Survey Report Pilot Area #2 1920s Small Homes. Park Hill, Harkness Heights, Grand View

Discover Denver Know It. Love It. One Building at a Time. Survey Report Pilot Area #2 1920s Small Homes Park Hill, Harkness Heights, Grand View Prepared By: Jessica Aurora Ugarte and Beth Glandon Historic Denver, Inc. 1420 Ogden Street, #202 Denver, CO 80218 Rev. May 4, 2015

1 With Support From:

Contents Introduction... 4 2 Funding Acknowledgement... 4 Project Areas... 5 Research Design & Methods... 7 Historic Context... 10 Context, Theme and Property Type... 18 Results... 19 Data... 19 1920s Small Homes Residential Building Types... 22 Bungalow... 22 Classic Cottage... 22 Central Passage Double-Pile... 23 Temple Front... 23 Foursquare... 24 Shotgun... 24 Terrace... 25 Other... 25 1920s Small Home Residential Building Styles... 26 Craftsman... 26 Cottage... 26 Classic Cottage... 27 Tudor Revival... 27

Mission... 28 Victorian Cottage... 28 Italian Renaissance Revival... 29 Colonial Revival... 29 Jacobean-Elizabethan... 30 Dutch Colonial Revival... 30 Edwardian... 31 Pueblo Revival... 31 Moderne... 32 Classical Revival... 32 Other... 32 Recommendations... 33 Survey Log Key Potential Local Eligibility... 38 Survey Log... 39 3

Introduction Historic Denver, Inc. in collaboration with the City and County of Denver and the State Historical Fund, created Discover Denver, a multi-year project to develop a comprehensive inventory of Denver s historic and architecturally significant resources. This project utilizes advanced technology (developed by the City of Los Angeles) to accelerate the pace of historic survey and improve the consistency of data collection using the National Park Service s Multiple Property Documentation approach and the Historic Context Statement framework. Denver covers a land area of 154 square miles and contains approximately 161,000 primary buildings. Fewer than 5% of these buildings have ever been surveyed for historic and architectural significance. Annually, the City and County of Denver receives and approves approximately 500 demolition permits, and that number is growing as development pressures mount in core cities across the US. Consequently, Denver is at risk of losing many properties that tell the story of our city s evolution and the people, events, ethnic and cultural heritages and architectural styles that make Denver a special and interesting place to live. Recent studies show that economic development occurs in historic districts at seven times the rate of other areas. According to the publication, The Economic Power of Heritage and Place, investment in historic resources creates jobs, attracts businesses and generates income from consumer visitation and spending. Discover Denver s purpose is to identify those special places in our community where restoration and investment will preserve our city s unique identity and promote quality of life for generations to come. Funding Acknowledgement This project is made possible by funding from State Historical Fund grants from History Colorado (formerly known as the Colorado Historical Society) in addition to funding from the National Trust for Historic Preservation (Partners in the Field program), the City and County of Denver, and Historic Denver, Inc. 4

Project Areas Two project areas were selected for Pilot Area #2. The first area is located in northeast Denver in the South Park Hill neighborhood, approximately three miles from the city s downtown. The survey area is bordered by Hudson Street, 23 rd Avenue, Kearney Street, and 16 th Avenue. 5

The second project area is located in northwest Denver in the Berkeley neighborhood, approximately two miles from the city s downtown. The survey area is bordered by Lowell Boulevard, 46th Avenue, Federal Boulevard, and 41st Avenue. 6

Research Design & Methods During Discover Denver s initial investigative phase (2010-2011), staff from Historic Denver, Inc., the City and County of Denver and the State Office of Historic Preservation worked with consultants and community stakeholders to develop the methodology and funding plan for the program. The document entitled, Denver Historic Survey: Citywide Survey Strategy, details the project background and methodology to be employed. Through this analysis, it was decided that Discover Denver would employ advanced technology which was developed by the City of Los Angeles to conduct their own citywide survey, currently in its third year. In 2012 planning for the Discover Denver Pilot Program, which is headed by Historic Denver, Inc. in partnership with the City and County of Denver, began. In Fall of 2013, the Discover Denver program publically launched the Pilot Program, promoting the survey activities through a wide variety of media and promotion outlets. The Discover Denver pilot phase surveyed several areas which are representative of three distinct survey themes, covering approximately 3,000 individual properties. During this phase, staff and consultants developed a database, tested the Los Angeles survey software, and identified and worked out flaws in the methodology and bugs in the technology. Data gathered for Discover Denver falls under four categories: Foundation; Descriptive; Evaluation; and Enhanced. The Foundation level consists of 100% of the buildings located in Denver. Using information from the City and County of Denver s electronic property records, every structure s physical location, year built, and use are available. All properties that are 30 years of age or older, regardless of their physical historic integrity, were surveyed at the Descriptive level. During the Discover Denver pilot, trained volunteers used convertible laptop computers to record a building s physical characteristics such as style, materials, and architectural features. One to three 7

