Contextual eclecticism

Material Information

Contextual eclecticism designing distinctive campus architecture for the University of Colorado, 1917-1921
Lanier, Claire Shepherd
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
xii, 153 leaves : illustrations ; 28 cm

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Doctorate ( Doctor of Philosophy)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
College of Architecture and Planning, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Design and Planning
Committee Chair:
Gelernter, Mark
Committee Co-Chair:
Deno, William R.
Committee Members:
Makela, Taisto H.
Noel, Thomas J.
Schneider, Peter


Subjects / Keywords:
University of Colorado, Boulder -- Buildings -- History -- 20th century ( lcsh )
College buildings -- History -- Colorado -- Boulder -- 20th century ( lcsh )
Eclecticism in architecture -- Colorado -- Boulder ( lcsh )
Architecture -- History -- Colorado -- Boulder ( lcsh )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references (leaves 150-153).
General Note:
College of Architecture and Planning
Statement of Responsibility:
by Claire Shepherd Lanier.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
66463497 ( OCLC )
LD1193.A735 2005d L36 ( lcc )

Full Text
Claire Shepherd Lanier
B. A., Macalester College, 1973
M. A., University of Washington, 1977
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Design and Planning

This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Claire Shepherd Lanier
has been approved
Mark Gelernter
William R. Deno

Lanier, Claire Shepherd (Ph.D., Design and Planning)
Contextual Eclecticism: Designing Distinctive Campus
Architecture for the University of Colorado,
1917 -1921
Thesis directed by Professor Mark Gelernter
A distinctive and unexpected campus style was designed for the University of
Colorado in Boulder. Its beauty and fit is still admired almost a century later.
This thesis explores how the style was created examining personalities,
challenges, context and attitudes that came together when the design was
The architectural design was the result of the convergence of two dynamic
forces, East Coast American design ideas with a Western context. The
Philadelphia-based architects, Frank Miles Day and Charles Zeller Klauder,
employed design concepts from a turn-of-the-century movement called
Academic Eclecticism. This approach included an appreciation for American
landscapes and a desire to create contextually appropriate architecture.
Academic Eclectics favored fusing design styles, emphasizing fit and function
over reproducing a particular historical style.
However, the University of Colorado situation presented several unique
challenges. In 1917, Boulder was a rural mining supply town with an
impressive Rocky Mountain backdrop but no existing architectural tradition.
The Regents at the University were determined to follow a popular trend and
adopt the Collegiate Gothic style, while some influential faculty opposed them,
favoring variety in campus architecture rather than a uniform style. Another
significant obstacle for the architects was the limited availability of local stone
that would meet their standards for Collegiate Gothic. These challenges,
conflicts and limitations led the architects to identify an unusual and
unexpected precedent in northern Italian vernacular architecture, which they

believed would reflect Boulders spectacular landscape, campus needs, and
available materials. The University President and Board of Regents quickly
abandoned their earlier expectations in favor of the new prototype, which has
weathered the test of time and still serves as the basis for design decisions
made at the University. This thesis offers special insights into the
circumstances leading to this dramatic and ultimately successful change in
direction. Understanding the process by which this new idea was conceived
can help inform the design of other college campuses seeking a regionally
appropriate expression.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I
recommend its publication.

I dedicate this thesis to my parents, George and Shirley Shepherd, who
modeled for me, from a very young age, their love of learning, writing, and
especially history.

My thanks to all five of my committee members. I have been truly fortunate in
this mix of advisors. First, I would like to thank the chairman of my
dissertation committee, Mark Gelernter, for his unique ability to ignite
enthusiasm and make complicated issues appear simple. I would like to thank
Taisto Makela, who kept me on the path when it seemed there was no path.
Bill Deno provided endless insights into the real world of quarrying and
construction at the University of Colorado. Tom Noel has helped me to see
that history can be endlessly fascinating and full of stories. Peter Schneider,
always the insightful philosopher, has assisted me in finding meaning and
making the critical connections.

Illustrations ...............................................x
1. INTRODUCTION............................................... 1
DAY AND KLAUDER ........................................... 7
Tum-of-the-Century Context:
American Academic Eclecticism .......................... 8
Eclecticism: A Definition of Terms .................... 20
Philadelphias Eclectics and the T-Square Club_........ 23
The Architectural Firm of Day and Klauder.............. 31
3. THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO CAMPUS IN 1917 ................ 45
Boulder and the Geology of the Front Range ............ 50
The 1917 University Campus in Boulder ................. 53
Early Twentieth-Century College Campus Design.......... 57
Gothic for the University of Colorado ................. 61
A Pressing Need for More Campus Buildings.............. 63
The Role of Governor Gunter.............................64
The Mill Levy of 1917.................................. 66

Colorado Voters Want Local Architects and Materials
Dean Hellems Represents a Contentious Faculty........... 70
Classics Professor George Norlin........................ 72
A Cautious Board of Regents ............................ 74
President Livingston Farrand Visits Philadelphia........ 75
Day and Klauder Challenge the Existing Campus Plans .... 81
The Search for a Regional Precedent: Similarities
Between Boulder and Mountainous, Rural Italy............ 95
Not Strictly Italian: A Non-Style....................... 108
Local Lyons Sandstone Fit the Italian Precedent......... 112
Klauders Unique Sandstone Design .......................116
The Universitys First Sandstone Building:
The Liberal Arts Building, 1921 ........................ 130
5. EPILOGUE....................................................136
The University of Colorado Story.........................137
Value of Studying University of Colorado Campus
for Current Campus Planning ............................ 140
A. Buildings Designed During Klauders Lifetime
at the University of Colorado, Boulder, 1921-1939 ......... 145

B. College Campus Buildings Designed By Day and Klauder
Architects or Frank Miles Day and Brother before 1918..... 146
C. Buildings on University of Colorado Campus When
Day and Klauder Arrived 1917 1918 ...................... 148
D. Stone Quarries Used for Campus Buildings 1880 1939 .... 149
REFERENCES......................................................... 150

1.1 Birds Eye View of University of Colorado Campus......................1
2.1 Frank Lloyd Wright, Peter A. Beachy House, Oak Park, III., 1906..... 10
2.2 McKim, Mead and White, Boston Public Library,
Boston, Mass., 1888-95 ............................................. 10
2.3 H. H. Richardson, Trinity Church, Boston, Mass., 1872-77............ 11
2.4 Mary Jane Colter, Hopi House, Grand Canyon, 1905 ................... 13
2.5 Hodgin Hall, University of New Mexico, Originally Built 1889
Richardsonian Romanesque Style, Renovated Pueblo Revival Style
1908 by A. W. Hayden ..........................................14
2.6 Bernard Maybeck and Julia Morgan,
Phoebe Apperson Hearst Memorial Gymnasium,
University of California at Berkeley, 1925-27 ...................... 19
2.7 Frank Furness, Fisher Fine Arts Library,
University of Pennsylvania, 1888-91 .................................24
2.8 Wilson Eyre, Cope and Stewardson, Frank Miles Day and Brother,
University Museum of Science and Art,
University of Pennsylvania, 1895-99 .................................26
2.9 Charles Z. Klauder Watercolor, University Museum of Science and
Art, University of Pennsylvania, 1888................................27
2.10 Julia Morgan, Campanil, Mills College,
Oakland, California, 1903-04.........................................29
2.11 Day and Klauder Architects, Franklin Field,
University of Pennsylvania, 1922-25 .................................31

2.12 Frank Miles Day Sketch, Travel Journal, Fiesole, Italy, June 1885..34
2.13 Day and Klauder Architects, Holder Dining Hall and Memorial,
Princeton University, 1918...........................................38
2.14 Charles Z. Klauder Print, Christmas Card, 1929......................41
3.1 Birds Eye View, Boulder Campus, 1920................................46
3.2 Brochure Titled Dedication of New Buildings,
University of Colorado, June 8-9,1940...............................47
3.3 Old Main, University of Colorado, 1876..............................48
3.4 Bill Boone's Quarry Near Lyons, Colorado, Summer 2005...............53
3.5 Day and Klauder Architects, Proposed Campus Plan, 1917..............54
3.6 Cope and Stewardson, The Quadrangle,
University of Pennsylvania, 1894-1912 ..............................58
3.7 Cope and Stewardson, The Quadrangle,
University of Pennsylvania, 1894-1912 ...............................60
3.8 Gove and Walsh, Macky Auditorium,
University of Colorado, 1909-21 .....................................62
4.1 Letter on Boulderado Stationery, from Charles Klauder to
Herbert Wise, 2 July 1917...........................................83
4.2 Redding and Son, Hotel Boulderado, Boulder, Colorado, 1909..........84
4.3 Day and Klauder Architects, Render, University of Colorado,
Mens Gymnasium, Gothic, 1918 ...................................... 92
4.4 Day and Klauder Architects, Rendering, University of Colorado,
Womens Dormitory, Gothic, 1918 .................................... 93
4.5 Henry Hornbostel, Law School Building, Emory University, 1917-18 .. 95

4.6 Charles Z. Klauder, Photograph Taken in Fiesole, Italy, 1888 ......... 97
4.7 Day and Klauder Architects, Rendering, University of Colorado,
Mens Gymnasium, Tuscan Vernacular .................................. 99
4.8 Late Medieval Church, Fiesole, Italy ................................. 105
4.9 Day and Klauder Architects, Photograph of University of
Colorado Model for Proposed Buildings, 1919.......................... 107
4.10 Day and Klauder Architects, Photograph of University of
Colorado Model for Proposed Buildings, 1919.......................... 107
4.11 Detail Late Medieval Stone Church, Fiesole, Italy..................... 115
4.12 Masonry Illustration by CU Campus Architect William Deno........... 125
4.13 Masonry Illustration by CU Campus Architect William Deno.......... 126
4.14 Day and Klauder Architects, Liberal Arts Building,
University of Colorado, 1920s .......................................134
5.1 Albert Bierstadt, Estes Park, 1877, Oil on Canvas......................142

Chapter 1
The University of Colorado campus in Boulder is one of the most
beautiful in the country. More than a campus, it is an unforgettable Colorado
place in the minds of many students and visitors alike. The design of this
unique campus was the result of an unprecedented series of events, which
-1 -

form the central question for this study: What were the ideas and
circumstances that resulted in the distinctive, regional campus architecture at
the University of Colorado in Boulder? The answers to this question are
significant because understanding the successes on the Boulder campus can
inform the design of other campuses desiring a similarly memorable sense of
This study will show that the design of the University of Colorado
campus was the result of the convergence of two dynamic forces, Eastern
design ideas with a Western context (or circumstances). Architects Frank
Miles Day and Charles Zeller Klauder, from Philadelphia, brought their East
Coast ideas to Colorado. Theirs was a leading turn-of-the-twentieth-century
architectural firm, and their orientation reflected that of the professional design
establishment on the East Coast at the time. Their ideas included an interest
in regionalism and contextually appropriate architecture. Day and Klauder had
never traveled to the West before, but they had spent many years studying
the principles of design as practiced by their contemporaries. Thus, the
perspective they brought with them to Colorado was entirely fresh. When Day
and Klauder came to Boulder, they encountered a set of challenges and
personalities unlike any in their previous experience. The result of this

fortuitous meeting of East and West has been called Klauders most
innovative stylistic experiment.1
Chapter One focuses on the Philadelphia architectural firm of Day and
Klauder who were well-respected architects particularly in the area of campus
design. They were involved in a turn-of-the-century architectural movement
called Academic Eclecticism. Regionalism also forms an important part of this
discussion because of the role it played in the minds of Day and Klauder and
their contemporaries.
Chapter Two explores the 1917 University of Colorado campus, the
year the decision was made to hire an architectural firm for a campus master
plan. It explores the architecture on the campus before the architects from
Philadelphia arrived. The natural setting of Boulder will also be covered in
some detail, because of its impact on the design. The University had
struggled to establish its financial existence, yet it aspired toward an
expensive development plan. We will learn about the particular personalities
who spearheaded this development effort and circumstances that ultimately
made this possible.
1 Paul Venabee Turner, Campus: An American Planning Tradition (New York:
Architectural History Foundation; Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, c. 1989), 239.

