~ y+
Figure 35: Sunset Hills, 2008
8.10 Table Mesa Subdivision
Located between Table Mesa Drive and Broadway from Heidelberg Drive to Regis Drive, the
Table Mesa Subdivision contains 1270 residential homes built between 1958 and 1967. The
Table Mesa subdivision developed in two short phases. The creation of table Mesa occurred on
January 2, 1962 and the second phase called the Table Mesa First Addition was established on
April 23, 1962. The 555 acres which comprise the Table Mesa Subdivision were purchased by
the Table Mesa Development Company from the Boulder Hills Corporation in January 1962.
Initially, the entire tract was part of the 922 acre Viele Ranch owned by William Viele. Following
Viele's death the Toedtli family, who purchased the land from William and Mary Ida Viele,
continued to operate the property as a ranch until 1955(The Daily Camera, January, 25, 1976).
The Toedtli family sold the land to C.L. Garlock who in 1955, proceeded to sell the land to the
Boulder Hills Corporation.
Organized by Hugh Phillips and John Wheeler, the Table Mesa Development Company
incorporated a 40 acre park surrounding Viele Lake as well as possible commercial
development regions within the 555 acre tract. Strict agreements were put into place for the
subdivision to control lot size as well as the size of the homes built in Table Mesa. The first
homes (of the proposed 1,953) were being completed by August 1962 by five builders, giving
buyers the option of 20 model homes. Each builder offered variety of models with specific
r,~~-,~~~~ ~~~,t.,r ' 71
F'os' W~~•Id 1~Vnr II Rcr.~i1e•~tial ArChiterture in Cinu;iiei September?OOt
locations; Highland Park Homes offered six models located around Table Mesa Drive and Case
Court, Hudson Homes offered three models located near Table Mesa Drive and Hartford Court,
Floyd Fell Homes were located around Darley Street and Claremont Drive and featured three
models, Keith Homes at Yale Road and Table Mesa Drive had four models, and George
Holdrege's Imperial Custom Homes, Inc offered individualized residences along the western
boundary of the subdivision (The Daily Camera, August 16, 1962).
By October 1963 High Gate Homes (owned by W.H. Francis) had opened a new model in Table
Mesa called the Alpine which was on display with the other High Gate Home models around
Table Mesa Drive and Ithaca Drive. The Alpine was asplit-foyer, two-level, three bedroom
house with an attached garage. A decorative glass window in the entryway along with the
walnut finished cabinets in the kitchen, a range hood with light and exhaust fan, wrought iron
railings on the staircase, and no drip counters in the kitchen set this model apart from its
contemporaries. Like all High Gate Homes, the Alpine featured ceramic bath tiles, a basement
or garden level, a wood burning fireplace, separate formal dining rooms, extra baths, and 235
pound lock-tab shingles on the roof (The Daily Camera, October 25, 1963). The total cost of
this model was $17,000.
The four other models built by High Gate Homes in Table Mesa during the 1962-1963 season
were the Fairfield, Devon, Beverly, and Monterey. The Devon was a Cape Cod model, the
Beverly was a tri-level, the Monterrey was a three or four-level home, and the Fairfield was a
ranch. Within the Table Mesa subdivision, the Fairfield was the most popular High Gate Homes
house featuring three bedrooms, a full basement, two-car garage, one and three-quarter baths,
an entry hall with a separate formal dining room, a kitchen with a breakfast nook and a sliding
glass door out to the patio, and mahogany grained wall paneling in the living room.
One of the most unique hornes built by High Gate Homes, also known as Melody Homes, was
the "New, Old" home model which debuted in 1965. This model was meant to provide buyers
with homes which appeared custom-built at the lower subdivision prices. Designed by Robert L.
Coe and based on ideas by W.H. Francis, the home was meant to combine the feeling of a new
home with classic styles. The result was a home with a roof based on three main design styles:
the Mansard, A frame, and Pennsylvania Dutch styles. The main roof line was repeated over
the two car garage located next to the main house. The exterior was a combination of brick,
wood siding, muntin windows, and beamed planters and shutters.
The interior of the "New, Old" home featured an entry foyer which controlled access to the upper
levels of the home (Figures 36 and 37). The first floor contained a living room, guest bath,
kitchen-family room, and formal living room. Additionally the first floor had access to the
basement, a concrete patio, and the second floor sleeping areas. The basement was
_ 72 - - - - - - - Hr:,'r>iic (;c~~itL~xi DRAFT
~'cst Word War II Resicreniial Architecture iii Boulder - SeptembQr 2008
unfinished, but plumbed for a fourth bath. The second floor featured all four bedrooms,
including a master bedroom and bath, and three guest bedrooms. The buyer also had the
option to remove one wall on the second floor to create a three bedroom house with a master
bedroom measuring 17 by 24 feet (Tl~e Daily Camera, January 15, 1965). This was the only
Melody Homes house design in Table Mesa that was built only upon request, but the "New, Old"
home could be built in any of the Melody Homes subdivisions.