photographs were also taken of each property at this level, for inclusion in the survey record. It is estimated that citywide, approximately 85% of all Denver properties will reach this level. Only properties that are 30 years of age or older and which retain their physical, historic integrity, were assessed at the Evaluation level. The Evaluation level assesses each property on how it relates to broad historic contexts that tell the history of Denver s development. During Evaluation, each property is assigned a proprietary code that indicates whether or not the property is potentially eligible for listing as an individual Denver Landmark or as a part of a Denver Historic Landmark District. These determinations are made by staff at the City and County of Denver s Landmark Preservation Department, and are intended to be an informational tool for city staff, property owners, and developers. Evaluations of potential eligibility or non-eligibility are subject to revision should additional information be discovered in the future, or if the property loses its physical historic integrity. It is estimated that citywide, approximately 35% of all Denver properties will reach this level. A small percentage of surveyed properties were assessed at the Enhanced level. Properties that are evaluated at the Enhanced level will have additional research completed to discover if there is evidence of historic persons or events that may make the structure historically significant. Each property that moves to the Enhanced level will have a state-standard 1403 Architectural Inventory Form completed, which includes additional information such as the history of the structure and its residents, background on the local neighborhood, and any relation to broader historic subjects within the city, state, or nation. It is estimated that citywide, less than 5% of all Denver properties will reach this level. As initially conceptualized, Pilot Area #2 focused on homes built using plans developed by the Architect s Small House Service Bureau (ASHSB). The ASHSB, created in 1914 by a group of Minnesota architects, had its roots in the City Beautiful movement and produced plan books containing architect-designed plan sets for small houses. Small houses were defined by the ASHSB as those having no more than six rooms and a maximum of 30,000 cubic feet. (Using a ten foot ceiling height, this is a house of 3,000 square feet.) The Mountain Division of the ASHSB was established in Denver in 1921, and it is believed that many homes were built in the Denver area in the coming decades using ASHSB plans. As planning for this Discover Denver pilot survey area progressed, it became clear that it would be very difficult to identify homes built using ASHSB plans. Many ASHSB plan homes have been modified over the years, and without knowing the layout of each 8

home it was nearly impossible to positively connect a home with an ASHSB plan. For these reasons, Pilot Area #2 was broadened to focus on small homes, defined for this project as those under 2,600 square feet, built during the 1920s in Denver. Predictive modeling was performed to identify survey areas likely to contain 1920s small houses. The models looked for concentrations of primary buildings meeting the following criteria: Property type: Residential, single family dwelling Year built: 1920 to 1929 Stories: 1 to 1.5 stories Living area square footage: 850-2600 Building style: Traditional, Tudor Exterior wall material: Brick, Frame, or Stucco Detached garage or no garage Bedrooms = 2 to 3 Based upon the results of the models, the subdivisions of Harkness Heights and Grand View in the Berkeley neighborhood, and a section of the Park Hill neighborhood were selected for survey. Within the survey areas chosen there are a number of houses that fall outside of the defined timeframe, and a number that are larger than the 2,600 square feet of living area defined as the upper size limit for a small house. These buildings were included in the survey, as they provide context for the majority of the buildings which fit the timeframe and size criteria. Stylistically, many of the homes that fall before or after the 1920s are similar to those built between 1920 and 1929. 9

Historic Context The City Beautiful and Civic Pride 1904 1938 The Origins of the City Beautiful Movement in Denver By the late 1800s a movement was taking shape that would influence city planning and the built environment around the country for many years to come. Known as the City Beautiful movement, it has had a profound effect on the development of Denver as a city. Denver emerged from the Panic of 1893, a widespread depression with national and international impacts, grappling with the by-products of rapid population growth and a lack of modern infrastructure. Rapid growth in both the industrial sector and the overall population was taking place. City planning essentially did not exist, and as such the city was a somewhat chaotic place. There were approximately 28,000 buildings in Denver by the 1890s, and most lacked any sort of overarching, definable architectural style. Though building permits had been required since 1889, it was not until 1904 that building heights, manner of construction, and class of building were regulated. Zoning laws, governing what type of building could and should go where, would not be enacted until 1925. For these reasons, the growing city would retain its dusty frontier town character, while seeking to define itself as a modern metropolis. During the 19 th century, the Industrial Revolution helped create economic booms in urban areas throughout the young United States. While there was a positive side to this economic growth, there were also a number of negative side effects that accompanied this broad societal shift. Cities had become the center of American enterprise, and people flocked toward manufacturing centers as jobs in industry replaced jobs in agriculture. Urban population centers grew dramatically, and widespread disease was the result of unsanitary conditions in cities that lacked the infrastructure to support their new residents. In addition to the strain from overcrowding, political corruption and economic depression promoted a sustained climate of civil unrest and violence. 10