Chapter Three brings the dynamic forces discussed in Chapters One
and Two together. Chapter Three illustrates what happened when the East
Coast architects came to the Rocky Mountain West. Here we explore the
reasons why one of the nations most renowned campus architectural firms
happened to be hired by a relatively unknown and rural university in Colorado
It is also interesting to speculate about how Boulder and the University might
have appeared to the Philadelphia architects. In 1917, Boulder was a town
that combined dirt roads and wooden shacks with attempts at civilized
structures such as sandstone churches, hotels and hillside homes designed
in the Richardsonian Romanesque style.2 The architects arrived heavily
steeped in values that favored architecture related to its context, yet the
University had already decided on an Academic Gothic design direction. This
raised the question would Academic Gothic relate to the Boulder context?
Day and Klauders previous work at numerous East Coast academic
institutions taught them that unifying campus architecture was important, yet
many members of the University of Colorado faculty adamantly preferred
architectural diversity. Once they managed to establish a new stylistic
direction, it provoked a new set of issues that will be explored in the second
half of Chapter Three.
2 Griffin-Klinger House built in 1890 and located at 1040 Mapleton Avenue in Boulder

The central question driving this study was researched by evaluating
original archival material dating from before the arrival of Day and Klauder, at
the University of Colorado, to the earliest decisions made at the University
and finally to the building of the first Day and Klauder structure, the Liberal
Arts Building, today known as Hellems Arts and Sciences. This exploration of
archival materials illuminates, through primary sources, letters, journal entries
and Board of Regents minutes, reasons behind the decisions made that
determined the design and the materiality of the University buildings. We also
observe the decision-making process used by Day and Klauder and the
administrators and Board of Regents at the University.
The answers to the questions posed in Chapters One through Three
rely on primary source material found mainly in the archives of two academic
institutions: The Archives at the University of Colorado at Boulder Historical
Collections and The Architectural Archives of the University of Pennsylvania.
The Boulder archives contain letters, Board of Regents minutes, original
drawings and photographs dating back to the first contact between the
University and Day and Klauder in 1917. The history of the Philadelphia firm,
Day and Klauder Architects, prior to their involvement at the University of
Colorado also plays an important part in understanding the decisions made

on the Boulder campus. This history was obtained primarily in Philadelphia at
the Architectural Archives of the University of Pennsylvania.3
When Charles Klauder died in 1938, he was still designing buildings for
the University of Colorado. He left behind architectural drawings but no strict
guidelines for the style or for reproducing the unique masonry he and his
senior partner Frank Day had designed for the campus. The only record is in
the stone buildings themselves.4 Despite the lack of guidelines, the
characteristics of the prototype, beginning with the sketches shown to the
Board of Regents in 1918, have weathered the test of time. Klauder himself
predicted this future success, boasting in a 1920 speech to students, The
University of Colorado will have one of the most beautiful campuses in the
country.5 This was a noteworthy endorsement coming from the same
architect who had a hand in the master planning and design of many of
Americas best-known universities. The Boulder campus continues to receive
praise for its distinctive regional architecture that appears to blend effortlessly
into the surrounding foothills.
3 The Architectural Archives of the University of Pennsylvania received material from
the Philadelphia offices of Day and Klauder, located at 1429 Walnut Street when the offices
were purchased by John Lloyd (Architect) in the 1950s.
4 By 1938, Klauders firm had designed fifteen buildings for the University of Colorado
(see Appendix A: Buildings Designed During Klauders Lifetime at the University of Colorado).
5 Transcript of Chapel Meeting With Students, Silver and Gold, 16 January 1920
(Credit unpublished mss., Albert A. Bartlett, George Norlin and the Development of the
Campus, 44, Authors Files, Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO).

The firm of Day & Klauder has been notable for the excellence
of their collegiate buildings . .6
Aymar Embury II, Architectural Forum, 1919
The architects of the University of Colorado were well established
before coming to Boulder. Day and Klauder Architects had master-planned or
designed buildings for many well-known East Coast academic campuses
including Princeton, Wellesley and the University of Pennsylvania.7 They
were, perhaps, best known for their work at Princeton, begun in 1909 in the
Collegiate Gothic architectural style.
The senior partner in the firm was Frank Miles Day. Day was a key
player in a circle of Philadelphia architects who intentionally rebelled against
their Victorian Eclectic predecessors. For solidarity, they formed their own
society, calling themselves the T-Square Club. These younger architects
took pride in the fact that they did not restrict themselves to high-style
6 Aymar Embury II, The New University of Colorado Buildings Boulder Colorado Day
& Klauder Architects, Architectural Forum 31 (1919): 72.
7 See Appendix B: College Campus Buildings Designed By Day and Klauder
Architects or Frank Miles Day and Brother before 1918.
- 7 -

precedents for inspiration but looked elsewhere, often combining styles and
looking for unusual vernacular precedents.
This chapter begins with a discussion of the context in which Day and
Klauder practiced. The design philosophy and values of their East Coast
associates will be discussed at some length. Particular focus will be given to
the variety of ideas associated with eclecticism in design and how the term
has been used to address vastly different attitudes about the use of
architectural style in America, particularly during the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries.
Turn-of-the-Centurv Context:
American Academic Eclecticism
Philadelphia, the location of the offices of Day and Klauder,8 was a
center for an architectural Renaissance taking place in turn-of-the-century
America.9 Day and Klauder and their contemporaries exhibited values that
later became associated with a movement called Academic Eclecticism first
8 When the firm Day and Klauder Architects began corresponding with the University
of Colorado they were located in Philadelphia at 925 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia,
9 Kurt W. Pitluga, The Collegiate Architecture of Charles Z. Klauder (Ph.D. diss.,
Pennsylvania State University, 1994), 13.

identified by Richard Longstreth in his 1982 article, Academic Eclecticism in
American Architecture.10 11
Academic Eclecticism was part of a much larger turn-of-the-century
movement known as the American Renaissance. This movement permeated
all of the arts, literature, the fine arts, as well as architecture. The American
Renaissance was defined by two simultaneous cultural developments in the
United States, i.e., westward expansion and the industrial revolution.12 These
cultural developments affected artists who sought to express their reaction to
them. Some chose to experiment with new forms, while others remained
firmly attached to traditions from the past, particularly from Europe. One
example of this diversity in architectural expression is the innovative Prairie
Style of Frank Lloyd Wright, in contrast to the hybrid palaces of McKim, Mead
and White (Illustrations 2.1 and 2.2). Another example of an architect who
enjoyed the dramatic play between the past and the future was H.H.
Richardson. Richardson made his reputation creating a vogue for
Americanized Romanesque Revival architecture (Illustration 2.3).
10 Richard W. Longstreth, Academic Eclecticism. Winterthur Portfolio 17, no. 1
(Spring 1982): 82.
11 The Brooklyn Museum of Art, The American Renaissance 1876 1917(New York:
Pantheon Books, 1979). Note: The Brooklyn Museum featured this period of American history
in a traveling show called The American Renaissance: 1876 1917 which toured the United
States in 1979 and included a stop at the Denver Art Museum.
12 Ibid., 146. Remarks by Michael Botwinick, Director, Brooklyn Museum of Art.
- 9 -

Illustration 2.1. Frank Lloyd Wright, Peter A. Beachy House, Oak Park, III, 1906. (Courtesy Mary-Ann
Sullivan, Digital Imaging Project, Bluffton Univ., Ohio)
Illustration 2.2. McKim, Mead and White, Boston Public Library, Boston, Mass., 1888-95. (Courtesy Mary-Ann
Sullivan, Digital Imaging Project, Bluffton Univ., Ohio)
- 10-

:r lr,iiimini i jr
Illustration 2.3. H. H. Richardson, Trinity Church, Boston, Mass., 1872-77. (Courtesy
Mary-Ann Sullivan, Digital Imaging Project, Bluffton Univ., Ohio)
When Academic Eclecticism evolved, it had some characteristics in
common with the English Arts and Crafts movement, founded on the anti-
industrial sentiments of A.W.N. Pugin (1812-1852) and John Ruskin (1819
1900). American Eclectics increasingly abandoned the notion of replicating a
style from the past in favor of a more eclectic approach that borrowed from
one or a variety of traditions. Relationship or fit with the materials, textures
and colors of the surrounding location was of greater importance than stylistic
-11 -

cohesiveness or derivation of precedent. This freedom from style gave
designers the liberty to exploit a variety of precedents without strict adherence
to historical details or archeological correctness. Elements from different
periods were often combined to form an original and organic whole.13
Another distinctly American characteristic of this movement was the
increasing interest among designers in the distinctive landscapes and
indigenous architecture of the United States. This interest was heightened by
the ever-increasing ease of tourism to the West. The growing nationalism,
preceding Americas entry into World War I, also contributed to the opinion
that America need not rely on Europe for outstanding architecture. America
had its own indigenous architecture and its own unique landscapes.
The beginning of the twentieth century brought greater ability of
Americans to travel, both in the United States and abroad. By the early 1900s,
trains could take travelers from the east coast to the west and into previously
inaccessible places like the vast and newly designated national parks.
Painters such as Albert Bierstadt and Thomas Moran helped to whet the
appetite of the traveling public for these grand and poetic American
landscapes. By 1905, visitors from the East Coast could take the Santa Fe
13 Patricia Keebler, The Life and Work of Frank Miles Day, (Ph.D. diss., University of
Delaware, 1980), 10.

Railroad to the Grand Canyon and stay overnight in luxurious surroundings.
There they would see Academic Eclectic architecture designed by Mary Jane
Colter and inspired by Hopi and Anasazi prototypes (Illustration 2.5). Other
railroad destinations, Albuquerque and Santa Fe, offered exposure to
architecture that blended Spanish Colonial and Pueblo prototypes (Illustration
2.5). All of this resulted in an increasing freedom among designers, artists
and literary figures and a sense that Americans could define themselves
independently without copying the old models from Europe.
- 13-

Illustration 2.5. Hodgin Hall, University of New Mexico. Originally Built 1889 Richardsonian
Romanesque Style, Renovated Pueblo Revival Style 1908 by A. W. Hayden. (Courtesy
University of New Mexico, University Library, Center for Southwest Research, University
And why need we copy the Doric or the Gothic model? Beauty,
convenience, grandeur of thought and quaint expression are as
near to us as to any, and if the American artist will study with
hope and love the precise thing to be done by him, considering
the climate, the soil, the length of the day, the wants of the
people, the habit of the form of the government, he will create a
house in which all these will find themselves fitted, and taste
and sentiment will be satisfied also.14
Residents of Boulder and Denver reflected their taste for Academic
Eclecticism through Richardsonian Romanesque architecture. The local red
sandstone was considered particularly well suited to its requirement for rustic
14 Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance, in The Complete Writings of Ralph Waldo
Emerson (New York: W. H. Wise & Co., 1920).

masonry.15 In the preface to his biography of Richardson, James OGorman
points out that Richardsons formal background was steeped in the French
tradition.16 However, while Richardsons approach clearly began in Europe,
his goal was an innovative and expressive language, that could be adapted
specifically to the requirements of American society.17 Perhaps the most
consistent characteristic of Academic Eclecticism was its resistance to the
idea of any particular style.
Richard Longstreth places Academic Eclecticism roughly between the
1890s and 1920s. By associating a particular time period with the
characteristics of this movement, Longstreth was able to identify consistent
patterns in what had previously seemed a period of unexplained stylistic
diversity in several American locations. Longstreth chose the term eclectic
because the adherents to the movement rejected using one single style and
chose instead from a wide range of precedents, freely combining features
from different eras and cultures. They were more concerned with site and
function than replication of a style. This distinguished them from their
Victorian predecessors. Longstreth chose the word academic to refer to the
15 One good example on the University of Colorado at Boulder campus is Woodbury
Hall, designed in 1890.
16 Richardson studied in Paris.
17 James OGorman, H. H. Richardson: Architectural Forms for an American Society
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), xiv.

fact that, although willing to experiment, many of its practitioners were rooted
in architectural tradition and had studied in the academic manner at LEcole
de Beaux Arts in Paris or similar academies in other parts of Europe.
Art and architecture critic Mariana van Rensselaer was widely read by
architects of this Academic Eclectic period.18 She expressed the conflict
between the past and the future in an 1884 critique of American public
buildings for Century Magazine.19 Van Rensselaer rejected the notion of style,
like many Eclectics. Style, she explained, does not express the nature of a
building. Rather than focusing on a specific style, she said, an architect must
express the character of a structure. Character, according to van Rensselaer,
is dictated first by the site of a building then by its size, purpose and material.
She differed from the popular English critic and hero of the previous
generation, John Ruskin (1819-1900), who claimed that decoration alone (a
particular style) can create beauty. If there is to be ornamentation it must
grow from architectural form, van Rensselaer wrote.20
18 Van Renssaelaers books were in the library of Day and Klauder. See The
Architectural Archives of the University of Pennsylvania, Day and Klauder Collection, Office
Records: index cards for the office library, undated (069.248).
19 Mariana Van Rensselaer, Recent Architecture in America: Public Building 1,
Century Magazine 28, iss. 1 (May 1884): 51.
20 Ibid.
-16 -

The turn-of-the-twentieth-century marked the beginning of a real
dialogue in America on the subject of architecture and style. Prior to 1890,
professional architects did not have their own journals for discussion.
Architectural criticism was contained in popular journals read by the general
public such as Harpers Monthly or Century Magazine. The AIA was not even
founded until 1857. In the decade of the 1890s, several new professional
journals began publication: Architectural Review, Architectural Record and
Brick Builder. These journals provided a new forum for the complex issues
architects were grappling with related to a uniquely American approach to
design that anticipated the rapid pace of changing social and functional
Turn-of-the-century Academic Eclectics, because they rejected a
particular style, felt free to blend historical styles. This was especially true if,
by blending styles, they could better adapt to the functional requirements of
contemporary design.22 Their inspiration came from unexpected sources and
from remote regions of the world. The search for an appropriate precedent
often lead to the use of vernacular architecture.
21 Longstreth, Academic Eclecticism, 55.
22 Ibid.
-17 -

Richard Longstreth used the characteristics of Academic Eclecticism in
his 1982 article to group together the work of four California architects and in
his 1983 book, On the Edge of the World: Four Architects in California at the
Turn of the Century,23 All four California architects Bernard Maybeck,
Ernest Coxhead, A. C. Schweinfurth and Willis Polk exhibited the following
three criteria in their work: regionalism (strong relationship to a particular
location), nationalism and diversity. All four arrived in California in the late
1880s. All had been educated at LEcole de Beaux Arts in Paris. All were
challenged by a desire to relate their LEcole education to California, the
region in which they had set up practice.
Like their contemporaries in New Mexico, Philadelphia and Boston,
these four architects brought academic principles to the West while
simultaneously designing architecture that was regional and particularly well-
suited to California. They were intensely aware of their location and enjoyed
the freedom of being removed from the architectural mainstream. Their
independence enabled them to focus on an appropriate, authentic response
to the local landscape and culture (Illustration 2.6). They felt their uniquely
23 Richard W. Longstreth, On the Edge of the World: Four Architects in San Francisco
at the Turn of the Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998).

