Citation
Auraria

Material Information

Title:
Auraria from neighborhood to campus
Creator:
Summers, Jodi Michelle
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
92 leaves : ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Urban renewal -- Colorado -- Denver ( lcsh )
Urban policy -- Colorado -- Denver ( lcsh )
Urban policy ( fast )
Urban renewal ( fast )
Auraria (Denver, Colo.) ( lcsh )
Colorado -- Denver ( fast )
Colorado -- Denver ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 86-92).
General Note:
Department of History and Social Sciences
Statement of Responsibility:
by Jodi Michelle Summers.

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:
53906554 ( OCLC )
ocm53906554
Classification:
LD1190.L57 2003m S85 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
AURARIA: FROM NEIGHBORHOOD TO CAMPUS
by
Jodi Michelle Summers
B.A., University of Colorado at Denver, 2001
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
History
2003


This thesis for the Master of Arts
degree by
Jodi Michelle Summers
has been approved
by
Pamela Laird
Mark Foster
James Whiteside
2 V.
2 003
Date


Summers, Jodi Michelle (M. A., History)
Auraria: From Neighborhood to Campus
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Pamela Laird
ABSTRACT
This thesis analyzes the urban renewal project on Auraria Campus in Denver,
Colorado, and relates the site to other urban renewal projects in the United States.
Auraria, now home to a college campus, once served as both an industrial and
residential area of Denver, and in the late 1960s, the city of Denver chose the site for
an urban renewal project. The project, headed by the Denver Urban Renewal
Authority, demolished 145 acres on the west side of Denver. This thesis focuses on
the politics of the Auraria case, demonstrating how urban politics developed through
the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Denvers Auraria project generated dissension from several groups in the area,
including the residents of the area and local preservation groups. While the city
eventually approved the proposed college campus for the site, the opposing groups
made big strides in participating in the citys politics. As a result of their activism,
several historic structures still exist on the campus. Opposition from the residents of
the area left a mark on city politics. Although the city of Denver approved many
urban renewal projects in the era, not all residents and businessmen met the proposals
iii


with the same support. This case serves as an example of many, with its own distinct
story to tell.
Other studies have focused on the Auraria Campus and the displaced Auraria
residents, and most authors have explained the story from a distinctly partisan view
point, missing the richness of the complicated history. This thesis explains the
Auraria project by augmenting all the available secondary sources with substantial
additional primary resources in order to offer a balanced story.
In order to draw the Auraria picture into a national context, this thesis
explores five different urban renewal projects in other major U S. cities. These
various projects, with all their similarities and differences from the Auraria project,
further expose the complexities of urban renewal. Urban renewal projects left a
lasting legacy within every major U.S. city between the 1940s and the 1980s, not only
on the cities landscapes, but on each citys politics.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates tlipsis. I recommend
publication.
Signed
Pamela Laird
IV


CONTENTS
PREFACE................................................vii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION......................................1
Previous Interpretations..........................3
Goals.............................................7
2. URBAN RENEWAL AND PRESERVATION IN DENVER..........9
Shifts of Focus in Urban Renewal.................13
Urban Renewal in Denver..........................16
The Skyline Project..............................18
3. HIGHER EDUCATION AND THE DENVER URBAN RENEWAL
AUTHORITY..........................................23
4. THE AURARIA NEIGHBORHOOD.........................32
5. WEST DENVER AND URBAN RENEWAL....................39
6. A NEW CAMPUS WITH A FEW OLD BUILDINGS............53
v


7. URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS IN OTHER U S. CITITES.....................60
Detroits Highways...............................................61
San Antonios International Exhibition...........................64
San Franciscos Golden Gate Project..............................67
St. Louiss R-11 Folly...........................................70
Mass Renewal in One Chicago Area.................................72
Project Distinctions.............................................74
8. CONCLUSION: THE LASTING LEGACY OF URBAN RENEWAL... 77
APPENDIX
NINTH STREET RESTORED STRUCTURES................82
BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................86
vi


PREFACE
In my first semester as a graduate student at the University of Colorado at
Denver I served as a teachers assistant in a freshman seminar focusing on Colorado
history. Although it was only my first semester as an official graduate student, it was
my fifth year as a student on the Auraria Campus. Over the four years I spent on my
undergraduate degree I became very accustomed to the sites and layout of the Auraria
Higher Education Center (AHEC). Because of this, I began to overlook the historic
buildings scattered across the small but densely populated urban campus. It was not
until taking the freshman students on a tour of the campus that I remembered many
original questions I and others frequently have upon arrival. We started the tour from
our classroom in the Plaza building, one of several typical classroom buildings on the
campus. As we stepped out of the building the students were greeted by a structure
that appears more like a church than a campus building. While walking toward the
structure the students seemed very puzzled. One student simply looked at me and
asked, Why is there a big pink church in the middle of a college campus? It was at
that point that I realized that most of the new students to the campus had very little
understanding of the cultural landscape or the political history of AHEC. The
buildings of Auraria tell a story of Denvers past to which very few younger students
have been exposed. With that one seemingly simple question, I chose the topic of my
masters thesis.
Vll


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This is a non-partisan telling of a story of urban politics as they played out in
the Auraria Project in Denver examining the story as a complicated whole. The
Auraria project was just one of many urban renewal projects all over the United
States and in the Denver metropolitan area during the 1940s through the 1980s.
Unique in some aspects, typical in others, the full story serves as a prime example of
the effects of urban renewal on an area. The proposal to demolish 145 acres on the
west side of the central business district in Denver triggered mixed opinions from
many directions, especially the prospective displaced residents, the citizens of the
Denver metropolitan area, and the state agencies involved. Yet, unlike many other
urban renewal projects around the city and the country, the Auraria project had the
potential to benefit all residents of the metropolitan area. It was not just a project
with the goal of revitalizing a central business district or creating a new highway, it
was a project that would bring higher education to the residents of the Denver
metropolitan area on a centrally located campus. Even those against demolishing the
residential and industrial area could not deny the need for the proposed campus in
central Denver. West Denver was an appealing location for the project because it was
centrally located and positioned the campus across a river from the recently
1


revitalized central business district. Location of the Auraria site was essential for the
proposal, but planners, most likely, would have chosen a different area for the campus
if the voters had not funded their matching obligation for revitalization. Despite the
opposition of some residents of Denver in the late 1960s, the Auraria Project became
the second major urban renewal project in the city, and the site now houses a
centrally-located college campus on the edge of downtown Denver.
The Auraria campus became home to three separate institutions of higher
education. Community College of Denver, Metropolitan State College of Denver, and
the University of Colorado at Denver. The three institutions, while separate in
constituencies, faculties, funding, and administration, share a consolidated campus on
169 acres of land on the west side of downtown Denver. Each of the three
institutions is politically independent, but the Auraria Higher Education Center
(AHEC) is the governing board that helps to keep the separate schools working
together. AHEC acts as the landlord to the three schools by controlling campus
facilities and maintenance, among other things. While Auraria Campus is the
smallest college campus in the state in terms of acreage, one-fifth of the entire states
higher education enrollment find their way to classes in its buildings.
Although there is a rich economic, social, and cultural history in the area that
now houses the three institutions, very few of the people who walk the sidewalks of
the campus are aware of how AHEC came to occupy the land. Many people who
2


utilize the campus are unaware that the area now housing three institutions of higher
education was once an area of both industrial and residential use.
One organization in particular that is active in educating those interested in the
history of the area is the MeChA de Auraria (Movimiento estudiantil Chicano de
Aztlan), an active student group that works closely with neighborhood programs like
the West-Side Outreach Center. The West-Side Outreach Center still works closely
with the people who lived in the neighborhood of west Denver and are active in
campus politics.1
Previous Interpretations
There has been some previous research that has either focused on the history
of west-side Denver, politics behind the creation of the campus, or major players
involved with facets of Auraria history. Stories of the area generally give one point
of view or another. Customarily these stories portray the heroes or the victims, in
particular, AHEC and urban renewal in Denver or the Auraria residents. The
published works on Auraria are not comprehensive stories; they entail partisan
storytelling from the heroes or the victims. Their own stories legitimate the side that
1 The information in the text to this point was derived from my experienced as a student and employee
of Auraria Campus. I have attended CU-Denver for six years, and the text describes my own personal
observations. While working as a reporter for the CU-Denver A dvocate I became very familiar with
campus politics.
3


they represent, either patting themselves on the backs as the good guys, or playing the
martyrs as helpless victims.
Frank Abbott wrote The Auraria Higher Education Center: How It Came to
Be, an in-depth story concentrating on the conception of Auraria Campus and the
steps toward making it a reality. That book, published in 1999, gives the most precise
and expansive history of the institutions of Auraria, but does not offer much detail on
the urban renewal process and mentions little about the people who lived on what is
now the Auraria Campus. Essentially, Abbott tells a story of institutional triumph in
a state that needed more higher education.2
Magdalena Gallegos, a former resident of the west Denver neighborhood and
a student of the Auraria campus also wrote about the area, but she concentrated on the
displaced people rather than the institutions. Gallegos conducted a series of oral
interviews with many of the old west-side residents displaced by the campus, while a
student at the Community College of Denver in the eighties. Currently, the oral
history collection is located at the Denver Public Library in the Western History and
Genealogy section.3 Gallegos also prepared two works titled Auraria Remembered
and History of the Hispanic Settlers in Auraria: The Forgotten Community.
Auraria Remembered is a collection of interviews with prior residents of the area.4
2 Frank C. Abbott, The Auraria Higher Education Center: How It Came to Be. (Denver: Auraria
Higher Education Center, 1999).
3 Gallegos Manuscript Collection. Western History Department, Denver Public Library. Denver,
Colorado.
4 Magdalena Gallegos, Auraria Remembered. (Denver Community College of Denver, 1991).
4


The manuscript, History of Auraria: the Forgotten Community, is different in that
Gallegos mentions many of the same residents and events, but the book reads as a
narrative rather than a series of interviews.5 6 The book portrays the residents as
completely helpless victims of the government agencies and their policies.
In addition to the sources aforementioned, there are a few published sources
that incorporate the Auraria story into their overall focus. While these works mention
the Auraria project, they still tell it from single points of view. For example, in 1992,
Donna McEncroe wrote an examination of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority
(DURA) titled Denver Renewed: A History of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority
1958-1986. In her 775 pages, McEncroe focused not only on the background of the
authority, but every project the authority took on, including the Auraria project.
Within the Auraria section, McEncroe examined the entire process from designation
of the land for urban renewal to the political repercussions of the decision, but
McEncroe does not put the Auraria story into a national context. She tells it from
DURAs perspective, paying little regard to those affected by the decision in the long
6
run.
Dan Corson focused his 1998 thesis on Dana Crawford, a noted preservation
activist in Denver. The work is significant to Aurarias history because Ms.
5 Magdalena Gallegos, History of the Hispanic Settlers in Auraria: the Forgotten Community.
(Denver, CO, 1985).
6 Donna McEncroe, Denver Renewed: A History of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority, 1958-1986.
(Denver: The Denver Foundation, 1992).
5


Crawfords group, Historic Denver, Inc. played an important role in the preservation
of Ninth Street Parkway (which is an historic block of houses on Auraria campus).
Although Corsons thesis provides background in Denver preservation, he has little
mention of the process to save the Ninth Street Parkway on the campus. He focuses
on Crawfords first major project, the preservation of Larimer Square (which is
located across the Cherry Creek River from the campus). Corsons thesis clarifies
early battles between DURA, individuals such as Dana Crawford and groups like
Historic Denver, Inc., who fought to save many Denver treasures from the wrecking
ball of urban renewal.7
There is little mention of the area of west Denver in Colorado history books.
Most Colorado history books mention Auraria as the original township, give a history
from 1858-1860, and give details about the transformations in the area, which lead to
its destruction. Published sources on Auraria, Denver, and Colorado have not told a
comprehensive history of west Denver, urban renewal, and the Auraria campus. Each
offer small segments of the overall story, but most have not attempted to tell the
whole story or to put the history of Auraria in a national context. In order to tell a
more comprehensive story, it is necessary to examine new sources and take on new
perspectives. While previous interpretations are useful in giving one or another
perspective of the story, newspaper articles, housing statistics, and other various
7 Dan William Corson, Dana Crawford: from Larimer Square to LoDo, Historic Preservation in
Denver. (Thesis (MS.) University of Colorado at Denver, 1998).
6


manuscript collections and primary sources have until recently been left virtually
untouched in telling the Auraria story. Auraria place in the national context becomes
apparent only by comparing it with other projects in the United States.
The final section of this thesis will examine the following monographs to
compare Denvers Auraria experience with those of five other cities. In The Origins
of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit, Thomas J. Sugrue
examines the city politics of Detroit, including urban renewal projects. Carl Abbott
explains urban renewal in San Antonio and San Francisco, as well as several other
Sunbelt cities, in The New Urban America: Growth and Politics in Sunbelt Cities.
Dennis R. Judd and Robert Mendelson examine urban politics and urban renewal
projects in St. Louis in The politics of Urban Planning: The East St. Louis
Experience. In The Impact of Urban Renewal on Small Businesses: the Hyde Park-
Kenwood Case, Brian J. L. Berry, Sandra J. Parsons, and Rutherford H. Platt examine
one large area of Chicago and how it was affected by urban renewal.
Goals
The goal of this thesis is to reveal a comprehensive history of Auraria while
placing the story into a national context. In order to understand the history, it is
crucial to give the background of urban renewal and the political institutions of
Denver and the nation, the history of the west Denver area, preservation roots in
Denver, and urban renewal projects in other United States cities. This thesis will first
7


tell the story of Auraria as a case of urban renewal then compare and contrast the
Auraria case with other urban renewal projects across the country. The Auraria urban
renewal project may not be completely unique in process and result, but it is very
distinctive from a national view. The Auraria project played an important role in
urban renewal and local politics in Denver and the state of Colorado, despite its size
on a national scale. The affects are still obvious and even poignant today.
8


CHAPTER TWO
URBAN RENEWAL AND PRESERVATION IN DENVER
As the United States headed further into the worst depression it had ever
experienced, many Americans changed their traditional attitudes toward government
intervention in private industries. The Great Depression of the 1930s impacted every
American and every industry on some level, the housing industry and American
homeowners took a particularly hard fall. Builders had no money to build,
homeowners had no money to improve their dwellings, and thousands of Americans
lost their homes to foreclosure. The United States government under the Herbert
*8
Hoover Administration faced one of the largest housing crises in the nations history.
The American public needed government intervention in order to alleviate some of
the onslaught of the financial crisis.
Hoover called for the Presidents National Conference on Home Building and
Home Ownership as the administrations first step toward addressing the crisis. The
administration recognized the problems in housing and blamed the severe drop in real
estate and construction for dragging down the rest of the economy. Hundreds of
analysts at the conference recommended the support of the federal government in
homeownership for men or heads of households, usually men, through four different 8
8 Kenneth T Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States (New York.
Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 193.
9


means: lowered interest rates, government assistance for low-income families,
reduction of construction costs, and long-term mortgages. Although the intentions
seemed good, the application of the recommendations through the 1932 Federal
Home Loan Bank Act and Emergency Relief and Construction Act failed.9
In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt assumed the presidency. The Roosevelt
Administration approached the still growing housing crisis with several New Deal
programs. The Resettlement Administration (RA) introduced the first of the
administrations programs, the Greenbelt Town Program, to tackle housing problems.
The RA intended to promote urban deconcentration with the Greenbelt Town
Program, but conservative opposition prevailed. Congress abandoned the Greenbelt
Town Program and the RA by 1938.
With growing conservative opposition to their initial efforts, the Roosevelt
Administration took a new approach to the crisis through the Home Owner Loan
Corporation (HOLC) in 1933. The U S. House and Senate passed the law, replacing
the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, with the intent to help avoid more foreclosures.
The HOLC granted low interest rates and long term loans with uniform payments, but
it still faced problems with foreclosure. While the HOLC gave guarantees to lenders,
high risk applicants and poor housing conditions still presented problems. In order to
gain more perspective on housing conditions, the HOLC commissioned trained
9 Jackson, The Crabgrass Frontier, pp. 193-195. Also see, Thomas J. Sugrue, The Origins of Urban
Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996),
pp. 60-63.
10


appraisers to divide all of the major US. cities into four grades, one the highest and
four the lowest. The condition of the dwelling as well as several economic, social,
and ethnic factors determined the grades. Most of the appraisers had a negative
attitude toward city living, and most areas of minority groups, usually in the center
city, received a grade four from the appraisers. Grades one and two received easy
financing through the HOLC, while grades three and four did not.
The administration made more strides with the Federal Housing
Administration (FHA) and the agencys adoption of the National Housing Act of
1934. The FHA has since served as one of the most authoritative federal agencies in
urban policy. With the adoption of the National Housing Act of 1937, the FHA and
the Roosevelt Administration sought further to expand influence of federal agencies
in urban policy. They also sought further to alleviate unemployment in the
construction industry and improve housing standards and conditions all across the
United States. The Act worked to stimulate building, relying on private enterprises
rather than more government spending. The FHA insured mortgage guarantees with
banks in the effort to stabilize influence on the mortgage market and offer home
financing on reasonable terms. This allowed more families to afford purchasing
homes and alleviated the apprehension of major banks to finance their loans. The
National Housing Act of 1937 also established minimum standards for home
11


construction ensuring statistical accuracy. Soon after, builders went back to work,
and house sales rose across the United States.10
Although the Housing Act of 1937 benefited many U.S. residents, the ethnic
minority groups did not experience equal benefits. Ethnic minority groups concerned
the FHA, which claimed an area could lose investment value if it did not remain
segregated. Within a few years, new FHA insured subdivisions enforced regulations
and covenants in efforts to ensure segregation of whites from other ethnic minority
groups. The FHA continued to fund these housing developments with restrictive
covenants even after a 1948 Supreme Court ruling deemed the restrictions
unenforceable as law.11 The initial efforts of the FHA further concentrated the
poor, usually ethnic minority groups, in the central city.
Thus, the origins of urban renewal came with the early federal housing
programs. As the Great Depression took its toll on all Americans, the U.S.
government changed its role. The movement really was a transition between
traditions of creating housing as purely private market-based phenomenon to
increased state influence. Although not all the initial programs found great success,
they all contributed to future programs in several ways. The programs of the 1940s
and forward took on some of the same characteristic of the National Housing Act of
1937 and the others, not only in funding approaches, but also attitudes toward the
10 Jackson, The Crabgrass Frontier, pp. 203-208. and Sugrue, The Origins of Urban Crisis, pp. 60-
63.
11 Shelley v. Kraemer Supreme Court decision quoted in Jackson, The Crabgrass Frontier, p. 208.
12


