Recent events in Denver and Boulder reveal the best and worst of historic preservation.
In Denver, after the owner amassed more than a half-million dollars in fines. A court-appointed receiver has begun taking steps to save the structure — assuming that’s still possible.
The interior of this once-grand 1875 home has been exposed to rain and snow ever since the owner, Keith Painter, was repairing the roof in 2008 but stopped in a dispute with the city over the alterations.
In 2010, he applied for a permit to demolish the Bosler House — a request he essentially repeated in 2013 in lieu of a remedial plan the city demanded.
Needless to say, his requests were rejected.
Andrea Burns, spokeswoman for the Community Planning and Development Department, tells me a “historic structural assessment” is due in draft form in August, with a final document in October.
She says the goal is to save the house by selling it to someone with the demonstrated wherewithal, willingness and experience to do the job.
Even if interior damage is relatively contained, restoration will cost a small fortune.
“Knowing the actual physical shape of the house will help us decide what paths to take in terms of the sale,” she added.
says the Bosler House is “significant not only for Italianate architecture but also for its history in the development of Denver” and “two early settlers.”
Suffice it to say that if you stand outside the house, you will not strain to understand — as you do with some buildings — why it was designated a landmark.
Of course, it is no trifling matter for government to move to take the property of someone who refuses to maintain it. And in a court filing Wednesday, Painter disputed that foreclosure is an appropriate remedy.
But this is not a case of an owner blindsided by a historic designation. The Bosler House was listed as a local historic landmark by the Denver Landmark Preservation Commission in 1984 (and went on the National Register of Historic Places in 1994), while Painter bought it in 1987.
And this saga involving the open roof has festered far too long already.
In Boulder, by contrast, city staff and elected officials moved this year to give a nondescript bungalow landmark status over the objections of its owners and common sense. Why?
Because in the early 20th century it housed tuberculosis patients — hardly a remarkable activity in this part of the country at the time. One of the home’s owners, Erik Johnson, complains that in the 45 years his family has owned the house, “At no time have we been aware of anyone showing the least bit of interest in its history or architecture.”
“To say that this house is architecturally unremarkable is an understatement. It is a small brick bungalow like many others in the metropolitan area and in a greater state of disrepair than most. Drop-down windows in an addition put on sometime in the 1920s are said to be convenient for TB patients. That’s it.”
The Daily Camera has published terrific editorials denouncing the landmark move — and for whatever reason, the city recently put the process on hold while it engages in talks with the owner and a possible buyer. But officials’ behavior in blocking demolition remains despicable, a grotesque overreach in the annals of historic preservation.
E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