Illustration 2.6. Bernard Maybeck and Julia Morgan, Phoebe Apperson Hearst Memorial Gymnasium, University of
California at Berkley, 1925-27. (Courtesy Mary-Ann Sullivan, Digital Imaging Project, Bluffton Univ., Ohio)
American design should relate through its materials, textures and colors to the
surrounding location.24
The four California Academic Eclectics profiled by Longstreth were
similar to their contemporaries in Philadelphia. They favored a nationalistic
approach to American architecture because of the growing separation from
old world values and the tensions that were beginning to escalate with
European nations at the turn of the twentieth century. They looked for styles
that would separate America from Europe through the use of different
24 Ibid., 12.
-19 -

precedents and unexpected combinations.25 They were diverse in their choice
of the stylistic precedents they selected emphasizing the relationship with
surrounding landscape and local materials over a desire to directly reflect
historic styles.
Eclecticism: A Definition of Terms
The term eclecticism is not new. Its earliest use can be traced to the
ancient Greek philosophers. The Greek word for eclecticism is eklektikos. The
term was applied to philosophers who, in their quest for truth, chose to draw
elements from different systems of thought. These elements were considered
simultaneously without concern for their possible contradictions. Such an
approach differed from synthesis. Synthesis also brought different systems
of thought together; the aim, however, was not to hold them separately but
rather meld them into a single coherent whole. The meaning of eclecticism
has evolved through the ages. It has been applied not only to philosophy but
also to various arts including literature, painting and the subject of this study,
architecture. Through the centuries, the term has been over-used. The result
25 Ibid.

is a loss of clarity regarding its meaning. Because of this, when eclecticism is
used it usually has to be qualified to make it fit a particular time or situation.
Nineteenth-century Philadelphia architects are often described as
falling into one of two types of eclectics. Those architects who concerned
themselves with combining styles while adhering as closely as possible to
archeological accuracy in their interpretation of those styles are labeled
Victorian Eclectics. The second group of younger architects practiced near
the turn of the century. They regarded the Victorian Eclectics their
predecessors with considerable disdain. This second group has been
called Creative Eclectics.26 However, Richard Longstreth, as has been noted,
called this second group Academic Eclectics.27
It was the latter group with which Day and Klauder were associated,
and thus they are referred to in the literature either as Creative Eclectics or
Academic Eclectics. They practiced around the turn of the century, and they
saw themselves not as followers of the past (the Victorian Eclectics) with their
dead revival styles but as participants in a new and innovative approach to
architecture. This approach used historic precedents, too, but its ultimate aim
was the creation of new, vital and functional architecture. It was this group of
26 Carroll L. Meeks, Creative Eclecticism, The Journal of the Society of Architectural
Historians 12 (December 1953): 15.
27 Longstreth, Academic Eclecticism, 55.
- 21 -

young and innovative architects (Frank Miles Day and his colleagues) to
whom Ralph Adams Cram (a Philadelphia architect himself) referred in his
epigram, found at the beginning of the next section, where he described,
a small circle of architects whose dominant quality was exquisite and almost
impeccable taste, men who produced work of infinite refinement.28
For the purposes of this paper, we will borrow the nomenclature of
Richard Longstreth to avoid confusion and refer to this latter approach as
Academic Eclecticism. Academic Eclecticism was the approach imported to
Colorado by Day and Klauder and is distinguished by its freedom in the
selection of precedent. Like other turn-of-the-century Academic Eclectics, Day
and Klauder frequently combined precedents and borrowed from vernacular
as well as traditional forms.
28 Ralph Adams Cram, The Work of Messrs. Frank Miles Day & Brother,
Architectural Record XV, no. 5 (May 1909): 3.

Philadelphias Eclectics and the T-Square Club
Blessed with an early architecture of the very best type
developed on this continent, [Philadelphia] sank first into a
condition of stolid stupidity almost unparalleled, then produced
at a bound a group of men of abundant vitality but the very worst
taste ever recorded in art, and then amazed everyone by
flashing on the world a small circle of architects whose dominant
quality was exquisite and almost impeccable taste, men who
produced work of infinite refinement.29
Ralph Adams Cram, F. M. Day and Brother
Day and Klauder, like other young architects in Philadelphia during this
period, prided themselves in challenging the status quo. They were part of a
group of innovative young Philadelphia architects for whom the questioning of
past approaches was expected. For these architects, simply mimicking Gothic
forms without any reference the site or present situation would have been
Philadelphia had its own brand of Eclecticism, both early and late. The
earlier Eclectics were men like Frank Furness and Horace Trumbauer. This
older generation of Philadelphia Eclectic Architects has been referred to by
some authors as Victorian Eclectics.30 The early Eclectics were disdained by
their younger colleagues. In hindsight, however, this older generation of
29 Ibid.
30 Keebler, Life and Work. 4.

Eclectics have been credited with an important contribution, namely increased
freedom in interpretation of past styles (Illustration 2.7).31
Illustration 2.7. Frank Furness, Fisher Fine Arts Library, University of Pennsylvania, 1888-91. (Authors Collection)
The younger architects, men like Frank Day and Charles Klauder, were
mentored by the Victorian Eclectics and, in the literature of Philadelphia
architecture, have been called Creative Eclectics.32 This generation of
architects felt free to combine stylistic elements without strict conformity to
31 Ibid.
32 Meeks, Creative Eclecticism, 17.

historic precedent.33 Their concern was more with site and function than with
historic affinity. They also prided themselves on designs that were regional in
character and eliminated decorative elements which they considered
unnecessary. Their search for a precedent was in the spirit of Academic
Eclecticism as described by Richard Longstreth. The members of this
younger generation of architects combined past styles in order to develop a
uniquely suitable non-style.34 They did not restrict themselves to a particular
high-style precedent. Inspiration could just as easily be found in vernacular
examples such as Quaker farmhouses or Italian rural buildings. Young
Philadelphia architects had an affinity for a local precedent based on Colonial
Georgian architecture.35
This younger group of Eclectics emerged in Philadelphia between 1880
and 1900. They included Wilson Eyre Jr., Walter Cope, John Stewardson and
Frank Miles Day. Charles Klauder, younger still, benefited from his
association with these idealistic designers. While they did not entirely
abandon the picturesque precedents favored by their mentors, from historical
33 George B. Tatum and Theo B. White organized Philadelphias eclectics in the
following way: Romantic Eclecticism (c.1810 -c.1860), Victorian Eclecticism (c.1860 -
c.1890), Creative Eclecticism (c.1890 c.1920). In Penn's Great Town: 250 Years of
Philadelphia Architecture Illustrated in Prints and Drawings (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1961).
34 Longstreth, On the Edge of the World, 13.
35 Longstreth, Academic Eclecticism, 75.

models such as Queen Anne or Jacobean Revival, they took more liberties in
modifying the styles to suit the function and situation as required. An
interesting example of early Creative Eclecticism on which all three of these
architects worked was The Free Museum of Science and Art at the University
of Pennsylvania (1893). The design of this museum borrowed from a variety
of stylistic details which included Romanesque Italian lanterns, Lombard
arcades and porches, early Renaissance loggias and Japanese gates
(Illustration 2.8). This was all done with restraint, restricting the use of
Illustration 2.8. Wilson Eyre, Cope and Stewardson, Frank Miles Day and Brother, University Museum of Science and
Art, University of Pennsylvania, 1895-99. (Authors Collection)

excessive ornament. Creative Eclectics preferred to use ornament
architecturally rather than decoratively.36 Charles Klauder was a young
apprentice draftsman working for Cope and Stewardson when they were
working on the Free Museum of Science and Art. Klauder himself painted an
impressive watercolor rendering of this building (Illustration 2.9).37

Illustration 2.9. Charles Z. Klauder Watercolor, University Museum of Science and Art, University of Pennsylvania,
1888 (Courtesy Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania)
Tum-of-the-century Philadelphia Academic Eclectics also emphasized
a regional approach. The work of Walter Cope and John Stewardson provides
36 Tatum, Penns Great Town, 117.
37 Architectural Archives of the University of Pennsylvania: Day and Klauder

an excellent example. These two architects influenced many aspects of
Philadelphias version of Creative Eclecticism. Regional qualities were
particularly apparent in Philadelphias residential architecture.38 They used
local materials such as stone and wood and strong pragmatic forms.
Philadelphia architects had an advantage over their contemporaries in the
western United States. They had a pre-existing tradition from which to draw.
They favored simple Quaker farmhouses or the Federalist forms of our early
forebears. What would Philadelphia eclectics do if faced with a situation
where no tradition was immediately available, as was the case in Colorado or
California for example? Perhaps they would follow the example of their
contemporary Academic Eclectics and to look for appropriate precedents to
combine. A good example is the work of Julia Morgan who designed the bell
tower for Mills College in Oakland, El Campanil (Illustration 2.10). Julia
Morgan combined a series of low pitched rooves in an innovative version of
Mission style with the urn details borrowed from the Spanish Alhambra
decorating its parapet wall.39
38 Longstreth, Academic Eclecticism, 75.
39 Sara Holmes Boutelle, Julia Morgan, Architect (New York: Abbeville Press
Publishers, 1988): 56.
- 28 -

Illustration 2.10. Julia Morgan, Campanil, Mills College, Oakland,
California, 1903-04. (Courtesy Mary-Ann Sullivan, Digital Imaging
Project, Bluffton Univ., Ohio)
Walter Cope, John Stewardson and Frank Miles Day were all members
of the T-Square Club. Charles Klauder joined later. The Club was founded in
1883 as a forum for young architects to meet and discuss common concerns.
They had yearly exhibitions with catalogues. These catalogues became
increasingly elaborate over time. Yearbooks from the T-Square Club provide
an important record of the contribution to Philadelphia design from this period.