ys~~~- , _
x z r~ ir~~~~~$~~~
F ft: ~ ~.t- ~~~~+r~ rfn~C'f7 „I~tFi ~'{.r($tt i 1
k~~x,y';,.~'~~~`~~~jr 1.~ ~Ta.Z1'-F 41 ~ A ~~i~ytM~ -
r
fret>'~ `.1 fy''Sl;'~gi ~~~;RR~.'`''1' %h1~~t~. l r ,,emu-i~'i~w'-`y
y~ [x f v Z S-y,~~ 2 ' ~^r6.. r4~, d7 t Y /tnY rtdh3`" _
• ~.`Yy~',r, ,~CIr2 -~l 4~Y~~~{~,iy ~ ta1.~y+t: ~i iseh.
'SAS * ! '+~µ~S7fi~v ,p
.+YYw ~t, r~ f -
Figure 36: The "New, Old Home" as it appeared in The Daily Camera, January 15, 1965
~
r ~ '
if ; ~ s _ . - -
~F -
F 4~
~ .2~ tit t• ~z~
s~ r'. ~
7
~ ~
- - - - ~ L_~ _
Figure 37: 1195 Ithaca Drive, "New, Old" Home, 2008
Although HigF~ Gate Homes built a large number of homes within Table Mesa, the subdivision is
composed of houses built by over 12 construction companies. One such company was Keith
Homes, Inc. Owned by Keith Neville, Keith Homes, Inc., was the fourth builder to provide
homes to the Table Mesa subdivision (Figure 38). The homes built by Keith Homes., Inc. were
known as the Americana Homes and had four models, the Newport, Metropolitan, Americana,
and Cambridge. The Newport model was asplit-level with a kitchen and dining room area that
vas situated in between the lower children's level and the upper parents' floor. The upper floor
contained not only the master bedroom ~3nd ba'.n, but also the liv,ny room.
%"i
Post World War II Residential Architecture in Boulder -September 2UU8
r
1~~ S~~ ~
d r~ {
b r ~ r ~
y
ppp~yy F "~"~.'1~~
' ~i x •h~y.j jy L /~i`~f C~)''1: t
}r l
ti ~ '"y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~j t ~y ~ ~ F ley
t :~~C 4.r V I Y*~~ I~
i. T ~•tJ/
'l5,..
Q"~~~
~t,
- t: -
~d
.
y ~ ~ _ _ ~ ~ s?w"_
I^,~
_.<,o._
- ~ -4y -
Figure 38: Keith Neville of Keith Homes, Inc.,
Photograph courtesy of the Carnegie Branch Library for Cocal History
The largest models, the Metropolitan and Americana, were tri-level homes with the bedrooms
and baths on the upper floor. Additionally, the Metropolitan featured a recreation room which
adjoined the kitchen and main entry. The colonial-styled Americana had a traditional entry
which opened onto a dining room, kitchen, and living room. The only model produced by
Americana Homes which did not feature a separate entry was the Cambridge which was one of
the smaller units (The Daily Camera, October 20, 1962}.
8.11 Wagoner Manor Subdivision
The Wagoner Manor Subdivision is located between Foothills Parkway and Crescent Drive
between Baseline Road and Pennsylvania Avenue and contains 27 houses built between 1947
and 1962 (Figure 39). The official creation of the Wagoner Manor subdivision occurred on
August 9, 1954. This subdivision is located on what was once the Blackmer tract which was
purchased from Elmer Blackmer in 1953 by Lyal Quinby. Once the land was leveled and
drained, Quinby entered into a contract with the Wagoner Construction Company. The
Wagoner Construction Company was run by Fred K. Wagoner and his three sons Jack R.,
Donald L., and Howard R. Wagoner. While the Wagoners built the subdivision, Quinby
employed the Conrad-Hopkins real estate agency to handle property sales.
The earliest homes were built in 1954 and were located along Baseline Road at Brooklawn
Drive two miles outside the Boulder city limits. Three model homes were constructed on one
acre lots and were the first of 116 homes in Wagoner Manor; one of which was owned by the
74 Historic Context -DRAFT
Fost L'Jor:d war li Residential Arcniteclure in Boulder • September 2008
builder Fred K. Wagoner. According to an August 1955 photograph, a sign advertising
Wagoner Manor explained that the subdivision was "Country living at its best" (Photo 1). Each
of the homes in Wagoner Manor was built on a one acre parcel with an average frontage of 140
feet. Additionally each home had atwo-car garage, a fireplace, a ceramic the kitchen and
baths, a cedar shingle roof, as well as a minimum living area of 1,252 square feet.
~::~'~tl:l !11(l~t:)t
111 ~I~ ~ ~ ~
::~,~r.
