Thread by @shayshinecastle

Our first public hearings are for our two historic landmark considerations tonight.
One city building (1300 Canyon, the Atrium building)
One private residence (2130 22nd St)

First up: 1300 Canyon

We have two presentations from staff... documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocVie…

... and the applicant (Historic Boulder, who proposed this building back in 2015) documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocVie…

Like I said, the city owns this building. I believe Housing and Human Services is current HQ'ed there.

(Those photos are prob the best the buildings have ever looked, tbh.)

So this used to be the Midlands Saving and Loan. It was built in 1969 in the modern style.

From staff: “According to architectural historian Len Segal, “The expansion in the Savings and Loan industry happened in large part as a result of Franklin Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal’ which expanded the economic tools to get loans, especially for home mortgages and cars. ...

... This in turn fueled the great expansion of retail and other services to support the huge growth of the Baby Boomers born between 1946 and 1964. Savings and loans like Midland Savings became a preferred method for individuals to have greater access to money ...

... vs. traditional banks which served a more institutional customer. In the decade of the 1950s, Boulder’s population grew from 25,000 to 37,000 and during the 1960s it grew by a whopping 29,000 to reach 66,000."

"The Savings and loans companies, like Midland Savings, funded a lot of the expansion in Boulder."

The irony of Boulder landmarking something that fueled *growth* is not lost on me.

There's also a bit about It's A Wonderful Life in staff notes about Saving and Loans:

"In it the Bailey Brothers Building & Loan Association was a backbone of the fictional community in Bedford Falls, financing hundreds of single-family homes."

Like LOL how is that relevant?

It's part of the history of Saving and Loans (Savings and Loans?) "In the 1980’s the Savings and Loan industry collapsed when the high inflation rate in the U.S. exceeded the average mortgage interest rates, and the loans were no longer economically viable for the banks.”

Back to THIS former savings and loan... the Landmarks Board OK’d the historic designation 5-0 on Dec. 1, 2021.

Folkerts: The entrance to this building is not v welcoming. Could we improve that, or not if we landmark it?

James Hewat, senior historic planner: Yes, I think we could. "There certainly is and would be some v useful ways of changing the openings."

"And creating a building that's more of a public asset."

Also of consideration: Part of this building / area is in the flood plain. It's very close to Boulder creek (by the bandshell / civc area — where the farmer's market is).

"It would take some resources and creativity" to get it all the way out of the floodplain, Hewat says.

Yates: I know the city is going to move out of that building in a few years. How should we plan for future uses?

Hewat says the landmark ordinance can be crafted specifically NOW or the city can do an alteration certificate later.

Apparently the landmark includes the parking lot... Speer asking what that means, exactly. Can we make it a park? Outdoor space? "Something for humans rather than cars? ... Right now, it's pretty ugly."

It's just the northern strip of parking lot, Hewat says. We could modify the landmark boundaries or do some landscaping. Bottom line: We don't have to keep the parking spots.

And the majority of the parking lot is not included in the landmark.

Speer asks the question: Did this bank engage in discriminatory lending practices? Is there any way to know that other than assuming that, given the time and biz practices, they might have?

Hewat actually has an answer: He doesn't know for sure, but this bank was constructed a year after the court outlawed horrible lending practices, "including redlining."

I was under the impression redlining happened *after* the court outlawed discriminatory lending, but it's been awhile since I brushed up on this. Maybe I'm thinking of local zoning happening in response to redlining being outlawed...? Housing Twitter, help me out.

Historian Len Segal hitting me with something I didn't know: The Boulder County Courthouse (on 13th/Pearl) was made from stones that were recycled from former mining structures.

Apparently the guy who designed The Atrium building is an icon. He or his firm designed so many buildings in Boulder. You can see examples in this slightly over the top presentation from Historic Boulder: documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocVie…

Time changes what is considered important to a community, says Don Carlson.

Lots of talk in the public hearing about what the Atrium could be in the future.

Kathryn Barth with some history I did know: Canyon Blvd used to be called Water Street "because it flooded so often — and then some I didn't: It was next called Railroad St bc there was a railroad there. The depot was on 14th St

I believe the Depot that's now at 30th/Pearl....?