The group was highly civic-minded and sought to extend its influence,
fostering an appreciation for the architectural profession within the
community. One major civic project the Club took on, in which Day was a
major participant, was the restoration of the historic Colonial Congress Hall in
Philadelphia. They were also particularly interested in furthering the education
of young architects, and as their members gained more experience they
taught courses at the University of Pennsylvania and at the Academy of Fine
Arts. The innovative educational environment in Philadelphia was enhanced
by the leadership of Warren Powers Laird, who became the director of the
newly instituted Architecture Program at the University of Pennsylvania.
Some of the members of this turn-of-the-century Philadelphia
architectural circle also began to play an important role in the development of
national campus architecture, bringing their pragmatic, contextual eclectic
approach to the academic environment. Initially there was a strong taste in
campus architecture for the Gothic style. Many universities wanted to model
themselves after the English ecclesiastical tradition of Cambridge and
Oxford.40 Well-known for this type of architecture were Walter Cope and John
Stewardson, Horace Trumbauer, Frank Day, and Karcher & Smith. However,
40 Frances Halsband, Charles Klauder's Brilliant Invisible Hand,T/7e Chronicle of
Higher Education 51 (March 2005): 1.

innovators like Day and Klauder did not limit themselves to the Gothic
precedent that had its origins in the urban context. Instead, they examined the
context carefully before recommending an appropriate style. An example from
the firm, Day and Klauders work, is the Franklin Field at the University of
Pennsylvania, designed in 1922, based on the Coliseum in Rome but adapted
to the needs of a contemporary sports facility (Illustration 2.11).
Illustration 2.11. Day and Klauder Architects, Franklin Field, University of Pennsylvania, 1922-25. (Authors
The Architectural Firm of Day and Klauder
Frank Miles Day invited Charles Zeller Klauder, his former draftsman,
to become his partner in 1911. The name of the firm then changed from Frank
-31 -

Miles Day and Brother to Day Brothers and Klauder.41 When Frank Days
brother, H. Kent Day, retired in 1912, the name changed again to Day and
Klauder. Klauder kept the name Day and Klauder even after Days death in
1918 and did not change to Charles Z. Klauder Architect until much later, in
The location of the firms offices at 925 Chestnut Street indicates the
level of success they achieved in their profession. This address is in the heart
of Philadelphias historic commercial district, just a few blocks from
Independence Hall. The office itself was spacious and well appointed with
Persian carpets and lavish furnishings, including art and ceramics. It
appeared more like a private residence than an office 43
Frank Miles Day (1861-1918) received his education in Philadelphia at
the University of Philadelphias Towne Scientific School. He also studied in
London at the South Kensington School of Art and at the Royal Academy. He
traveled extensively in Europe, first with his parents and later on his own
during vacations from his architectural studies in London. He was the son of
41 Sandra L. Tatman, n.d., Day, Frank Miles (1861-1918), Philadelphia Architects and
Buildings (PAB); Available at Internet; accessed 4 July
42 Sandra L. Tatman, n.d., Klauder, Charles Zeller (1872-1938), PAB; Available at; Internet; accessed 4 July 2005.
43 Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania Cynotype prints, Day and
Klauder Collection # 069.237.

an immigrant English tailor who became very successful in Philadelphia and
acquired the means to travel abroad with his family. He provided young Frank
with a kind of home schooling while they were traveling.44 Later Frank Day
worked in the London Atelier of Walter Millard and in the office of Basil
Champney. Under the influence of Champney, Day was exposed to the
English Arts and Crafts Movement and its spokesmen, Richard Norman Shaw
and William Morris. Their emphasis on functionalism and craftsmanship while
retaining an allegiance to historical style had a profound influence on Days
later work. Arts and Crafts designers felt free to break away from
archeological restrictions and introduce innovations, like the later Academic
Eclectics who they influenced. Days journals and sketchbooks from this
period in Europe are preserved in the Architectural Archives of the University
of Pennsylvania (Illustration 2.12). He particularly loved traveling in the rural
villages of northern Italy. It is clear from the places he traveled and from his
sketches, Day had a strong affinity for late Medieval and early Renaissance
Northern Italian architecture.45
Day returned to Philadelphia where, after a couple of years of
apprenticeship, he began his own practice as an independent architect in
44 Keebler, Life and Work, 12.
45 Ibid.

Illustration 2.12. Frank Miles Day Sketch, Travel Journal, Fiesole, Italy, June 1885. (Courtesy of Architectural
Archives, University of Pennsylvania)
1887. In 1893, he entered into partnership with H. Kent Day, his older brother.
In 1900, they hired Charles Klauder a talented young draftsman.
Day was one of the group of young architects mentioned earlier who
called themselves the T-Square Club. These architects retained some of the
historical elements of past styles in their designs, while at the same time
freeing themselves to innovate, thus departing from a purely historical
approach.46 Frank Days role in the younger generation of architects rebellion
against their Philadelphia elders is described in the following tribute to Day
published in the American Journal of Architects soon after his death in 1918.
46Tatman, Miles, Frank Day, PAB.

When Mr. Day began practice in the late eighties,
architecture was in the process of being discovered by the
American people as a vital, creative art. The public was
awakening to its possibilities through the work of men inspired
by foreign travel and study, or their pupils. These pioneers of the
new age were men of vigor and originality but the work of many
of them was unhappily marred by an unrestrained individualism
... In no city was this more evident than in Philadelphia, whose
character of staid repression had been swept aside in the
movement of revolt which, starting in a healthy reaction against
tradition, steadily descended, in a striving for originality, toward
chaos through ignorance of the real meaning of architecture: a
declaration of independence followed by anarchy rather than an
ordered freedom.
At this moment, as though dramatically timed by fate, there
appeared exactly the force needed to turn this vigorous and
fundamentally wholesome impulse to the right channels; a force
which gave to Philadelphia an architecture so fine and true that
it was destined to have national influence. Frank Miles Day and
a little group of his contemporaries of similar taste and training
here entered upon active practice ... 47
Frank Miles Day was a well-established figure in the East Coast
architectural scene. He served twice as President of the National American
Institute of Architects (AIA) and on the AIA Board of Directors. During this
period, Day played a key role as a mediator between AIA members and
members of the National Builders Association. The two groups had a
contentious relationship in Philadelphia at this time.48 He also assumed
academic responsibilities, teaching at the University of Philadelphia, the
47 Andrew F. West, Remembrance, The Journal of the American Institute of
Architects VI, no. 8 (August 1918): 6.
48 Keebler, Life and Work, 43.

Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts and the Pennsylvania Museum and
School of Industrial Art. He was a guest lecturer at Harvard and taught at the
American Academy in Rome. Day was also an active member of the
American Philosophical Society and participated in the Fairmont Park Art
Association, a group whose mission was maintaining the beauty of this
unusually large and elegant park along the banks of the Schuylkill River.
Because of the depth of Days involvement with his profession, we can
assume that he was a respected member of the design community.
Frank Days work at Princeton began in 1908 when fellow
Philadelphian, Ralph Adams Cram, recommended him to the university. After
the deaths of architects Walter Cope and John Stewardson, who initiated a
new development program for Princeton, Cram became the supervising
architect on the project. Cram, known for his enthusiasm for Gothic
architecture, is sometimes labeled the American Ruskin.49 Cram admired the
work Day had done for the University of Philadelphia and recommended
Days firm to design the new dormitories at Princeton.50 The dorms were to
stand adjacent to Blair Hall, the Gothic style dormitories designed by Cope
49 Sandra L. Tatman, n.d., Cram, Ralph Adams (1863 1942), Philadelphia Architects
and Buildings (PAB); Available at Internet; accessed 4
July 2005.
50 Keebler, Life and Work, 236.

and Stewardson. Henry B. Thompson, then President of Princeton, wrote to
Woodrow Wilson (former Princeton President), endorsing Crams
recommendation of Day:
He [Ralph Cram] has written to me personally that he would
prefer Mr. Day to any other man in the United States. While Mr.
Day is a friend of mine, I have no personal interest in his
securing the work, beyond the fact that I feel this group will be
the most conspicuous on campus, and it is most desirable that
we should secure the best brains we can for it. I am very
positive that the combination of Cram and Day will be able to
maintain the high standard that has been set in the past by
Cope and Stewardson.51
Frank Miles Day and Brother and then Day and Klauder continued the work at
Princeton until 1924, carrying on in the Gothic tradition begun by Cope and
Stewardson (Illustration 2.13).
Charles Z. Klauder (1872 1938) entered the working world in 1887 at
the young age of fifteen. He served as an architectural apprentice for T. P.
Chandler (1845-1928), a well-known Philadelphia architect who specialized in
ecclesiastical architecture. Chandler was educated in the Beaux Arts tradition
in the Atelier Vaudreme in Paris. He took the education of his young
51 Henry B. Thompson to Woodrow Wilson, 20 May 1908; in KeeblerLife and Work,

Illustration 2.13. Day and Klauder Architects, Holder Dining Hall and Memorial, Princeton University, 1918. (Courtesy
University of Colorado at Boulder Historical Collections/University Archives)

apprentices very seriously and would have made a strong impression on
Klauder.52 Chandler organized the Architectural School at the University of
Pennsylvania. While Klauder worked in Chandlers office he had a demanding
schedule, simultaneously studying architecture at the Pennsylvania Museum
and the School of Industrial Art.
Charles Klauder was the son of Louis and Anna (Koehler) Klauder.
Louis Klauder was born in Osthofen, Rheinhessen, Germany. When he
immigrated to Philadelphia, the elder Klauder established a furniture
manufacturing firm and provided Charles with a respect for fine
Following his apprenticeship in Chandlers office, Klauder worked in
the offices of several other influential Philadelphia architects: Wilson Brothers
(office dates 1876-1902), and Cope and Stewardson (office dates 1885-
1912). Cope and Stewardson gave Klauder an early exposure to Collegiate
Gothic architecture through their work at Bryn Mawr, University of
Pennsylvania and at Princeton. There is a sketch of Cope and Stewardsons
Tudor Revival Quadrangle at The University of Pennsylvania done by the
young Klauder from this period. He also worked for Horace Trumbauer (1868-
52 Sandra L. Tatman, n.d., Chandler, Theophilus Parsons, Jr. (1845-1928),_PAB;
Available at http://www.Dhiladelphiabuildlnas.ora: Internet; accessed 4 July 2005.

1938), known for his work on homes for a wealthy clientele in Philadelphia
and for his work on the Philadelphia Art Museum. Klauder was hired twice as
a draftsman by Frank Miles Day and Brother and returned to their office
permanently in 1900. He must have made a positive impression on the Day
brothers, in 1911 when Klauder was 39, Frank Miles Day and H. Kent Day
made him a partner in their firm.
Like Day, Klauder was a member of the Philadelphia T-Square club
and served as its President and as President of the Philadelphia Chapter of
the AIA. He was one of a group of architects honored in a series of articles in
Pencil Points on Master Draftsmen.53 The journal article illustrates a number
of very fine sketches, some from his travels, others of his projects. On the
following page is a Christmas card Klauder sent to one of the administrators
at the University of Colorado in 1929 (Illustration 2.14). Many of Klauders
drawings were very simple, done with a red crayon on tracing paper. He was
equally talented in a variety of media, including watercolor and etching.
Klauders drawing skill must have created a demand for his talents, even as a
young man, explaining his movement from office to office as a draftsman.
The facility with which Klauder sketches is one of his
outstanding accomplishments. When a problem is presented to
53 No Author, "Master Draftsmen, XV: Charles Z. Klauder, Pencil Points 6 (November
1925): na.

Illustration 2.14. Charles Z. Klauder Print, Christmas Card, 1929. (Courtesy University of Colorado at Boulder
Historical Collections/University Archives)

him he visualizes a solution and roughs it on paper with a few
strokes of a surprising effectiveness.54
Klauder was an extraordinarily imaginative designer. His talents were
so broad that they extended beyond mastering architecture and the graphic
arts. Klauder had a keen interest in yacht design. The archives at the
University of Pennsylvania include several photographs of a yacht model
Klauder designed including detailed construction documents. He called his
yacht the Cutty Sark.55 A favorite Sunday afternoon activity was to sail his
model yachts, known for their speed, on a lake in a near-by park.56
The firm of Day and Klauder was known for its attention not only to
historic precedent but also to materials. They had a fondness for masonry and
were particularly interested in the texture of roofs and walls. Their office files
were full of sketches and clippings illustrating stonework and brickwork, much
of it from areas in and around Philadelphia where early settlers showed
remarkable artistry in their simple, functional masonry structures.57
54 Ibid., 43.
55 Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania, glass plate negatives, Day and
Klauder Collection # 069.264,1-4.
56 Master Draftsmen, 60. Note: One can imagine Klauder with his son, young
Charles Z. Klauder Jr., on such expeditions. Charles Z. Klauder Jr. also practiced architecture
in Philadelphia and worked in his fathers office. Eventually he set up his own Philadelphia
practice and died in 1972.
57 Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania, glass plate negatives, Day and
Klauder Collection, # 069.56 257.

Day and Klauder developed a specialty in collegiate work, particularly
in the Collegiate Gothic style. Their work at Princeton is an excellent example
of their work based on a Gothic precedent. However they were not exclusive
in their attachment to Gothic. They departed from that approach when the site
and character of their client university seemed to require something different.
Georgian Revival, for example, was used at the University of Delaware and at
Brown University, where they introduced a version of Georgian or Colonial
designed to bring together existing campus architecture under a single
cohesive theme.58
In conclusion, the Philadelphia architectural firm of Day and Klauder
Architects has been examined here in its larger context. The values of a
movement called Academic Eclecticism explain the reactionary attitudes of
the young group of Philadelphia Architects called the T-Square Club. Both
Day and Klauder were integrally involved in this group. These designers
reacted to the way historic precedent was used by their predecessors. The
members of the T-Square Club used precedent only when it was functionally
relevant to the site and to the situation. They never repeated a historic form
for its own sake. The integration of form with site was strongly emphasized by
the T-Square Club members. Their concern tied them a new form of American
58 Halsband, Charles Klauder's Brilliant Invisible Hand, 5.

pride emerging at the turn of the century, which sought to separate American
Architecture from Europe and to celebrate the unique beauty of American
landscape and cultures. It was in this milieu that the firm Day and Klauder
evolved. They were a well-respected firm, not only in Philadelphia, but earned
a recognizable name for themselves throughout the East Coast. Over the
years they developed a particular expertise in the area of University campus
design. Frequently the firms name was associated with the Collegiate Gothic
precedent probably because of the notoriety of their work at the University of
Pennsylvania, Princeton and Wellesley. However they did not work
exclusively in Gothic and were open to other precedents when the context
and functional requirements of the situation appeared to warrant another
approach. In fact style was not a concept they embraced. Like many of their
contemporaries, they preferred to design in a kind of non style that was a
mix of design precedents. Of far greater importance was the appropriateness
of the precedent or precedents to the context and their relevance to the
requirements of the situation.