central city and its occupants. The federal housing programs concentrated minority
populations in what were then undesirable central city areas, where the housing
conditions did not benefit from the programs. Large white populations took
advantage of the programs in housing outside the inner city, usually in a suburb. This
process led to further deterioration of the central city and despair for the majority
minority groups that lived there. The programs of the 1940s and forward
concentrated more on the condition of the central city, not to grant equal rights of the
housing programs, but to revitalize areas for civic and private usage. By the 1960s,
urban renewal projects operated in a time when central city zones were regaining
their values, so they wound up displacing and, more to the point, dispersing these
same or similar poor and minority peoples whom earlier federal and state policies left
there while the middle-class and white people moved into the suburbs. Auraria
experienced the paradoxical effects of this shift in focus intensively.
Shifts of Focus in Urban Renewal
As the world began to recuperate after World War II, the United States began
to take an even closer look at the condition of its major cities. The nation was
changing at a rapid pace. More people needed new homes, cities needed new streets
and highways, and most of the major US. cities needed a face-lift. In most major
cities, the central city had become run-down and neglected over the course of several
decades. The center or downtown areas of the cities were the places that most did not
13


want to visit. As more and more families and individuals began to flock to the
suburbs, the inner city became the residence of lower-class families and individuals,
along with foundering businesses and crime. All across the United States, major
cities started implementing programs to revitalize their central cities. The federal
government implemented national programs for financial and legal support of the
cities. This began a new era for urban renewal programs in the United States. Most
of the major cities appointed new authorities to implement the urban renewal
programs. According to McEncroes opening statement in Denver Renewed: A
History of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority 1958-1986, increasing numbers of
policy makers thought of urban renewal in many cities in the United States as a
means for tackling the problems of the inner city and revitalizing their problem areas
in order to benefit all residents.12
In the 1987 publication Urban Fortunes: the Political Economy of Place,
authors John R. Logan and Harvey L. Molotch break down the background of urban
renewal as a national movement. They claim that shifts in urban renewal were
primarily a product of the National Housing Act of 1949. According to them, after
World War II the new housing act was passed because of postwar enthusiasm and in
order to reward veterans with adequate housing. The legislation not only called for
decent housing for the returning veterans, but for all Americans. Other legislation, as
a spin-off of the Act, authorized the construction of 135,000 units of public housing
12 McEncroe, Denver Renewed, p. 1.
14


annually. Although the initial efforts for the plan the housing units called for building
outside of the urban slums, the political realities meant that the projects would be
constructed outside the good neighborhoods and away from zones slated for higher-
rent developments, leaving the projects undesirable for many. The real impact of the
act, however, was the potential for exchanging housing projects for projects other
than housing.13 The Housing Act of 1949 also encouraged existing inequities. This
began the new focus for urban renewal in the United States.
Within the legislation, an increasing percentage of a citys federal aid
designated for slum clearance could be used for projects other than housing. In
order to gain urban renewal funds, a city or locality had to match one-third of the
federal funds for the designated project. Over time, the cities and localities began to
take liberties with what could be used to make up their responsibility of funding.
After a 1954 legislative amendment, the cities and localities could officially claim
private expenditures, like those made by hospitals and universities on their own
facilities, as part of the citys share. Urban renewal became a device for protecting
the citys central business district, property investments, and as Logan and Molotch
claim, the careers of white politicians.14
13 John R. Logan and Harvey L. Molotch. Urban Fortunes: the Political Economy of Place (Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press, 1987), p. 167.
14 Ibid, pp. 167-168.
15


Urban Renewal in Denver
Although Denver was experiencing some of the same postwar issues as many
of the other U.S. cities, it did not initiate urban renewal programs until a little later.
Urban renewal took its roots in Denver with the election of Mayor Quigg Newton in
1947, which alerted Washington D C. of a post-war housing crisis in Denver, and
took steps toward urban renewal in the city. In their first major step the Newton
administration completed several planned public housing projects, as well as major
planning steps for other housing projects. The administration requested that the
Denver Housing office work with the Denver Planning office to survey housing
conditions in Denver. The two groups produced the Carmichael Survey in which
they explained that 23.9% of the housing in Denver was what they considered
substandard, and of that percentage, the majority of those living in the
substandard homes were Hispanic.15
The Newton administration decided to use the 1949 Federal Housing Act in
order to help Denver with its housing crisis. According to the federal act the city was
required to eliminate one substandard housing unit for each new public housing unit
built. According to McEncroe, Newton claimed that slum clearance would be
simultaneous with completion of public housing units, but then there was the
question of what to do with the displaced families that the clearance would affect.16
15 McEncroe, Denver Renewed, pp. 18-20.
16 Ibid, p. 21.
16


By 1952 the urban renewal efforts led to 3,240 successfully built units in thirteen
projects, providing new homes for displaced families.17 As efforts proceeded, there
was a new need for a group dedicated to administer the projects. In April 1955, by
ordinance of the City Council, the Denver Urban Renewal Commission (DURC) was
created. Newton appointed seven of the original eleven members.18
DURC was not the only tool for urban renewal in Denver in the 1950s. For
instance, in 1955, as a mechanism for urban renewal, seventy-five downtown
businessmen founded Downtown Denver, Inc. (DDI). Along with the city, DDI
brought in a panel from the National Urban Land Institute to make recommendations
for downtown improvements and development. One year later, 176 business firms
founded the Downtown Denver Improvement Association (DDIA), replacing DDI,
with the goal to lobby for the creation of an Urban Renewal Authority .19 Denver
elected William F. Nicholson as the citys mayor in 1955. Mayor Nicholson claimed
that urban renewal was his number one goal for the city, and sought to rid Denver of
what he considered its blighted areas and slums. By 1957, there was little money
available for urban renewal through the city, a proposed income tax increase was
defeated, and the DURCs budget was slashed by 90 percent.20
17 Ibid, pp. 21-22.
18 Ibid p. 37.
19 Dennis R. Judd, From Cowtown to Sunbelt City: Boosterism and Economic Growth in Denver. In
S. Fainstein, N. Fainstein, R.L. Hill, D. Judd, and M.P. Smith, Restructuring the Political Economy of
Urban Development (New York and London: Longman, 1983), 178-179.
20 McEncroe, Denver Renewed, pp. 50-51.
17


At this point the public and private sides of urban renewal had the same goal;
shortly after a March 10, 1958 public hearing, the Denver City Council unanimously
approved the creation of an urban authority.21 Through the legislation enacted by the
General Assembly of the state of Colorado and the City and County and Denver, the
Denver Urban Renewal Authority (DURA) was bom. Primary duties for the
authority included the development and implementation of programs to improve the
citys blighted or slum areas. Conservation, rehabilitation, and/or redevelopment
served as the three types of action used by the authority with the cooperation of other
city government departments.22 The authority used the results from the Carmichael
Survey to determine the slum areas of the city. DURAs first major programs
focused on the slums and lower-income housing units in the city, tackling the
clearance of slums in run-down residential areas of Denver. Slum clearance for
public housing was the first major goal, but DURA soon took on bigger projects
within the city.
The Skyline Project
DURAs first major project outside of slum clearance for public housing was
the Skyline Project, which began in 196land was designed to encourage a balance
21 Ibid, 52-53.
22 Agency History, p.2. In the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. 1976. Records, 1958-1974. Denver
Urban Renewal Authority Records. Manuscript Collection. Denver Public Library Western History
and Genealogy.
18


between residential and business development in downtown Denver. The original
plan in 1961 did not involve DURA, but rather a Downtown Denver Master Plan
Committee. The committee was made up of both public officials and local
businessmen with the purpose of writing and obtaining voter approval for an urban
renewal plan. In 1963, the committee produced the Development Guide for
Downtown Denver as their proposal for the Skyline Project, which would eliminate
skid row, an area composed of several blocks the committee perceived as a major
eye sore in downtown Denver. The Forward Metro Denver group, a spin-off of the
committee, began to campaign for voter approval of the Skyline Project in 1964.
Despite a major effort by the group, voters rejected an $8-million bond issue for the
project that year.23
The proposed Skyline Project did succeed however in sparking the interest of
Dana Crawford, a resident of Denver. Within the boundaries of the proposed project
was one of Denvers oldest and most historically significant blocks on Larimer Street.
The one-square block of Larimer was not only the site of Denvers alleged first home,
but the block had hosted many of Denvers significant events in its century old
history. Crawford saw this block not as a blighted slum, but as an area worth
rehabilitating. The Larimer Square project marked the beginning of major historic
23 Judd, From Cowtown, pp. 178-179.
19


preservation effort in the city of Denver. Crawford was not about to see the block
cleared at the hands of urban renewal.24
Crawford was not new to the preservation business in Denver; before her
major efforts for saving Larimer, Crawford had been involved with preserving both
the Molly Brown House and the Moffat Mansion. Crawford, although interested in
saving the historic block on Larimer for preservation purposes, saw it as an
opportunity for real estate development. The buildings would not only serve as a
symbol of Denvers past, but could also serve viable businesses on the edge of
downtown. Many preservation activists have criticized Crawford for seeming to take
advantage of preservation incentives only when they provide a clear financial
advantage, yet Larimer unquestionably proved a significant accomplishment for
preservation in Denver. In 1965 historic preservation did not have any major
legislative support on either a local or national scale. The National Historic
Preservation Act was implemented in 1966, and Denvers Landmark Preservation
Committee was created in 1967both after Crawfords early efforts. Crawford was
on the forefront of the movement; she requested that the block be designated as an
historic block by the Colorado Historical Society in 1965, which would protect it
from the Skyline Project.25
24 Corson, Dana Crawford, p. 5.
25 Ibid, pp. 9-10.
20


The Skyline Project proceeded to push for city approval while Crawford used
all her power to save the block on Larimer. While Crawford worked to preserve the
block on Larimer, boosters of the Skyline Project had successfully lobbied President
Johnsons administration to allow the city to claim its investment in the newly
constructed Currigan Exhibit Hall as its matching share for the Skyline Project. The
matching share from the Currigan project covered the citys full share of the
clearance cost without a vote for a new bond issue. Without having to put more tax
26
dollars into the initial Skyline Project, the city overwhelmingly passed the proposal.
Crawford succeeded in her preservation efforts before the Skyline Project
vote. The Larimer Square redevelopment plan began before the redevelopment plans
for Skyline were finalized. In the citizen vote on May 16, 1967, Larimer Square was
officially designated as a rehabilitation area.26 27 Crawford formally organized
Historic Denver, Inc. in 1970 after her success with Larimer Street. In 1971 the
Denver City Council designated Larimer Square as the first historic district.28
In the end the Skyline Project consisted of the clearance of 27 acres of land in
downtown Denver to make way for dozens of skyscrapers, along with several public
buildings including new police and fire buildings, a sports arena, libraries, and other
public improvement projects. After the initial vote in 1967, voters approved an $87
million bond issue for funds in the Skyline Projects. Over $600 million of public and
26 Judd, From Cowtown, pp. 179-180.
27 Corson, Dana Crawford, pp. 24-25.
28 Ibid, p. 89.
21


private monies were committed to the Skyline Project by 1978. Although the Skyline
Project was the first major project for DURA, the authority started and completed
another major project, Auraria, right across the street from Skyline before the Skyline
Project was complete.
22


CHAPTER THREE
HIGHER EDUCATION AND THE DENVER URBAN
RENEWAL AUTHORITY
Higher education in Colorado was a big issue for the state legislature around
the mid-1950s, the same time the initial stages of urban renewal were taking form in
Denver. Tidal waves of college students were predicted to hit higher education
facilities in Colorado by the mid-1960s. In 1955 the Colorado Education Committee
of Legislative Council responded to the growing concern of the future of higher
education in the state by appointing a subcommittee on higher education. The
committee met for a year and in 1956 was re-commissioned to a full committee with
the goal of raising the number of two-year colleges in Colorado. Two years later
under House Joint Resolution 6, the Colorado legislature created the Legislative
Committee on Education Beyond High School. Its main goal was to initiate higher
education planning, create new institutions, and continue to support and expand the
existing higher education institutions.29
Although a small number of Colorado high school graduates entered
institutions of higher education in Colorado by the early 1960s, the low number of
junior colleges in the state constantly concerned the committee. Because of the
29 Abbott, The Auraria Higher Education Center, p. 3.
23


committees concern, the state legislature placed importance on expanding the
number of local junior colleges, especially since the local districts funded the
colleges. In June 1960 the committee created a subcommittee on Education Beyond
High School in the Denver Metropolitan Area, which focused on high school
graduates in the most heavily populated areas in the state. After appointing
Representative Roy Romer as the subcommittees first chair, members focused on the
perspective of higher education in the Denver metropolitan area. By January of 1961
the subcommittee endorsed the recommendation to create four junior colleges in
Denver. The proposal came after a report stated that more than forty percent of the
state junior college enrollments were outside the local college districts. Many of
those enrolled in junior colleges outside the Denver metropolitan area actually lived
in the Front Range and commuted daily.30
The subcommittee also supported the conversion of the University of
Colorado Extension Centers, satellite classes offered in Denver and Colorado Springs,
into degree-granting institutions. The University of Colorado had established the
extension center in Denver in 1912 and later established a similar center in Colorado
Springs. Neither of the extension centers were authorized to grant degrees, although
degree programs at the main campus in Boulder transferred some credits from the
extension centers. Over the years the Denver Extension Center occupied many
locations and many different students attended classes there. As both the Denver and
30 Ibid, p. 5.
24


the Colorado Springs Extension Centers grew, they wanted to convert the centers into
degree-granting institutions separate from the main Boulder campus. In early 1961,
The Board Study Report stated that the schools would require the same standards as
Boulder in instruction and all other institutional standards. The centers gave their
proposal and report to the University Regents, but by December 1964 the University
of Colorado Regents turned the proposal down, because they did not want
competition for the Boulder campus.
In the spring of 1962 the Legislative Committee and the Joint Budget
Committee created a Task Group on Post High School Education in the Denver
metropolitan area to replace the existing subcommittee. The subcommittee worked
fast to create a new plan because the University of Colorado turned down plans to
convert the Denver Extension Center into a degree-granting institution. By
November 1962 the Task Group recommended the establishment of Metropolitan
State College of Denver (MSCD), a new four-year higher education institution, to
serve the needs of the prospective students in the area. The proposal called for
operation of the new college to begin by 1964, recommendations were made for the
state to purchase the facilities used for the Denver Extension Center from the CU
Regents, but if that was not possible, the Task Group recommended that the state
acquire space already used for educational purposes. The Regents allowed the
Denver Extension Center to offer official degrees independent from Boulder as a
reaction to the prospective competition. The Boulder campus began to accept School
25


of Liberal Arts and Sciences credits from the Denver Extension Center, which
essentially created a new university in Denver without consulting or seeking the
approval from any other state authority.31 The Regents were not going to allow any
other higher education institution to challenge the University of Colorado.
The Association of State Institutions of Higher Education in Colorado, a
group of collegiate presidents in the state, released a report to the Committee on
Education Beyond High School titled A Program for the Differentiation and
Coordination of Function in December of 1962.32 Although the report dealt with the
roles of the state institutions already in operation, it made no mention of the recently
recommended Metropolitan State College of Denver. In his inaugural address in
January of 1963, Governor John A. Love opposed the creation of a four-year
Metropolitan State College of Denver as part of his general resistance to growth in
Colorado. However, Loves opposition did not mean an end to the proposed college:
the Task Force, with the support of the Legislative Committee and the Joint Budget
Committee, worked toward enacting the proposed legislation. As a response to
specific legislation in February 1963, the Association recommended that the
legislative subcommittee establish the first two years of classes for MSCD.
Eventually the college would serve as a four-year institution offering a limited range
of baccalaureate degrees. Despite the dissent of the University of Colorado,
31 Ibid, p. 9.
32 Ibid p. 151.
26


Governor Love, in response to the growing support of the proposal, signed House Bill
349 in May 1963, which created the new state college. With the institution
underway, the Task Force planned the operation of MSCDs first freshman and
sophomore years.33
In December 1964 the Association of State Institutions of Higher Education in
Colorado published the initial financial and operational plans for MSCD in A
Program for the Development and Coordination of Higher Education in Colorado,
1963-1970. By May of the next year MSCD acquired fimding to open. The plans
scheduled the first two years of baccalaureate education to begin in the fall and
granted a $750,000 appropriation to fund the colleges opening.34 Metropolitan State
College of Denver opened in October 1965 with 1,189 students, and Mayor Thomas
G. Currigan directed the Denver Planning Office to seek a 200 acre site for the
college facilities. The Denver Planning Office initially identified nine possible sites
for the college facilities in April of 1966. By July, the Executive Committee chose
150 acres in west Denver as the best location. The designated area in west Denver
was once the township of Auraria, so the Denver Planning Office changed the sites
name from west Denver to Auraria in recognition of the locations history.
In 1965, Governor Loves approval of House Bill 1170 created the Colorado
Commission on Higher Education (CCHE) to address rising enrollments in the state.
33 Ibid, p. 152.
34 Ibid, p. 152.
27


Just over 80,000 students enrolled in some form of higher education in Colorado in
1966. With enrollments rising, the CCHE released a preliminary plan called
Strengthening Higher Education in Colorado. In the plan, the CCHE proposed the
creation of a state-wide community college system and supported the expansion of
MSCD from two to four years of education. The state appropriated $19,545,000
toward higher education, which funded plans for third year instruction at MSCD.35
CCHE went to work creating a state system of community colleges and a full
baccalaureate program at MSCD. In March the legislature authorized a three-campus
Community College of Denver system, appointed a new state board of Community
Colleges and Occupational Education, and added full instruction at MSCD.36
While CCHE was at work creating institutions, DURA took over the site
decisions for the Auraria project. In its Metropolitan State College Site Selection
Report, DURA looked at three possible sites for the new college. Comparisons of
all locations took place for appraising land value and size in acres and square footage.
Each of the districts DURA examined were considered blighted by definition of urban
renewal. Out of the three districts appraised, (Civic Center, Auraria, and North
Stadium), DURA considered Auraria at 126.40 acres for $12,671,392 as the best
possible site. Although the initial report appeared to indicate that the North Stadium
district was the cheapest in terms of cost per square foot for the urban renewal
35 Ibid, pp. 32-35.
36 Ibid pp. 32-35.
28


project, the report also stated that the figures did not include acres in the area already
used for parks and playing fields.37 38 Included in the report was an estimate of the
ultimate cost if the new college was to be built on the Auraria site. It indicated that
the acquisition of 145 acres would cost $14,050,000. After adding in the costs of
property demolition, public improvements, and miscellaneous other expenses, DURA
predicted the gross project cost (125 acres at ninety cents per square foot) at
$18,930,000. After subtracting the land sale proceeds, what DURA called the net
sharable costs totaled $14,029,500. Twenty acres were included in the total square
footage, but those acres were already used for church and street property. The local
and state share for the project was one-third of the net sharable cost, and DURA
38
indicated that Major Model City financial assistance may have been possible.
DURA then broke down the purchasing power in an economic impact report in which
the agency estimated that 241 families, and 104 additional individuals lived in the
designated area. According to the report, the average annual income was $3,105 for
families and $1,972 for individuals.39 The Auraria district comprised many run-down
factories, businesses, and homes, and the statistics told DURA that the people in the
neighborhood did not have the money to fix them.
37 Metropolitan State College Site Selection Report. Appendix I. In the Denver Urban Renewal
Authority. 1976. Records, 1958-1974. Box 4, FF3. Manuscript Collection. Denver Public Library
Western History and Genealogy.
38 Ibid, Appendix II.
39 The Economic Impact... p. 2. In the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. 1976. Records, 1958-
1974. Box 4, FF3. Manuscript collection. Denver Public Library Western history and Genealogy.
29


