Boulder Friends of Chautauqua formed in 2011 upon hearing that the CCA was planning to build the Arbor House, a 7000 sq ft stand alone building. The alleged purpose of the building was to house corporate retreats, weddings, office, and ADA compliant bathrooms.

We came together from all different backgrounds, only fully in agreement on one thing. We did not want a 7000 sq ft building at Chautauqua. We knew it would create more congestion, and were not convinced it was going to solve any problems.

We also were in agreement that the process that the CCA was following, that is trying to push through a document called the Chautauqua Collaborative Stewardship Framework was none of those things. Oh, yes... except for the Chautauqua part... that was correct.

Allegedly this "framework" was going to layout the way decisions in the future were made between Boulder Open Space (OSMP) who controlled the adjacent Open Space, Boulder Parks and Rec, who controlled "the green" (the big green lawn that you see when you enter, and the Colorado Chautauqua Association (a membership organization open to all, and run by an elected board - that is responsible for the business of renting some cottages, maintaining all the buildings in the leasehold area booking "programs" in the public buildings, and managing the restaurant (or contracting with a restauranteur to do so. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ABOUT CCA.

The important part is that, despite the fact that this is a National Historic Landmark,  approval of that Framework would have tacitly included the approval of new construction, and possibly a large multi-use building at Chautauqua. However, that is old news, Thanks to community input, and thoughtful recommendations from the Landmarks Board adn the Planning Board, the City Staff decided, on May 15, 2012, to withdraw the vote on the Framework that was scheduled for tat meeting.

FOr more background, read below to see the detailed objections to the framework.

After the Chautauqua Collaborative Stewardship Framework was withdrawn from the vote on May 15, 2012, it was advised that two city council members, several members of the Colorado Chautauqua Association, and the appropriate city staff members meet in 3 meetings over several months to set a future direction that MORE CLEARLY spells out the role between the City and the CCA over "improvements", maintenance, and ACTUAL stewardship of the National Historic Landmark Called Chautauqua.

STATUS REPORT AS OF January 2013:
The Boulder City Council approved (December, 2012) the report generated from the Committee

In September of 2010, The  Colorado Chautauqua Association (CCA) expressed its desire for expansion within the historic district of Chautauqua. They outlined their wishlist in the "Chautauqua 2020 Plan" which  declared their intention to:

At the time there was a lot of objection to this building. So the CIty proposed a decision making tool called the "Chautauqua Collaborative Stewardship Framework (CCSF) as a decision-making approach for any future changes at Chautauqua, and a set of "tools" to support the successful "stewardship" of Chautauqua. City staff was assigned to support the project, and the CCA and the CITY co-hired some consultants to help draft the CCSF. The 7th iteration of the CCSF (the "Framework) is NOW making its way to city council for approval.

The problem is, while the framework backed off on the specificity of the 7000 sq ft building on the south side of the Auditorium, this "decision making tool"  still includes suggestions for 6 location  for a new buildings.

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ADVISES AGAINST IT
Chautauqua was designated a National Historic Landmark (NHL) by the National Park Service in 2006 In a 2011 letter to Susan Connelly, the Manager of CCA, they say "The National Park Service does not recommend new construction within NHLs. New construction will add non-contributing elements to the district and will have a negative effect on the historic integrity of the NHL. We recommend that existing buildings within NHLs be used to provide new or  additional services, rather than construct new buildings for these purposes."

THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE (SHPO) ADVISES AGAINST IT.
On April 11, 2012 SHPO sent a 2nd letter to Susan Connelly clarifying its posiiton on new construction within NHLs. With strong and direct language it suggests that ADA bathrooms and any other "needed functions" be incorporated into existing structures or kept separated from each other in non-obtrusive small structures.
" The insertion of one large building within the historic district which would hold all functions including the additional desired meeting space, would be highly disruptive and appears to NOT BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT COMPROMISING THE CHARACTER OF THE ENTIRE LANDSCAPE"

It further references the 1st letter sent a year ago that agrees with the NPS recommendation against new construction in NHLs.
IS IT ODD THAT THE CCA THAT CLAIMS TO BE A "STEWARD" OF the NHL Chautauqua has not mentioned any of these letters in section 5.3 of the Framework, that itemizes 6 possible locations for new construction?