I got tired of seeing the campus looking like a third
rate farm.59
George Norlin, Campus Beautiful, 1940
This observation by President Emeritus George Norlin provides a
graphic view of the Boulder campus in 1917 before the decision was made to
hire a campus master planner (Illustration 3.1). Norlin made the observation in
a speech given at a dedication honoring the twenty-third year anniversary of
the University building program. He went on to describe the campus in this
way (Illustration 3.2):
The mountains were the same as now. The Flatirons looked the
same, but the campus was bleak and barren and forbidding a
few stark buildings on a bit of waste land ...60
59 George Norlin, Campus Beautiful, Speech delivered at the Dedication of New
Buildings, University of Colorado, 8-9 June 1940. Located in Boulder Historical
Collection/University Archives (Central Administration, Presidents Office, Series:1, Box 35,
Fd 5 Buildings 1917-1940).
60 Ibid.

Illustration 3.1. Birds Eye View, Boulder Campus, 1920. Bass Photo. (Courtesy University of Colorado at Boulder
Historical Collections/University Archives)
When the University decided to hire a master planner to redesign its
campus only forty-two years had passed since 1875 when Boulderites had
proudly witnessed the groundbreaking for the first campus building, called
Old Main today. Then the building, the only one on a barren mesa, was the
University and that is exactly what people called it, The University.
(Illustration 3.3) The first President, Joseph Sewall and his family lived in this
building which also included offices and class rooms and sometimes
accommodations for students in inclement weather. From its inception, the

<^'tvc..,AC >"r .
h^r-^+s} ^vv /l, f f,-x
SU iCfct.U/A
! i*V\
.{jfdt/ yi
.Sunday. June 9, 2:5*) P. M.
Fir Id 1 louv
Saturday. June 8. 2:$0 P. M.
Macky Auditorium
Academic Proccsnnn from New Library to Field louvr
Pietiderit Robert L. Srearm. Presiding
OrganToccata irt F
Oran Rowland W. Dunham
University College of Mu*k
Aiidrm-Comejxion and Realisation of the Campus Beautiful
IVcsidem Kmeritm George Norlin
a University of Colorado
at <>
Address-The Lmverjily and a Sutc-wide Plan of Pulsin' Work*
The Honorable John T. Barneti, Chairman
Colorado State Planning Commission
Music for Two Piano*Gigur
. Bach-Wettel
Coronation Scene from Boris Oodonms Mouaorgify-Paitiion
Professor Mark Weasel
Assistant Professor Sherman Store
s University College of Music
AddressFederal Grants to the Cause of Public Education
John M, Carmtxly, Administrator
United States Public Works Agency
Presitknt Robert L. Stearns, Presiding
ProcessionalPriest s March from Athalia Meadthsokn
Uuivertily Concert Hand
Hugh E. McMillcn, Conductor
* Invocation
The Very Reverend Paul Roberts
Dean of St. Johns Cathedra! of the Episcopal Church
(D fa*
Dedication AddressPublic Education in the Mountain Region
The Honorable Wiley B. Rutledge
Judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeal*
of the District of Columbia
Presentation of the University Buildings to the People of Colorado
Mr. Clifford W. Mill*, Senior Member
Board of Regents of the University

Acceptance of Buildings for the State of Colorado
The Honorable Ralph L. Carr
Governor of Colorado
RecessionalUniversity Grand Match
University Concert Band
Illustration 3.2. Brochure Titled Dedication of New Buildings, University of Colorado, June 8-9, 1940. (Courtesy
University of Colorado at Boulder Historical Collections/University Archives)
campus on the hill was an object of great pride for the community of Boulder.
The town had played critical role in its location. Wealthy and non-wealthy
Boulderites alike contributed matching funds to match the States contribution
of $15,000. Andrew J. Macky, who also donated the funds for Macky
Auditorium, was one of the town fathers who contributed the land.61 This
generosity and enthusiasm ensured that the University was located in Boulder
61 Thomas J. Noel with Dan W. Corson, Boulder County: An Illustrated History
(Boulder: Historic Boulder, Inc., 1999).

rather than another Colorado town. However until 1917, when events
transpired that were to permanently change its future, the University on the
hill was continually scrambling for classroom space and for living
accommodations for its students and even its President.
Illustration 3.3. Old Main, University of Colorado, 1876. (Courtesy University of
Colorado at Boulder Historical Collections/University Archives)

Students and faculty have always seen a University campus as more
than simply a collection of buildings. It is a respite, a place protected from the
outside world, a place that invites the possibility of study, dialogue and
moments of quiet.62 Frances Halsband, former Dean of Architecture at Pratt
Institute, pointed out that a campus is a marketing tool. The impression
created by visiting a campus can make all the difference in whether or not a
student chooses to apply.63 [Thirty-nine] percent of this years freshmen listed
a visit to campus as one of their top three reasons for selecting the college
they attend.64
President Farrand and the Board of Regents at the University of
Colorado were anxious to join the ranks of other universities around the
country that were creating memorable campus environments for their
students. By 1917 they were prepared to take a major step in this direction by
engaging the services of a leading architect and master planner. Because of
his East Coast background, Livingston Farrand had strong opinions about the
caliber of architects who should be selected for the campus. It was Farrands
foresight that led to the selection of a highly respected national architectural
firm for the University of Colorado. It was also Farrands vision and that of
62 Thomas A. Gaines, The Campus as a Work of Art {New York: Praeger, 1991), 10.
63 Halsband, Charles Klauder's Brilliant Invisible Hand, 1.
64 Ibid.

Colorados Governor, Julius Gunter, that made the necessary funds available
for the building program. Fortunately, the voters in Colorado agreed that there
was a need to improve the existing University campus. They passed a mill
levy in 1917 that guaranteed financial assistance to the University over a ten-
year period. Nationalism was building before W.W. I, Americans were willing
to spend large amounts of money on public buildings. What style should be
pursued and how might the campus master plan consider the present and
future needs of its burgeoning student population?
This chapter explores the context in which these decisions were made.
The setting and geology of the town of Boulder will be examined as well as
the state of the campus before an architectural firm was hired to design a
master plan. We will observe the challenges, both environmental and social,
the architects would have to face. We will also discuss the financial
challenges the University had to address, and finally, the opportunities that
made the extensive building program possible.
Boulder and the Geology of the Front Range
Boulder began as a supply location for miners passing through on their
way to the higher elevations searching for gold. In 1917, many roads were still
dirt; the more impressive institutions like Hotel Boulderado, the churches
- 50 -

designed by East Coast architects, and the BPOE Elks Lodge mixed with bars
and run down buildings. However, this did not stop Boulder residents from
boasting that theirs was a city of culture and refinement.65 For many years,
Boulder had been attracting influential residents with high aspirations.
Certainly one explanation for this appeal was its picturesque backdrop of the
Rocky Mountain foothills.
The reason for the picturesque backdrop is the unique geology of the
region. Consideration of the geology of the areas in and around Boulder is
important to this study because of the role the environment played in
subsequent design decisions that were made regarding the Boulder campus.
These decisions involved both the architectural design and the selection of
masonry materials for the architecture. The landscape around Boulder is
characterized by hogbacks and foothills made up of thick layers of exposed
"resistant sandstone."66 This sandstone is composed of quartz and feldspar,
eroded from pre-Cambrian era rocks in the mountains to the west. The
material was brought by winds, inland rivers, and seas to its present site. It
was then deposited at the foot of the Rocky Mountains as sand dunes
approximately 250 million years ago. Eventually the grains cemented together
65 Drumms Pocket map, 1908, Carnegie Library, Boulder, Colorado.
66 Jack Murphy, Geology Tour of Denvers Buildings and Monuments (Denver:
Historic Denver, Inc., 1995), 14.
-51 -

and became the solid beds of sandstone we see today.67 The resulting
geological formation is called the Lyons Formation and extends from
Colorado Springs north to the Colorado-Wyoming border.
The town of Lyons and the Lyons Formation were named for E. S.
Lyons, a miner who came to Colorado from Connecticut seeking his fortune in
gold. Mr. Lyons was not successful in the mining business but knew about
quarrying and recognized the marketable potential of the stone near present-
day Lyons.68 Lyons quarry was only the first of many successful quarries to
be developed in the area. The stone near the town of Lyons is easier to
quarry than other sandstone deposits because of the way the stone is
exposed at the surface in angled strata (Illustration 2.4).69 Before a railroad
spur connected the town of Lyons to the main rail lines in 1887, all of the
stone had to be hauled by horse and wagon to Longmont. By 1917, however,
railroad access to Boulder from Lyons and surrounding communities was
direct and relatively inexpensive, making Lyons Formation sandstone a
natural building material considered for the University building program.
67 Ibid.
68 Our Stones Gather Moss: Lyons Sandstone Quarry History Documentary, Lyons
History Video Project, Project Director: Kathleen Spring, Narrated by Lyons Historian Al Pace
with interviews of local quarry owners and Jack Murphy, Geologist.
69 Field trip with Lyons Historian Al Pace. Boone Quarry, north of the town of Lyons,
Colorado, yields pink to red rock. The quarry known first as the Murphy Quarry, then
Brody, Sterling, and currently Boone has provided stone for the University of Colorado.

Illustration 3.4. Bill Boone's Quarry Near Lyons, Colorado, Summer 2005. (Author's Collection)
The 1917 University Campus in Boulder
In the year 1917, the University of Colorado was simply an unrelated
collection of buildings. Many on campus were beginning to think about the
need for improvements even though the financial means for change did not
exist yet. This is clear from comments like those of Leslie Robbins,
Purchasing Agent for the University of Colorado. Robbins provided a detailed
account of the rural University of Colorado campus as it appeared in 1917
(Illustration 3.5).70
70 Leslie Robbins, No Title, Colorado Alumnus, November 1939, 5. Note: Leslie
Robbins at this time was the University Purchasing Agent; in William E. Davis, Glory
Colorado! The University of Colorado 1858-1963 (Boulder. Pruett Press, 1965), 255.

13, 9. Women's Dormitories
4, Dining Halls
6. Hate Science Building
7. Administration Building
8. Social Center Building
9. Theater
10. Guggenheim Law Building
11, 12. Science Building
13. Medical Buildings
14. Dennison Memorial Building
19-17. Medical Buildings
18. Womens Gymnasium
19. Science Building
20. Library
21. Physics Laboratory
22. Liberal Am Building
23. Mackey Auditorium
24. President's House
29. School of Engineering
26-28. Shops
29. Mens Gymnasium
30. Kitchen Building
31. Dining Hells
32-37. MensDormitorics
Illustration 3.5. Day and Klauder Architects, Proposed Campus Plan, 1917. (Courtesy University of Colorado at
Boulder Historical Collections/University Archives)
In the earlier days of the University, building seems to have
been done with no attempt at a consistent and harmonious
effect. You can see that in the various styles of the older
buildings on campus. Money for buildings was rare, and any
sort of building anywhere was welcomed with acclaim. East of
Macky there was an extensive weed patch. There was no
entrance to the campus from the north. A railroad ran along its
northeastern boundary. Recitations and lectures in the
Engineering building ceased whenever a struggling, whistling
freight began lurching up the hill.
A road entered the campus at Pennsylvania Avenue [now
Colorado Avenue] and split, one branch proceeded to the west
of the Hale Building and the other ambled off between the

Womens cottage and the Law Building, thence eastward behind
the old Library ... and past the north end of Gamble Field. There
was no paving. The perpetual wind kicked up clouds of dust.71
During the earliest building period (before 1917), a collection of buildings had
emerged which were unrelated stylistically.72
In 1917 the University of Colorado was still relatively small with an
enrollment of 1,500 students73 They were a rowdy and itinerant group. Just
staying in school was a challenge for many. Some wanted to leave school
and serve in the war.74 There were many other distractions. Some Colorado
students were attracted to a romantic Western life that did not include a
college education and was immediately more remunerative. Those who
stayed in Boulder did not always have studying on their minds. Some
preferred dressing up and others a good fight.
One of the most familiar figures of Boulder is the college student
with his short curve-stemmed pipe, flashy neck-tie, the new-
style pompadour hair cut and abbreviated hat tilted to one side
71 Ibid..
72 See Appendix C. Buildings on University of Colorado Campus When Day and
Klauder Arrived 1917-1918.
73 The present enrollment at the University of Colorado is approximately 30,000
students and graduates, available at
(Accessed October 2005). In 1915, the tuition at Colorado University was fifteen dollars a
year for a resident of Colorado.
74 World War I began in 1917.

and rolled-up trousers displaying rainbow-hued hose. See one,
see many.75
These dandies very quickly degenerated to their rough and rugged
origins. The wild side of the Colorado undergraduate was most apparent
after a football victory. William Davis, author of Glory Colorado, reports a
couple of such instances.76 One occurred in 1911 after a Colorado victory
over the University of Utah and another in 1914 after a victory over rival
Golden School of Mines. When the games were over, the students paraded
through town grabbing anything flammable in their path. Boulder residents
reacted to the noisy students by throwing eggs at them. The students
undeterred, started a huge bonfire. Firemen brought hoses and turned them
on the students. The students then cut the fire hoses with pocketknives.77
These events did not do much to improve the relations between town and
gown in Boulder.
75 Mt. St. Gertrudes Academy Student, No Title, Silver and Gold 18, 27 January
1910, 5; in William E. Davis, Glory Colorado!, 193.
76 Silver and Gold 20, 20 November 1911, 1-2; in William E. Davis, Glory Colorado!,
77 Ibid, with 239.