- - - - -~~-r
A +/+fupls~~r?~- ~ t~~ r~ p Ily
d ~ ~~~M~~~rjY7~" ' 1 y~
Figure 39: Brooklawn Drive, circa 1958, Photograph courtesy of the Carnegie Branch Library for Local History
By January 1955 eight residences were completed with ten others in various stages of
construction. Also, the original size of the subdivision was increased to 148 lots (The Daily
Camera, January 21, 1955). A water distribution system was approved for the subdivision in
1955, which was estimated to cost $80,000. Known as the Wagoner Water District, its
construction was not solicited until late in the year. The project was not completed until 1956
(Figure 40) (The Daily Camera, December 7, 1955).
J
i• , >9
~r .f YA}~f ,f r;' ` ~ CQ4prf ~ ~`b r.
n~ ~ ,~.:t -~:^I S `y
I.~M1~11"1.'TF"~. ~r Sc..~ ~:_.i'R's~T~~L~~-`}wr t _
4t] ,
. c { - ~ ~ '..:,.4r~ aa~ ..rAJ.'Y4~r"TIL' /~~ar`+••..'~''.....-~".r
~ • -..!.~fi~.Zrrs'%~'c ,t E ~ /.-^~W.^~3K~' `vcod:~n t--'i'16~"` _ .
• Y Gl7wl'7r~"'4~1.
~4 yni
Figure 40. Wagoner Manor, 2008
'r~t~,;t ~N<~•Ir1 ~N~~ II F~~~,iclr,n'itrl ~1;rf~ilecu.rc i•r f3.,~,~r~tcr-..-~n'~~inLt;r'':~)(_1~,
The Wagoner Construction Company began building homes in Wagoner Manor with the help of
the Mountain Savings and Loan Association, which agreed to provide advanced funding totaling
$120,000. Dt.iring the construction and funding process, a dispute arose between the parties.
By October 1959, the Wagoner Construction Company was defunct and construction in
Wagoner Manor ceased (The Daily Camera, October 28, 1959). In 1962 the Wagoner
Construction Company sued the Mountain Savings and Loan Association claiming the
association failed to provide the full agreed upon amount. The Tenth Circuit of the United
States Court of Appeals found in favor or the Mountain Savings and Loan Association (31 1 F.2d
403 No. 6961, United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit, December 3, 1962).
Although the subdivision was originally platted for 148 homes, the Wagoner Construction
Company only completed 28 homes for the subdivision. The homes in Wagoner Manor are all
located along Brooklawn Drive and are examples of large ranch houses built to accommodate
the growing need for housing in Boulder during the 1950s and 1960s. Additionally, the homes
in Wagoner Manor are viewed as part of the push for expanding Boulder eastward as the
population grew.
The following table, Table 2, identifies builders known to have been active in the neighborhoods
described above. This table will be completed during the intensive survey stage of this project.
Table 2: Known Boulder Subdivision Model Home Types
Baseline
Builder Model Cost Style Square Bedroom/Bath Garage Special
Footage Features
Keith $15,000 Ranch 1,Oh0 3 bedroom/1.5 bath One Car 700 33"
homes, Attached Street
Inc
i iighland Fairview
°ark
f3uildcrs
Iliyhland Western
Park
Bu~l.l•r~
Highland Park
Builder Model Cost Style Square Bedroom/Bath Garage Special
Footage Features
Turnpike Arlington $11,250- Ranch 816 2 bedroom/1 bath Carl:ort Terace-
Builders, $11,450 (Optional) Barbecue pit
In~.^.
%G - - - - - - - - ;t r Ott i .
Post Nlorld War II Residential Architecture in Boulder -September?_008
Turnpike Highland $12,000- Ranch 960 2 or 3 bedroom/1 None A
Builders, er $12,200 bath convertible
Inc. room which
could be a
third
bedroom,
Formica
Top
Cabinets in
Kitchen
Turnpike Colorado $13,200- Ranch 988 3 bedroom/1 Carport or Kitchen
Builders, an $13,500 bath Garage Exhaust
Inc. fan,
Dishwashe
r, Garbage
Disposal
Martin Acres
Builder Model Cost Style Square Bedroom/Bath Garage Special
Footage Features
Francis & 1 $16,900 Split 1 ,1.50 3 bedroom/1.5 bath One Car 3375
Williams level Attached Moorhead
Ave.