This “framework” is supposed to simply set a decision making approach for the governing entities (the City, CCA, Open Space, and Parks and Rec) to collaborate in the future.
Instead the CCA and their “consultants” have used the "Framework" as a vehicle to establish a agreement that new construction is “needed”. This document needs to go back to its original intent as a collaborative decision making tool. If the document continues to itemize buildings that are allegedly "needed", the City should require that the CCA more rigorously substantiate these needs to that new construction in an NHL is kept to a minimum.

HAS THE "NEED" FOR MEETING SPACE BEEN SUBSTANTIATED IN THE FRAMEWORK.
In section 5.3, the Framework itemizes 6 possible locations for new construction. The needs they claim they have are

• more ADA bathrooms for the auditorium
• moving the maintenance facility and offices to revert the Primrose building back to rented lodging
• mulit-use event space to host more events.

While ADA bathrooms are a worthy endeavor, the two other functions needs have not been substantiated. Maintenance doesn't NEED to move: that is a preference. Offices don't need to move out of Primrose: that is a preference. Primrose does not "need" to become more lodging because the CABINS RENTAL IS CURRENTLY UNDER CAPACITY EVERY SINGLE MONTH OF THE YEAR! (Click here to see the CCA graph which proves this)

Further, Graph 7.3-3 in the Framework shows that  the Community Building at 55% usage in May, June and Aug. This is CURIOUS... yet the only comment the Framework makes on this is:

“As illustrated, there are usage spikes and valleys that indicate below usage periods.”

What is strange about the proposed idea of building NEW event space is that we would expect that the need would be substantiated by the fact current event space would be at capacity during the high season. What is more strange is that Susan Connelly claimed the new building would service events during the off season so as not to add congestion to the already congested summer usage. However, according to this same graph the Community House is under capacity, or WAY under capacity, in the off-season. For example, at 49% capacity in Feb, 41% capacity in March, 34% in October and 30% in November.

In summary,  if the Community House rental is UNDER capacity in the off season why do we need a new event building to host new events in the off season? And, curiously, why is there so MUCH under-utilization in the summer: is this a management and marketing problem?


Chautauqua currently rents the Community House to corporations for retreats. One of the purposes of a new multi-use event space is to host MORE of these kinds of retreats, which would then increase the cottage rental. IS THIS CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC MISSION OF CHAUTUAQUA?
The CCA board president, Josh Taxman, claims that the CCA is still true to the 113 year history of the Chautauqua and that more corporate retreats are in keeping with their mission.  According the the CCA's website, in 1898 Boulder civic leader and Texas educators had joined together to create a cultural and educational summer retreat. At that time, Chautauquas brought "lectures, performances, concerts, classes and exhibition to thousands of people on small towns".  
Does building a new building for more corporate retreats change the original intent of the Chautauqua. And, if we do want to go there, should this intention be more transparent in the Framework so that it can be evaluated by the City Council. And, further, does it justify going against the recommendation of the National Park Service for NHLs, which is "no new construction" and "no moving of historic structures"?

THE NEW BUILDING MAY NOT BE NECESSARY FOR CHAUTAUQUA TO GENERATE INCOME.
One role the CCA plays is to generate enough income for maintenance of the structures. The CCA wants to bury the electrical wires and make sure sewer system maintenance is brought up to date. Both of these are worthy causes. However, it is strange that the CCA is insisting that a new building to house more retreats to stimulate cabin rental is the only means to achieving their income objectives, considering that a new building will put them MILLIONS in debt and actually delay money being directed to these two worthy projects.

Has the city be provided with a document that substantiates that this route of debt and delay is the best strategy. Considering the weak rentals in the cabin and Community House during the HIGH season, has the CCA done its homework to ensure that all buildings are being optimized before they build a new one (NPS recommendation). Has a comprehensive management and marketing analysis been done on all the Chautauqua profit centers (cabins, community house, dining hall, auditorium) Further, as a non-profit, has the CCA looked into FUN-draising options as a way to move them more quickly toward being able to fund their two infrastructure projects.
BEFORE fresh ground is broken, the Council should look at the business plan and make sure due diligence is performed.
 

