Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Historic preservation in city faces challenge

Mary Voelz Chandler

Published March 8, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Art & Architecture

More stories »

Dear Mayor Hickenlooper:

What on earth is going on with preservation in our city? It seems to be gasping for air.

This must be on your mind. I know you're getting ready to speak at a dinner celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Lower Downtown Historic District. Twenty years. And so many people fought against what has become a national economic and preservation success story.

I know you're familiar with the effort it took to create the district; you were there, you later lived there. And the Denver City Council was so courageous, designating a district over owner objections.

But fast-forward 20 years and there's trouble on your watch, sir. Three of the four staff members who support the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission quit this week. The senior duo, preservation architects Everett Shigeta and Chris Murata, have been with the office for 12 and eight years, respectively; officially, they retired. I know you've heard about it; the preservation and design communities are abuzz with it.

Shigeta has a simple reason for leaving: Without more staff, and with more duties being added as the city's preservation ordinance has been refined and expanded, they don't think they can do their jobs well. Also gone: staffer Alice Gilbertson, there for a year but already making a big impact.

In short, they're beat.

"The amount of work has outpaced our ability to perform in a manner we feel is consistent and supportive of the preservation ordinance," Shigeta said Wednesday, the day after he and Murata announced their resignations.

The preservation architects are the heart of the operation. They write staff reviews of changes in landmarked buildings and new structures and of nominations for designating buildings or districts.

Shigeta said the number of design reviews had soared from 112 in his first year to 480 in 2007. You may not read these reports, but I do. Many of us rely on them for their clear-eyed take on what goes before the commission, which is much of the development in Denver.

Then there are the new wrinkles. The staff now scans demolition permits to make sure no important buildings are threatened. It handles requests from people who want their property to be designated not eligible for designation. Now, to make life easier for property owners who need to clear up issues with both the Board of Adjustment and the landmark commission, the idea is to shift it all to landmark.

I know money is tight. "Do more with less" isn't news to me or anyone navigating corporate life. But expertise is at issue here. So I called Peter Park, head of Community Planning and Development, to ask him what these losses mean.

Park said his department is interviewing a new person for a review position, but that person also would work in areas besides preservation. More design-review work will be done by other architects in the department. The goal: to spread it around.

"One of the things we've particularly focused on is how to build a more proactive approach," Park said. "How do you more proactively promote preservation?"

But what about a full-time staff focused on that work?

"It's a little bit of both: preservation staff and having the entire staff understand planning and understand preservation."

The transition will be "a bit of a challenge," Park said. "It's not a blow or a setback . . . Just because you have additional work doesn't mean you need more people all the time."

The city has gone through some wrenching preservation fights recently. There was the pressure the city itself put on the landmark commission to give a big welcome to a big tower in lower downtown, height limit be damned. Then came the philosophically charged issue of designating the DeBoer property a landmark. Talk about a nasty Denver City Council hearing: The way council members debased citizens and preservation staff (including Shigeta), I was ashamed of this city that night.

Meanwhile, the future of Civic Center is floating out there like a rogue satellite, and preservation groups mainly seem worried about losing their share of the State Historical Fund.

Sir, you can help here, and it's by giving a simple answer: It's a great concept to make preservation a part of planning. But just where does the city of Denver really stand on historic preservation itself?

What kind of commitment is there to protecting what remains of Denver's historic fabric while incorporating good new design?

If I wanted to live in St. Louis or Miami or wherever, I'd live there. But I want to live here. As long as Denver looks like Denver.

Chandlerm@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2677

Comments

  • March 8, 2008

    12:57 p.m.

    barbesandy writes:

    (This comment was removed by the site staff.)

  • March 8, 2008

    1:08 p.m.

    barbesandy writes:

    (This comment was removed by the site staff.)

  • March 10, 2008

    11:20 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    OhPlease writes:

    Yet again, it's the "you're either with us or against us" frame of mind. It's not worked for the Bush administration and it's not working now. If you're not for landmarking each and every old building, then you're not decent. Right? That's the way it is in Denver right now, it's cool to be landmarked. If you're against it... PATOOI we don't need ya. If you don't want what we want, then we'll get evil and say mean things. Right? What a lovely process.

    So what happens when all the buildings in Denver are landmarked and the committee is bogged down with everyone having to ask "Mother may I" to replace a window?

    There are buildings that aren't worth the landmarking and conversely there are buildings that are. Let's stick to the buildings that have a broad history that matter to EVERYONE in the city. The history needs to be proven, not made up. Historical records matter, let's use them. If there isn't anything then the building isn't worthy of landmarking. Plain and simple.

    Part of the problem with the whole process is that the landmark dept is bogged down with bogus applications and obnoxious reviews. Unfortunately, it's also a very political process. And the more politics gets involved, the worse it's going to be. Landmarking shouldn't be done as a favor to someone, it shouldn't be a way for neighbors to strap on extra burden just so change never happens in their area.

    Part of the problem is that when a building is landmarked, that's it. It's landmarked. There is no financial support to keep it in good shape. The tax credits one gets from landmarking is only after someone puts in a ton of money into the building. Who has that kind of money?

    We need a LOGICAL approach to this process. Emotions and politics have only made it uglier and worth less. If we landmark everything, then what does it mean? Just means we have a city of old, broken down buildings that nobody has the time or money to fix.