Melody 2 Not listed Rancti 1,204 5 bedroom/1 with 2 One Car 3405
Homes bath Attached Moorhead
Ave
Park East (same Melody Homes models as in Table Mesa)
Builder Model Cost Style Square Bedroom/Bath Garage Special
Footage Features
Melody Mayfair 11 f iai rcl ~ Mahogany
Homes paneling,
fireplace,
patio
Melody Prelude Split 3 bedroom/2 bath Two Car Laundry
Homes Level Attached Room,
Office area
Melody Lyric Split 3 bedroom Two Car
I',omes Level Attached
Table Mesa (Same Melody/High Gate Homes models as in Park East)
Builder Model Cost Style Square Bedroom/Bath Garage Special
Footage Features
i-ligh Gate Alpine $17,000 Two- 3 bedroom Attached F3asement,
Homes Level Fireplace
F~r;t `lJorlil ~^J::r II H~r;io3nti„I Archi:~_c'ur~ ~n U:~uF.1r~r - S~~I~tr tuber ~:~nr;
High Gate Fairfield Ranch 3 bedroom/1.75 Two Car Basement,
Homes bath Attached Breakfast
Nook, Patio,
Mahogany
paneling
High Gate New, Old Two/Thr 1,728 4 bedroom/2.5 bath Two Car Basement,
Homes Home ee Slory Attached Special
Order
House
(1195 Ithaca
Drive)
High Gate Devon Cape
Homes Cod
High Gate Beverly Tri-Level ,
Homes
High Gate Monterey Three or
Homes Four
Level
Melody Prelude - Split 3 bedroom/2 bath Two Car Laundry
Homes Level Attached Room,
Office area
Melody Lyric Split 3 bedroom Two Car
i comes Level Attached
Keith Newport Split Attached
Homes, Level
Inc.
Keith Metropolita Tri-Level Attached Recreation
Homes, n Room
Inc.
Keith Americana Tri-Level Attached Traditional
Homes, Entry
Inc.
Keith Cambridge Ranch Attached
Homes,
Inr.
7g Hit:h,nc Cc~nf~:xl - URAF I
Post World War II Residential Architecture in Bolder -September 2008
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbott, Carl.
1993 The Metropolitan Frontier: Cities in the Modern American West. Tucson, AZ:
University of Arizona Press.
1982 Colorado, A History of the Centennial State. Boulder, Colorado: Colorado
Associated University Press.
Abele, Deborah Edge.
1988 "Metal Mining and Tourist Era Resources of Boulder County," Multiple Property
Documentation Form for the National Register of Historic Places, Denver, CO:
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Colorado Historical Society,
August.
Albrecht, Donald, ed.
1995 World War 11 and the American Dream, How Wartime Building Changed a Nation.
Washington, D.C.: National Building Museum and the MIT Press.
Allen, Frederick S., Ernest Andrade, Jr., Mark S. Foster, Philip I. Mitterling, and H. Lee
Scamehorn.
1976 The University of Colorado 1876-1976. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, Inc.
Ames, David L. and Linda Flint McClelland.
2002 National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential Suburbs, Guidelines for
Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places.
Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National
Register of Historic Places. September.
Antique Home
2008 "The Cromwell: 1945 Sterling House Plans."
littp://www.antiguehome.orU/House-Plans/1945-Sterling/cromwell.htm. (accessed
September 3, 2008).
Archer, JOhn.
2005 Architecture and Suburbia: From English Villa to American Dream House, 1690-
2000. Minneapolis: MN: University of Minnesota Press.
h~::~~~~~~ c:;~,r,~.~ r~r~~;~,-T 79
f'nsI 1Norld Wnr II Rcsidar(iol nrr,hitec±urc ire Liou~der- S[~~;h°n1Ger 2('d)t;
Atlas Mobile Home Directory
2005 "1954 Nashua."
http:l/www.allmanufacturedhomes.com/html/html/1954 nashua 020705.htm.
(accessed September 3, 2008).
Bailey, Delores S.
1995 Boulder County Miners, A Tribute fo Those Who Left Their Mark in Colorado
History.
Barker, Jane Valentine.
1976 76 Historic Homes of Boulder, Colorado. Boulder, CO: Pruett Publishing
Company.
Baxandall, Rosalyn, and Elizabeth Ewen.
2000 Picture Windows, How the Suburbs Happened. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Boulder Centennial Festival Inc.
1959 Boulder In Its Centennia! Year, 1859-1959. Boulder, CO: Johnson Publishing
Company.
Boulder Chamber of Commerce.
19G2 History of Boulder in Cool, Colorful Colorado. Boulder, CO: Boulder Chamber of
Commerce.
1968 The Story of Industrial Development in Boulder, Colorado. Boulder, CO: Boulder
Chamber of Commerce.
Boulder County Transportation Department
2007 Ditch & Reservoir Directory, Boulder County, Colorado. Boulder, CO: Boulder
County Transportation Department.
The Boulder Daily Camera
"A.J. Critz." Boulder Daily Camera Archive Collections. Boulder, CO.
1905-1976 Boulder Businesses: Changes Clippings, 1905-1076. The Boulder Daily
Camera. Boulder, CO.
1933-1950 Boulder Daily Camera History Supplements, 1933-1950. The Boulder
Daily Camera. Boulder, CO.
80 I listonc Crm(ext D~~AI T
Post World War II Residential Architecture in Boulder -September 20L`f3
1891 "CASH! The Famous Poorman." Boulder, CO., September 5.
1896 "Local News." Boulder, CO., November 20.