Yates: I'm gonna start with a Chinese proverb. 'The best time to plant a tree is 20 yrs ago. The second best time is now.'

The Boulder Theatre was only 43 yrs old when it was landmarked (as brought up by a previous speaker) and thank goodness city council 43 years ago did so.

Wallach: I think we should landmark but not name it after the Midland Bank "which might well have engaged in poor practices."

Speer: I know with the Marpa House we did something where we acknowledged the negative history (of sexual abuse / assault within Shambhala) boulderbeat.news/2020/05/08/bou…

Could we do something here to "use this as an education moment" about racist lending / zoning practices?

"I would love to see us acknowledging that — especially after reading the Black History Month declaration — that is part of our history, and it doesn't have to be part of our future unless we choose that," Speer says.

Can we do a different name tonight? Benjamin asks.

Yes is the answer, but we'll need an amended ordinance and then it would go to a third reading.

Some discussion about how to go about picking a new name.

Wallach: "I think we should just pick a name, whatever it is. But I would like to see this building landmarked tonight."

Friend: I was the one who pushed for a different name at Marpa. There were sexual abuse victims abused under that name. There was some thought ppl would be harmed by seeing that.

"This feels like a broader conversation than this landmark. How do we reflect on redlining/racism?"

Folkerts: The building is referred to as the Atrium. I don't think we're trying to preserve the Midland Savings and Loan part of that building.

Joseph: Maybe we don't need a name right now, but we can do some public process / outreach about it for suggestions.

Brockett likes that: Start with The Atrium and then amend the name later if need be.

Speer: I'd love to have a community naming process like the snow plows. We could get a cool name like Darth Blader.
Brockett: Atrium McAtrium Face

Yates, off names and back to other details: "We know the city is going to move out of this building, and we know the east bookend is going to be developed." Drawing the boundaries as tightly as possible makes sense.

Wallach: "I would be uncomfortable if a building could be built 10 ft away. You have to let a landmark breathe a bit. I don't want to protect a parking lot, but ... a looming wall 8 ft, 10 ft off the structure. I don't think that makes architectural sense."

Charles Ferro: Setbacks (for new development) are from the property line, not the landmark boundary.

First Wallach sigh of the night! More of a huff.
Wallach Huff-O-Meter: 1

Still haggling over landmark boundaries. They extend into some of the parking lot bc of the building's overhanging eves.... It's a whole thing.

Finally, agreement on the boundaries. And a unanimous vote to landmark 1300 Canyon, 1 hr + 35 min later (it was supposed to take 30 min).

Not yet...
Speer: Can we have a convo at some point about our landmarking criteria? One of them is increasing property value. Given our struggle with housing costs, is that something we still want to be driving this?

That discussion not happening now (and maybe never).
Instead: Another historic landmark!
2130 22nd St. Here are some slides: documents.bouldercolorado.gov/WebLink/DocVie…

And here are some pictures.

The Shinn-Jeskes House
Built circa 1880s (with 1960s addition)
Owners: Rune Jensen and Leah Tsao
Were initially going to demolish
180-day stay for demo was issued (an automatic city trigger)
Owners applied for historic landmarking instead

"Due to the significant depth of the right-of-way in front of the house, it would be possible to relocate the existing sidewalk and negotiate a revocable lease in lieu of demolishing a potential historic landmark.”

Landmarks board OK’d 5-0 on Dec. 1, 2021

It is unremarkable looking, but old, so are protecting it.

I hope someone will say the same about me in a few decades.

"It is a very modest house," Hewat says, "in what was a very modest part of Boulder." A rare surviving example of a working class home from the 1880s.

That's a nice way to put it.
I currently live in the modest part of Boulder. *Just* $400-$500K condos!

The home extends into the right-of-way a bit, prob bc it was built before 22nd Street was... actually a street. So that's what was meant above by relocating the sidewalk and such. The city has to do a "lease" for that, technically.

To put the sidewalk on their land. Or to allow their building to encroach on the city's land. It was unclear which, to me.

Anyway, another unanimous landmark. And we're (almost) back on track with time. Prob not happening at this point.

First, a 6-min break.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thanks!