In 1890 Denver had more than 300 saloons more bars per capita than either Boston or New Orleans and there were an estimated 1,000 prostitutes active on Market Street during this time. By the early 1900s it was apparent that Denver s infrastructure had not kept pace with the demands of its growing population. Outhouses were prevalent, and many of the city s main streets were built with plank sidewalks over dirt. Acknowledging these challenges, there was a growing desire among civic leaders and citizens alike to transform the urban landscape. The City Beautiful concept was first introduced at the 1893 World s Columbian Exposition in Chicago, Illinois. Previous World s Fairs highlighted grand architecture, art and new innovations; the 1893 World s Fair was no exception. The new City Beautiful movement promoted the design and creation of orderly, well-functioning cities that were attractive and contained healthy open spaces. Robert Speer, who would later become mayor of Denver, was an enthusiastic supporter of the City Beautiful movement and wanted to apply these concepts to future development in Denver. As a result, the City Beautiful movement became an important architectural theme in the Mile High City. After his election in 1904, Speer initially sought to make the city more efficient by improving upon its outdated infrastructure. Once this was accomplished, he turned his efforts towards the beautification of the city. During his three administrations as Denver s mayor, approximately 300 miles of streets were leveled and paved. Sandstone sidewalks were installed throughout the city, and decorative street lamps replaced the outdated and unsightly 150-foot-tall light towers. The storm and sewer systems were improved at a cost of several million dollars, and city ordinances were crafted that would preserve mountain views and discourage billboards within the city. Between 1905 and 1912 Speer gave away over 100,000 trees to citizens who would plant and care for them. Speer even sought to improve the hygiene of the city s unwashed, poor citizens by erecting a municipal bath house at 20 th and Curtis streets. The bath house was completed in 1908, and received 15,000 bathers in its first year. Speer also sought to bring culture to the population through the 1908 completion of the Municipal Auditorium at 14 th and Curtis streets. The auditorium hosted free Sunday afternoon and evening concerts and also was site to the 1908 Democratic National Convention. 11

City Beautiful Era Residential Development in Denver Residential development in Denver during the City Beautiful movement would embrace many of the same ideologies found in city planning and development. Between 1893 and 1941 residential development was strongest in the neighborhoods of City Park, Cheesman Park, Congress Park, Park Hill, Washington Park, Hale, Country Club, Valverde, Barnum, West Highland, Globeville, Skyland, Berkeley, Regis, and Sloan s Lake. Single-family detached homes prevailed during this time, and new homeowners wanted homes that were both well-designed and attractive. The Victorian styles, which had been so popular leading up to the 1893 economic crash, had become unfashionable by the early 1900s. The first part of the 20 th century saw the emergence of the Foursquare and the Classic Cottage as popular home types. Between 1910 and 1920 Bungalow- and Craftsman-style homes became popular, particularly in Park Hill, Congress Park, Washington Park, Skyland, and West Highland. By the 1920s Neoclassical, Dutch, English, French, Italian, and Spanish Colonial revivals, and Mission-style homes were seeing strong use in residential architecture. Implementing the City Beautiful Ideal Citywide Supporters of the City Beautiful movement believed that the ideal city should be a work of art. As large-scale plans for implementation of the movement s ideals were contemplated, in 1904 Speer sponsored a new city charter that provided the legal framework for civic beautification by creating an art commission appointed by the mayor. This commission was to consist of an architect, an artist, a sculptor and the mayor himself as an ex officio member. Speer used the commission as an unofficial planning office to promote civic improvements intended to further the City Beautiful concept. What resulted from this commission was a master plan that included three key stages intended to make the City Beautiful movement a reality in Denver. First was the development of a Civic Center which would serve as the heart of the city. Civic Center was envisioned as a large public park that would be surrounded by stately government buildings. Next was the development of a city-wide park and parkway network. The network of green space would be superimposed along the existing street grid radiating out from Civic Center, and would connect to the city s major parks. These green spaces would also serve as the setting for significant public institutions such as schools, libraries and other municipal buildings. The impressive architectural design of these public institutions would be so impactful that high architectural standards 12

would then also spill over into the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Finally, a system of mountain parks would be established to preserve the mountain landscape for the enjoyment of Denver s residents and visitors. Civic Center In addition to promoting efficiency in the urban environment, the City Beautiful movement is characterized by comprehensive planning, attractive civic centers, prominent buildings, parks, fountains, public statuary, and grand boulevards. Denver s Civic Center was planned according to these ideals. Plans for the development of the Civic Center were created by Charles M. Robinson, a national champion of the City Beautiful movement, and centered on the State Capitol Building, which was the grandest structure in all of Denver. The revival-style Capitol Building was constructed in the 1890s, and was opened for use in 1894. To commemorate the Colorado Gold Rush, the Colorado Mining Association donated 200 ounces of gold leaf, which was then added to the exterior of the dome in 1908. The overall Civic Center plan connected the State Capitol building to the County Courthouse, the proposed public library, and United States Mint. A plan for the development and beautification of the nearby 16 th Street retail district also was set forth at this time, which was intended to connect the street s commercial district with the government center. As plans for development were formed, Robinson suggested the use of height restrictions on future development in order to protect the mountain views visible from the nearby Capitol Hill neighborhood. In keeping with the City Beautiful ideals, Civic Center both increased efficiency and the overall design aesthetic of the city. Civic Center was designed with inter-governmental cooperation in mind, through the co-location of city, state, and federal offices in a single office park. Other public interests were also served by its design: landscaping doubled as fire and flood protection, and public green spaces promoted the health and enjoyment of the citizenry. Denver s Civic Center continued to take shape throughout the early 20 th century. The Carnegie Library was completed in 1909 and was the first building, beyond the existing State Capitol Building, to be constructed on the new Civic Center site. The library was designed by Albert Ross in the Greek Revival style, at a cost of $200,000 which was funded by philanthropist Andrew Carnegie. A number of sculptures, statues, and commemorative structures would also be installed in Civic Center. The 13