1928 "Work of a Boulder Architect Recognized by Art Committee." Boulder,
CO., August 4.
1932 "Glen Huntington to Build Fine Home in Austin, Texas." Boulder, CO.,
October 15.
1938 "A.J. Critz Buys Interest in the Mammoth Mine." Boulder, CO., April 5.
1945 "Sunset Hill Being Replatted as New Building Area." Boulder, CO.,
December 15.
1946 "Ground Broken for Home on Sunset Hill Subdivision." Boulder, CO.,
July 1.
1948 "Sunset Hill to be Developed by Nebraska Man." Boulder, CO., July 12.
"Two Homes Started on Sunset Hill, New Subdivision." Boulder, CO.,
September 20.
"Sunset Hill -Beautiful Building Site Being Extensively Developed."
Boulder, CO., October 2.
1949 "Six Homes on Sunset Hill to Be Open To Public Inspection Sunday."
Boulder, CO., March 17.
"Public Invited to Open House Sunday by Sunset Hill, Inc." Boulder, CO.,
March 19.
1950 "John Taussig's Aberdeen-Angus Herd Featured in Colorado Springs
Paper." Boulder, CO., August 21.
"Eight Residences Being Constructed on Sunset Hill." Boulder, CO.,
October 14.
Historic Context -DRAFT' 81
Post World War II Residential Architecture in Boulder -September 2008
1952 "330 Low Cost Houses to be Built in New Subdivision near Turnpike."
Boulder, CO., April 1.
" Boulder Real Estate Firms to Represent Turnpike Builders in Sales of
Homes." Boulder, CO., April 2.
"Plans of Turnpike Builders." Boulder, CO., April 7.
"Turnpike Bt.tilders File Articles of Incorporation." Boulder, CO., April 11.
"12 New Home Under Construction on Top Sunset Hill." Boulder, CO.,
May 1.
"Turnpike Builders Construct Office in New Subdivision." Boulder, CO.,
May 17.
"Council Annexes Highland Park." Boulder, CO., May 23.
"Turnpike Builders Start First House in Highland Park." Boulder, CO., May
28.
"Permits Issued for 20 New Residences in Highland Park." Boulder, CO.,
June 3.
"Ten Houses Underway in Highland Park Subdivision." Boulder, CO.,
June 6.
'`First Highland Park Home." Boulder, CO., June 14.
°23 New Houses to Start This Week in Highland Park." Boulder, CO., July
7.
"Each Highland Park House Differs in Outward Aspect." Boulder, CO.,
August 2.
"Public Inspection of Highland Park Houses Invited By Turnpike Btilders."
Boulder, CO., October 10.
1953 "Turnpike Builders To Complete 19 Houses Underway." Boulder, CO.,
Post World War II Residential Architecture in Boulder -September 2UU8
August 12.
1954 "Carolyn Heights Subdivision to Hold Open House Saturday, Sunday."
Boulder, CO., May 21.
"Carolyn Heights." Boulder, CO., May 21.
"Highland Park Citizens Group Meets Tuesday." Boulder, CO., June 25.
"Section of Pioneer Martin Farm Sold for Subdivision." Boulder, CO., July
23.
`Three Model Houses Started on New Baseline Tract." Boulder, CO.,
August 26.
"Highland Park News." Boulder, CO., October 18.
"Highland Park Residents Form Civic Committee." Boulder, CO., October
18.
"Highland Park News." Boulder, CO., November 3.
1955 "Water System for Wagoner Manor East of Boulder Planned." Boulder,
CO., January 21.
"Carolyn Heights." Boulder, CO., June 17.
"Bids Called for Construction of Wagoner Water District." Boulder, CO.,
December 7.
"Notice of Dissoultion." Boulder, CO., December 31.
1957 "Highland Park Developers Plan to Add 275 Lots." Boulder, CO., April 6.
"Highland Park -Martin Acres Citizens Achievements for Three Years
Reviewed." Boulder, CO., August 6.
"Highland Park And Martin Acres News." Boulder, CO.. August 10.
"Swimming Pool Planned Highland Park Martin Acres Citizens For
Post World War II Residential Architecture in Bouldur -September 2008
Summer'58.".Boulder, CO., November 26.
1958 "Memberships on Sale for Highland Park -Martin Acres Swimming Pool."
Boulder, CO., March 11.
"Corporations." Boulder, CO., March 20.
1959 "Glen Huntington Dies Suddenly in Denver." Boulder, CO., January 29.
"Glen H. Huntington's Funeral to be Held in Denver." Boulder, CO.,
January 30.
"Open House at Highland Park West." Boulder, CO., August 28.
1960 "Opening of Martin Homestead Addition Marks end of Ranch." Boulder,
CO., August 26.
"Young Lady and her House." Boulder, CO., September 3.
1961 "Melody Homes Becomes New Name of Real Estate, Building Firm."
Boulder, CO., March 1.