State approval for the Auraria site came in March 1968. The Trustees of the
State Colleges were the first to approve the Auraria site. In March the CCHE also
gave approval for the site providing the state would not have to pay anything for the
land. Once CCHE gave official approval, design planning began. The commissions
president presented an idea of creating an educational park for institutions of
higher education at the Auraria site. The idea was a success among the members of
Denver Area Council on Higher Education. A working committee appointed by the
council represented the involved institutions. By September of 1968 the CCHE
announced the plans for Auraria publicly, and the Commission hired Lamar Kelsey
and Associates to conduct a study of the area to confirm feasibility. Kelsey reported
in November 1968 that the Auraria site was appropriate and could accommodate a
college campus.40
The next step came in January 1969 with the approval from the U S.
Department of Housing and Urban Redevelopment. Along with the approval of
Auraria as an Urban Renewal site, the Department allocated $12.6 million from the
Model Cities funds as capital grant reservation. The $12.6 million funding was
intended for site acquisition, relocation of residents and businesses, and clearance
costs. Although CCHE had approved the prospective site in March 1968, providing
the land acquisition would be at no cost to the state, the commission withdrew the
stipulation after the $12.6 million allocation. With news of the allocation, the
40 Abbott, Auraria Higher Education Center, 39-51.
30


Working Committee appointed representative committees to study the collaboration
for the library, student services, physical education, and other programs for the new
campus. In May 1969 the Legislature allocated $225,000 for initial planning of the
campus but did not commit to the building of the higher education center. CCHE
worked to obtain a federal grant, which it received in September, to help administer
costs for Auraria planning. Although money was provided from many different
places and organizations to help with the campus, the citizens of Denver were still
held accountable to raise $6 million toward the new campus according to national
urban renewal cost sharing requirements.41 A special bond election was set for
November of 1969 at which the citizens could make or break the campus idea. The
state committees and institutions did not consider the reaction of the residents of west
Denver throughout the process. They had not been involved in the decision-making
process, even though they had the most to lose.
41 Ibid, pp. 53-63.
31


CHAPTER FOUR
THE AURARIA NEIGHBORHOOD
The area now commonly known as Auraria has experienced many changes
during the course of its history. From the very beginning the area was quite different
from the rest of Denver. West Denver was originally settled as its own township in
the fall of 1858. The Russell Party from Auraria, Georgia staked claim in July 1858
to the land on the west side of the Cherry Creek River after discovering gold nearby.
The official Auraria Town Company, named after the hometown of the party,
established its township on October 3, 1858. After the creation of the township, the
Larimer Party arrived in the area on November 16, 1858. Within six days the new
party had staked claim to the land east of Cherry Creek and formed the Denver City
Town Company, named for Kansas Territorial Governor James William Denver. For
two years the separate townships were in constant competition to become the leading
city of the area. Although the streets were unkempt, the houses were made of logs,
and there was little organization, the people of the two towns made big strides to
establish their new homes. Auraria was the home to the first school and the first
newspaper in what is now Denver. It was not until April 5, 1860 that the leaders from
each of townships met on the Larimer Street Bridge crossing at Cherry Creek and
32


signed a pact consolidating into one Denver City.42 From that point forward the
township of Auraria became known popularly as West Denver for over one hundred
years.
Although considered part of the entire city, west Denver continued a life of its
own even after consolidating into Denver. Home to many Irish and German
immigrants, this section of Denver became and remained very mixed in use for over a
century. Houses were scattered throughout the neighborhood, along with small
neighborhood shops, but the area was also a harbor for many different industries.
Some of the leading industries included a few enormous flour mills owned by
Irish-born businessman John Keman Mullen and several breweries owned and
operated by different German immigrants. The most important and lasting of those
breweries was the Colorado Brewery established by German immigrant Mortiz Sigi
in 1866. Throughout the years the brewery expanded and became much larger in
stature. In 1890, the building of a tower on top of the Colorado Brewery added to the
striking architectural style of the building, and 1892 brought an attached Tumhalle
Opera House. Eight years later John Good bought the brewery and named it after the
Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen.43 The striking architecture of the Tivoli Brewery has
served as a significant landmark for the area ever since.
42 Stephen J. Leonard & Thomas J. Noel, Denver: From Mining Camp to Metropolis (Niwot:
University Press of Colorado, 1990, 1994 paperback), pp. 8-9.
43 Historic Denver Incorporated. Ninth Street Park Dedication pamphlet. Denver, CO: August 1,
1976, p. 4.
33


Other significant landmarks for the area were its churches. With the help and
demand of many people in the area the German immigrant population constructed the
St. Elizabeths Catholic Church and school, in 1887. That year the Irish population of
the area built St. Leos Catholic Church.44 What is now known as the Emmanuel
Gallery served as the Jewish temple in Auraria. The churches served as community
centers for the different ethnic groups of the area for many years.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century many of the Irish and German
immigrants began to move out of the area for a combination of reasons. Street cars in
Denver offered people the opportunity to move away from the crowded, semi-
industrial neighborhoods into neighborhoods outside of the inner city. By the last
decade of the nineteenth century, Auraria had become strictly a working-class
neighborhood. It was the west section of the city that the incoming immigrant groups
to Denver typically occupied first. At this point many other immigrants into Denver
began to occupy the empty homes the other groups had left behind. While some of
the homes were left open for purchase, many of the families that left the area
maintained ownership of their old homes in west Denver. This left the new residents
renting from the previous occupiers of the homes.
Beginning around 1920, many Hispanic immigrants made the west side of
Denver their new home. A large number had migrated from different parts of
Mexico, New Mexico, and southern Colorado. When the Hispanics arrived to the
44 Gallegos, History of the Hispanic Settlers in Auraria, p. 2.
34


area west of downtown Denver they encountered many ethnic groups, predominantly
of German and Irish decent. Several of these immigrant families started to move out
to other parts of the city and were leaving vacated homes for occupation by these new
groups. Many ex-residents retained ownership of the homes and rented to the new
population of Hispanic settlers. The area was a mix of residential homes, small
shops, and large industries that offered the new and existing groups a place to live and
work. While the west side of Denver was an official part of the city, the geography
and history of the area virtually cut off the section from other parts of Denver.
The process of population ebb and flow in Auraria was tumultuous. For every
family that moved out a new immigrant family moved in, often causing new ethnic
turmoil in the area. Although both the established residents of the area and most of
the new Hispanic settlers were Catholic, the established groups had acquired their
own churches during the existence of the neighborhood. By the early 1920s the
Hispanic population had grown significantly, thus creating a demand for separate
church services. The Hispanic population started to hold church services in the
basement of St. Leos Catholic Church in 1922. Father Bartholomew Caldenty held
services in Spanish, and the crowds became larger and larger. Many of the Hispanic
children also attended school at St. Elizabeth Catholic Church.45 The joint use of the
churches worked for a short while, but, as the population of Hispanic residents
45 Ibid, p. li.
35


increased, the basement of St. Leos was clearly too small for the large numbers of
people. Ethnic tension also started to grow as an influx of Hispanic immigrants
moved into the neighborhood. Sharing the churches in the neighborhood was not
ideal for anyone involved.
Most Hispanic residents in west Denver had very little means for taking care
of themselves and their families. The idea of raising enough money to buy land,
build a church, and maintain the building seemed completely out of reach for the
residents. They found the assistance needed from the Mullen family, who had made
their fortune in the area. J.K. Mullen first donated the land for the site of the new
church. The family donated their old home at 1178 Ninth Street along with $5000 to
the new parish. The Mullens also challenged the parish to raise matching funds. The
Hispanic parishioners responded quickly and enthusiastically to the Mullens
challenge, raising $4000. Unfortunately the parish hit a major road-block when the
bank holding their newly acquired money failed and closed its doors. Father
Caldenty responded by moving the services into the Mullens old home and took out
a $20,000 loan from the German American Bank. Ground breaking for the new St.
Cajetans Catholic Church took place on October 1, 1924.46
Less than one year after breaking ground on the new church Catherine Mullen
passed away. Following the wishes of his late wife, J.K. Mullen paid off the debt of
46 William J. Convery, Pray for the Soul of Catherine Smith Mullen. John K. and Catherine S. Mullen
and Philanthropy in Auraria. Historical Studies Journal 14 (1997): pp. 13-17.
36


the parish and hired architect Frank Kircof to finish the church for $47,70847 The
Spanish Colonial style St. Cajetans Catholic Church was dedicated on March 21,
1926, in Catherine S. Mullens honor. St. Cajetans became the cultural seat for the
Hispanic residents of the neighborhood, providing spiritual leadership, a school, and
economic assistance through the parishs credit union. Over the years the west side
of Denver became its own community separate from the rest of the city, especially
within the Hispanic community. In Auraria Remembered, Gallegos quotes Russell
De Leon as reminiscing, We stayed in the neighborhood most of the time because it
felt safe.48 Although ethnic tension still existed in the area, west Denver was the
safe barrio for the Hispanic population.
The west side barrio took on a life of its own for three generations.
Unfortunately, as time wore on, the already run-down community fell deeper and
deeper into despair. The houses were deteriorating, the people were not making any
more money than the generations before them, and west Denver became a concern for
the entire city. Businesses were closing, and families were becoming increasingly
destitute. St. Cajetans had always served as a neighborhood center, but the
neighborhood needed more help than the church could provide. As the years went on,
the west Denver community fell further into a slump from which it would never
recover. West Denver had become a slum, or a run-down neighborhood beyond
47 Ibid, p. 17.
48 Gallegos, Auraria Remembered, p. 13.
37


rehabilitation, according to the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. The citizen vote of
November 1969 had the potential of sealing the fate for the west side barrio.
38


CHAPTER FIVE
WEST DENVER AND URBAN RENEWAL
According to Magdalena Gallegos, In the late Sixties [many of] the people in
the neighborhood did not know what was being planned for them until the decision
had already been made.49 While the political machines like CCHE and DURA had
been working to create new institutions and place them in a permanent location, the
people affected the most had no say and claimed they were unaware of what was
taking place. Because of this, the news of the demolition area and new campus came
as a huge shock. In the process of designating west Denver as the new site for the
educational park, the project became known as the Auraria Project to the agencies
involved with the process. For years west Denver had been its own little world,
separate from the rest of Denver. It was hard for the people to relate to the name
Auraria for their neighborhood because the area had been, for many, their west-side
barrio for generations. According to Lupe Arguello in History of the Hispanic
Settlers in Auraria, The first time people in the neighborhood heard about the
relocation was when leaflets were passed out to every house.50 Indeed, there are no
49 Gallegos, History of the Hispanic Settlers in Auraria, p. 28.
50 Quoted in Gallegos, History of the Hispanic Settlers in Auraria, pp. 28-29.
39


records of DURA contact with the areas citizens until after the CCHE received the
federal grant in mid-1969.
Residents in the neighborhood looked frantically toward local leaders for a
solution to the impending neighborhood demolition. Father Pete Caldenty, Assistant
Pastor of St. Cajetans Catholic Church, stepped in as the leader of the people in the
neighborhood. St. Cajetans Catholic Church became the center of resistance for the
citizens of Auraria. In order to stop the campus, the people of the neighborhood had
to sway the November 1969 vote to reject the perspective campus. Many interested
organizations created the Westside Coalition and it acted as the leading group of
resistance. While the first objective of the group was to sway the vote, the Westside
Coalition took on many activities in the west Denver area, not just concerning
Auraria, but Chicano rights in Denver and the nation.51
The Westside Coalition concern for Chicano rights was part of a national
movement. In the 1960s, after two decades of national efforts for equal rights, the
Mexican Americans launched a distinct phase of the national civil rights movement
that included the Mexican American Political Association (MAPA) and the Political
Association of Spanish-Speaking Organizations (PASO). The United Farm Workers
Union (UFW), organized by Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta in California in 1962,
51 George Jr. Rivera, Aileen F. Lucero, and Richard Castro. Internal Colonialism in Colorado: The
Westside Coalition and Barrio Control. In La Gente: Hispano History and Life in Colorado. Ed.
Vincent C. DeBaca (Denver, CO: Colorado Historical Society, 1998), pp. 205-210. For more
information about the Westside Coalition and Chicano Rights refer to this article.
40


was instrumental in publicizing the plight of Hispanics to a national public. The
UFW used nonviolent tactics and ethnic symbols, such as the Aztec eagle flag, to
attract members and publicity. In the late 1960s, Mexican American organizations,
like the UFW turned to litigation as an instrument for political mobilization and
incorporation.52 53 The Westside Coalition was among these groups in support of the
Auraria citizens and other Denver concerns.
All concerned parties and neighborhood groups in the area worked together as
the crusade went on to save Auraria as a neighborhood. The residents campaigned all
over the city in the months leading up to the special bond election. Some residents
53
claimed that a few city planners provided them with information to help their cause.
Several resident accounts in Gallegoss work gave no mention of DURA meetings in
the basement of St. Cajetans.
DURA officials invited the community to meetings in the basement of St.
Cajetans Catholic Church. At the October 1969 meetings, according to resident
accounts, the city officials informed the people that while they needed to move out of
the neighborhood, they could relocate to a different part of the city and remain
together.54 DURA officials at the October meetings reviewed the relocation process
with the residents, but made no promises of remaining together. The officials assured
52 S. Dale McLemore and Harriett D. Romo, Racial and Ethnic Relation in America (Boston: Allyn
and Bacon, 1998 ed.), pp. 217-218.
53 Gallegos, History of the Hispanic Settler in Auraria, p. 29.
54 While many of the residents in Gallegoss work made claim to the alleged promise by city officials, I
have found no written evidence to confirm their claims claim.
41


the residents, in the event the bond issue passed, that DURA would provide assistance
to the residents and businessmen of the neighborhood. DURA officials recognized
the concerns and stress of the area residents and assured that they would make the
transitions as smooth as possible. The agency opened an office at 1056 Ninth Street,
which served as DURAs base of operations for both contacting residents and
administering the project.55
The debate became very heated around the city in the last few weeks of
October and first week of November 1969. Newspaper articles and editorials
presented several arguments and sides to the prospective families being displaced in
order to build a college campus in the heart of Denver. Some Denver metropolitan
area residents encouraged the advantage of the campus for the areas residents. In a
letter to The Open Forum in the Denver Post, one Denver resident argued, By far
the biggest single employer of the West Side community within a few years will be
Metro State College if it is located in Auraria. The letter acknowledged problems
with the project, but encouraged that, the opportunities should far outstrip the
disadvantages.56 While many people around the city recognized the problems of the
Auraria people, many did not sympathize because of the poor shape of the
neighborhood. Denver Post Staff Writer Dick Johnston wrote,
For too many years, the Hispanos have been a politically fragmented
invisible minority. The living environment of the west side has
gradually been eroded by deteriorating housing, by flight of shopping
55 McEncroe, Denver Renewed, pp. 508-509.
56 Frederick G. Bonfils, The Open Forum, Denver Post, 3 November 1969, p. 19.
42


facilities to more prosperous areas, by invasion of commercial and
industrial developments, and by increasing traffic volumes through it.57 58
It was no secret throughout Denver that the neighborhood proposed for
demolition was in need of much repair. Located directly across from the Skyline
Project on the east side of Speer Boulevard, the west side of Denver was a prime
target for urban renewal. Most of the houses were deteriorating, and many of the
residents had absolutely no means of financing repair. Many of the neighborhoods
businesses suffered, while others closed their doors. Over the years the neighborhood
had become a sore spot on the edge of the city, and there were opinions flying from
every direction in the fall of 1969 as to what should become of west Denver.
Everyone seemed to have an opinion concerning the proposed Auraria
campus. The papers were filled with arguments for why Auraria campus was a good
idea, the benefits of demolishing the neighborhood, and what great outcomes could
result from building the educational park in the Auraria location. Mayor William H.
McNichols, Jr., while showing some concern for the residents of the area,
acknowledged that the area was in bad shape. When asked why Auraria was chosen
as the site for the new education complex, he noted its central location and pointed
out that, .. .Auraria is a deteriorating area. Thats not an indictment against the
CO
people in the area; its a plain fact.
57 Dick Johnston, Is Auraria Key to Checking Denvers Decline as a Core City? Denver Post, 2
November 1969, p. 1 (Perspective Section).
58 McNichols Answers Question on Auraria, Rocky Mountain News. 2 November 1969. p. 5.
43