Pioneer Monument, which Commemorates Colorado pioneers by marking the end of the Smokey Hill Trail, was completed in 1911. Alexander Phimister Proctor would design two statues for Civic Center; Broncho Buster was completed in 1920, and On the War Trail was completed in 1922. Civic Center s Greek Theater, an open-air theater commemorating the park s benefactors, was completed in 1918. In 1919 the Voorhies Memorial was installed on the north end of the park. Both of these structures contain murals by local artist Allen Tupper True. The City and County Building, located along the western edge of the park, was completed in 1932. Many cite the completion of the City and County Building as the end of the City Beautiful movement in Denver, though its effects can still be observed in later developments of the city such as the Ralph Carr Judicial Center, the Lindsey-Flanigan Courthouse, the Denver Art Museum, and the Wellington Webb Municipal Building. Additionally, the effect of the City Beautiful movement on the overall built environment has been widespread, extending beyond government buildings and public institutions to include elegant downtown buildings built for commercial purposes, neighborhood community centers, grand mansions, and more modest homes throughout the city s neighborhoods. Parks and Parkway Network The second element of Denver s City Beautiful plan was the development of a public parks and parkway network. While the development of the city s park system was most active during the early 20 th century, as early as the last half of the 19 th century there were some efforts to incorporate parks into the development of the city. In 1868, early in the city s development, Denver was gifted land that would become Denver s first park, Curtis Park. The one-block parcel to the north of downtown, named after early Denver settler Samuel Curtis, was intended to make the surrounding neighborhood more attractive to new residents. In 1879 Denver received another gift of land from Horace Fuller, establishing Fuller Park at 28 th Avenue and Gilpin; and in 1885 the city purchased land that would become Lincoln Park, to the west. In 1889 Denver purchased land on the northeastern outskirts of the city for $56,000, which would be developed into City Park. At the time of purchase, the area surrounding City Park was largely unpopulated. But soon after the creation of the park the area saw a significant boost in desirability, resulting in rapid development that would transform the area surrounding the park into an enticing place to live. Efforts were made to beautify the park by adding grass and trees, and the 14

establishment of the Denver Zoo and the Natural History Museum would solidify City Park as a major city amenity and tourist attraction. This early establishment of the importance of planned parks in Denver illustrates foresight by city developers, especially given that there was essentially no need for parks early on in the city s development as the area surrounding the city was open and undeveloped prairie. The city would continue to grow rapidly, however, taking over more and more of the unincorporated prairie and making the protected park space more important to the health and happiness of local residents. As the City Beautiful movement progressed in Denver, Mayor Speer focused heavily on parks and gardens as a way of beautifying the city. One of his key beautification projects was the landscaping and embankment of Cherry Creek in 1907. The effort was sorely needed, as during the 19 th century residents had used Cherry Creek as a dump. Additionally, the creek posed a constant threat of flooding. A redevelopment plan would help to mitigate this danger. Speer s efforts were rewarded in 1910 as the City Council voted to rename Cherry Creek Drive to Speer Boulevard, in honor of the man who turned one of the city s worst eyesores into one of its most beautiful boulevards. To further Speer s vision, a plan for parks and parkways throughout the city was developed by prominent landscape architect George Kessler, and planner Charles Mulford Robinson. The city s major parks such as City Park, Civic Center, Cheesman Park, and Washington Park would be connected by a parkway system running along the existing city streets. Kessler and Robinson s plan also called for the development of three new parks Sloan s Lake, Rocky Mountain Lake, and Berkeley Lake. These parks and parkways would serve as settings for stately public buildings, adding to the appeal of surrounding neighborhoods. The park and parkway network, in connection with the City Beautiful movement, would soon be irrevocably tied to the city s identity and civic pride. The greening of the urban landscape with lawns, flower beds, and trees surrounding both modest residences and elaborate mansions became a symbol of civility and livability in the formerly Wild West. Surprisingly, early efforts to develop Denver s parks were made without consideration of how children would use the space. This oversight was soon recognized by supporters of the City Beautiful movement, who believed that city improvements should benefit all citizens, including children. These individuals lobbied the city to set aside sections of the city s parks, complete with playground 15

equipment, for local youth. As a result, the Denver Playground Association was formed and on June 5, 1905, the city opened its first playground in Curtis Park. Denver Mountain Parks The third element of the City Beautiful plan for Denver was the development of a mountain park system. This effort was initiated by the Denver Chamber of Commerce, and in 1912 voters approved a city charter amendment authorizing the mountain parks. The underlying belief fueling the establishment of Denver s Mountain Parks which was held by Mayor Speer, other civic leaders, and the Denver voters who also supported the effort was a belief that scenic mountain areas surrounding the city must be preserved for enjoyment by current and future residents and visitors. Frederick Law Olmstead, Jr. was hired to plan the mountain parks and lay out a road system providing access and connecting the parks to one another. The first park acquired as part of this effort was Genessee Park in 1912. Today, Denver s Mountain Parks span 14,000 acres and range in altitude from 6,000 to 13,000 feet. The parks are managed by the City of Denver, and are located throughout the foothills and mountains of Denver, Jefferson, Douglas, and Clear Creek counties. The parks include a variety of attractions such as Red Rocks Park and Amphitheater, Winter Park ski resort, the final resting place of Buffalo Bill Cody at Lookout Mountain, and opportunities for picnicking, hiking, fishing and golfing. The parks also include the country s only municipally-owned Buffalo herd, which is housed at Genesee Park. Denver residents of the early 20 th century would get to Genesee Park by taking the trolley to Golden, then travelling by train to the Beaver Brook Station in Clear Creek Canyon to access the Beaver Brook trail in Genesee Park. Camping during these early days of the mountain parks system was made possible with the construction of Chief Hosa Lodge in 1918, which allowed hikers to stay overnight before returning to Denver by train and trolley. The mountain parks include Bergen, Corwina, Daniels, Dedisse, Echo Lake, Fillius, Genesee, Little, Lookout Mountain, O Fallon, Pence, Red Rocks, and Summit Lake Denver s highest mountain park at nearly 13,000 feet. The entire mountain park system is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 16