1962 "Re-2 Expansion -Martin Park to get Rooms, Library." Boulder, CO.,
April 3.
"Table Mesa Subdivision." Boulder, CO., June 11.
"Table Mesa Builders Plan Grand Opening." Boulder, CO., August 16.
1963 "Table Mesa Apartments Approved." Boulder, CO., April 12.
Advertisement for Table Mesa Subdivision. Boulder, CO., September 13.
"Moving Day at Martin Park." Boulder, CO., October 15.
"Francis Opens New Model Home, The Alpine, in Table Mesa Area."
Boulder, CO., October 25.
1964 "New Park East Subdivision Started Here" Boulder, CO., January 30.
"$3.3 Million Worth of Building Permits Issued for Table Mesa." Boulder,
84 - - - - rli:Juii~Contea~t UIinFT
Post World War II Residential Architecture in Boulder -September 2008
CO., February 4.
"Park East Project Holds Grand Opening." Boulder, CO., May 16.
"Melody Homes Offers Written, Five-Year Warranty on Houses."
Boulder, CO., July 25.
"Melody Homes Will Show Four New Home Designs." Boulder, CO.,
October 19.
1965 "Old, New Combined in New Model House Being Offered in Boulder."
Boulder, CO., January 15.
"Melody Homes Opening New Model Houses." Boulder, CO., September
10.
"Americana Homes Open in Table Mesa." Boulder, CO., October 20.
1966 "City to Buy Land for Natural Park." Boulder, CO., August 3.
1967 "Phillips Instrumental in Making Table Mesa Reality." Boulder, CO.,
June 4.
1968 "Over the Shoulder, Boulder's Second Schoolhouse." Boulder, CO.,
September 15.
1972 "Alva W. Critz, Obituary." Boulder, CO., June 5.
1973 "Ruben L. Olson Sells interest in Firm." Boulder, CO., August 29.
1976 "Viele Fatuity's Boulder Heritage 100 Years Long." Boulder, CO., January
25.
"Free School Wants to buy Highland." Boulder, CO., February 4.
"Allen Critz, Obituary." Boulder, CO., December 27.
1978 "Filling in some blanks about Boulder." Boulder, CO., September 17.
1980 "Boulder's First Major Subdivision Started 28 Years Ago." By Laurence
Historic Context - DRABT 85
Pu,-1 ~~b'orl7 !'~lar II Rca'rl~•r'~tial ArChitact:.re in E3~ iuLi.~r - S~~E~lerr,ber~OOb
T. Paddock. Boulder, CO., June 23.
1982 "Boulder's Discriminating Realtors." Boulder, CO., May 12.
"Noteworthy Designs in Public and Commercial Buildings." Boulder, CO.,
October 31.
"The List of Treasures and Junk." Boulder, CO., November 7.
"The Look of Boulder, Nature is the High Point of Boulder's Low Profile."
Boulder, CO., November 7.
1990 "Huntington's Work Exhibited." Boulder, CO., April 17.
2001 "Homes in Martin Acres cover Pioneer Ranch." Boulder, CO., March 1.
2003 "Improvement Association resurrected after 100 years." Boulder, CO.,
September 25.
2005 "High Mar name slipping into the past." Boulder, CO., February 3.
2007 "Sunset Hill Subdivision grew rapidly in early 50's." Boulder, CO., May 13.
Boulder Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board
1978 "Floral Park Historic District Landmark Designation Papers, 1942-1978."
Boulder, CO.
1985 "Martin Farmhouse Landmark Designation Papers, 1976-1985." Boulder, CO.
1992 "Kohler House Landmark Designation Papers, 1992." Boulder, CO.
Braddock, Virginia
1985 Municipal Government History Boulder, Colorado 1965-1974. Boulder, CO:
Boulder Public Library Foundation.
Buffer. Patricia
2003 Rocky Flats History. Washington, D.C.: Office of Legacy Management,
Department of Energy.
Carnegie Brancf~ Library for Local History Collections
86 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Hislunc Cnnt~~x.l - DRAFT
Post World War II Residential Architc;cture in Boulder -September ?008
"Brooklawn Drive." Boulder, CO.
"Carolyn Heights [Subdivision] (Boulder, Colo.), Printed Materials, 1954-1971."
Boulder, CO.
"Carolyn Heights Subdivision photographs, 1954." Boulder, CO.
"File 638, Frederick W. Kohler, Boulder County, Colorado Estate Fifes 1862-
1904." Boulder, CO.
"File 1026 and 1028, Thomas Jefferson Viele, Boulder County, Colorado Estate
Files 1862-1904." Boulder, CO.
' "File 1030, James Viele, Boulder County, Colorado Estate Files 1862-1904."
Boulder, CO.
"File 1031, James B. Viele, Jr., Boulder County, Colorado Estate Files, 1862-
1904." Boulder, CO.
"File 1103, Fred W. Kohler, Boulder County, Colorado Estate Files, 1862-i 904."
