Thoughts On History

What Landmark District Status Would Mean To Park Hill

By Bill Sudmeier

Special to the GPHN

I attended the Sept. 13 meeting at McAuliffe Middle School on Historic Landmark designation for a section of the original Park Hill. The meeting was nicely run. It offered a summary of the process, as well as detailed information about what Landmark District status would mean for property owners.

The meeting was well attended, with more than half of the seats in the auditorium occupied. I might guess that about 300 people were there. That’s a pretty good turnout for a meeting that involves about 700 homes in the proposed district. I’ve lived in the proposed district for 22 years in a 1920 house that has a look unique to that time.

Naturally, there were plenty of people with firm beliefs on both sides. There were also plenty of people who were undecided, just trying to get a better understanding of the issue. If you’re one of them, I’m hoping that you’ll consider some of the things that I’d like to offer.

At the meeting, there were a number of things said that I disagree with.

There was a young man who introduced himself as a commercial architect, who expressed that there’s nothing that special in these old homes in Park Hill. He said that he’s researched the subject, and has concluded that few, if any, were designed by great, known architects. That is likely true. If that were the criteria, I don’t think we’d have any Landmark Historic Districts in Denver. Fortunately, it’s not, and if my note taking is accurate, there are 59 of them.

For anyone who’s traveled to Europe, it’s obvious that Europeans respect their history. There’s plenty of architecture that’s well preserved and serving its original purpose, many hundreds of years after it was built. I’m sure that many of those architects are unknown. Nonetheless, their work is appreciated and valued.

In the U.S., we have a short history; we’re a very young country. We seem to have a culture that values history less. Americans are much different than Europeans in that we seem to be more inclined to tear things down if they don’t meet our needs perfectly, and then build something different. If we tear down the best of what we have, or change it significantly, what little history we do have will be lost completely.

Another gentleman at the meeting stood up to express his opposition to the Landmark designation because it wouldn’t allow solar panels at the most forward (street side) of a home, if it was deemed to interfere with the historic look of a home. The home might be required to move the panels back a bit, where solar collection would be less effective. He felt that it wasn’t environmentally optimal.

I’m living across the street from a project that involved the nearly complete removal of a perfectly, lovely and serviceable home. I’ve watched as dumpster after dumpster has been filled and removed. Brick, lumber, plaster, roofing, concrete, taken to the landfill, only to be replaced by new brick, lumber, plaster, roofing, and concrete. How environmentally friendly is that?

Another gentleman stood up and expressed that only the less expensive, lessor homes were being torn down or modified. He said it wasn’t feasible for the larger, historically valued homes to be significantly modified or replaced. The home across the street from me that’s been nearly completely torn down save for two walls, sold for $680,000. I understand that Landmark designation would not necessarily prohibit what’s happened there, but it might have.

Seven years ago the couple that owned the house just south of mine built a huge addition. It nearly doubled the size of the house. I felt it was inappropriate because homes of that size were built on much larger lots in this neighborhood (in the 1920’s). By doubling the footprint of the house, they lessened the amount of lawn and trees by the same amount. That house has been lived in by two more couples since the addition was built. The original couple are gone, but their legacy to the neighborhood will remain.

People have expressed that there are elements to Landmark District status that they don’t like. Granted, it may not be absolutely perfect, but what is? I think it has been proven to work well in 59 other Denver neighborhoods. Let’s make this portion of Park Hill number 60.

Please do your part to help preserve our history and our heritage. If you support this movement, go to www.historicparkhill.org, and sign the petition. Ask for a yard sign. Most importantly, pay attention to any upcoming meetings on the Landmark District, including when it goes to the city council, and show your support.

After 29 years in pharmaceutical sales, Bill Sudmeier now takes his marching orders from his three adolescent children and his border collie mix, Cecil. Note: As of press time, the proponents are continuing to work the application process. The proposal has not yet been scheduled to go to the Denver City Council for a vote.