** City Beautiful and Civic Pride is an incomplete historic context. Additional research material will be added to this document as the Discover Denver survey progresses. Please visit www.discoverdenver.co to view the most current available context document.* Sources: Civic Center Conservancy. Civic Center History. www.civicenterconservancy.org/park-history.html. last accessed on 19 September 2014. Etter, Carolyn and Don. City of Parks: The Preservation of Denver s Park and Parkway System. Denver Public Library, Denver, CO (2006). Fisher, William E. Letter to Benjamin Betts dated April 13, 1934. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy Division, Fisher and Fisher Collection. Box 27, FF 30. Accessed June 24, 2013. Goodstein, Phil. Robert Speer s Denver: 1904 1920. New Social Publications, Denver, CO (2004). Historic Denver News. Doors Open Denver 2013 Denver: The City Beautiful Then and Now. Volume 42, Spring 2013. http://www.historicdenver.org/uploadedfiles/hd%20spring%202013%20-%20final.pdf. last accessed 19 September 2014. Noel, Thomas and Barbara Norgren. Denver, The City Beautiful and its Architects, 1893-1941. Historic Denver, Inc., Denver, CO (1987). The Denver Mountain Parks History Pages. http://mountainparkshistory.org/. last accessed 19 September 2014. Tucker, Lisa Marie. The Small House Problem in the United States, 1918-1945: The American Institute of Architects and the Architects Small House Service Bureau. The Journal of Design History, 2010, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 43-59. 17

Context, Theme and Property Type CONTEXT: The City Beautiful and Civic Pride THEME: City Beautiful Era Small Homes PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: 1904-1938 ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS: Retains the essential character defining features and style characteristics of small houses built in the applicable style and/or type. Small houses are defined as those containing six or fewer rooms, and/or less than 2,600 square feet in size. Retains sufficient historic integrity to serve as a good example of a small house design. Was constructed during the period of significance, 1904-1938. Visible non-historic modifications must be sympathetic and fit within the stylistic vocabulary of the house. INTEGRITY CONSIDERATIONS: Location and setting should be unchanged House retains integrity of association through ongoing residential use Landscaping may be altered, including fence replacement, if original fence footprint appear to have been followed or has had minimal deviation. Replacement of some windows and doors is acceptable if the openings have not been resized and original fenestration has not been disrupted, and if replacement doors and windows are stylistically sympathetic to the original style of the house. Original footprint and rooflines of house have been maintained, with no dominant or pop-top additions. The addition of security features such as security doors is acceptable. Enclosure of original porches should be sympathetic to the design of the house. Should retain most other aspects of integrity of Design, Materials, Workmanship and Feeling TYPE: Residential, single family home 18

Results Data There are 1,129 buildings within the designated survey area for the 1920s Small Homes Pilot Area. Only 77 of the surveyed historic buildings have had major modifications that affect their historic physical integrity. Survey Levels: 1 lot is vacant, and so was not surveyed at all. 27 properties were surveyed at the Foundation Level (2.39%) 1,102 properties were surveyed at the Descriptive Level (97.61%) 21 were surveyed at the Enhanced Level (1.86%) Build Dates: 33 building were constructed less than 30 years ago. 50 buildings were constructed less than 50 years ago. 1,078 building were constructed over 50 years ago. 600 500 536 Build Dates 400 300 200 155 138 100 0 1 13 93 74 54 19 13 7 26 19

Property Types in Survey Area: Domestic Single Family = 1,077 Domestic Multiple Dwelling = 41 Commerce/Trade Specialty Store = 3 Commerce/Trade Gas Station = 2 Commerce/Trade Restaurant = 2 Healthcare Clinic = 2 Religion Church = 2 Building Types in Survey Area: Bungalow = 375 Classic Cottage = 65 Central-Passage Double-Pile = 17 Temple Front = 15 Foursquare = 11 Shotgun = 7 Terrace = 2 Other = 521 Ranch = 87 Split-Level = 5 One-Part Commercial Block = 3 Two-Part Commercial Block = 1 Unknown = 1 Other Types, New Construction = 19 20