Emphasis on the centrality of location existed in every piece of Auraria pro-
campus and pro-demolition propaganda. Several newspaper articles and flyers
displayed maps showing how central the location was to the whole Denver
metropolitan community. Groups like the Citizens for Auraria, a pro-campus
organization, provided information to the citizens of the Denver metropolitan area in
advertisements in both major newspapers in the city. One advertisement pointed out
the numerous advantages and need for the college campus for the metropolitan area
by stating, The site is central. Its easy to reach from anywhere in Denver.59 A
different advertisement from the same group broke down what would happen to the
people in the Auraria neighborhood, but the information made the situation seem very
impersonal. The advertisement claimed, property owners will receive fair market
value of their property .60 While some political figures may have shown some
compassion for the people in the neighborhood, the propaganda could be quite brutal.
The residents of the neighborhood and political figures were not the only
groups that had a stake in the outcome. Metropolitan State College of Denver had
accumulated a large number of students eager for a permanent home. One MSCD
sophomore argued in the Denver Post that Auraria was the perfect location for the
campus. The student pointed out that there had been many other possible locations
59 Vote for Auraria Amendment #1. Auraria Campus Advertisement. Denver: CO: Citizens for
Auraria. 1969. Appeared several times in Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post in 1969.
60 Why Denver Needs the Auraria Center. Auraria Campus Advertisement. Denver: CO: Citizens for
Auraria. 1969. Appeared several times in Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post in 1969.
44


examined, but the Auraria site fit the goals for a central urban location. Also included
in the students debate was the fact that if the citizens of Denver rejected Auraria the
city would lose the $12.6 million in federal funds allocated to the project. Like many
of the proponents of the campus, the student manifested little sympathy for the
residents of the area. Instead the student focused on the political and financial
benefits for building the new campus in the Auraria location. He not only pointed out
the potential for the current students, but people of all races all over the Denver
metropolitan area. The student asserted, If blacks and Hispanos of Denver -and of
the whole nation- are ever going to gain equal footing in this society, they will need
doctors, lawyers, businessmen and other professionals to enrich and serve their
community.61 Many of those in favor of the college campus used the education
argument against the Auraria residents. By encouraging minorities to become better
educated, the people in favor of building the campus encouraged the rest of the
Denver area to sacrifice one group for a better future for the whole. The student
proceeded, Those people who oppose Auraria ostensibly because they have the best
interests of the Hispano community at heart are either incredibly short-sighted or
more interested in personal political gain than in helping these people.62 According
to those advocates for the campus, it was in the best interest of everyone, including
those displaced by its creation and construction.
61 Dave Ball, Metro Student Defends Auraria, Denver Post, 1 November 1969. p. 12.
62 Ibid, p. 12.
45


Even though many people in the metropolitan area favored the Auraria
campus proposal, residents kept fighting and petitioning to save their neighborhood.
Up until a week before the vote, the people of west Denver believed that their efforts
were paying off in the position of the voters. The special bond election was set to
take place on Tuesday, November 4, 1969. It appeared as though everything was
going in favor of the voters rejecting the bond issue until Denvers Archbishop
James V. Casey sent a letter to all of the Catholic churches in Denver one week
before the vote. In the letter, read at every Sunday service in the area, Archbishop
Casey encouraged all parishioners to vote in favor of the bond issue regardless of the
displaced families and individuals. Catholic residents of the Auraria area saw his
gesture as a huge blow to the efforts of the residents to save their neighborhood.
When we heard that the most reverend had endorsed the Auraria project, we felt a
terrible let-down, a sense of being forgotten, of being pushed aside by this person we
had always looked up to as one of our beloved spiritual leaders, one woman wrote in
a letter just one day before the vote.63 According to her letter, Reverend James
Purfield, then chairman of the archbishops human relations committee, claimed the
archbishops first obligation was to Catholic education.64 Many in Auraria believed
his obligation helped sway voters and in turn directly impacted the Tuesday vote
results.
63 Mrs. Germaine Aragon,, Concern of Chicanos For Auraria Homes, (letter to The Open Forum)
Denver Post, 3 November 1969. p. 19.
64Ibid, p. 19.
46


Sixty-one thousand voters in the Denver metropolitan area turned out on
Tuesday, November 4, 1969, for the special bond election. Out of the 61,000 voters,
the Auraria bond won by a margin of 3,773 votes. It was a devastating defeat for the
residents, but a huge victory for the efforts of DURA, AHEC, and the CCHE.
Debate from all different groups including the residents of Auraria, members
of the legislature, and other residents of Denver existed after the results of the vote
became public. Although the citizens of the Denver metropolitan area voted in favor
of the Auraria Project by only a small margin, the legislature still needed persuasion
to follow through with the project. Within two days after the vote Mayor McNichols
claimed, I intend to do anything possible to influence anybody in the House and the
Senate to get them to approve the $5.6 million appropriation.65 66 CCHE presented the
request to the Joint Budget Committee in its 1970-1971 budgets, guaranteeing that the
$5.6 million request was the only monetary request from their group for the
commission that year.
In January 1970, Governor John Love then created the Auraria Higher
Education Center (AHEC), whose board would act as landlord and mediator. While
AHEC had the responsibility of resident communications and planning, DURA
maintained the urban renewal duties, and the CCHE dealt with the institutions.
65 Don Lyle, Mayor Vows Auraria Follow Through, Rocky Mountain News, 6 November 1969. p. 8.
66 Dick Johnson, Commission to Request $5.6 Million for Auraria, Denver Post, 7 November 1969.
p. 52. and Richard Tucker, CCHE to Seek Auraria Project Funds, Rocky Mountain News, 6
November 1969, pp. 5 & 6.
47


DURA did, however, provide information to the residents after AHECs creation, and
worked to set relocation into motion. The Authority sent informational packets to the
residents and businessmen of the area requiring relocation. The packets, provided
only in English to the mainly Hispanic residents, began by explaining the general
goals of urban renewal and providing a map of the designated urban renewal area.
The rest of the packet written for the residents and businessmen contained details and
stipulations as to when they needed to move, the monetary compensation available,
and how to obtain compensations. Categories broke down each detail and answered
virtually any questions DURA believed the residents or businessmen may have.
Information provided in the packets detailed the required physical conditions of new
housing for the residents in order to assure safety and happiness with their new
homes.67 According to the informational packet,
Displaced families and individuals may be eligible for either (1) a
payment to cover actual reasonable moving expenses; or (2) a fixed
moving expense allowance not to exceed $300, plus a Dislocation
Allowance of $200. In addition, a payment not to exceed $15,000 is
available to eligible displaced homeowners in the purchase of a
replacement dwelling unit and a payment not to exceed $4000 is
available to eligible displaced tenants and certain homeowners to assist
in the rental of a replacement dwelling unit or for use as a down-
payment on the purchase of a replacement dwelling.68
67 Informational Notice to All Families and Individuals Living in the Auraria Urban Renewal
Project. and Informational Statement for Business Concern and Other Nonresidential Establishments
in the Auraria Urban Renewal Project. In the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. 1976. Records, 1958-
1974. Box 4, FF15. Manuscript collection. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy.
68 Informational Notice to All Families and Individuals Living in the Auraria Urban Renewal
Project. Denver Urban Renewal Authority. 1976. Records, 1958-1974. Box 4, FF15. Manuscript
collection. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy.
48


Similar instructions provided businessmen with information about monetary
compensation.
Displaced business concerns may be eligible for either (1) a payment
to cover actual reasonable moving expenses in searching for a
replacement location; or (2) in certain cases, a fixed payment equal to
the business concerns average annual net earnings, but no less $2,500
nor more than $10,000 69
Mention of the word reasonable occurred several times in both packets without
clarifying the definition of reasonable according to DURA. Those families merely
renting in the neighborhood were offered some compensation, but were often evicted
by the homeowner. With notice sent out to the residents and business owners DURA
started to buy up vacant land in the area. Two years prior, in 1968, land in the
neighborhood sold at about $10-$25 per square foot, but home and business owners in
the neighborhood received $1.45 per square foot,70 far from fair market value before
the sites designation.
Angry and ready to resist, the residents of Auraria formally organized the
Auraria Residents Organization, Inc. (ARO) under leadership from Father Garcia and
the West Side Coalition.71 CCHE responded to the new group by creating a
69 Informational Statement for Business Concern and Other Nonresidential Establishments in the
Auraria Urban Renewal Project. Denver Urban Renewal Authority. 1976. Records, 1958-1974. Box 4,
FF15. Manuscript collection. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy.
70 Abbott, Auraria Higher Education Center, p. 54.
71 George Jr. Rivera, Aileen F. Lucero, and Richard Castro. Internal Colonialism in Colorado: The
Westside Coalition and Barrio Control. In La Gente: Hispano History and Life in Colorado. Ed.
Vincent C. DeBaca (Denver, CO: Colorado Historical Society, 1998), p. 208. Gallegos indicates in
History of the Hispanic Settlers in Auraria, p. 29, that the ARO was formally established before the
vote.
49


Committee on Community Involvement and appointed community representatives to
become regular participants of discussion.72 The ARO, in response to an earlier
survey conducted by MSCD students, submitted their Preliminary Analysis of the
Survey by the Auraria Residents Organization in January 1969. In their survey the
ARO explains,
The purpose of the group is: (1) to organize the residents of the area;
(2) disperse information regarding the proposed higher education
complex and urban renewal project; (3) see that all the residents of
Auraria are properly relocated according to their needs and
preferences; and (4) provide alternative proposals to the existing
college plans (eg. housing on the site).73
Members of the ARO conducted the survey and gave information regarding who
lived in the area, what the concerns were with moving, and their demands to DURA.
Written text and tables provided details of the residents in statistical numbers, rather
than individual cases.
In response to the AROs survey DURA agreed to answer several questions
and concerns about the Auraria project. Many of the questions and answers reiterated
the information provided in the informational packets submitted to the residents and
business owners, but DURA held the responsibility of answering face to face rather
than in a formal letter. Instead of merely providing details of residential and business
72 Abbott, The Auraria Higher Education Center, p. 65.
73 Preliminary Analysis of the Survey Conducted by the Auraria Residents Organization. January 16,
1970. p. 1. Denver Urban Renewal Authority. Records, 1958-1974. Box 4, FF4. Manuscript
Collection. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy.
50


relocation, DURA answered questions justifying the necessity of a new college
campus. Their response stated,
It is a fact that tuition and other costs for attending state-supported
colleges and universities in Colorado are high. Many of the students
cant afford to attend these institutions. The Auraria idea is to bring
education costs within the reach of everyone. Its colleges will offer
educational programs to all levels for all people.
In response to questions concerning cost of schooling at MSCD, DURA answered,
At present, education costs, which include tuition, fees and books amount to
approximately $400 a year.74 Residents received another formal letter signed by J.
Robert Cameron, Executive Director, Denver Urban Renewal Authority dated
April 2, 1970. Cameron assured residents and businesses that immediate evacuation
was not the goal. He claimed that purchase and relocation activity would not take
place until about May or June of 1971. As to the monetary compensations, Cameron
stated, The purchase price of your property will be established by two independent
appraisals made by Denver appraisal firms. You will be offered a price that relates to
existing market value of your property.75
In February of 1970 the Auraria Businessmen Against Confiscation filed suit
before the State Supreme Court alleging that the Denver bond vote had been illegal,
74 Questions and Answers. Auraria. p. 6. Denver Urban Renewal Authority. 1976. Records, 1958-
1974. Box 4, FF2. Manuscript collection. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. I
have heard from many sources that education at Metro was supposed to be free for former residents of
Auraria. This is the only document I have found providing any reference to costs of tuition directly
relating to the residents.
75 Letter to the residents and businessmen in Auraria Denver Urban Renewal Authority. 1976.
Records, 1958-1974. Box 4, FF15. Manuscript collection. Denver Public Library Western History and
Genealogy.
51


but their attempt was not successful. The ARO decided to take their complaints to the
U S. Supreme Court in Washington, D C. and demanded compensation for the
residents. Both the state and national courts confirmed the legality of the November
1969 bond issue. In May 1971 Denver City and County approved DURAs finalized
plans for the Auraria Project of acquisition, relocation, and clearance. DURA
continued purchase of the land properties, as well as relocating current residents. One
resident, Isabel Ramos, owned three houses in the neighborhood and only received
$35,000 for all three properties.76 77 DURA kept its promise to provide funds for
relocation, even to renters, but, because some houses were in violation of building
codes, landlords started to evict their tenants rather than repair the problems. Those
evicted tenants were not eligible to receive relocation compensation and left their
homes without help. As plans for the Auraria Higher Education Center continued, the
residents still resisted. One of the last great efforts of the ARO came in 1972 when
the group threatened to set up a tent city in Auraria as a protest against the
excessive number of evictions and also to demand residents receive more funds.
Their threats went unanswered, and demolition began.
76 McEncroe, Denver Renewed, p. 519-521.
77 Gallegos, History of the Hispanic Settlers in Auraria, p. 30.
52


CHAPTER SIX
A NEW CAMPUS WITH A FEW OLD BUILDINGS
Auraria residents reluctantly left the neighborhood in which many had grown
up. Although they had lost their battle against urban renewal, they had fought to let
the politicians know they were not going to simply give up on their deteriorated
neighborhood. Many of the residents moved close by the Auraria neighborhood, and
others a little further west of the area. One of the most difficult things for the
majority of the displaced Hispanic residents to leave behind was St. Cajetans
Catholic Church. In their efforts to save the neighborhood in its entirety, the
parishioners of St. Cajetans along with the ARO had succeeded in their fight to save
their beloved church. The preservation St. Cajetans Catholic Church was not a
major concern for local preservationists, but the parishioners would not stand for its
demolition.
As DURA was making plans for demolition and construction on the
designated area, the parishioners succeed in preservation efforts concerning St.
Cajetans Catholic Church. Initially the parishioners concentrated on salvaging the
entire neighborhood, but they also wanted to preserve their cultural center. While the
actual parish was not salvaged, the building received placement on the National
Register of Historic Places and a Denver Landmark Preservation Commission
53


landmark. Demolition of both the churchs school and credit union took place, but
the formal designations forced DURA to save the building and design construction
plans around the existing location. In order to help keep the old community together
in some way, the parishioners of St. Cajetans Church opened a new St. Cajetan in
Southwest Denver at 99 South Raleigh Street. The new church opened in 1975 and
still serves as the Spanish National Church in Denver.78
With the original news of the possible demolition of the Auraria neighborhood
the parishioners and officials at St. Elizabeth Catholic Church began to buy up all of
the land in the surrounding area in order to save the church from the wrecking ball.
DURA did not meet the preservation efforts with much dissent. In their original
Metropolitan State College Site Report, the authority acknowledged that twenty
acres included in the total square footage of the Auraria Project were areas used for
church and street property.79 Brother Adrian, O.F.M. of the Sacred Heart province
designed the church, built in 1898, in the German Gothic style. It received placement
on the National Register of Historic Places and a Denver Landmark Preservation
Commission landmark in 1969. Like the St. Cajetans school, the St. Elizabeths
school was demolished. The parishioners of St. Elizabeths Catholic Church were not
only successful in their preservation efforts for the church, they also retained use of
78 Thomas J. Noel, Colorado Catholicism and the Archdiocese of Denver, 1857-1989. (Denver, CO:
University Press of Colorado, 1989), pp. 344-345.
79 Metropolitan State College Site Selection Report. Appendix I. Denver Urban Renewal Authority.
1976. Records, 1958-1974. Box 4, FF3. Manuscript Collection. Denver Public Library Western
History and Genealogy.
54


the church. They started their efforts early with a much different agenda from the St.
Cajetans parishioners. Most of the parishioners of St. Elizabeth had moved out of
the area years before the proposed campus. The majority did not try to save the
neighborhood, only their church. Saint Elizabeth Catholic Church is still an active
parish to this day.
Although a very small structure, the Emmanuel Shearith Israel Chapel did not
fall to the wrecking ball of urban renewal in Auraria. Known as west Denvers oldest
extant structure, the small stone chapel features a mixture of Romanesque and Gothic
architecture. Built in 1876 by Bishop John F. Spaulding as an Episcopalian chapel,
the church was originally known as Emmanuel Episcopal. As the parishioners moved
out of west Denver, there was little need for the Episcopal church. The congregation
of Israel purchased the church in 1903 and converted into a synagogue. Later, in
1963, the synagogue sold the building to a private owner who transformed it into an
artists studio. DURA decided to salvage the building and save it to use as an art
studio for the new campus. The Emmanuel Shearith Israel Chapel, now commonly
known as the Emmanuel Gallery, received placement on the Colorado State Register
of Historical Places in 1969.
Local preservationist groups took action in efforts to save some of Aurarias
historical treasures. Dana Crawfords newly founded Historic Denver, Inc. took
particular interest in a square block of houses located on Ninth Street in the Auraria
neighborhood. The fairly new Historic Denver, Inc. sought to save houses from
55


demolition because the block represented the oldest surviving residential block in
Denver. Historic Denver, Inc. chose to fight to salvage fourteen structures with a
predicted cost of $900,000. After succeeding in their efforts on Larimer Street the
organization was prepared to work with DURA to create a viable use for the
structures. They sought help from all over the Denver community to save the
buildings. Many private businesses and foundations, like the Boettcher Foundation
and the Gates Foundation, donated large amounts of money toward the cause.
Thousands of private donors who invested their interests in preservation also
80
contributed monetarily for the preservation of the historic homes.
Historic Denver, Inc. decided to restore the structures to their original
architectural integrity, typifying a modest Denver residential neighborhood spanning
from 1873 to 1905. All of the restored buildings have their own distinct
characteristics that added to the architectural distinction of the Auraria neighborhood.
Historic Denver, Inc. restored the houses to their original appearance and named them
for their original occupants. The Ninth Street project also succeeded in preserving
and restoring the neighborhood grocery store at the end of the block. The buildings
tell a story of the original occupants of the area and their descriptions help place the
neighborhood into Denvers history. The homes on Ninth Street typify the
architectural style of early homes in Denver. All are modest in size, but each has its
own striking little details adding to its appeal. There are two-story, one-story, and 80
80 Historic Denver, Inc. Ninth Street Park Dedication. Pamphlet. Denver, CO: August 1, 1976.
56


one duplex on the block.81 82 These homes are significant partially because they are the
only reminder of the original Auraria settlement.
After restoration was completed, Historic Denver, Inc. sold 35,660 square feet
82
of office space in the historic structures to AHEC for $19.20 per square foot.
Historic Denver, Inc. also participated in the efforts to preserve the Tivoli Brewery.
In 1969 financial difficulties, labor disputes, and flood damage forced the Tivoli
Brewery to close its doors, leaving the building virtually abandoned. Several groups,
including Historic Denver, Inc. saw the building not only as a viable historic
structure, but also as valuable space for the new college campus. Placement of the
Tivoli Brewery on the National Register of Historic Places came in 1973. That same
year DURA bought the building with help from federal funds and designated it for
educational purposes. AHEC then decided that the costs of renovation were too high
and turned the project over to private developers.
The preserved buildings, along with the city streets that swept through the
area, forced campus developers to plan buildings around them. Because of the
existing design of the area the campus planners set up the campus on the citys grid.
Parking lots occupied much of the original demolished space. In October 1973
Auraria held its ground-breaking ceremony. AHEC used the land for parking until
they implemented a new buildings construction. Formal dedication of the Auraria
81 Please refer to the appendix for detailed descriptions of the buildings.
82 Historic Denver Incorporated. Ninth Street Park Dedication, pamphlet. Denver, CO: August 1, 1976.
57