Early Twentieth-Century College Campus Design
An architectural identity for the University of Colorado in 1917 was just
a dream in the minds of some members of the faculty and administration.
However, other colleges and universities were already pursuing elaborate
plans based on values and leading design philosophies of the time regarding
what constituted the ideal academic environment.
Many academics at the turn of the century favored the use of multiple
styles in campus design. This point of view gave little thought to the long-term
future of the campus design. However, they justified their position by arguing
that it was in the best interest of the students to expose them to a variety of
different architectural styles. The position was a reaction to another trend in
American campus design which favored unification of buildings to a single
architectural style. Jeffersons Georgian architecture at the University of
Virginia is an example. This uniform approach to style was becoming
increasingly popular among early twentieth century campus architects on the
East Coast, including Day and Klauder.
For Ivy League colleges in the East, the unifying style of choice was
frequently Academic Gothic.78 Influenced by John Ruskin and his romantic
writing on Gothic architecture, this stylistic preference was particularly
78 Gaines, The Campus as a Work of Art, 3-4.

pronounced after the Civil War.79 Examples of Academic Gothic architecture
from the period are: the Princeton University Campus by Cope and
Stewardson and Day and Klauder (See Illustration 2.13); The Quadrangle at
the University of Pennsylvania, by Cope and Stewardson (Illustration 3.6 and
Illustration 3.6. Cope and Stewardson, The Quadrangle, University of Pennsylvania, 1894-1912.
(Authors Collection)
3.7); Union College (Nott Memorial Library by Edward T Potter 1860-75); and
Harvard (Memorial Hall 1866-78 by Ware and Van Brunt). Alexander Davis
(1803-1892), a leading Gothic college architect, produced Classical and
Gothic styles for at least twelve universities including New York University.
79 Pitluga, "Charles Z. Klauder at Penn State," 62.

Embury expressed the feelings of many in the academic community: Gothic
[is]) being used [at Princeton] no longer as a tradition but as a modern and
living architectural style.80
Gothic was popular because it was flexible in form and drew on cultural
associations with European universities designed in the ecclesiastical model
after medieval (Gothic) monasteries. Gothic Revival architecture had many
positive associations including age, respectability, religious associations
(which appealed particularly to theologically oriented institutions) and a
romantic association with the medieval period.81 The symbolism of Gothic was
important because it evoked associations with Christian values. By the end of
the nineteenth century, many academics had traveled to England and seen
Oxford and Cambridge. The use of Academic Gothic was a way to create
American Oxfords, with all that the term implies as it relates to history and
prestige. The University of Colorado, a relatively new and rural university was
anxious to associate itself with such esteemed institutions, both on the east
coast and in Europe.
There were some exceptions to this Gothic trend, particularly in the
western United States. Institutions in the West felt free to adopt regional
80 Embury, The New University of Colorado Buildings, 71.
81 Pitluga, "Charles Z. Klauder at Penn State," 62.
- 59 -

Illustration 3.7. Cope and Stewardson, The Quadrangle, University of Pennsylvania, 1894-1912. (Authors Collection)
solutions.82 One example is the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.
Under the Presidency of William G. Tight in 1903, the University of New
82 Embury references this sense of design freedom when discussing the University of
Colorado: As the university is in the Southwest, an architecture suggestive of its location
should be adopted. Embury, The New University of Colorado Buildings, 72.

Mexico began promoting a new regional architectural approach.83 84 85 The style
that evolved provided a recognizable identity for the University and related it,
in character, to local Native American and Hispanic vernacular forms. It also
had the advantage of being cost effective and sustainable since it did not
require transportation of expensive building material. The first building built in
this style was Hodgin Hall, completed in 1909. The architect for Hodgin Hall
used an Hispanic Catholic church in Ranchos de Taos as his precedent (see
Illustration 2.5).84 85
Gothic for the University of Colorado
... the trustees of Colorado University asked if the English
Gothic style could be used as a keynote or motive for their new
Aymar Embury II, The New University of Colorado Buildings
When the University began interviewing architects for its building
program it was assumed that the architectural style for the campus would be
Academic Gothic. One building in this style was already under construction on
83 Nicholas C. Markovich, Wolfgang F.E. Preiser, Fred G. Sturm (ed.), Pueblo Style
and Regional Architecture {New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989), 217.
84 Ibid., 217. This innovative approach to campus architecture predates even the
(1912) discussion in Santa Fe, New Mexico over adoption of unifying regional style for The
City Different. Essay by Michael E. Welsh, Symbol and Reality.
85 Another exception to Gothic in the western United States: Stanford University,
Charles Allerton Coolidge, 1891, Richardsonian Romanesque, Stanford, California.
86 Embury, The New University of Colorado Buildings, 72.
- 61 -

campus Macky Auditorium, designed by Gove and Walsh, a local Denver
firm, and begun in 1907 (illustration 3.8).87This first Gothic style major building
Illustration 3.8. Gove and Walsh, Macky Auditorium, University of Colorado,
1909-21. (Courtesy University of Colorado Publications)
on campus was intended to pave the way for the Tudor Gothic approach
inspired by the English academic tradition of Cambridge and Oxford.88
87 Because of problems settling Andrew Macky's estate, the building was still
incomplete when Klauder visited in 1917. Another Academic Gothic building designed for the
University by Gove & Walsh was the Heating Plant (1909).

Andrew J. Macky, a prominent Boulder banker, had bequeathed funds for the
new auditorium to the University. The building was to house administrative
offices and a 2,800-seat auditorium. This auditorium, it was hoped, would help
bridge the gap between the town and the campus. The generous seating
could accommodate both town and campus functions.88 89 Symbolically, it was
sited between town and campus, just on the edge of the bluff that separated
the campus from the town, north of Old Main. Macky died shortly after the
cornerstone for the building was put in place but it took another thirteen years
to complete the building.
A Pressing Need for More Campus Buildings
Meanwhile, enrollment at the University of Colorado continued to climb.
It was apparent that an eminent need existed for additional campus
buildings.90 This had become evident as early as 1913 to the Board of
Regents.91 By 1917, there were 1,500 students at the University.92 More
88 Davis, Glory Colorado!, 16.
89 Ibid.
90 See Appendix C: Buildings on University of Colorado Campus When Day and
Klauder Arrived 1917-1918.
91 Minutes, Board of Regents (hereafter as BOR), 3 December 1913, located in
University of Colorado at Boulder Historical Collections/University Archives, Regents
Minutes, 17 April 1911 16 May 1924.

classrooms and living accommodations were critical. Because of the war,
there was an emphasis on engineering education, and the University began
planning immediately for a new engineering building. Additional shop and
laboratory spaces were also needed, so the other requirements had to
temporarily go on hold.
The Role of Governor Gunter
On 7 November 1916, Julius C. Gunter was elected Governor of
Colorado. This was important to the developments at the University because
from 1913 on the future Governor played a key role in these financial
developments. Before becoming Governor, Gunter had been a member of the
Board of Regents. By the time he left the Board of Regents to become
governor, Gunter had been on the University of Colorado Board of Regents
for several years and had inside knowledge of the pressing needs of the
University for more classroom and dormitory space.
At Julius C. Gunters first Board of Regents meeting on 13 December
1913, he heard President Bakers farewell remarks. Bakers remarks included
special emphasis on the pressing need for additional campus buildings. 92
92 University of Colorado enrollment records for 1887 available at (Accessed October 2005).

Presciently, Baker suggested in this farewell speech that funds might be
secured through the implementation of a tax levy for higher education by the
State Legislature.93
At a 7 June 1915 Board of Regents meeting, also attended by Gunter,
President Bakers successor, President Farrand, again emphasized the need
for additional campus buildings. The total long-term cost of the required
buildings, Farrand projected, would be between one to one-and-one-half
million dollars.94 The greatest current need, he said, was for a mens building
and a womens building [dormitories].95
These speeches by Presidents Baker and Farrand made an
impression on Gunter. When he became Governor of Colorado he proposed a
ten-year levy to the state legislature on the real property of the State of
Colorado96 specifically earmarked for capital construction projects at
institutions of higher education. Governor Gunter strongly supported the mill
levy.97 For many years, he had advocated a major program of construction for
93 Albert A. Bartlett, George Norlin and the Development of the Campus, (paper
presented at The George Norlin Symposium, 11 April 1995); Unpublished Manuscript,
Authors Files, Department of Physics, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, 6.
94 Minutes, BOR, 7 June 1915.
95 Ibid.
96 Davis, Glory Colorado!, 16.
97 Bartlett, George Norlin and the Development of the Campus, 7-8.

the University of Colorado.98 The voters of Colorado passed the mill tax levy.
Two years later by 1918 the University was receiving approximately
$150,000 a year, a considerable sum for the time. This is the equivalent of
$2,382,186 a year in comparable purchasing power today.99 This explains the
source of funding that allowed a previously struggling University to begin
planning an extensive building program and interviewing architects for its
campus master plan.
The Mill Levy of 1917
In March 1917, the campus newspaper, The Silver and Gold, reported:
Needed Funds for Building Now Assured.
Our appropriation bill has passed the Senate for the first
reading. A measure providing for a yearly income of $144,000
for ten years and $96,000 annually for maintenance during the
same period which was passed in the lower house sometime
ago have been approved by a large majority in the upper house
and will become law as soon as Governor Gunter, who is much
in favor of the new plan puts his signature on it.100
98 Ibid.
99 S. Morgan Friedman, The Inflation Calculator; available at accessed July 2005.
100 Silver and Gold 25, 20 March 1917; in Bartlett, George Norlin and the
Development of the Campus, 8.

Once the tax levy was passed, long range planning became possible,
and professional architectural direction was needed to guide the long-term
planning process. The Mill Levy stated the following:
... beginning with the year 1917, upon all taxable property in the
state for the use of the University of eight-hundredths of a mill
for the support and maintenance of the institution.101
This was the opening for which the Regents had been looking. Now
they required professional advisors for a scheme that would improve the
existing University campus.102 They could proceed with their plan to hire an
architecture firm to develop a campus master plan and initiate a building
program for the University.103 At the 18 April 1917 meeting, President Farrand
gave authorization for the Board to begin interviewing architecture firms for
the design of the master plan.104
Colorado Voters Want Local Architects And Materials
The Board of Regents agreed to interview outside architectural firms
only after an extensive search that included several local architectural firms.
101 Davis, Glory Colorado!, 251.
102 Charles Z. Klauder (hereafter CZK) to George Norlin (hereafter GN), 15 November
1918, located in University of Colorado at Boulder Historical Collection/University Archives,
(Central Administration, Presidents Office, Series: 1, Box: 35, Fd 5 Buildings 1917-1940).
Note: Klauder indicates his concern for improvement.
103 Bartlett, George Norlin and the Development of the Campus, 8-9.
104 Ibid.