Building Styles in Survey Area: Craftsman = 331 Cottage = 186 Classic Cottage = 67 Raised = 46 Ranch = 40 Tudor Revival = 31 Mission = 23 Victorian Cottage = 19 Italian Renaissance Revival = 18 Colonial Revival = 11 Jacobean-Elizabethan = 9 Dutch Colonial Revival = 6 Edwardian = 5 Moderne = 4 Pueblo Revival = 3 Usonian = 2 Classical Revival = 1 Mansard = 1 Neo-Tudor = 1 Neo-Colonial = 1 Italianate = 1 Contemporary = 1 Other = 303 Other, New Construction = 19 21

1920s Small Homes Residential Building Types Bungalow 2033 N. Hudson Bungalow 2041 N. Holly Bungalow Common Character Defining Features: o Horizontal massing o Asymmetrical façade o Full or partial width raised and covered porch o Tapered or squared columns or piers o Masonry balustrade with capping o Deep eaves Classic Cottage 4961 N. Knox Classic Cottage 4175 N. King Classic Cottage 4267 Federal Classic Cottage Common Character Defining Features: o 1-1.5 stories o Raised foundation o Asymmetrical façade o Brick construction o Exterior brick chimney o Full or partial width porch o Squared brick or post-and-pier porch columns o Hipped roof o Flared eaves o Central dormer 22

Central Passage Double-Pile 2071 N. Ivanhoe Central Passage Double-Pile 2200 N. Jasmine Central Passage Double-Pile Common Character Defining Features: o Rectangular footprint o Central hall with two rooms on either side o 2-2.5 stories o Side gable or hipped roof o Symmetrically placed chimneys Temple Front 4231 King Temple Front 3158 W. 45 th Temple Front Common Character Defining Features: o 1.5 stories o Front gable o Full or partial-width porch o Centrally placed gable window o Multiple cladding materials 23

Foursquare 4169 King Foursquare 4237 Julian - Foursquare Common Character Defining Features: o Square plan o Partial or full-width porch o Two or more stories o Hipped roof o Wide roof overhang o Many different styles used Shotgun 4570 Grove Shotgun Common Character Defining Features: o One story o Rectangular plan o Front gable roof o Full or partial width front porch 24

Terrace 4428 Julian Terrace 4435 W. 45 th Terrace Common Character Defining Features: o Flat roof o Corbelled brick o Flat or shaped parapet o Brick construction o Segmentally arched windows o Stone lintels o Partial width porch o May be single family or multiple family Other Properties that did not fit any one particular type were classified as Other. 25

1920s Small Home Residential Building Styles Craftsman 2258 N. Ivanhoe Craftsman 2277 N. Holly - Craftsman Common Character Defining Features: o False half-timbering on gable ends o Wide, overhanging eaves o Exposed rafter tails o Clipped gables o Knee braces at eaves o Heavy porch columns Cottage 2073 N. Ivy Cottage 1777 N. Kearney Cottage 4515 Irving Cottage Common Character Defining Features: o Steeply pitched roof o Steeply pitched gable entrance o Decorative brickwork o Arched entrance o Stucco and brick exterior o Casement windows o Multi-light windows 26

Classic Cottage 4961 N. Knox Classic Cottage 4175 N. King Classic Cottage 4267 Federal Classic Cottage Common Character Defining Features: o 1-1.5 stories o Raised foundation o Asymmetrical façade o Brick construction o Exterior brick chimney o Full or partial width porch o Squared brick or post-and-pier porch columns o Hipped roof o Flared eaves o Central dormer Tudor Revival 5725 E. 17 th Tudor Revival Common Character Defining Features: o 2-2.5 stories o Asymmetrical façade o Second story overhang o Decorative half-timbering o Steeply pitched roof o Large, exterior chimneys o Grouped casement windows o Uncovered porch or stoop o Arched doors o Wall dormers 27

Mission 4285 Grove - Mission Common Character Defining Features: o Stucco cladding o Large, square pillars o Round or quatrefoil windows o Arched entry and windows o Low-pitched roof o Broad, overhanging leaves o Parapets and curvilinear gables o Exposed rafters Victorian Cottage 3401 W. 45 th Victorian Cottage 4532 Irving Victorian Cottage Character Defining Features: o 1-1.5 stories o Multiple gable roof o Decorative shingles at gable end o Segmentally arched windows o Gable front porch o Turned spindles/posts 28

Italian Renaissance Revival 5636 E. 17 th Italian Renaissance Revival 5501 E. Montview Italian Renaissance Revival Common Character Defining Features: o 1-2 stories o Symmetrical Façade o Tall chimneys o Arched windows o Low-pitched hipped roof o Tiled roof o Engaged columns at entry o Arched doors o Slightly recessed or enclosed entry Colonial Revival 2071 N. Ivanhoe Colonial Revival Common Character Defining Features: o 1-2 stories o Symmetrical façade o Side porch and/or sunroom o Bay windows o Engaged columns, pilasters, and/or pediment at entrance o Transoms o Sidelights at door o Medium-pitch, side-gabled roof o Dormers 29

Jacobean-Elizabethan 6040 E. Montview Jacobean-Elizabethan 6000 E. Montview Jacobean/Elizabethan Common Character Defining Features: o Steeply pitched roof o Intersecting gables o Dormers o Arched entrance o Decorative brickwork o Diagonally set chimney stacks Dutch Colonial Revival 4235 King Dutch Colonial Revival 1600 Holly Dutch Colonial Revival Common Character Defining Features: o 1.5-2 stories o Symmetrical façade o Gable-end exterior chimneys o Side or front gabled gambrel roof o Full or partial width porch under eaves o Dormers 30