Higher Education Center took place in January of 1976. By December faculty
members occupied buildings on the site. Students from all three institutions,
Community College of Denver, Metropolitan State College of Denver, and the
University of Colorado at Denver, filled the buildings for the first time.
Over the last thirty years the Auraria campus has grown and expanded with
more students and new buildings. Of the preserved structures, the Tivoli now serves
as the Student Center with many shops and restaurants to serve the students, faculty,
and staff of the AHEC institutions. St. Cajetans serves as an auditorium, computer
lab, and classroom building. The buildings on Ninth Street house many different
campus departments and offices, except for the Groussman Store which now serves
as a deli (see the appendix for detailed descriptions of the buildings).
While the educational park experiment has been a success in some ways, it
has not been easy for the three separate institutions and AHEC to work together.
New buildings are still appearing on the campus, and others are planned for the
future. One of the biggest controversies that the experiment has introduced is the
question of student housing. Very recently CU-Denver had proposed to build student
housing just outside the campuss designated area. This proposal enraged several
groups including the Displaced Aurarians (formerly the Auraria Residents
Organization) and the West-side Outreach Program. The opposing groups are mostly
descendents of those involved in the original battle of the late sixties and early
seventies. Survival of these groups demonstrates the profound impacts of urban
58


renewal and the past that Auraria is forced to recognize today. These groups show
concern for protecting those who have been affected by urban renewal dislocation in
the past. If the campus were to spread beyond its originally designated area, it would
encroach upon many of those residents affected by the original Auraria Project.
Though the student housing proposal failed, it left a mark on the relationships
between the campus institutions and local organizations. Thus, the effects of an
urban renewal project that occurred thirty years ago still have an impact on urban
politics in Denver today. The Auraria Project in Denver is merely one example of
urban renewal and the politics involved with the movement across the United States.
59


CHAPTER SEVEN
URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS IN OTHER U S. CITIES
Thousands of urban renewal projects occurred across the country from the
1940s through the 1980s. It is difficult to examine all projects and how they relate to
the national movement. The following examples serve as a slice of what was taking
place in other major U S. cities. Urban renewal projects in Detroit, San Antonio, San
Francisco, St. Louis, and Chicago are similar to the Auraria project and to each other,
but each example is also very different. Each city entered into urban renewal projects
at different times, with different motivations, and different sets of actors. While
Detroit was concerned with highway construction, the city of St. Louis looked to
urban renewal for commercial development. Chicago, similar to St. Louis, used
urban renewal in the Hyde Park-Kenwood project, but residents of the area were
successful in stopping the demolition of their way of life. San Antonio used urban
renewal projects for civic developments, and San Francisco used urban renewal for
private development. Urban renewal projects started in each city for different reasons
with different effects, but all played key roles in the politics of their cities.
60


Detroits Highways
In The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit,
Thomas J. Sugrue examines the city politics of Detroit, including the urban renewal.
According to Sugrue, the city politics of Detroit began to change drastically after
World War II. Before World War II, large white populations moved outside Detroits
central city to surrounding suburbs, which created ethnically segregated areas of
Detroit and its suburbs. The African-American and lower income families
concentrated in the inner city, and the white populations sought direct highway routes
across the city, avoiding those areas. Like many of the other major cities in the
country, Detroit looked to urban renewal to help alleviate some of the problems many
local politicians felt the city was facing, by the late 1940s. Sugrue states, In the
1950s, they (politicians and scholars) proposed legislation to shore up depressed areas
of the nation. But their agenda remained on the fringes of postwar economic
policy.83 Detroit politicians were ready to shore up their neighborhoods in the inner
city.
Unlike Denvers first major projects like the Skyline and Auraria Projects,
Detroit was interested in using urban renewal programs to build cross-city
expressways. Unfortunately, significant numbers of African-Americans lived in the
path of these expressways. Consequently, by the 1950s the highways had devastated
the most populated areas of Detroit. Sugrue states that the Detroit city planners were
83 Sugrue, pp. 5-6.
61


careful to plan highways to run through lower income and black neighborhoods, not
to disrupt any nearby middle-class homes. Detroit used urban renewal methods for
highway construction as a handy device for razing slums.84
Unlike Auraria, announcements for Detroits urban renewal areas came years
before construction. Residents of the affected area were given seemingly ample
notice to sell their property and relocate because the announcement of highway
projects came years before their actual construction. The problem was in the early
notice itself, because home owners were unable to sell their property and there were
very few places for the displaced population to relocate. The postwar highway
projects exacerbated the already existent housing crisis that Detroit was facing,
especially for the black community in the city. Much like the Auraria Project in
Denver, renters suffered the most at the hands of the urban renewal projects in
Detroit. Detroit did not have adequate relocation plans for the recently displaced
residents. Even with the efforts of the Detroit Housing Commission, there was not
enough housing. New high-rise public housing began to replace the deteriorating
homes in the demolished slums.
Although city planners promised improved neighborhoods and economy, it
seemed that the major concern was easy access across the city for the suburban
citizens. The Lodge Freeway was one of the largest highway construction projects in
the city. The project, which spanned about seven miles, led to the demolition of
84 Ibid, p. 47.
62


2,222 buildings. Similarly, the Edsel Ford Expressway caused the demolition of
2,800 buildings in the 1950s. Although one major project did affect a middle class
neighborhood, out of the nine hundred structures cleared between Wyoming and
Warren Avenues, seven hundred or so white families were able to move intact to
other middle class areas in Detroit, according to Sugrue.85 Overall, the growing
African-American population in the city felt the effects of urban renewal within
Detroits highway systems far more than any other ethnic group.
The Detroit highway system case is much larger in size than that of the
Auraria project, but the stories are very similar. In both cases large numbers of the
most prevalent minority group were forced to move from their homes in order to
make room for civic projects. In both Denver and Detroit the major groups affected
by the urban renewal projects had the smallest voice in the decision. People were
forced out of their homes that the state agencies had classified as slums. The cities
did not see their neighborhoods as neighborhoods with real people, but desirable land
for large projects. The places that they called home were demolished for what some
claimed as the better good of the city and state. Instead of helping the residents by
providing funds for the maintenance of their neighborhoods, it was easier for the
cities to tear down the entire area and force the residents out. Denvers Auraria
project and Detroits highway project have benefited many of their residentsthose
who attend college on the Denver campus and those who drive the Detroit highways
85 Ibid, pp. 47-51.
63


to get to work everyday. These projects also had a real negative impact on the
residents forced out of their homes. The projects affected each citys overall politics
as well. In both cases the state institutions heading the urban renewal movement in
the city exercised largely arbitrary power over the poor residents in the city.
San Antonios International Exhibition
San Antonio also experienced major urban renewal projects similar to the
Auraria Project. Carl Abbott explains San Antonio urban renewal in The New Urban
America: Growth and Politics in Sunbelt Cities. Abbott compares several cities in his
1981 book, including both San Antonio and Denver. According to Abbott, the urban
renewal process in San Antonio was tightly controlled by the new establishment of
municipal reformers and local businessmen.86 Unlike Denver, which gave citizens
more of a choice in urban renewal projects, San Antonios projects were in the hands
of businessmen and politicians. Many San Antonio businessmen and politicians
claimed that the projects promoted metropolitan growth in San Antonio and would
enhance downtown activity in the city.
In order to reduce administrative chaos the San Antonio City Council formed
the Good Government League in December 1957. The Leagues goals were to
revitalize the Central Business District and refurbish the image of the city through
86 Carl Abbott, The New Urban America: Growth and Politics in Sunbelt Cities (Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1981), p. 152.
64


urban renewal. After early efforts from the League, San Antonio approved a city
renewal program in December 1957. In the early 1960s, the city proposed a large
urban renewal project titled the Central West Project, which designated 68 acres west
of the citys courthouse and city hall for demolition. The area, mostly occupied by
Hispanic residents, was planned for commercial reuse. Next, San Antonio urban
renewal advocates focused their attention on the Rosa Verde Project just north of the
Central West Project. The project, intended for housing rehabilitation, was in the
vicinity of major hospitals in the city. The city used spot clearance in the area in
order to make room for new apartments.87
San Antonio was chosen as the future site for the Hemis Fair-International
Exhibition, set to arrive in 1968. With the announcement of the coming event, the
city underwent another major urban renewal project. The city designated 149 acres
southeast of the Alamo as the potential site for the upcoming exhibition. San
Antonios urban renewal authority acquired the land for $28 million, selling it back to
the city for $3 million. In order to meet its federal funding requirements, the city
used a large portion of the 1964 bond issue in order to finance the project. The Hemis
Fair Project consisted of building a Civic Center encompassing a theater, arena, and
exhibition building. The remainder of the land was to be leased to the Hemis Fair
Company.88
87 Ibid, p. 152.
88 Ibid, p. 152-153.
65


West-side Congressman Henry B. Gonzales first publicized the idea of the
Hemis Fair Project in 1962. Gonzales gained support when Senator Ralph
Yarborough secured federal participation for designation as an official international
exhibition site. Soon after, Texas Governor John Connally supported the project by
financing a multi-million dollar appropriation from the state. Twenty-six local banks
financed $4.5 million for the operating corporation, and the loan was then secured by
pledges of four hundred and eighty businessmen. The project had secured financing
to proceed.89
The Hemis Fair preceded the Mexico City Olympics, and proponents of the
project emphasized the cultural and commercial ties between the United States and
Latin America. Although the cultural ties were emphasized, what the proponents did
not stress was that many Hispanic families were displaced in the process. The Hemis
Fair Project was completed in time to host the exhibition, which drew about six
million visitors. After the Hemis Fair International Exhibition closed the space was
used for a convention center and federal buildings. The area also became the home to
many tourist attractions including the Institute of Texas Cultures and the Tower of
Americas.90
San Antonios Hemis Fair project actually compares more with the Skyline
Project in Denver than Auraria on some levels. In the Auraria case, the city and other
89 Ibid, p, 153.
90Ibid, p, 153.
66


state institutions lead the urban renewal project instead of businessmen. Businessmen
of the cities spearheaded both the Skyline and Hemis Fair projects for the
revitalization of the central business district and ultimately for their own financial
motivations. Skyline and Hemis Fair helped in the efforts to bring businesses back to
downtown instead of other competing areas in the cities and suburbs. Civic
development motivated both the Hemis Fair and Auraria projects, but while the
Auraria project stood to benefit the entire area, the intent of the Hemis Fair project
focused on one event without a clear plan for the future of the area. The sizes of the
areas as well as the people affected by the demolition were similar. In both cases the
Hispanic residents of the designated sites paid the biggest price for civic
development.
San Franciscos Golden Gate Project
San Francisco is another city that Abbott examines in his book. San
Franciscos urban renewal history is quite different from urban renewal in Denver.
According to Abbott, the Golden Gateway Center was San Franciscos key urban
renewal project. The Golden Gateway Center Project focused on private rather than
civic development through urban renewal. The project demolished an old warehouse
produce market near the ferry terminal. The Embarcadero Complex, which consisted
of four huge office buildings, a Hyatt Regency Hotel, and high-rise upper-income
67


housing, replaced the market91 The Golden Gateway Project also provided the Bay
Area Rapid Transit station, which brought people into the area from all over the city.
C.B. Zellerbach and Charles Blyth, San Francisco industrialists, first proposed
the idea of the Golden Gateway Center. The two men provided support for the
project by forming a businessmens committee in 1955. After the committee formed,
members advanced funds for the planning stage of the project. Although adjacent
building owners to the project area raised complaints regarding unfair competition,
the plans were already underway. It took less than six weeks for the redevelopment
agency, planning committee, and board of supervisors to approve the final plans in
the spring of 1959. The San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association
(PURA), a committee formed from the Blyth-Zellerbach Committee in 1959, also
backed the Golden Gateway Center project.92
The Golden Gateway Center project helped to trigger private development in
the San Francisco financial district in the 1960s. By the end of the 1960s, the Yerba
Buena project was the center of urban renewal arguments in the city. Through the
Yerba Buena project, the redevelopment agency hoped to demolish eighty-seven
acres of cheap hotels, parking lots, and warehouses north of Market Street, replacing
them with a convention center and additional offices. According to Abbott,
City officials saw an annual tax increment of $5.2 million add to the
$3.4 million gain from Golden Gateway, large corporations saw extra
facilities for the metropolitan community, members of the Convention
91 Ibid, p. 149.
92 Ibid, p. 149-150.
68


and Visitors Bureau saw flush times for owners and employees of
hotels, restaurants, entertainment, and professional sports, and the
Building and Construction Trades Council saw more jobs.93
This project evicted three thousand low-income elderly and transient residents
of the area. Public protests and extensive litigation blocked federal funds in 1968.
These resulted in a public agreement in which the redevelopment agency proceeded
with the construction of the Yerba project, but the agreement required the agency to
add 1,200 housing low-rent housing units for the elderly. Additionally, the agreement
required the agency to rehabilitate 1,500 low-income housing units in other parts of
the city as part of the agreement.94
The San Francisco public did not widely accept urban renewal projects in the
1960s. Although the Yerba Buena project was completed, the efforts of the protestors
had more of an impact than those of the residents in west Denver, Detroit, or San
Antonio. Unlike residents in the other three cities, the residents in the Yerba project
area gained support from other community activists who lobbied the state in protest
of the project. In Denver, Detroit, and San Antonio, residents gained little support
outside their area. The urban renewal project in San Francisco caused a stir, but it
may not have been met with as much contention from the public had the proposed site
been intended as a civic development project. Some of the public may found it hard
to support a project that displaced thousands of people for the good of private
93 Ibid, pp. 150-151.
94 Ibid, p. 151.
69


interests in the city. Although the city stood to benefit in the long run with increased
investment and capital flow into the city, the residents did not feel any immediate
impact from the success of local businessmen. It seemed that the favored
businessmen gained the most by dislocating low-income and nearly destitute people.
St. Louiss R-ll Folly
Dennis R. Judd and Robert Mendelson examine urban issues in East St. Louis
in The Politics of Urban Planning: The East St. Louis Experience. Urban renewal in
East St. Louis started to take form in the last 1950s. Although the city appointed a
new position of city planning director, urban renewal remained the responsibility of
the local housing authority. In 1959 forty-nine acres of deteriorated housing and
commercial facilities were cleared in the Illinois R-l 1 urban renewal project. The
project found support from both a community development program and a coalition
of neighborhood groups assisted by business interests. The project, while initially
successful in clearance of the area was not successful in development. The Illinois R-
11 area was originally designated for commercial development as an extension of the
St. Louis downtown business district. All but thirty percent of the area was left
undeveloped as of the early 1970s. The designated development did not attract
developers.
The city council had marketed the R-ll area unsuccessfully for five years.
Due to the lack of success, the city, along with suggestions from several local
70


businessmen, decided to bring the urban renewal function back into the city
administration from the housing authority. In 1964 the city hired Edwin Denman, a
former urban renewal director in an Indiana city, as their new urban renewal and
planning director. His primary concern was to bring success to the R-l 1 project. He
hired a consulting firm from New Jersey to prepare a master plan for the area which
was completed several years after his appointment. Only two years after his
appointment, the business and banking interests of the city united to form the
Progress Action by Citizens Efforts (PACE). Members of PACE had become very
impatient and skeptical with the results of urban renewal in St. Louis. The groups
primary concern was the economic future of the city. The city government had failed
in efforts to stop the declining property values and the members of PACE were
feeling the effects in their businesses. Taking their own initiative for the R-11
project, PACE hired a local architectural firm and planning firm to develop a plan for
the city, including the R-l 1 project. Their final plans were quite extravagant,
suggesting large-scale clearance of existing residential areas only to be replaced with
commercial, residential, and entertainment areas. This plan also failed to attract
developers to the R-l 1 area.
PACE realized that there was little future for commercial development of the
area and proposed using the area for housing. The city did not respond. At the same
time the city hired a local realtor to market the land, but the attempt failed to make a
sale. It seemed that urban renewal was not going to have any success in East St.
71


Louis, despite the efforts of PACE and the city. The project was not made feasible
until a 1970 decision to place more public housing in the area. The city cleared out
forty-nine acres of low-income housing in the R-l 1 project area and built a new
motel, a federal building, an expansion of an existing hospital, and public housing.95
Unlike the other projects examined, St. Louis did not have a plan for the R-l 1
area other than to demolish it and dislocate its businesses and residents. The project,
obviously unsuccessful, was very different from the Auraria project. St. Louis used
urban renewal as a tool to demolish an area, just as in the Auraria project, but that
was it. It was not until PACE became involved that any progress took place in the
development of the R-l 1 area. Developers deemed the area undesirable even after the
demolition of the existing properties. Denver sought the Auraria site because of its
desirable location, and clear plans were set for the future of the site before demolition
began in the area. St. Louis may have learned from the R-l 1 project, but the lesson
was very different than that learned from the Auraria project.
Mass Renewal in One Chicago Area
Urban renewal in Chicago, one of the nations largest cities, affected several
areas of the city. In The Impact of Urban Renewal on Small Businesses: the Hyde
Park-Kenwood Case, Brian J. L. Berry, Sandra J. Parsons, and Rutherford H. Platt
95 Dennis R. Judd and Robert E. Mendelson. The Politics of Urban Planning: The East St. Louis
Experience (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1973), pp. 47-49.
72


examine one large area affected by urban renewal. The authors, while looking at the
total impact of the area, detail every case in each smaller area of the Hyde Park-
Kenwood area. As part of the overall plan for the large area, the Kimbark Plaza
emerged as a novel experiment proving to be of importance and significance to
commercial planning elsewhere. Plans for the experiment were underway in 1956
after the initial A and B plans for the area were already in motion. According to the
authors, the Kimbark Plaza area comprised eight hundred and fifty-five acres,
containing thirty-one hundred structures, and housing sixty-five thousand people.
The goal of the plan was not to dislocate the existing community and businesses, but
to conserve the area and therefore to use clearance selectively. The Preliminary
Plan called for the thorough clearance of an entire block, and the relocation of
another. When added to existing clearance plans in the larger area, the overall
clearance anticipated by the plan would eliminate an entire commercial rectangle in
the area.
While the plan called for the vacancy of one hundred and twelve businesses,
there was a provision in the Preliminary Plan for the restoration of a limited amount
of commercial space to the community. This was an effort to help the displaced
citizens and also to avoid depriving sixty-five thousand people in the neighborhood of
their neighborhood walk-in stores. After initial efforts, the plan designated ten
scattered sites for commercial redevelopment. The Housing and Home Finance
Agency (HHFA) received the plans in August of 1956 and approved them approved
73


that December. This measure enabled the local merchants to maintain their
businesses. The only opposition came from chain-stores that claimed the decision
favored the small merchants. Either way, the local demand to keep small businesses
prevailed in the Kimbark Plaza project in Chicago.96
Residents in Chicago, like those in San Francisco, exercised their voices
against city urban renewal politics. They also successfully preserved some of their
neighborhood and way of life. Urban renewal in the Hyde Park-Kenwood case
affected a much larger population than that of any other city examined. This may
explain the effect of their voice in the political decisions for their area. The residents
and businessmen of Auraria, a much smaller group in comparison, did not fall upon
deaf ears in Denver, but their efforts did not have the same impact as in the Chicago
project. Chicagos residents fought not only to save their neighborhood, but the
integrity of the area. Denver deemed Auraria a slum, but the city of Chicago saw the
Hyde Park-Kenwood area as a prime commercial area, not necessarily a blight on the
city landscape.
Project Distinctions
No matter which city is examined in the United States, urban renewal played
out in different ways. Preservation played a crucial role in the Auraria case, unlike
96 Brian J. L. Berry, Sandra J. Parsons, and Rutherford H. Platt, The Impact of Urban Renewal on
Small Businesses: The Hyde Park-Kenwood Case (Chicago: The Center for Urban Studies, The
University of Chicago, 1968), pp. 48-52.
74


many other cities. Although buildings on the Auraria site had deteriorated over the
years, people like Dana Crawford, fought to save the historical treasures for
generations to come. In most other cases, like the highway projects in Detroit, the
public paid little attention to the buildings on the demolished areas. Deteriorated
buildings made them candidates for demolition, regardless of the historical or
architectural significance. Most likely, demolition of many of the nations historic
treasures took place during urban renewal projects. Times are different now, and
what may have been thought of as deteriorating during the urban renewal era is now
often considered a historic treasure lost at the hands of urban renewal. Not every
building preserved needs a famous name or event to justify its importance. Denver,
with the efforts of preservation groups, preserved some of the citys simple structures
to offer future generations a broader stoiy.
Preservation has not been the only difference in urban renewal projects across
the country. Some projects were designed for civic development, while others
reflected more concern with the commercial side of development. Whether
designated for a college campus or commercial park, every urban renewal project
produced a new group of heroes and victims, according to various perspectives.
Although not every project affected a large number of families or residents living in
the area, someone always felt the impact. Businesses, especially small ones, suffered
due to urban renewal projects in every major city regardless of the size of the project.
Many of those businesses did not survive the effects of dislocation and never opened
75


their doors in a different location. The small businessmen in the Hyde Park-Kenwood
area did not feel the effects as did those in the Auraria neighborhood or the Golden
Gate Center area. While the Chicago businessmen opened their doors after urban
renewal swept through their area, their counterparts in other cities watched their
buildings fall to the wrecking ball. Residents all over the country saw their homes
(filled with memories) tumble at the hand of urban renewal.
76