CRITERIA SET FORTH BY CCA ITSELF ARE IN CONFLICT WITH NEW BUILDING
The Principles and Evaluation Criteria of the Chautauqua Stewardship Framework Draft top principles state is "Preserve Chautauqua's historic character while addressing current and future needs"  and "When addressing changes to programs offered by or on Chautauqua's grounds, look first to management (vs constructed) solutions"   We think the board might not have FULLY explored the "management solutions" before embarking upon this quest for additional space.
Their top TWO criteria listed are "minimize and/or mitigate impact to adjacent lands and neighbors" and "optimize use of EXISTING infrastructure"

THE CHAUTAUQUA DESIGN GUIDELINES ARE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION
The Chautauqua Design Guidelines state that "There are very few locations where a new building of any kind could be added to Chautauqua without destroying the historic integrity and rural character that has been carefully preserved for nearly a century. In general, the addition of buildings to Chautauqua will be inappropriate."   Now the CCA plans to rewrite the Design Guidelines, creating an allowance for new construction.  Is this appropriate?


THE LANDMARKS BOARD QUESTIONS HOW CCA CAN DISREGARD THE US PARKS DISCOURAGEMENT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION
In a Feb 15 2012 meeting the Landmarks Board addresses the letter that specifically recommends against new construction in NHL's.  Boulder Friends of Chautauqua wants to make sure  this letter, and the Landmarks Board's attention to it, doesn't get swept under the rug.  As the stewards of this "historic gem" that they claim to be, why does the CCA try to push through a Framework that COMPLETELY ignores the NHL and the State Historic Fund Recommendations against new construction. Why have they completely ignored the Landmarks Board Request to include these recommendations? Clearly the CCA has another agenda that usurps what ever interest they feign to have in preserving this National Historic Landmark. Boulder Citizens should insist that this project not move forward without a preservationist to monitor ANY changes to this NHL.


CONGESTION AND PARKING PROBLEMS WILL BE CREATED
Although the CCA promises that the new building will not be in use in peak months July/Aug, there needs to be something in WRITING that ensures they do not rent out this space for events in the summer months. Futher, the Framework claims they are committed to "redistributing peak usage".  If they were to only rent the new event space in the off-season, how does adding more event rental in the winter REDISTIRBUTE PEAK USAGE. It just adds more usage in the Winter and does NOT diminish congestion in the summer.  Further, neighbors need to ask themselves, do we need more year-round congestion.

THE LAND BEHIND THE AUDITORIUM IS SPECIAL
According to a supporting document presented to the City Council on Feb 1 2011, one of the major contenders of building sites for the NEW construction is the area BEHIND the auditorium. To accommodate this 7000 sq ft building the HISTORIC picnic area would need to be moved. Click here to see how the proposed building overlaps the picnic site. The Colorado Music Associations believes this area is a special place to gather, especially before and after concerts, and should be landscaped to capitalize on the beautiful views. Its location at the apex of several trail heads, and its entrance into the historical boundary of Chautauqua also makes it special.  Modifying this high-view area to accommodate more picnickers and gatherings could be more beneficial to the summer events in the auditorium. FURTHER THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SPECIFICALLY RECOMMENDS AGAINST MOVING THE HISTORIC PICNIC SHELTER in an NHL.

THE CITY OWNS THE LAND of CHAUTAUQUA
Some of the buildings of Chautauqua are privately owned and some are owned by the CCA. However, the CITY OWNS THE LAND and the core buildings and leases them to CCA in 20 yr increments. In light of the City's ownership, in behooves the citizens of Boulder to have their voices heard about this new Event Center.  For some ideas of what you can do, (we even have ideas for already busy people) go to our page What Can I Do to Help?

BATHROOMS
The CCA claims that one of its goals is to add more ADA bathrooms to be accessed by auditorium patrons.  The last 7000 sq ft plan of the new building called the Arbor House had only 3 stalls designed in the women's bathroom, and 1 stall and two urinals designed in the men's bathroom.  This supposedly IMPORTANT function was designed to be less than 10% of the overall size of the Arbor House building. The scrutiny of their architectural plans makes one question whether the ADA bathrooms, offices and maintenance on the ground floor of the new building was just a vehicle to get the 2nd floor event center approved.

DEFINITIONS:
CCA: Colorado Chautauqua Association
COB: City of Boulder
CSF: Collaborative Stewardship Framework (or CCSF)
CMF: Colorado Music Festival
NPS: National Park Service
CLA or CLI: Chautauqua Landscape Assessment (Inventory) completed in 2004 is filled with history as well as recommendations for upgrades at that time.
PRAB: Parks and Rec Advisory Board
OSBT: Open Space Board of Trustees