Boulder, CO.
"Flatirons Park Subdivision Homes photographs, 1951-1953." Boulder, CO.
"Highland Park (Boulder, Colo.)." Boulder, CO.
"Highland Subdivision." Boulder, CO.
Historical Data Record. "Viele Family." Boulder, CO
"Kohler House. Landmark Designation Papers Ordinance #5529, 1992."
Boulder, CO.
"Martin Acres subdivision photographs, 1954-1956." Boulder, CO.
"Martin Farmhouse. Landmarks Designation Ordinance #4204" Boulder, CO.
"Martin Park School, History, Printed Materials, 1956-1980." Boulder, CO.
"Pamphlets and Leaflets [ca. 1911-1969J." Boulder, CO.
Historic Context DRAFT 87
Post World Wr3r II F3esidential Architecture in Rculder -September 200ft
Photograph Collection. "Frederick W. Kohler Family, 1890-1960." Boulder, CO.
Photograph Collection. "Viele Family, 1880-1976." Boulder, CO.
"Table Mesa housing area." Boulder, CO.
Vertical Files Collection. "Architecture -Boulder." Boulder, CO.
Vertical Files Collection. "Boulder City Town Company." Boulder, CO.
Vertical Files Collection. "Boulder City Improvement Association." Boulder, CO.
Vertical Files Collection. "Boulder Businesses Changes, Clippings." Boulder, CO.
Vertical Files Collection. "Education -Boulder (Highland School)." Boulder, CO.
Vertical Files Collection. "Education -Boulder -First School in Boulder."
Boulder, CO.
Vertical Files Collection. "Education -Boulder -Central School." Boulder, CO.
Vertical Files Collection. "History -Boulder 1940-1960.'' Boulder, CO.
Chapman Publishing Company
1898 Portrait and Biographical Record of Denver and Vicinity, Colorado. Chicago, I L:
Chapman Publishing Company.
City of Boulder.
1952 As a Resident of the City of Boulder, Colorado 1952 Annual Report and
Directory. Boulder, CO: City of Boulder.
2002 History, Chapter 1, Summary of Information. Boulder, CO: City of Boulder.
2006 OSMP Area Histories. Boulder, CO: City of Boulder.
2008 OSMP A History of Boulder's Open Space & Mountain Parks. Boulder, CO:
City of Boulder.
2008 Columbia Cemetery -History. Boulder, CO: City of Boulder.
88 Historic Content -DRAFT
Post World War II Residential Architecture in Boulder -September 2UU8
2008 Columbia Cemetery -Notable Residents and Grave Markers. Boulder, CO: City
of Boulder.
Clark, Clifford Edward, Jr.
1986 The American Family Home, 1800-19&0. Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North
Carolina Press.
Cobb, Harrison S.
1988 Prospecting Our Past: Gold, Silver, and Tungsten Mills of Boulder County.
Boulder, CO: The Book Lode.
Crossen, Forest.
1992 The Switzerland Trail of America with an Added Chapter. Fort Collins, CO:
Robinson Press, Inc.
Cullinworth, Barry.
1997 Planning in the U.S.A.: Policies, Issues, and Processes. Routledge.
Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck.
2000 Suburban Nation, The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream.
New York, NY: North Point Press.
Dyni, Anne.
1991 Back to the Basics, the Frontier Schools of Boulder County, Colorado, 1860-
1960. Boulder, CO: The Book Lode.
1989 Pioneer Voices of the Boulder Valley, an Oral History. Boulder, CO: Boulder
County Parks and Open Space Department.
Fell, James E. and Eric Twitty.
2006 "The Mining Industry in Colorado.", National Register of Historic Places Multiple
Property Submission, Denver, CO: Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation, Colorado Historical Society.
Fetter, Richard.
1982 Frontier Boulder. Boulder, CO: Johnson Books.
Findlay, John M.
1992 Magic Lands, Western Cityscapes and American Culture After 1940. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Historic Context -DRAFT 89
Post World War II Residential Architecture in Boulder -September 2008
Frink, Maurice.
1965 The Boulder Story: Historical Portrait of a Colorado Town. Boulder,CO: Pruett
Press.
Gleichman, Peter J.
1997 Cultural Resources of City of Boulder Open Space: South Boulder Creek. Native
Cultural Service.
Hess, Alan.
2004 The Ranch House. New York, NY: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.
Hill, David R.
1984 Colorado Urbanization and Planning Context. Denver, CO: Office of Archaeology
ar~d Historic Preservation, Colorado Historical Society.
Hope, Andrew.
2005 "Evaluating the Significance of San Lorenzo Village, aMid-20'" Century
Suburban Community." In CRM: The Journal of Heritage Stewardship. Vol. 2,
No. 2, Summer.
Isenstadt, Sandy.
2006 The Modern American House, Spaciousness and Middle Class Identity. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, Kenneth T.