CHAPTER EIGHT
CONCLUSION: THE LASTING LEGACY OF
URBAN RENEWAL
Urban renewal is complicated. Not every project worked just as the city or
locality planned, but some projects have been more successful than originally
anticipated. St. Louis dropped the ball on the R-l 1 project, while residents of Detroit
travel the citys highways everyday. No city could claim that any of its urban
renewal projects went exactly according to plan. Every city met the concept and
projects with different ideas and executions of those ideas. Some urban renewal
agencies were practically met with open arms from the majority of the citys
residents, while others were met with contention on different levels and by different
groups. Groups opposed urban renewal projects for different reasons. Some tried to
save their homes and businesses, while others were not willing to fund the projects
for their city. Regardless of the reasons for opposition, some groups found success in
their efforts, while others were forced to leave their homes behind.
Many affected groups, like the residents of Auraria, were Hispanic and an
ethnic minority group within their cities. Although many of the groups did not find
success initially in their efforts against urban renewal, their efforts played a key role
in the urban politics of many major U.S. cities. The Chicano civil rights movement
succeeded in increasing the groups political rights in cities all over the country.
77


Several of the countrys major cities experienced increased political footing within
Hispanic populations as a result of the movements efforts, and a rise in Hispanic
population all over the country. According to Mike Davis in Magical Urbanism:
Latinos Reinvent the U.S. City, by the early 1990s, Hispanic populations have
outnumbered African-American populations in six major cities. Hispanics, as the
majority-minority group, have exercised political powers in cities all over the
country, including Denver.97 Their influence on urban politics has changed and
increased, partially due to their organizing efforts in the fight against urban renewal.
The politics of urban renewal are too complex to summarize one side or
another when examining a particular project. This is not to say that Frank Abbott and
Magdalena Gallegos did not tell some version of the truth in their accounts of the
Auraria project. However, each told a version from a single perspective, or in
Gallegoss case, the version of the story from the residents perspectives. Together,
and supplemented with a good bit of additional research, their accounts help draw a
more clearly defined picture of what took place.
The Auraria residents were not passive victims, although it may be easier to
tell a story of neighborhood pride and unity after a neighborhood no longer exists.
People often have an unintended tendency to romanticize the past when reflecting
upon it. It is important to remember that the residents accounts were recorded after
the battle, and after they were displaced by the campus. Had interviews taken place
97 Mike Davis, Magical Urbanism: Latinos Reinvent the U.S. City (New York: Verso, 2000), p. 2.
78


before the idea of displacement, their recorded story of the area may have been quite
different. Their stories are important in understanding the effects of the Auraria
campus on the displaced residents, but it is crucial not to take every word as absolute
truth.
In the same respect, AHEC commissioned Abbott to write an institutional
history. His primary concern was to glorify the success of the institution. He was
not, however, concerned with incorporating the story of the residents. The CCHE,
AHEC, and DURA are neither the heroes whom Abbott describes or the villains
whom displaced Aurarians describe. Each of these three institutions carried out its
plans for an urban renewal project, resulting in a college campus. Although the
institutions did take the concerns of the residents into some consideration, none were
interested in salvaging the neighborhood. In several cases the residents were treated
as statistics, but DURA made a concerted effort to conduct face-to-face sessions with
the residents. The authority also tried to compensate the residents as best as possible.
Unfortunately, the majority of the residents did not benefit from their efforts because
they were renters, not owners. This is not the fault of DURA; it is just a part of the
complicated situation.
The educational park experiment has provided a place of education for many
tens of thousands of Denver area residents in the past thirty years. Although the
project came at the cost of the homes and businesses of many residents of west
Denver, the project is a huge success for the city and state institutions, in addition to
79


Denver metropolitan area residents. While some of the propaganda in favor of the
campus may have been extremely biased, some of its arguments made good points.
Auraria campus has served as a great resource for the metropolitan area. MSCD has
opened the door of education to many who may not have sought higher education
elsewhere. The educational park experiment has brought a wide variety of students to
the campus, adding to the whole experience. Auraria has become an exceptional
setting for higher education in the state of Colorado.
Preservation of historical buildings on the Auraria Campus adds to the sites
distinction in the Denver area and the country. Although the different preservation
groups worked separately in the efforts, their similar goals enriched the campus
setting. Historic Denver, Inc. not only sought to save Ninth Street for the
architectural and historical integrity of the buildings, but also for functional use. The
group received money from other resources to preserve the houses for office space,
and then they sold the space to AHEC and turned a profit in the end. The
parishioners of St. Cajetans, while losing their homes, saved their church. AHEC
uses St. Cajetans as an auditorium and classroom, but it also serves as a symbol of
the battle against the campus. The parishioners of St. Elizabeth Catholic Church
make their way to mass every week. Auraria Campus is often symbolized by the
Tivoli, the largest and most distinctive building. Without the efforts of the different
groups, with their similar goals, the historic treasures may have been lost to wear and
tear over time, if they survived wrecking crews.
80


People and politics are difficult to comprehend. This is only one study of one
example of urban politics in the United States, but it attempts a balanced
interpretation of a complicated situation by giving credence to multiple voices and
sources of evidence. The Auraria story not only demonstrates urban politics in action
and in impacts, but it also offers an interpretation of the landscape that students and
Denverites see every day: a new campus with a few old buildings. Every area has its
own story to tell for those who seek it out.
81


APPENDIX A
NINTH STREET RESTORED STRUCTURES
The Groussman Store, owned by a Jewish family, is located at 900 Curtis
Street. The commercial structure, designed by F.C. Eberly, who also designed the
Tivoli Brewery, was built in 1906 for Albert B. Groussman and his wife, Belle. It
represents tum-of-the-century commercial architecture in Denver. The Groussman
Ag
Store is a red brick building with an elaborate parapeted roof of globes.
Very little is known about one lonely house on the block located at 1061
Ninth Street. It is believed that the Italianate structure was built in 1874. The house
has simple proportions with classic lines, and a porch was added to the original
structure.
The Rundle House, located at 1059 Ninth Street, was built in 1880 for
William B. Rundle, the manager of the Colorado Electric Company. The house was
originally a one-story, brick building. Sometime between the original construction
and 1890 a second story and mansard roof designed by Frank E. Edbrooke, one of
Denvers premier architects, was added. Metal panels and dormer windows now
puncture the mansard roof, which once established angular patterns. The porch,
Victorian in style, has a porch screen in Philadelphia lattice.
98 A Walking Tour of Auraria. Pamphlet.
82


The Young House, located at 1051 Ninth Street, is an example of the classic
cottage. It has a central dormer window, a tall chimney, neoclassical posts, and a hip
roof. The shingled roof contains metalwork along the ridges, and the house uses
classical dentil detailing.
The Shultz House, the only double on the block, is located at 1045/1047 Ninth
Street. J. J. Brackus for William Schultz, the bookkeeper for the Milwaukee Brewery,
designed the house, which was built for $3,700. The two-story double was originally
constructed with brick but has been covered over with stucco. A lot of detailing was
lost over the years, including a metal cornice along the roof. There are three-
dimensional brackets on the porch posts, produced by various milled and turned
elements.
The Wheeler Griebling House, located at 1041 Ninth Street, is the most
striking Italianate on the block. With tall bays extending to the height and long
windows, this house certainly stands out. It has decorative details and a simple
flower scroll. A mansard roof above the kitchen was added in 1907. The most
striking detail of the house is wonderful iron cresting along the roof line.
The Gardner House, located at 1033 Ninth Street was built in 1873. It is one
of only two frame structures on the block. The house has an L-shaped floor plan, iron
cresting, and roof molding. Framing located in the angle of the floor plan supports its
shingled tower.
83


One of the oldest houses on the block is located at 1068 Ninth Street. Built
circa 1873, The Davis House is a lovely Italianate villa. It has a full porch across the
front with Gothic carpenter detailing. The house is cubical with projecting
bracketed eaves and an iron fence, and is set on a low, red sandstone wall.
Little is known of the Dolan House, located at 1056 Ninth Street. It is a
classic little cottage designed by William Crowe with a hip roof and dormer window
that characterizes it.
The Centennial House, located at 1050 Ninth Street, is a one-story brick
cottage. The house, built by Henry Cole circa 1875, has beautifully proportioned
windows. It has an asymmetrical plan, and is accented by a white picket fence. The
Centennial house may be the oldest standing brick residence in the city of Denver.
The Roop House, built in 1875, is located at 1024 Ninth Street. It is a plum
colored house with an iron cresting roofline and iron fencing. The inside of the house
has a finely crafted oak staircase.
The Smedley House is the second oldest house in the block. It is a frame
house, located at 1020 Ninth Street, and has been through several structural
alterations. When first constructed water was drawn from a well in the basement.
The porch might have been original to the building and the bracketed eaves have
stood the test of time.
The Knight House, located at 1015 Ninth Street, is a quaint little Victorian
style dwelling. It has one of three mansard roof houses on Ninth Street Parkway.
84


There was a cupola on the original structure that does not exist now. The Knight-Ben
family assisted in the addition to the house.
The Witte House, located at 1027 Ninth Street, is towered and crested. Built
circa 1883, this house has spacious rooms and a defining tower. Prior to 1890, the
house contained six rooms. More rooms, the tower, and a box bay on the north side
were added after 1890. During restoration a skylight was added on top of the tower
to provide more natural light "
99 A Walking Tour of Auraria. Pamphlet.
85


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books- Denver and Local History
Abbott, Frank C. The Auraria Higher Education Center: How It Came To Be.
Denver, CO: Auraria Higher Education Center, 1999.
Coel, Margaret, Jane Barker, Karen Gilleland. The Tivoli: Bavaria in the
Rockies. Discovering Historic Colorado. Boulder, CO: Colorado and the
West, 1985.
Eitemiller, David. Historic Tours: For Automobile. Bicycle. Omnibus, or Walking:
Denver. New York. Dover Publications, 1977.
Eitemiller, David J. A Tour of Historic Denver. Including Auraria. Lower
Downtown Denver. 17th Street. Civic Center. Browns Bluff. Quality Hill, and
Humboldt Island (The 2nd Historic District). A Bus Tour Prepared for the
Catholic Alumni Club of Denver. Denver, CO: Denver, 1974.
Etheredge, Tracie and Stan Oliner. An Inventory of the Records of the Auraria
Town Company: Collection Number 23: a Holding of the Library of the
Colorado Historical Society. In Auraria Town Company, Colorado
Historical Society Library, ed. Denver, CO: The Society, 1993.
Etter, Don D. Auraria: Where Denver Began. Denver, CO: Colorado Associated
University Press, 1972.
Leonard, Stephen J. and Thomas J. Noel. Denver: Mining Camp to Metropolis.
Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1990 & 1994.
McEnroe, Donna. Denver Renewed: A History of the Denver Urban Renewal
Authority, ed. by Dick Johnston. Denver, CO: The Denver Foundation and
Alex B. Holland Memorial Fund, 1992.
Noel, Thomas J. Colorado Catholicism and The Archdiocese of Denver. 1857-
1989. Denver, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1989.
86


Noel, Thomas J. Denvers Larimer Street: Main Street. Skid Row, and Urban
Renaissance. Denver, CO: Historic Denver, Inc., 1981, 1983.
Rivera, George Jr., Aileen F. Lucero, and Richard Castro. International
Colonialism in Colorado: The Westside Coalition and Barrio Control. In La
Gente: Hispano History and Life in Colorado, ed. Vincent C. DeBaca. Denver,
CO: Colorado Historical Society, 1998.
Smiley, Jerome C. History of Denver. Denver, CO: Western Pub. Co., 1978
(Reprint of the original 1901 edition).
Books Urban History and Analysis (other than Denver and Local)
Abbott, Carl. The New Urban America: Growth and Politics in Sunbelt Cities.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981.
Berry, Brian Joe Lobley. The Impact of Urban Renewal on Small Business: the
Hyde Park- Kenwood Case. Chicago: Center for Urban Studies, University of
Chicago, 1968.
Davis, Mike. City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. New York:
Verso, 1990.
Davis, Mike. Magical Urbanism: Latinos Reinvent the US Citv. New York:
Verso, 2000.
Garreau, Joel. Edge City: Life on the New Urban Frontier. New York: Doubleday,
1991.
Judd, Dennis R. and Todd Swanstrom. City Politics: Private Power and Public
Policy. New York: Longman, 2002.
Judd, Dennis R. From Cowtown to Sunbelt City: Boosterism and Economic
Growth in Denver. In Fainstein, S., Fainstein, N., Hill, R.L., Judd, D., and
Smith, M.P. eds., Restructuring the Political Economy of Urban Development.
New York: Longman, 1972.
Judd, Dennis R. and Paul P. Kantor, eds. The Politics of Urban America: a
Reader. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998.
87


Judd, Dennis R. and Robert E. Mendelson. The Politics of Urban Planning: the
East St. Louis Experience. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1973.
Logan, John R. and Harvey L. Molotch. Urban Fortunes: the Political Economy of
Place. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1987.
McLemore, S. Dale and Harriet D. Romo. Racial and Ethnic Relations in America.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998 ed.
Mohl, Raymond A. The Making of Urban America. Willmington, Delaware:
Scholarly Resources, Inc., 1997.
Sugrue, Thomas J.. The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar
Detroit. Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, 1996.
Journal Article
Convery, William J. 1997. Pray for the Soul of Catherine Smith Mullen John K.
and Catherine S. Mullen and Philanthropy in Auraria. In Historical Studies
Journal v. 14. Denver, CO: University of Colorado at Denver, 1997.
1969 Newspaper Articles and Letters, and Advertisements
& 21 Denver Legislators Favor Auraria. Denver Post. Sunday, 2 November 2, 1969.
33.
L Auraria Foes Plan Fight in Legislature. Denver Post. 5 November 1969: 48.
Auraria: A Bargain Denver Needs. Denver Post. 2 November 1969: 3G.
Auraria. Fine But Too Close. Denver Post. 5 November 1969. 34.
Citizens for Auraria To Continue After Vote. Rocky Mountain News. 1 November
1969: 26.
Dedicated Students Show the Way. Rocky Mountain News. 6 November 1969: 62.
88


Denver Election Turnout Light. Denver Post (Home Edition), 4 November 1969:
1A.
I Denver to Decide Auraria Proposal. Denver Post 3 November 3, 1969: 1A.
Hispanos Cite Church Failure. Denver Catholic Register. 18 December 1969: 1.
McNichols Answers Questions on Auraria. Rocky Mountain News. 2 November
1969: 5 & 10.
Metro Student Survey Shows: Central College Good for Jobs. Denver Catholic
Register. 27 November 27 1969: 10.
Official Cites Reasons for Auraria Vote. Rocky Mountain News. 1 November
1969: 42.
Opposition Seeks Auraria Fund Block. Denver Post. 2 November 2 1969: 34.
Vote for Auraria Amendment #1. Auraria Campus Advertisement. Denver. CO:
Citizens for Auraria. 1969.
West Side Action Council Opposes Auraria Issue. Denver Post, 2 November 1969:
37.
Why Denver Needs the Auraria Center. Auraria Campus Advertisement. Denver:
CO: Citizens for Auraria. 1969.
- Aragon, Mrs. Germaine. Concern of Chicano For Auraria Homes. (letter to The
Open Forum) Denver Post. 3 November 1969: 12.
Ball, Dave. Metro Student Defends Auraria. Denver Post. 1 November 1969: 12.
Bonfils, Frederick G. The Open Forum. Denver Post. 3 November 1969: 19.
i, Ditmer, Joanne. Broken Pledges Threaten Auraria." Denver Post. 2 November 1969:
93.
., Johnston, Dick. Voters of Denver Approve College Project in Auraria:
Legislature Next Hurdle for Complex. Denver Post. 5 November 1969: 1A &
3A.
89