Edwardian 4524 Irving - Edwardian 3025 Scott - Edwardian Common Character Defining Features: o 1.5-2 stories o Intersecting gabled roof o Asymmetrical façade o Porches o Decorative shingles at gable ends Pueblo Revival 2728 Kearney Pueblo Revival 5501 E. Montview Pueblo Revival Common Character Defining Features: o 1-2 stories o Irregular plan, blocky massing o Stucco cladding o Straight headed windows o Arched doorways o Flat roof o Projecting round roof beams/vigas 31

Moderne 6020 E. Montview Moderne Common Character Defining Features: o Stucco exterior o Flat roof o Rounded corners o Glass block o Horizontal lines Classical Revival 2728 Kearney Classical Revival Common Character Defining Features: o Large columns o Portico o Pediments o Pilasters o Dentils Other Properties that did not fit any one particular style were classified as Other. 32

Recommendations Evaluation for the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties and the National Register of Historic Places eligibility was not completed as a part of this survey. Within these Pilot Areas, there were no properties found to be potentially eligible for listing as a Denver Landmark. Future survey and research of historic significance may find properties within these survey areas that are potentially eligible for listing as Denver landmarks. Based on the survey of these Pilot areas, there are concentrations of historically intact properties which could have potential as cohesive, local historic districts along the Montview Boulevard and E. 17 th Avenue parkways in the Park Hill neighborhood. More research, and the support of the residents, would be needed in order to formally nominate local historic districts in any of these areas. Concentrations of historically intact properties in the Park Hill neighborhood: Overall, properties in the Park Hill and Berkeley survey areas retain a high degree of historic integrity. 33

In Park Hill, only 47 properties that were surveyed had major alterations or were new construction, representing 9.7% of the total properties surveyed. In the Berkeley pilot areas, 57 properties that were surveyed had major alterations or were new construction, representing 8.8% of the total properties surveyed. Park Hill: 34

Harkness Heights/Grand View: 35

Twenty-one properties in the three 1920s Small Homes Pilot Areas were chosen to be surveyed at the Enhanced Level, and had additional research and 1403 Architectural Inventory Forms completed. The two following maps show the locations of these properties. Park Hill: Property Key: Key - Site Number Address Key - Site Number Address Key - Site Number Address 1 5DV.11511 1700 Hudson 6 5DV.11524 5501 Montview 11 5DV.11510 1630 Ivy 2 5DV.11524 5834 Montview 7 5DV.11526 5636 E. 17 th 12 5DV.11515 2275 Hudson 3 5DV.11517 6040 Montview 8 5DV.11527 5700 E. 17th 4 5DV.11512 1728 Jasmine 9 5DV.11516 6020 Montview 5 5DV.11513 1793 Holly 10 5DV.11514 1925 Holly 36

Harkness Heights/Grand View: Property Key: Key - Site Number Address Key - Site Number Address Key - Site Number Address 1 5DV.10495 4211 Hooker 4 5DV.11520 4205 Irving 7 5DV.11536 4507 Federal 2 5DV.11518 4185 Grove 5 5DV.11521 4211 Green Ct. 8 5DV.11537 4557 Federal 3 5DV.11519 4203 Julian 6 5DV.11522 4290 Irving. 9 5DV.11538 4585 Julian 37

Survey Log Key Potential Local Eligibility The Discover Denver Survey Codes were developed for Discover Denver by the City and County of Denver s Landmark Preservation Staff, in partnership with the Discover Denver management team. These codes only relate to how surveyed properties are evaluated by the City and County of Denver s Landmarks Preservation Department for their potential eligibility as individual Denver Landmarks or as a part of a Denver Landmark Historic District. These Codes are used for informational purposes, and are intended to assist city staff, property owners, and developers with understanding a property s potential historic importance. Survey Code determinations may be revised in the future should additional historic information be discovered, or if the property no longer retains its physical historic integrity. No determination was made in this report on a property s significance for inclusion on either the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties or the National Register of Historic Places, either individually or as a part of a historic district. CODE PD-C PD-NC PI NE LRN DESCRIPTION Potential District Contributing*. Resource is a Contributing structure that is located within in a cohesive geographic area that could potentially be eligible for Local Historic District nomination. Additional research, and the support of local residents, would be needed to create a Local Historic District. Potential District Non-Contributing**. Resource is a Non-Contributing structure that is located within a cohesive geographic area that could potentially be eligible for Local Historic District nomination. Additional research, and the support of local residents, would be needed to create a Local Historic District. Potentially Individually Eligible. Resource could potentially be eligible for Local Landmark nomination. More research, and a designation application submittal, would be needed to create an individual Landmark. Not Eligible Locally. Resource was not determined through the survey to be eligible for Local nomination as either an Individual Landmark or as part of a Local Historic District. Additional future research could alter this determination. Local Review Needed. A determination of potential eligibility at the Local level has not been made yet. * Contributing means that the property retains its historic character and/or importance. ** Non-Contributing means that the property does not retain its historic character and/or importance. 38