1985 Crabgrass Frontier.• The Suburbanization of the United States. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Lewis, Sylvia.
1990 "The Town that Said No to Sprawl." In Planning. April.
Lovelace, Walter B.
1959 Boulder in its Centennial year 1859-1959. Boulder, CO: Johnson Publishing
Company, July.
McAlester, Virginia and Lee.
2006 A Field Guide to American Houses. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
90 Historic Context -DRAFT
F'..-i V ~In :V :r :i r}r_-r~ :t1c., . h~lr .1lir~, in ilrl• ~ F _rri ~r c'~:~`_'
Mason, Joseph B.
1982 History of Housing in the U. S., 1930-1980. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.
Mehls, Steven F.
1984 Colorado Mountains Historic Context. Denver, CO: Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation, Colorado Historical Society.
Meier, Thomas J.
1994 Ed Tangen, The Pictureman: A Photographic Histoyy of the Boulder Region,
Early Twentieth Century. Boulder, CO: Boulder Creek Press.
1993 The Early Settlement of Boulder Set in Type -Cast in Bronze -Fused in
Porcelain, "It Ain't Necessarily So. Boulder, CO: Boulder Creek Press.
National Historic Landmarks Program.
2006 "Colorado Chautauqua." National Historic Landmarks Program.
http://tps.cr. nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?Resou rcel D=1088304076& ResourceType=District
(accessed August 1, 2008).
The New York Times
2007 "Levittown Through the Years," New York, October 12.
Noel, Thomas J. and Dan W. Corson.
1999 Boulder County: An Illustrated History. Carlsbad, CA: Heritage Media
Corporation.
Paglia, Michael, Leonard Segal, and Diane Wray.
2000 Historic Context and Sruvey of Modern Architecture in Boulder, Colorado 1947-
1977. Denver, CO: Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Colorado
Historical Society.
Perrigo, Lynn I.
1946 A Municipal History of Boulder, Colorado 1871-1946. Boulder, CO: Boulder
County Historical Society and City of Boulder.
Pettem, Silvia.
2007 Positively Pearl St.: A Chronicle of the Center of Boulder, Colorado 1859 to
Present.
Ward, CO: The Book Lode.
Historic Contex± -DRAFT ~ 91
Post World War II Residential Architec[ure in Boulder -September 2C08
2006 Boulder: Evolution of a City, Revised Edition. Boulder, CO: University Press of
Colorado.
2000 Boulder, A Sense of Time and Place. Longmont, CO: The Book Lode.
1980 Gold Mining in Boulder County, Then and Now: Red Rocks to Riches. Boulder,
CO: Stonehenge Books.
Rogers, Maria M.
1995 In Other Words, Oral Histories of the Colorado Frontier. Golden, CO: Fulcrum
Publishing.
Runnells, Donald D.
1976 Boulder, A Sight to Behold. Boulder, CO: Estey Printing Co.
Sampson, Joanna.
1998 Historic Walker Ranch, Western Cowboy Country. Boulder, CO: Western
Orogeny Publishing.
Sears Archives
2007 "Historic Homes." http://www.searsarchives.com/homes/ (accessed August 29,
2008).
Smith, Henry Nash
1950 Virgin Land: The American West as Symbol and Myth
Smith, Phyllis.
1981 A Look at Boulder from Settlement to City. Boulder, CO: Pruett Publishing
Company.
The Aladdin Company
1995 Aladdin "Built in a Day" House Catalog, 1917. New York: Dover Publications,
Inc.
Title Guarantee Company of Colorado.
1963 Lega! Titles of Subdivisions in Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver (ands
Jefferson Counties compiled as of December 31, 1963. Denver, CO: The Title
Guarantee Company of Colorado.
--92 _ - i1r.,~~~i.,~i;~_.~. st l:ri::,f r-
Pos: ~~~l~~rld'JUar II li~,;idr~nlinl F~rcliitecture ui Boulder - t;r,pteinber ~OUr~
Travis, William R.
2007 New Geographies o(the American West, Land Use and the Changing Patterns of
Place. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Ubbelohde, Carl, Maxine Benson, and Duane A. Smith.
2006 A Colorado History, Ninth Edition. Boulder, CO: Pruett Publishing Company.
United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit
1962 Fred K. Wagoner, Jack R. Wagoner, Donald L. Wagoner, and Howard R.
Wagoner, co-partners, doing business under the firm name and style of Wagoner
Construction Company, Appellants, v. Mountain Savings and Loan Association, a
corporation, Appellee. No. 6961.31 1 F.2d 403 (December 3, 1962).
Voters, Boulder League of Women.
1956 Know Your City. Boulder, CO: Boulder League of Women Voters.
Wray, Dianne.
1997 Arapahoe Acres: An Architectural History, 1949-1957. Englewood, CO:
W raycroft, Inc.
Wright, Gwendolyn.
1981 Building the Dream, A Social History of Housing in America. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Historic Context -DRAFT 93