Johnston, Dick. Commission to Request $5.6 Million for Auraria. Denver Post. 7
November 1969: 52.
Johnston, Dick. Is Auraria the Key to Checking Denvers Decline as Core City?
Denver Post 2 November 1969: 1 (Perspective Section).
Lyle, Don. 2nd Charter Amendment is Explained. Rocky Mountain News.
2 November 1969. 8.
Lyle, Don. Mayor Vows Auraria Follow Through. Rocky Mountain News.
6 November 1969: 8.
Morehead, John. Mayor Sees Vote Turnout of 61,000. Denver Post. 2 November
1969: 1 & 4.
Tucker, Richard. Auraria Wins by 3,773 Margin, City Voters Give Okay to
Auraria. Rocky Mountain News. 5 November 1969: 1,5,8.
Tucker, Richard. CCHE to Seek Auraria Project Funds. Rocky Mountain News.
6 November 1969: 5 & 6.
Manuscripts
Denver City and Auraria, the commercial emporium of the Pikes Peak
gold regions in 1859: St. Louis? 44 pp., 15 pp. advertisements, illus., map.
Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy.
Auraria Town Company. 1858-1860. Records of the Auraria Town Company, from
October 1858 to March 1860. 23 pp. Denver Public Library Western History
and Genealogy.
Auraria Town Company. Circa 1930. Copy of original Town record of Denver
City, Colorado [1858-1861], copy of original Town record of St. Charles
Town Association [1858], Denver, CO: Document Division, Denver Museum
Collection. 62 pp., 12 leaves. Denver Public Library Western History and
Genealogy.
90


Barker, Anselm Holcomb. 1959. Anselm Holcomb Barker, 1822-1895, pioneer
builder and early settler of Auraria: his diary of 1858 from Plattesmouth,
Nebraska Territory, to Cherry Creek Diggings, present site of Denver,
Colorado., 1:83. Denver, Colorado: Golden Bell Press. 83 pp., illus., bib.,
index. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy.
Barney, Libeus. 1959. Letter of the Pikes Peak gold rush (or, Early day letters from
Auraria) Early-day letters, by Libeus Barney, reprinted from the Bennington
Banner, Vermont, 1859-1860. San Jose, CA: Talisman Press. 97 pp., illus.,
port., fold map (in pocket). Denver Public Library Western History and
Genealogy.
Denver Urban Renewal Authority, Records, 1958-1974. 1976 [manuscript], Denver,
CO. 7 boxes, finding aid, Auraria project in Box 4. Denver Public Library
Western History and Genealogy.
Thesis and Dissertations
Corson, Dan William. 1998. Dana Crawford: from Larimer Square to LoDo,
Historic Preservation in Denver.: Thesis (M.S.) University of Colorado at
Denver, 1998.
Gallegos, Magdalena. History of the Hispanic Settlers in Auraria: the Forgotten
Community. Denver, CO, 1985.
Gallegos, Magdalena. Auraria Remembered. Denver, CO: Community College of
Denver, 1991.
Milstein, Philip. The Auraria Higher Education Center. Thesis (D P. A.)
University of Colorado at Denver, 1990.
Surveys. Maps, and Pamphlets
A Walking Tour of Auraria. Denver: CO: Auraria Higher Education Center. 2002.
Pamphlet.
91


BRW, Inc. and Flores Associates, Madison, Madison, International, Felsberg, Holt,
and Ullevig, Hammer-Siler-George Associates. 1986. Auraria Parkway
Corridor Study: 153. Denver, CO: BRW, Inc. Denver Public Library Western
History and Genealogy.
Emrich, Ron and Barbara Norgen. Architectural and Historical Survey of Downtown
Denver. Denver, CO: Preservation Alliance, 1984. Denver Public Library
Western History and Genealogy.
Denver Planning Office. Community Renewal Program. Denver. Condition of the
City: March 1973 / Prepared bv the City and Countv of Denver Planning
Office: Community Renewal Program. Denver, CO: Planning Office, 1973.
Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy.
Denver Urban Renewal Authority. Denver Urban Renewal Authority. Denver,
CO: The Authority. 1 map, 1983. Denver Public Library Western History and
Genealogy.
Fetter, Rosemary. A Brief History of Auraria: Celebrating 20 Years of Innovation
In Higher Education. Denver, CO: office of the Executive Vice President for
Administration, Auraria Higher Education Center, 1997. Denver Public
Library Western History and Genealogy.
Historic Denver, Incorporated. Ninth Street Park Dedication. Denver, CO: Historic
Denver, Inc. August 1, 1976. Pamphlet. Denver Public Library Western
History and Genealogy.
University of Denver and Social Welfare Institute. A Survey of Human Needs
and Utilization Patterns Among Mexican-American Residents in the Auraria
Barrio of Denver. Denver, CO, 1972. Denver Public Library Western History
and Genealogy. Survey.
92


Full Text

PAGE 1

AURARIA: FROM NEIGHBORHOOD TO CAMPUS by Jodi Michelle Summers B.A., University of Colorado at Denver, 2001 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado at Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts History 2003

PAGE 2

This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Jodi Michelle Summers has been approved by Pamela Laird Mark Foster James Whiteside z: .:? oD_< Date

PAGE 3

Summers, Jodi Michelle (M.A., History) Auraria: From Neighborhood to Campus Thesis directed by Associate Professor Pamela Laird ABSTRACT This thesis analyzes the urban renewal project on Auraria Campus in Denver, Colorado, and relates the site to other urban renewal projects in the United States. Auraria, now home to a college campus, once served as both an industrial and residential area ofDenver, and in the late 1960s, the city ofDenver chose the site for an urban renewal project. The project, headed by the Denver Urban Renewal Authority, demolished 145 acres on the west side ofDenver. This thesis focuses on the politics of the Auraria case, demonstrating how urban politics developed through the late 1960s and early 1970s. Denver's Auraria project generated dissension from several groups in the area, including the residents of the area and local preservation groups. While the city eventually approved the proposed college campus for the site, the opposing groups made big strides in participating in the city's politics. As a result of their activism, several historic structures still exist on the campus. Opposition from the residents of the area left a mark on city politics. Although the city ofDenver approved many urban renewal projects in the era, not all residents and businessmen met the proposals 1ll

PAGE 4

with the same support. This case serves as an example of many, with its own distinct story to tell. Other studies have focused on the Auraria Campus and the displaced Auraria residents, and most authors have explained the story from a distinctly partisan view point, missing the richness of the complicated history. This thesis explains the Auraria project by augmenting all the available secondary sources with substantial additional primary resources in order to offer a balanced story. In order to draw the Auraria picture into a national context, this thesis explores five different urban renewal projects in other major U.S. cities. These various projects, with all their similarities and differences from the Auraria project, further expose the complexities of urban renewal. Urban renewal projects left a lasting legacy within every major U.S. city between the 1940s and the 1980s, not only on the cities' landscapes, but on each city's politics. This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate's publication. Signed Pamela Laird IV

PAGE 5

CONTENTS PREFACE ........................................................................................................ vii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1 Previous Interpretations ......................................................................... 3 Goals .................................................................................................... 7 2. URBAN RENEWAL AND PRESERVATION IN DENVER ................... 9 Shifts ofFocus in Urban Renewal ....................................................... 13 Urban Renewal in Denver ................................................................... 16 The Skyline Project ............................................................................. 18 3. IDGHER EDUCATION AND THE DENVER URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY ......................................................................................... 23 4. THE AURARIA NEIGHBORHOOD ..................................................... 32 5. WEST DENVER AND URBAN RENEWAL ......................................... 39 6. A NEW CAMPUS WITH A FEW OLD BUILDINGS ........................... 53 v

PAGE 6

7. URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS IN OTHER U.S. CITITES ................. 60 Detroit's Highways ............................................................................. 61 San Antonio's International Exhibition ................................................ 64 San Francisco's Golden Gate Project.. ................................................. 67 St. Louis's R-11 Folly ......................................................................... 70 Mass Renewal in One Chicago Area ................................................... 72 Project Distinctions ............................................................. 74 8. CONCLUSION: TilE LASTING LEGACY OF URBAN RENEWAL ... 77 APPENDIX NINTH STREET RESTORED STRUCTURES .......................................... 82 BffiLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................. 86 Vl

PAGE 7

PREFACE In my first semester as a graduate student at the University of Colorado at Denver I served as a teacher's assistant in a freshman seminar focusing on Colorado history. Although it was only my first semester as an official graduate student, it was my fifth year as a student on the Auraria Campus. Over the four years I spent on my undergraduate degree I became very accustomed to the sites and layout of the Auraria Higher Education Center (AHEC). Because of this, I began to overlook the historic buildings scattered across the small but densely populated urban campus. It was not until taking the freshman students on a tour of the campus that I remembered many original questions I and others frequently have upon arrival. We started the tour from our classroom in the Plaza building, one of several typical classroom buildings on the campus. As we stepped out of the building the students were greeted by a structure that appears more like a church than a campus building. While walking toward the structure the students seemed very puzzled. One student simply looked at me and asked, "Why is there a big pink church in the middle of a college campus?" It was at that point that I realized that most of the new students to the campus had very little understanding of the cultural landscape or the political history of AHEC. The buildings of Auraria tell a story of Denver's past to which very few younger students have been exposed. With that one seemingly simple question, I chose the topic of my master's thesis. VII

PAGE 8

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This is a non-partisan telling of a story of urban politics as they played out in the Auraria Project in Denver examining the story as a complicated whole. The Auraria project was just one of many urban renewal projects all over the United States and in the Denver metropolitan area during the 1940s through the 1980s. Unique in some aspects, typical in others, the full story serves as a prime example of the effects of urban renewal on an area. The proposal to demolish 145 acres on the west side of the central business district in Denver triggered mixed opinions from many directions, especially the prospective displaced residents, the citizens of the Denver metropolitan area, and the state agencies involved. Yet, unlike many other urban renewal projects around the city and the country, the Auraria project had the potential to benefit all residents of the metropolitan area. It was not just a project with the goal of revitalizing a central business district or creating a new highway, it was a project that would bring higher education to the residents of the Denver metropolitan area on a centrally located campus. Even those against demolishing the residential and industrial area could not deny the need for the proposed campus in central Denver. West Denver was an appealing location for the project because it was centrally located and positioned the campus across a river from the recently 1

PAGE 9

revitalized central business district. Location of the Auraria site was essential for the proposal, but planners, most likely, would have chosen a different area for the campus if the voters had not funded their matching obligation for revitalization. Despite the opposition of some residents of Denver in the late 1960s, the Auraria Project became the second major urban renewal project in the city, and the site now houses a centrally-located college campus on the edge of downtown Denver. The Auraria campus became home to three separate institutions of higher education: Community College of Denver, Metropolitan State College of Denver, and the University of Colorado at Denver. The three institutions, while separate in constituencies, faculties, funding, and administration, share a consolidated campus on 169 acres ofland on the west side of downtown Denver. Each of the three institutions is politically independent, but the Auraria Higher Education Center (AHEC) is the governing board that helps to keep the separate schools working together. AHEC acts as the landlord to the three schools by controlling campus facilities and maintenance, among other things. While Auraria Campus is the smallest college campus in the state in terms of acreage, one-fifth of the entire state's higher education enrollment find their way to classes in its buildings. Although there is a rich economic, social, and cultural history in the area that now houses the three institutions, very few of the people who walk the sidewalks of the campus are aware of how AHEC came to occupy the land. Many people who 2

PAGE 10

utilize the campus are unaware that the area now housing three institutions of higher education was once an area ofboth industrial and residential use. One organization in particular that is active in educating those interested in the history of the area is the MeChA de Auraria (Movimiento estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan), an active student group that works closely with neighborhood programs like the West-Side Outreach Center. The West-Side Outreach Center still works closely with the people who lived in the neighborhood of west Denver and are active in campus politics. 1 Previous Interpretations There has been some previous research that has either focused on the history of west-side Denver, politics behind the creation of the campus, or major players involved with facets of Auraria history. Stories of the area generally give one point of view or another. Customarily these stories portray the heroes or the victims, in particular, AHEC and urban renewal in Denver or the Auraria residents. The published works on Auraria are not comprehensive stories; they entail partisan storytelling from the heroes or the victims. Their own stories legitimate the side that 1 The infonnation in the text to this point was derived from my experienced as a student and employee of Auraria Campus. I have attended CU-Denver for six years, and the text describes my own personal observations. While working as a reporter for the CU-Denver Advocate I became very familiar with campus politics. 3

PAGE 11

they represent, either patting themselves on the backs as the good guys, or playing the martyrs as helpless victims. Frank Abbott wrote The Auraria Higher Education Center: How It Came lo Be, an in-depth story concentrating on the conception of Auraria Campus and the steps toward making it a reality. That book, published in 1999, gives the most precise and expansive history ofthe institutions of Auraria, but does not offer much detail on the urban renewal process and mentions little about the people who lived on what is now the Auraria Campus. Essentially, Abbott tells a story of institutional triumph in a state that needed more higher education. 2 Magdalena Gallegos, a former resident ofthe west Denver neighborhood and a student of the Auraria campus also wrote about the area, but she concentrated on the displaced people rather than the institutions. Gallegos conducted a series of oral interviews with many of the old west-side residents displaced by the campus, while a student at the Community College of Denver in the eighties. Currently, the oral history collection is located at the Denver Public Library in the Western History and Genealogy section. 3 Gallegos also prepared two works titled "Auraria Remembered" and "History ofthe Hispanic Settlers in Auraria: The Forgotten Community." "Auraria Remembered" is a collection of interviews with prior residents of the area.4 2 Frank C. Abbott, The Auraria Higher Education Center: How It Came to Be. (Denver: Auraria Higher Education Center, 1999). 3 Gallegos Manuscript Collection. Western History Department, Denver Public Library. Denver, Colorado. 4 Magdalena Gallegos, "Auraria Remembered" (Denver Community College of Denver, 1991). 4

PAGE 12

The manuscript, "History of Auraria: the Forgotten Community," is different in that Gallegos mentions many of the same residents and events, but the book reads as a narrative rather than a series of interviews. 5 The book portrays the residents as completely helpless victims of the government agencies and their policies. In addition to the sources aforementioned, there are a few published sources that incorporate the Auraria story into their overall focus. While these works mention the Auraria project, they still tell it from single points ofview. For example, in 1992, Donna McEncroe wrote an examination of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority (DURA) titled Denver Renewed: A History of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority 1958-1986. In her 775 pages, McEncroe focused not only on the background of the authority, but every project the authority took on, including the Auraria project. Within the Auraria section, McEncroe examined the entire process from designation of the land for urban renewal to the political repercussions of the decision, but McEncroe does not put the Auraria story into a national context. She tells it from DURA's perspective, paying little regard to those affected by the decision in the long 6 run. Dan Corson focused his 1998 thesis on Dana Crawford, a noted preservation activist in Denver. The work is significant to Auraria' s history because Ms. 5 Magdalena Gallegos, "History of the Hispanic Settlers in Awaria: the Forgotten Community." (Denver, CO, 1985). 6 Donna McEncroe, Denver Renewed: A History of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority, 1958-1986. (Denver: The Denver Foundation, 1992). 5

PAGE 13

Crawford's group, Historic Denver, Inc. played an important role in the preservation ofNinth Street Parkway (which is an historic block of houses on Auraria campus). Although Corson's thesis provides background in Denver preservation, he has little mention of the process to save the Ninth Street Parkway on the campus. He focuses on Crawford's first major project, the preservation ofLarimer Square (which is located across the Cherry Creek River from the campus). Corson's thesis clarifies early battles between DURA, individuals such as Dana Crawford and groups like Historic Denver, Inc., who fought to save many Denver treasures from the wrecking ball of urban renewal. 7 There is little mention of the area of west Denver in Colorado history books. Most Colorado history books mention Auraria as the original township, give a history from 1858-1860, and give details about the transformations in the area, which lead to its destruction. Published sources on Auraria, Denver, and Colorado have not told a comprehensive history of west Denver, urban renewal, and the Auraria campus. Each offer small segments of the overall story, but most have not attempted to tell the whole story or to put the history of Auraria in a national context. In order to tell a more comprehensive story, it is necessary to examine new sources and take on new perspectives. While previous interpretations are useful in giving one or another perspective of the story, newspaper articles, housing statistics, and other various 7 Dan William Corson. "Dana Crawford: from Larimer Square to LoDo, Historic Preservation in Denver." (Thesis (MS.) University of Colorado at Denver, 1998). 6

PAGE 14

manuscript collections and primary sources have until recently been left virtually untouched in telling the Auraria story. Auraria place in the national context becomes apparent only by comparing it with other projects in the United States. The final section of this thesis will examine the following monographs to compare Denver's Auraria experience with those of five other cities. In The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit, Thomas J. Sugrue examines the city politics of Detroit, including urban renewal projects. Carl Abbott explains urban renewal in San Antonio and San Francisco, as well as several other Sunbelt cities, in The New Urban America: Growth and Politics in Sunbelt Cities. Dennis R. Judd and Robert Mendelson examine urban politics and urban renewal projects in St. Louis in The politics of Urban Planning: The East St. Louis Experience. In The Impact of Urban Renewal on Small Businesses: the Hyde Park Kenwood Case, Brian J. L. Berry, Sandra J. Parsons, and Rutherford H. Platt examine one large area of Chicago and how it was affected by urban renewal. Goals The goal of this thesis is to reveal a comprehensive history of Auraria while placing the story into a national context. In order to understand the history, it is crucial to give the background of urban renewal and the political institutions of Denver and the nation, the history of the west Denver area, preservation roots in Denver, and urban renewal projects in other United States cities. This thesis will first 7

PAGE 15

tell the story of Auraria as a case of urban renewal then compare and contrast the Auraria case with other urban renewal projects across the country. The Auraria urban renewal project may not be completely unique in process and result, but it is very distinctive from a national view. The Auraria project played an important role in urban renewal and local politics in Denver and the state of Colorado, despite its size on a national scale. The affects are still obvious and even poignant today. 8

PAGE 16

CHAPTER TWO URBAN RENEWAL AND PRESERVATION IN DENVER As the United States headed further into the worst depression it had ever experienced, many Americans changed their traditional attitudes toward government intervention in private industries. The Great Depression of the 1930s impacted every American and every industry on some level, the housing industry and American homeowners took a particularly hard fall. Builders had no money to build, homeowners had no money to improve their dwellings, and thousands of Americans lost their homes to foreclosure. The United States government under the Herbert Hoover Administration faced one ofthe largest housing crises in the nation's history.8 The American public needed government intervention in order to alleviate some of the onslaught of the financial crisis. Hoover called for the President's National Conference on Home Building and Home Ownership as the administration's first step toward addressing the crisis. The administration recognized the problems in housing and blamed the severe drop in real estate and construction for dragging down the rest of the economy. Hundreds of analysts at the conference recommended the support of the federal government in homeownership for men or heads of households, usually men, through four different 8 Kenneth T Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 193. 9