Survey Log RESOURCE Park Hill 5525 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1929 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO PD-C NO 5530 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1951 Ranch Ranch Domestic - Single Family NO PD-C NO 5555 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1938 Colonial Revival Central Passage Double-Pile Domestic - Single Family NO PD-C NO 5609 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1909 Italian Renaissance Revival Other Domestic - Single Family NO PD-C NO 5635 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1949 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO PD-C NO Italian Renaissance 5DV.11526 5636 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1942 Revival Other Domestic - Single Family NO PD-C NO 5DV.11527 5700 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1940 Moderne Other Domestic - Single Family NO PD-C NO 5701 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1949 Ranch Ranch Domestic - Single Family NO PD-C NO 5725 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1929 Tudor Revival Other Domestic - Single Family NO PD-C NO Italian Renaissance 5730 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1921 Revival Other Domestic - Single Family NO PD-C NO 5737 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1930 Tudor Revival Other Domestic - Single Family NO PD-C NO 5800 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1937 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO PD-C NO 5801 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1953 Ranch Ranch Domestic - Single Family NO PD-C NO Italian Renaissance 5825 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1930 Revival Other Domestic - Single Family NO PD-C NO 5830 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1986 NEW NEW Domestic - Single Family NO PD-NC NEW Jacobean- 5835 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1935 Elizabethan Other Domestic - Single Family NO PD-C NO 6000 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1929 Tudor Revival Other Domestic - Single Family NO PD-C NO 6005 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1930 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO PD-C NO Jacobean- 6015 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1929 Elizabethan Other Domestic - Single Family NO PD-C NO 6025 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1929 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO PD-C NO 6035 E 17th Avenue Pkwy 1929 Tudor Revival Other Domestic - Single Family NO PD-C NO 5525 E 19th Ave 1924 Other Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 5730 E 19th Ave 1954 Ranch Ranch Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 39

5800 E 22nd Ave 1949 Usonian Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 6030 E 23rd Ave 1938 Other Other Commerce/Trade - Gas Station NO LRN NO 1600 N Holly St 1932 Dutch Colonial Revival Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 1601 N Holly St 1928 1615 N Holly St 1928 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 1622 N Holly St 1930 Tudor Revival Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 1623 N Holly St 1926 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 1631 N Holly St 1926 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 1635 N Holly St 1949 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO NE YES 1645 N Holly St 1949 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 1655 N Holly St 1938 1660 N Holly St 1916 Italian Renaissance Revival Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 1665 N Holly St 1951 Other Split-Level Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO Italian Renaissance 1725 N Holly St 1923 Revival Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 1734 N Holly St 1923 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO NE YES 1739 N Holly St 1925 1742 N Holly St 1925 1749 N Holly St 1927 1750 N Holly St 1923 1755 N Holly St 1926 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO NE YES 1760 N Holly St 1924 1765 N Holly St 1925 1766 N Holly St 1925 Italian Renaissance Revival Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 40

41 1772 N Holly St 1925 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 1775 N Holly St 1925 1781 N Holly St 1924 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 1784 N Holly St 1925 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 1792 N Holly St 1925 Italian Renaissance Revival Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 5DV.11513 1793 N Holly St 1926 Italian Renaissance Revival Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 1910 N Holly St 1923 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 1920 N Holly St 1923 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO NE YES 5DV.11514 1925 N Holly St 1909 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 1930 N Holly St 1923 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN YES 1935 N Holly St 1922 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 1945 N Holly St 1923 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 1950 N Holly St 1923 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 1955 N Holly St 1923 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO NE YES 1960 N Holly St 1923 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 1961 N Holly St 1923 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 1965 N Holly St 1923 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 1970 N Holly St 1923 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2017 N Holly St 1924 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO Italian Renaissance 2022 N Holly St 1923 Revival Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2025 N Holly St 1924 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2031 N Holly St 1924 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2032 N Holly St 1921 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2040 N Holly St 2002 NEW NEW Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NEW 2041 N Holly St 1924 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2047 N Holly St 1922 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2048 N Holly St 1923 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO

42 2051 N Holly St 1920 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2054 N Holly St 1925 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2065 N Holly St 1920 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2068 N Holly St 1923 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2072 N Holly St 2005 NEW NEW Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NEW 2073 N Holly St 1924 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2080 N Holly St 1925 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2089 N Holly St 1911 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2090 N Holly St 1927 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2091 N Holly St 1905 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2200 N Holly St 1924 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO NE YES 2201 N Holly St 2002 NEW NEW Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NEW 2211 N Holly St 1942 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2216 N Holly St 1924 2219 N Holly St 1909 Craftsman Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2223 N Holly St 1920 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2224 N Holly St 1924 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2229 N Holly St 1921 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2230 N Holly St 1924 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2235 N Holly St 1922 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2244 N Holly St 2013 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2245 N Holly St 1927 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2248 N Holly St 1923 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2255 N Holly St 1925 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2256 N Holly St 1922 Other Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2259 N Holly St 1927 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2264 N Holly St 1921 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2265 N Holly St 1906 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2270 N Holly St 1919 Craftsman Bungalow Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO 2271 N Holly St 1924 Other Other Domestic - Single Family NO LRN NO