Local Colorado architects refused to be overlooked and expressed their
opinion that since the financing was to come from Colorado taxpayers, a
Colorado firm should be selected for the job. On 24 January 1918, Maurice B.
Biscoe (Secretary of Colorado Chapter, AIA) wrote the Board of Regents a
letter that included the following quote:
The architects of Colorado respectfully ask that you employ a
Colorado architect for this work. There are as able architects in
Colorado as elsewhere. Should you deem it necessary in order
to demonstrate their ability, we suggest that you have a
competition for the architects of this state ... Colorado architects
as taxpayers should have the first consideration.105
When the first building was finally under construction, another issue
raised by Colorado taxpayers threatened to slow down progress. The
university was concerned about obtaining the necessary sandstone in a timely
and efficient manner. The state legislature had instituted a law requiring all
building materials for the University, including cut stone, to be purchased in
Colorado. This caused a problem for the contractors at the University who
had discovered that by purchasing sandstone from a quarry in Indiana
(Bedford Quarries) they could save $8,000.106 When the Colorado stone-
cutters (Turkey Creek Quarry in Pueblo) discovered the University planned to
105 Ibid., 21.
106 W.C. Huntington to Building Committee, 9 June 1920, University of Colorado at
Boulder Historical Collection/University Archives (Central Administration, Presidents Office,
Series: 1, Box: 35, Fd 5 Buildings 1917-1940).
- 68 -

contract with a quarry in Indiana for the light sandstone trim on the new
building, they were furious. The Colorado quarry offered the University a
faster delivery time.107 The University agreed to their demands; however, the
faster delivery time proved unrealistic. The University still struggled to get the
needed construction done before winter arrived in 1920. W. C. Huntington, a
professor in the Engineering Department who had taken on the job of
supervisor of construction, expressed his frustration to Mr. L.H. Fitzgerald, a
state official, in a letter dated 7 September 1920:
As you know there was considerable opposition to this contract
by the stone cutters of the state and considering the better
promise of delivery by the Turkey Creek Quarries we asked to
be released from our contract with the Bedford Quarries
[Indiana], The way the matter has actually worked out is that the
Turkey Creek stone has not been delivered as promised, which
has meant a considerable delay in the building.108
The correspondence between Huntington at the University and Fitzgerald,
representing the state, is indicative of the constant hurdles the University
faced during the construction process.
107 William R. Deno, Body and Soul: Architectural Style at the University of Colorado
at Boulder (Boulder: Publications Service University of Colorado at Boulder, 1994), endnote
#23, p. 39.
108 W. C. Huntington to L. H. Fitzgerald, 7 September 1920, University of Colorado at
Boulder Historical Collection/University Archives (Central Administration, Presidents Office,
Series: 1, Box: 35, Fd 5 Buildings 1917-1940).

The hurdles created by the citizens of the state of Colorado and by
local contractors and architects were directly related to the passage of the mill
levy by Colorado taxpayers. The mill levy thus found its place as an important
component in the distinctive regional campus architecture at the University.
Without the passage of the mill levy, there could have been no building
program. The levy provided funding in the short term for a building program,
but more importantly because the funds were projected over a ten-year
period they provided long-term funding. This allowed the University, with
the help of their architects, to consider a master plan and an architectural
design program that would extend for at least for ten years and consider not
just the present needs of the University and its students but future needs as
Dean Hellems Represents a Contentious Faculty
First of all let me say I have no patience with the theory of
uniform style of architecture adopted once and for all. It has
been my good luck to see a reasonable number of famous
buildings, including the temples of Nikko and the Taj Mahal: and
it does not need the authorization of specialists to enable one to
realize that the great builders, Greek, or Gothic, Japanese or
Mogul, wrought in accord with their needs and aims a style that
- 70 -

developed historically. And this is the respect in which many of
our great universities are making a serious mistake.109
Fred Hellems, Architecture About the Campus, 1911
When Fred Hellems110 wrote these words in 1911 for the Campus
Alumnus, the University of Colorado campus was comprised of a mixture of
architectural styles. Construction of the first building in the Academic Gothic
style Macky Auditorium had begun, and there was some support for the
idea of continuing Gothic as the campus style of choice. The University had a
mix of personalities with varying agendas; some faculty members had
traveled abroad and felt that having a variety of historic revival styles on
campus was positive because it would educate students about architectural
and world history.111 Others who had been exposed to the sophisticated East
Coast campuses, where it had become popular to blend pre-existing styles
into a single master plan with a cohesive stylistic identity, thought this was the
superior approach. One of the most outspoken voices in this discussion was
Dean of Arts and Sciences, Fred Hellems, who sided with those who favored
diversity of architectural styles. If this approach had been adopted it would
have continued the existing campus trend. Even President Norlin initially
109 Fred B. R. Hellems, Architecture About the Campus, Campus Alumnus {May
1911): 5-6.
110 A future Dean at the University for whom Hellems Hall was named.
111 See Appendix C: Buildings on University of Colorado Campus When Day and
Klauder Arrived 1917-1918
-71 -

expressed some uncertainty about the adoption of a single style for the
campus as opposed to a variety of styles.112 After the mill levy passed,
President Norlin recalled in his 1940 speech, debate began in earnest about
the style of the proposed, new campus buildings:
In addition to the concern about the functional value of the new
buildings, there arose a strong aesthetic interest in their
appearance and architecture.113
Classics Professor George Norlin
Yet, I have felt that the physical beauty of the campus a
campus worthy of the splendid setting with which nature has
endowed it, a campus worthy to be the outward frame of the
Universitys soul, would be an educational place enhancing the
morale and spirit of all who come into and go forth from its halls.
That is why I have had a great interest in the material
development of the campus.114
George Norlin, Campus Beautiful,1940
George Norlin was a well-liked Classics professor when the story
related in this study began. However, he was to become a critical player in the
decisions surrounding the Universitys designs. Norlin originally came to
Colorado because of his fragile health. He soon discovered that it was not just
112 Davis, Glory Colorado!, 255. Norlin was convinced of the merits of a consistent
approach when Day and Klauder became involved.
113 Norlin, Campus Beautiful.
114 Ibid.

the healthy air that attracted him. Norlin grew to love the Colorado mountains
for their physical beauty. He already seen much of the world and traveled
through Europe, where he bicycled and rode horses in little towns in France
and in Greece. When he arrived in Colorado, Norlin had a lot to compare it to.
He was so taken by the scenic beauty of Boulder that he accepted the job
immediately.115 Norlins awareness of the uniquely beautiful setting of the
University made him receptive to later suggestions that the best style for the
University would be one that blended the campus with its foothills setting.
Norlin was both a Classical scholar and an experienced administrator.
He had already served once as Acting President for a short period between
the end of President Bakers administration and the beginning of President
Farrands. The author of Glory Colorado! has this to say about Norlin:
[he was]... held in deep affection and admiration by faculty,
alumni and students, because of his keen mind, sound
judgements, and kindly heart ...116
Despite his skills with people, all accounts characterize Norlin as a
reluctant administrator.117 He preferred teaching Classics, boxing (a favorite
115 Davis, Glory Colorado!, 243.
116 Ibid.
117 This is especially odd given the fact that he was President of the University for
twenty years.

hobby), fishing, almost anything to being an administrator.118 This turned out
to be an advantage to Norlin who others recognized as a humble and genuine
individual. It was apparent that his ambitions were not for himself but for the
University. The faculty and other administrators genuinely liked him, and his
extraordinary ability with people created an innovative and visionary
atmosphere at the University.
A Cautious Board of Regents
Even after the mill levy passed, guaranteeing the University $144,000
a year for a ten-year building program, the Board of Regents proceeded
cautiously in implementing any decisions related to the building program.
Klauder first visited the campus in July of 1917 but a contract with the
architects was not formally agreed upon and signed for many months, April of
The caution displayed by the Board of Regents in moving forward with
the building program can be explained partly by the entry of the United States
into World War I in April 1917. Almost immediately, the priorities at the
University shifted to focusing resources on the war effort. Regent Regan in
particular wrote long memos to his colleagues about the importance of waiting
118 Davis, Glory Colorado!, 243.

until the end of the war to focus on the building program.119 His reasons
included the high cost of the war work at the University that would compete
with the campus-building project.120 He was referring to many projects at the
University that coincided with the war. These included special research
projects particularly in the area of engineering and the demand for a new
Engineering building to provide class room space for new engineering
students. In addition to an increased load in some fields the University
provided space for the housing and training of recruits.121
President Livingston Farrand Visits Philadelphia
Once funds were assured for a ten-year building program at the
University, President Farrand recognized that this was only the beginning. He
understood that the design itself was critical to the Universitys future. It was
not just the style that was important but the quality of the design and its
meaning in the larger context of the contemporary architectural dialogue. He
recognized the need to find a high quality professional firm to serve as
advisors and master planners for the University. Farrand took the initiative,
with all of these requirements in mind, interviewing architectural firms he knew
119 Minutes, BOR. Minutes 1918 include letter from Regent Regan.
120 Ibid.
121 Davis, Glory Colorado!, 243-247.

to be the premier designers in the field. He arranged a personal trip to the
East Coast for this purpose. Farrand wanted a firm with the experience
necessary to assist the University in developing a master plan along the lines
of the sophisticated campus architecture he had observed at East Coast
When Livingston Farrand became President in 1914, he had high
aspirations for the University of Colorado. He was an efficient
businessman,122 but Farrands knowledge extended further than the study of
business. He had degrees and experience in medicine and psychology.
Farrand earned a B.A. in psychology from Princeton in 1888 and a medical
degree at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University in
New York City. He was familiar with East Coast culture and architecture,
having spent time in New Jersey and New York. He also traveled abroad,
studying in England at Cambridge and in Germany at the University of Berlin.
Because of his cosmopolitan background, Farrand was interested in elevating
the standards of the University of Colorado academically and its stature
architecturally. He envisioned the University as one of the foremost
institutions in the West, one that would be equally proficient in the humanities,
122 Davis, Glory Colorado!, 227.

social and physical sciences.123 In his view, this meant it would have to look
like one of the foremost institutions in the West.
Farrand was a Princeton graduate; he graduated in 1888 with a degree
in psychology. During the time he spent at Princeton, Farrand saw the
campus architecture designed by Day and Klauder and by their predecessors,
Cope and Stewardson. It is not surprising, given these connections with
Princeton that Farrand knew about Day and Klauder. The firm was still
involved in completing the dormitories at Princeton. Farrand personally
traveled to Philadelphia in the spring of 1917 to interview Day and Klauder in
their Chestnut Street office.
In spite of the demands of Colorado architects for equal consideration,
President Farrand decided to recommend an out-of-state architectural firm to
the Board of Regents. The Board accepted Farrands lead and voted to
finalize arrangements with Day and Klauder Architects on 27 February 1918.
However, a concession was made to Colorado architects. The Board
specified that an architect in Colorado would be involved with the project to
supervise construction and carry on business administration,124 and asked
Day and Klauder to submit names of Colorado architects with whom they
123 Ibid.
124 Minutes, BOR, 27 February, 1918.

would like to be associated.125 Day and Klauder agreed that it would be wise
to have a local architect to attend to business administration and construction.
Day wrote that they had not settled on a particular architect but Mr. Maurice
Biscoe was one possibility.126 They also mentioned several other local
architects whom they knew by reputation, Mr. Eugene Groves of Denver and
Mr. Thomas MacLaren of Colorado Springs.127
Livingston Farrand set the stage for the University to work with the
Philadelphia architects. However, Farrand did not have much time to pursue
his interest in design and the master planning at the University of Colorado.
The United States entered World War I on 6 April 1917 about the time
Farrand began his initial correspondence with Day and Klauder. Shortly after
the war began, Farrand was appointed director of an anti-tuberculosis
commission for the Red Cross. Three years after he assumed the presidency
of the University of Colorado, Farrand left Boulder for his war-related duties in
125 Bartlett, George Norlin and the Development of the Campus, 22.
126 Day & Klauder Architects (hereafter D&K) to GN, 9 March 1918, located at
University of Colorado at Boulder Historical Collection/University Archives (Central
Administration, Series: 1, Box: 35: Fd 5 Buildings 1917-1940). Note: During his visit to
Colorado in April 1918, Frank Day took the time to call Maurice Biscoe and interview him by
phone. Day wrote to Dr. Norlin that he was most favorably impressed by [Briscoe].
127 It is likely the Regents also considered Gove & Walsh, designers of Macky
Auditorium. However, the local Denver firm Fisher & Fisher was hired by the University to
work with Day and Klauder as the first building was constructed. During a later period of
campus construction, Glen Huntington of Boulder was the on-site supervising architect and,
at a still later point, Temple Buell.
- 78 -

France in May of 1917. When he left he appointed Dr. George Norlin, the
popular Classics professor mentioned earlier in this chapter, to serve as
Acting President during his absence. However, Farrand never had the
opportunity to return to his duties at the University. Acting President Norlin
tried to keep Farrand involved in the campus design planning, but it quickly
became evident that the demands on Farrand during the war were too great
for him to maintain his involvement with the campus project.128
In conclusion, it was President Farrand who recognized that if the
University wanted to establish a design identity comparable to other well
respected Universities in the country, it would be necessary to hire a
sophisticated East Coast design firm. With this in mind he personally traveled
to Philadelphia to interview the most highly respected campus architects in
the country, Day and Klauder. However Farrand was only able to set the
project in motion. We will see in the next chapter that it was up to others, like
George Norlin, the Board of Regents, the faculty and the architects
themselves, to bring the vision of personalities like President Farrand and
Governor Gunter to fruition.
128 When Farrand returned from his war-related responsibilities, he became President
of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, which also hired the firm Day and Klauder to design
its campus buildings.

Denver is a fine city but Boulder very much less so. The
campus is beautiful and the scenery (the mountains are always
in the picture) very fine.129
Charles Klauder, letter to Herbert Wise, 1917
In this chapter we see what happened when the Philadelphia
architects, Day and Klauder, stepped off the train in Boulder. One thing is
clear from a letter Klauder wrote the first day he arrived; he was not
impressed by the rugged, western town.130 However, he did say he found the
surroundings very beautiful.
It wasnt long after Farrands visit to Philadelphia in the spring of 1917
that Day and Klauder proposed a visit to Boulder.131 Once they actually saw
the University, both architects noted the unique qualities of the setting. This
129 CZK to Herbert Wise, 2 July 1917, transcript in the Boulder Historical
Collection/University Archives (Central Administration, Presidents Office, Series: 1, Box: 35
Fd 5 Buildings 1917-1940).
130 Ibid.
131 This was an exploratory visit, and they asked only that the University cover their
- 80 -

led them almost immediately to begin questioning the suitability of Collegiate
Gothic for the campus, though they had no obvious alternative. They began
searching for a precedent that would tie the campus to its surroundings. Their
challenge was finding an appropriate regional design to draw from, in a part of
America that had no pre-existing regional design tradition.
Day and Klauder brought with them ideas and values that represented
the leading edge of early twentieth-century college campus design. In 1917,
Boulder and Denver had not yet been exposed to sophisticated architects of
the caliber of Day and Klauder. We will explore this fortuitous meeting of east
and west along with its result, the distinctive University of Colorado campus.
Day and Klauder Challenge the Existing Campus Plans
The first to arrive was Charles Klauder; Frank Miles Day had to
postpone his visit because of illness. Klauder planned to travel to Boulder
because his firm had requested to tour the Boulder campus before they
proceeded with negotiations. The following quote from Day and Klauder is an
indication of the importance they placed on visiting the site in order to provide
a thorough analysis of the requirements of the job:
To be informed as to the probable future needs of it as
represented by buildings, carefully to inspect the campus, to
consider the problem from the point of view of those connected
- 81 -

with the institution as well as from the architectural point of view,
to discuss the whole problem freely while on the ground ...132
A letter addressed to President George Norlin from Day and Klauder
dated 21 June 1917 stated that Klauder was due to arrive in Boulder on 2 July
1917.133 Klauder stayed at the Hotel Boulderado.134 On the day he arrived,
Klauder wrote a letter on Boulderado stationery to his colleague Herbert C.
Wise from which the quote at the beginning of this chapter was taken
(Illustration 4.1).135 We know that Boulder was still a rough western town
reflecting its mining depot origins when Klauder arrived.
The Boulderado Hotel, where Klauder stayed, was located on
Thirteenth Street. The citizens of Boulder had gone to great expense to build
a hotel that they considered a fine and stylish example of eclectic
architecture. Built in 1909, the Boulderado was an established institution
when Klauder was a guest.136 Its grand style was intended to impress out-of-
132 Frank Miles Day (hereafter FMD) to Livingston Farrand, 17 May 1917, transcript in
the Boulder Historical Collection/University Archives (Central Administration, Presidents
Office, Series: 1, Box: 35 Fd 5 Buildings 1917-1940). D&K offered to make this visit to
Boulder for $1,000, including time and expenses.
133 Klauder arrived on an unusually hot, mid-summer day. The Boulder Daily Camera
predicted, Tonight and Tuesday fair, warmer tonight. The Clover Leaf Creamery was taking
phone orders for ice cream. War news was also heating up. A headline read, Cossacks
Sweep Over Galician and Give Stinging to the Germans.
134 Room rates were between one and three dollars a day.
135 Wise is co-author of Klauders book, College Architecture in America.
136 Redding and Son was the architecture firm that designed the Boulderado.


ilcTivi/- i.
/ fn.
^~y w6 4 " <3 . &u-. f -i-9 *-*
c£( £~e ^C/C. a*. /- j}^
G /?< tmfcrcf~>
clt^/ &,*%* £ow^jXa-? -iiftl/ ~~^5 G
^Hr£ tOaZZj *~o caut
/<3 LA 6^I ^*^^^** OL&S^y ^
J .-$J/Ccs Ac// ^ o4blA RU,
A) C/w-J ^"^e/ CC-\^~\ t - ^ ^ -/-. L
>jtc*s9 £^.00 /U<^t#,o Q j-'Cvj
^ ££*<**> LA^Cr £*r**. Am C{-, 'A^V XA U
££rt*~oj ^ ^fu/ u**.ct tyL&+^-ZZ^ g*Cj{
d-4^ 'C* ^ a. ^
XVKPMTTP-Cjf *£-0 yh-A-a&
i-Jt%g^o4 <<-*-/ l^L^, v '. Xv'V^fct^y f f fj t1 f. .
ilc'rivi/- L.
-J Mcltt*
t+4. f^y CY *r ^/r^yft*^Z y/ /^w
* £*rCr&

?yu ^ cg.'JXaX*
^Vx*x*y ^Zt^EdA- y A-L, Ca--r^AuA ^<* 1 c£--~
lAA^V r'-A/l w ^Cav^.AXxLpm^ £* U-Z^v/.
^ -AA^XI/Lly
's&fe ki^cLfi /rn ^CdjHtuZ* /*?-- ---^ -"y #-£*.7+*^ _
a* /Vm (V-?A cC/jLtf
$cft£ct+& j£z~. CX& X 'V?7< £^cl^_ &r/c0:tfc
C£m^*AS\ ji /f Z?Us^ (l~y >V\do/ A^n . &tyy\J **, ^
Lr .
4- ^8>w^
cp3-Aec^C/ Avu.
J*dbU> ^ 6
fisfu* X~rfi~. n. -*-y
^ sC&rvfp

Illustration. 4.1. Letter on Boulderado Stationery, from Charles Klauder to Herbert Wise, 2 July 1917. (Courtesy
University of Colorado at Boulder Historical Collections/University Archives.
town visitors. It was an eclectic building, a combination of Italianate and
Mission styles, designed by Redding and Son, Architects (Illustration 4.2).
The lobby was an open atrium with a glass Italian ceiling. The interior followed
the late nineteenth century fancy for central courtyards, modeled after the
Palace Hotel in San Francisco.137 However, this building and others in Boulder
represented everything Klauder and his Philadelphia colleagues were reacting
137 Silvia Pettem, Legend of a Landmark: A History of the Hotel Boulderado (Boulder,
Colorado: The Book Lode, 1986), 13.

against. The Boulderado and the Elks Lodge across the street were the kind
of eclectic buildings his Victorian predecessors in Philadelphia had designed.
Klauder preferred that architecture show more attention to function and
context, not just a faithful rendition of historic styles such as the examples he
observed in Boulder.
Illustration 4.2. Redding and Son, Hotel Boulderado, Boulder, Colorado, 1909.
(Courtesy University of Colorado at Boulder Historical Collections/University
A dilemma for the architects, which Klauder noted right away, was the
local stone. Their previous work showed a preference for the use of local
stone. However, Klauder initially was not happy with the qualities of the stone
he found near Boulder.138 The local stone was Lyons Formation sandstone.
138 CZK to Herbert Wise, 2 July 1917.

Klauder said he found the color too pink and the texture disappointing,
especially when used in large ashlar blocks.139 During his short visit he had
adequate opportunity to study the quality and nature of the local stone. On the
Boulder campus alone Klauder observed the following sandstone buildings:
Macky Auditorium, 1907 (architects Gove and Walsh); Hale Science;
Guggenhiem Law; Heat Light and Power Plant, 1909 (architects Gove and
Walsh); Woodbury Hall (1890); and the foundation of Old Main (1875).
There were other examples of sandstone buildings in the immediate
vicinity of the Boulderado Hotel where Klauder stayed during his first
Colorado visit. Directly across Spruce Street was BPOE Elks Lodge with its
base made of sandstone built in 1904 (architect: Robert Roeschlaub). One
block to the north was St. John's Episcopal Church, 1902 (architects:
Congdan and Son, New York).
Klauder also visited Denver during this first visit. Norlin wrote to
President Farrand (10 July 1917) that he had "spent yesterday in Denver
looking over possible building material with him [Klauder]." President Norlin
and "The Building Committee" accompanied Mr. Klauder on a tour of stone
139 Ibid.

buildings in downtown Denver.140 Klauder might have seen the following
buildings on this guided tour: Boston Building built in 1890 at 828
Seventeenth Street (architect: Andrews, Jacques and Rantoul); the Masonic
Temple next door at 16th and Welton built of Manitou red sandstone141
(architect: Frank E. Edbrooke); the Central Presbyterian Church built in 1892
at 1660 Sherman Street (architect Frank Edbrooke); the Kittredge Building
built in 1900 with Pikes Peak granite and Castle Rock Rhyolite walls142
(architect: Morris Stuckart); the Brown Palace (circa 1892) at 17th Street and
Broadway built of Arizona brown sandstone143 (architect Frank E. Edbrooke.)
and St. Mark's Episcopal Church, 1890, built of Longmont (probably) tan
sandstone (architects: William Lang and Marshal Pugh) and the Equitable
Building, 1892, at 17th and Stout (Boston Architects: Andrews, Jacques and
This tour exposed Klauder to the variety of stone used in and around
Denver. The large ashlar cut sandstone he saw in these buildings was the
classic approach to sandstone masonry in Denver during the "boom" period
140 GN to Livingston Farrand, 10 July 1917, located in Boulder Historical
Collection/University Archives (Central Administration, Presidents Office, Series: 1, Box: 35
Fd 5 Buildings 1917-1940). Note: The tour included Mr. Dudley and Mr. Regan.
141 Ibid.
142 Murphy, Geology Tour, 48.
143 Ibid.

from 1880 to 1892. At this time, Day and Klauder were still assuming the
Universitys style would be Gothic. They felt that for Gothic, the best masonry
material would be mica schist (a granite-like material) or brick, as they had
used for the University of Pennsylvania dormitories.144
In April 1918, Frank Miles Day, the firms senior partner, was finally
able to visit Boulder. Even though he was unable to go to Boulder before this,
Day had taken a personal interest in the project from the beginning.145 During
his visit, Day met with the Board of Regents on 9 April 1918, and finalized
contractual arrangements between his firm and the University to provide
designs for the first two buildings.146 After this meeting, Day wrote a letter on
Brown Palace Hotel stationery thanking Acting President Norlin for
courtesies to himself and Mrs. Day.147 He had not been feeling well for some
time, he said, and expressed his appreciation for the visit, saying that his trip
to the west was an admirable rest... 148
144 Jack Murphy, geologist, interview by author, 16 July 2003, Lyons, Colorado. A
dark colored metamorphic rock found in the mountains west of Boulder but not generally
quarried for dimension stone. Also see D&K, Report to BOR, 2 November 1917, located in
Boulder Historical Collection/University Archives, Regents Minutes, 17 April 1911 16 May
145 Keebler, Life and Work of Frank Miles Day, 262.
146 Minutes of BOR, 9 April 1918.
147 FMD to GN, 10 April 1918, located in Boulder Historical Collection/University
Archives (Central Administration, Presidents Office, Series: 1, Box: 35 Fd 5 Buildings 1917-
1940). Note: Written on Brown Palace Hotel stationery in hand of FMD.
148 Ibid.

Days visit in April of 1918 proved pivotal in initiating a dramatic shift in
design direction for the University. The actual shift occurred shortly after
Days return to Philadelphia. In a letter dated 1 May 1918, Day wrote that he
would like to begin promptly on revisions to the plan.149 It was at this point in
the discussion that Day raised the question of whether or not a more
"picturesque style" (than Collegiate Gothic) might be more appropriate to the
mountain setting of Boulder.150 It is clear from Days correspondence with
Norlin that his office was starting to consider alternative design options. On 5
June, ten days before his death, Day wrote: Especially we have now under
consideration the question of architectural style.151
Their trips to Boulder allowed both architects to observe the culture on
the Boulder campus, in particular the students. College students are rarely a
mild and restrained group, but from an earlier description of the Boulder
students it is likely that both Day and Klauder found them more rough around
the edges than their eastern counterparts. In his book, College Architecture in
149 FMD to GN, 1 May 1918, located in Boulder Historical Collection/University
Archives (Central Administration, Presidents Office, Series: 1, Box: 35 Fd 5 Buildings 1917-
150 Kurt W. Pitluga, "Charles Z. Klauder at Penn State" 111.
151 FMD to GN, 5 June 1918, located in Boulder Historical Collection/University
Archives (Central Administration, Presidents Office, Series: 1, Box: 35 Fd 5 Buildings 1917-