PAGE 17

means: lowered interest rates, government assistance for low-income families, reduction of construction costs, and long-term mortgages. Although the intentions seemed good, the application of the recommendations through the 1932 Federal Home Loan Bank Act and Emergency Relief and Construction Act failed. 9 In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt assumed the presidency. The Roosevelt Administration approached the still growing housing crisis with several New Deal programs. The Resettlement Administration (RA) introduced the first of the administration's programs, the Greenbelt Town Program, to tackle housing problems. TheRA intended to promote urban deconcentration with the Greenbelt Town Program, but conservative opposition prevailed. Congress abandoned the Greenbelt Town Program and the RA by 1938. With growing conservative opposition to their initial efforts, the Roosevelt Administration took a new approach to the crisis through the Home Owner Loan Corporation (HOLC) in 1933. The U.S. House and Senate passed the law, replacing the Federal Home Loan Bank Act, with the intent to help avoid more foreclosures. The HOLC granted low interest rates and long term loans with uniform payments, but it still faced problems with foreclosure. While the HOLC gave guarantees to lenders, high risk applicants and poor housing conditions still presented problems. In order to gain more perspective on housing conditions, the HOLC commissioned trained 9 Jackson, The Crabgrass Frontier, pp. 193-195. Also see, Thomas J. Sugrue, The Origins of Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 19%), pp. 60-63. 10

PAGE 18

appraisers to divide all of the major U.S. cities into four grades, one the highest and four the lowest. The condition of the dwelling as well as several economic, social, and ethnic factors determined the grades. Most of the appraisers had a negative attitude toward city living, and most areas of minority groups, usually in the center city, received a grade four from the appraisers. Grades one and two received easy financing through the HOLC, while grades three and four did not. The administration made more strides with the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the agency's adoption of the National Housing Act of 1934. The FHA has since served as one of the most authoritative federal agencies in urban policy. With the adoption of the National Housing Act of 1937, the FHA and the Roosevelt Administration sought further to expand influence of federal agencies in urban policy. They also sought further to alleviate unemployment in the construction industry and improve housing standards and conditions all across the United States. The Act worked to stimulate building, relying on private enterprises rather than more government spending. The FHA insured mortgage guarantees with banks in the effort to stabilize influence on the mortgage market and offer home financing on reasonable terms. This allowed more families to afford purchasing homes and alleviated the apprehension of major banks to finance their loans. The National Housing Act of 1937 also established minimum standards for home 11

PAGE 19

construction ensuring statistical accuracy. Soon after, builders went back to work, and house sales rose across the United States.10 Although the Housing Act of 1937 benefited many U.S. residents, the ethnic minority groups did not experience equal benefits. Ethnic minority groups concerned the FHA, which claimed an area could lose investment value if it did not remain segregated. Within a few years, new FHA insured subdivisions enforced regulations and covenants in efforts to ensure segregation of whites from other ethnic minority groups. The FHA continued to fund these housing developments with restrictive covenants even after a 1948 Supreme Court ruling deemed the restrictions "unenforceable as law".11 The initial efforts of the FHA further concentrated the poor, usually ethnic minority groups, in the central city. Thus, the origins of urban renewal came with the early federal housing programs. As the Great Depression took its toll on all Americans, the U.S. government changed its role. The movement really was a transition between traditions of creating housing as purely private market-based phenomenon to increased state influence. Although not all the initial programs found great success, they all contributed to future programs in several ways. The programs of the 1940s and forward took on some of the same characteristic of the National Housing Act of 1937 and the others, not only in funding approaches, but also attitudes toward the 10 Jackson, The Crabgrass Frontier, pp. 203-208. and Sugrue, The Origins of Urban Crisis, pp. 6063. 11 Shelley v. Kraemer Supreme Court decision quoted in Jackson, The Crabgrass Frontier, p. 208. 12

PAGE 20

central city and its occupants. The federal housing programs concentrated minority populations in what were then undesirable central city areas, where the housing conditions did not benefit from the programs. Large white populations took advantage of the programs in housing outside the inner city, usually in a suburb. This process led to further deterioration of the central city and despair for the majority minority groups that lived there. The programs of the 1940s and forward concentrated more on the condition of the central city, not to grant equal rights of the housing programs, but to revitalize areas for civic and private usage. By the 1960s, urban renewal projects operated in a time when central city zones were ,regaining their values, so they wound up displacing and, more to the point, dispersing these same or similar poor and minority peoples whom earlier federal and state policies left there while the middle-class and white people moved into the suburbs. Auraria experienced the paradoxical effects ofthis shift in focus intensively. Shifts of Focus in Urban Renewal As the world began to recuperate after World War II, the United States began to take an even closer look at the condition of its major cities. The nation was changing at a rapid pace. More people needed new homes, cities needed new streets and highways, and most of the major U.S. cities needed a face-lift. In most major cities, the central city had become run-down and neglected over the course of several decades. The center or downtown areas of the cities were the places that most did not 13

PAGE 21

want to visit. As more and more families and individuals began to flock to the suburbs, the inner city became the residence oflower-class families and individuals, along with foundering businesses and crime. All across the United States, major cities started implementing programs to revitalize their central cities. The federal government implemented national programs for financial and legal support ofthe cities. This began a new era for urban renewal programs in the United States. Most of the major cities appointed new authorities to implement the urban renewal programs. According to McEncroe's opening statement in Denver Renewed: A History of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority 1958-1986, increasing numbers of policy makers thought of urban renewal in many cities in the United States as a means for tackling the problems of the inner city and revitalizing their problem areas in order to benefit all residents. 12 In the 1987 publication Urban Fortunes: the Political Economy of Place, authors John R. Logan and Harvey L. Molotch break down the background of urban renewal as a national movement. They claim that shifts in urban renewal were primarily a product of the National Housing Act of 1949. According to them, after World War II the new housing act was passed because of postwar enthusiasm and in order to reward veterans with adequate housing. The legislation not only called for decent housing for the returning veterans, but for all Americans. Other legislation, as a spin-off of the Act, authorized the construction of 135,000 units of public housing 12 McEncroe, Denver Renewed, p. 1. 14

PAGE 22

annually. Although the initial efforts for the plan the housing units called for building outside of the urban slums, the political realities meant that the projects would be constructed outside the good neighborhoods and away from zones slated for higherrent developments, leaving the projects undesirable for many. The real impact of the act, however, was the potential for exchanging housing projects for projects other than housing. 13 The Housing Act of 1949 also encouraged existing inequities. This began the new focus for urban renewal in the United States. Within the legislation, an increasing percentage of a city's federal aid designated for "slum" clearance could be used for projects other than housing. In order to gain urban renewal funds, a city or locality had to match one-third of the federal funds for the designated project. Over time, the cities and localities began to take liberties with what could be used to make up their responsibility of funding. After a 1954 legislative amendment, the cities and localities could officially claim private expenditures, like those made by hospitals and universities on their own facilities, as part of the city's share. Urban renewal became a device for protecting the city's central business district, property investments, and as Logan and Molotch claim, "the careers of white politicians."14 13 John R. Logan and Harvey L. Molotch. Urban Fortunes: the Political Economy of Place (Berlceley, CA: University of California Press, 1987), p. 167. 14 Ibid, pp. 167-168. 15

PAGE 23

Urban Renewal in Denver Although Denver was experiencing some of the same postwar issues as many of the other U.S. cities, it did not initiate urban renewal programs until a little later. Urban renewal took its roots in Denver with the election ofMayor Quigg Newton in 1947, which alerted Washington D.C. of a post-war housing crisis in Denver, and took steps toward urban renewal in the city. In their first major step the Newton administration completed several planned public housing projects, as well as major planning steps for other housing projects. The administration requested that the Denver Housing office work with the Denver Planning office to survey housing conditions in Denver. The two groups produced the "Carmichael Survey" in which they explained that 2J.go/o of the housing in Denver was what they considered "substandard," and of that percentage, the majority of those living in the "substandard" homes were Hispanic. 15 The Newton administration decided to use the 1949 Federal Housing Act in order to help Denver with its housing crisis. According to the federal act the city was required to eliminate one substandard housing unit for each new public housing unit built. According to McEncroe, "Newton claimed that slum clearance would be simultaneous with completion of public housing units," but then there was the question of what to do with the displaced families that the clearance would affect. 16 15 McEncroe, Denver Renewed, pp. 18-20. 16 Ibid, p. 21. 16

PAGE 24

By 1952 the urban renewal efforts led to 3,240 successfully built units in thirteen projects, providing new homes for displaced families.17 As efforts proceeded, there was a new need for a group dedicated to administer the projects. In April 1955, by ordinance of the City Council, the Denver Urban Renewal Commission (DURC) was created. Newton appointed seven of the original eleven members.18 DURC was not the only tool for urban renewal in Denver in the 1950s. For instance, in 1955, as a mechanism for urban renewal, seventy-five downtown businessmen founded Downtown Denver, Inc. (DDI). Along with the city, DDI brought in a panel from the National Urban Land Institute to make recommendations for downtown improvements and development. One year later, 176 business firms founded the Downtown Denver Improvement Association (DDIA), replacing DDI, with the goal to lobby for the creation of an Urban Renewal Authority.19 Denver elected William F. Nicholson as the city's mayor in 1955. Mayor Nicholson claimed that urban renewal was his number one goal for the city, and sought to rid Denver of what he considered its blighted areas and slums. By 1957, there was little money available for urban renewal through the city, a proposed income tax increase was defeated, and the DURC' s budget was slashed by 90 percent. 20 17 Ibid, pp. 21-22. 18 Ibid, p. 37. 19 Dennis R Judd, "From Cowtown to Sunbelt City: Boosterism and Economic Growth in Denver." In S. Fainstein, N. Fainstein, RL. Hill, D. Judd, and M.P. Smith, Restructuring the Political Economy of Urban Development (New York and London: Longman, 1983), 178-179. 20 McEncroe, Denver Renewed, pp. 50-51. 17

PAGE 25

I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I i I I At this point the public and private sides of urban renewal had the same goal; shortly after a March 10, 1958 public hearing, the Denver City Council unanimously approved the creation of an urban authority. 21 Through the legislation enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Colorado and the City and County and Denver, the Denver Urban Renewal Authority (DURA) was born. Primary duties for the authority included the development and implementation of programs to improve the city's "blighted" or "slum" areas. Conservation, rehabilitation, and/or redevelopment served as the three types of action used by the authority with the cooperation of other city government departments. 22 The authority used the results from the "Carmichael Survey" to determine the slum areas of the city. DURA's first major programs focused on the slums and lower-income housing units in the city, tackling the clearance of slums in run-down residential areas of Denver. Slum clearance for public housing was the first major goal, but DURA soon took on bigger projects within the city. The Skyline Project DURA's first major project outside of slum clearance for public housing was the Skyline Project, which began in 1961 and was designed to encourage a balance 21 Ibid, 52-53. 22 "Agency History," p.2. In the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. 1976. Records, 1958-1974. Denver Urban Renewal Authority Records. Manuscript Collection. Denver Public Librnry Western History and Genealogy. 18

PAGE 26

between residential and business development in downtown Denver. The original plan in 1961 did not involve DURA, but rather a Downtown Denver Master Plan Committee. The committee was made up of both public officials and local businessmen with the purpose of writing and obtaining voter approval for an urban renewal plan. In 1963, the committee produced the Development Guide for Downtown Denver as their proposal for the Skyline Project, which would eliminate "skid row," an area composed of several blocks the committee perceived as a major eye sore in downtown Denver. The Forward Metro Denver group, a spin-off of the committee, began to campaign for voter approval ofthe Skyline Project in 1964. Despite a major effort by the group, voters rejected an $8-million bond issue for the project that year. 23 The proposed Skyline Project did succeed however in sparking the interest of Dana Crawford, a resident of Denver. Within the boundaries of the proposed project was one ofDenver's oldest and most historically significant blocks on Larimer Street. The one-square block of Larimer was not only the site of Denver's alleged first home, but the block had hosted many ofDenver's significant events in its century old history. Crawford saw this block not as a blighted slum, but as an area worth rehabilitating. The Larimer Square project marked the beginning of major historic 23 Judd, "From Cowtown," pp. 178-179. 19

PAGE 27

preservation effort in the city of Denver. Crawford was not about to see the block cleared at the hands ofurban renewal.24 Crawford was not new to the preservation business in Denver; before her major efforts for saving Larimer, Crawford had been involved with preserving both the Molly Brown House and the Moffat Mansion. Crawford, although interested in saving the historic block on Larimer for preservation purposes, saw it as an opportunity for real estate development. The buildings would not only serve as a symbol of Denver's past, but could also serve viable businesses on the edge of downtown. Many preservation activists have criticized Crawford for seeming to take advantage of preservation incentives only when they provide a clear financial advantage, yet Larimer unquestionably proved a significant accomplishment for preservation in Denver. In 1965 historic preservation did not have any major legislative support on either a local or national scale. The National Historic Preservation Act was implemented in 1966, and Denver's Landmark Preservation Committee was created in 1967--both after Crawford's early efforts. Crawford was on the forefront of the movement; she requested that the block be designated as an historic block by the Colorado Historical Society in 1965, which would protect it from the Skyline Project. 25 24 Corson, Dana Crawford, p. 5. 25 Ibid, pp. 9-10. 20

PAGE 28

The Skyline Project proceeded to push for city approval while Crawford used all her power to save the block on Larimer. While Crawford worked to preserve the block on Larimer, boosters of the Skyline Project had successfully lobbied President Johnson's administration to allow the city to claim its investment in the newly constructed Currigan Exhibit Hall as its matching share for the Skyline Project. The matching share from the Currigan project covered the city's full share of the clearance cost without a vote for a new bond issue. Without having to put more tax dollars into the initial Skyline Project, the city overwhelmingly passed the proposal. 26 Crawford succeeded in her preservation efforts before the Skyline Project vote. The Larimer Square redevelopment plan began before the redevelopment plans for Skyline were finalized. In the citizen vote on May 16, 1967, Larimer Square was officially designated as a "rehabilitation area.'m Crawford formally organized Historic Denver, Inc. in 1970 after her success with Larimer Street. In 1971 the Denver City Council designated Larimer Square as the first historic district. 28 In the end the Skyline Project consisted of the clearance of27 acres ofland in downtown Denver to make way for dozens of skyscrapers, along with several public buildings including new police and fire buildings, a sports arena, libraries, and other public improvement projects. After the initial vote in 1967, voters approved an $87 million bond issue for funds in the Skyline Projects. Over $600 million of public and 26 Judd, "From Cowtown," pp. 179-180. 27 Corson. Dana Crawford, pp. 24-25. 28 Ibid, p. 89. 21

PAGE 29

private monies were committed to the Skyline Project by 1978. Although the Skyline Project was the first major project for DURA, the authority started and completed another major project, Auraria, right across the street from Skyline before the Skyline Project was complete. 22

PAGE 30

CHAPTER THREE IDGHER EDUCATION AND THE DENVER URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY Higher education in Colorado was a big issue for the state legislature around the mid-1950s, the same time the initial stages of urban renewal were taking form in Denver. Tidal waves of college students were predicted to hit higher education facilities in Colorado by the mid-1960s. In 1955 the Colorado Education Committee ofLegislative Council responded to the growing concern of the future of higher education in the state by appointing a subcommittee on higher education. The committee met for a year and in 1956 was re-commissioned to a full committee with the goal of raising the number of two-year colleges in Colorado. Two years later under House Joint Resolution 6, the Colorado legislature created the Legislative Committee on Education Beyond High School. Its main goal was to initiate higher education planning, create new institutions, and continue to support and expand the existing higher education institutions. 29 Although a small number of Colorado high school graduates entered institutions of higher education in Colorado by the early 1960s, the low number of junior colleges in the state constantly concerned the committee. Because of the 29 Abbott, The Auraria Higher Education Center, p. 3. 23

PAGE 31

committee's concern, the state legislature placed importance on expanding the number of local junior colleges, especially since the local districts funded the colleges. In June 1960 the committee created a subcommittee on Education Beyond High School in the Denver Metropolitan Area, which focused on high school graduates in the most heavily populated areas in the state. After appointing Representative Roy Romer as the subcommittee's first chair, members focused on the perspective ofhigher education in the Denver metropolitan area. By January of 1961 the subcommittee endorsed the recommendation to create four junior colleges in Denver. The proposal came after a report stated that more than forty percent of the state junior college enrollments were outside the local college districts. Many of those enrolled in junior colleges outside the Denver metropolitan area actually lived in the Front Range and commuted daily. 30 The subcommittee also supported the conversion of the University of Colorado Extension Centers, satellite classes offered in Denver and Colorado Springs, into degree-granting institutions. The University of Colorado had established the extension center in Denver in 1912 and later established a similar center in Colorado Springs. Neither of the extension centers were authorized to grant degrees, although degree programs at the main campus in Boulder transferred some credits from the extension centers. Over the years the Denver Extension Center occupied many locations and many different students attended classes there. As both the Denver and 30 Ibid, p. 5. 24

PAGE 32

the Colorado Springs Extension Centers grew, they wanted to convert the centers into degree-granting institutions separate from the main Boulder campus. In early 1961, The Board Study Report stated that the schools would require the same standards as Boulder in instruction and all other institutional standards. The centers gave their proposal and report to the University Regents, but by December 1964 the University of Colorado Regents turned the proposal down, because they did not want competition for the Boulder campus. In the spring of 1962 the Legislative Committee and the Joint Budget Committee created a Task Group on Post High School Education in the Denver metropolitan area to replace the existing subcommittee. The subcommittee worked fast to create a new plan because the University of Colorado turned down plans to convert the Denver Extension Center into a degree-granting institution. By November 1962 the Task Group recommended the establishment of Metropolitan State College ofDenver (MSCD), a new four-year higher education institution, to serve the needs of the prospective students in the area. The proposal called for operation of the new college to begin by 1964, recommendations were made for the state to purchase the facilities used for the Denver Extension Center from the CU Regents, but if that was not possible, the Task Group recommended that the state acquire space already used for educational purposes. The Regents allowed the Denver Extension Center to offer official degrees independent from Boulder as a reaction to the prospective competition. The Boulder campus began to accept School 25

PAGE 33

ofLiberal Arts and Sciences credits from the Denver Extension Center, which essentially created a new university in Denver without consulting or seeking the approval from any other state authority.31 The Regents were not going to allow any other higher education institution to challenge the University of Colorado. The Association of State Institutions of Higher Education in Colorado, a group of collegiate presidents in the state, released a report to the Committee on Education Beyond High School titled "A Program for the Differentiation and Coordination ofFunction" in December of 1962.32 Although the report dealt with the roles of the state institutions already in operation, it made no mention of the recently recommended Metropolitan State College ofDenver. In his inaugural address in January of 1963, Governor John A. Love opposed the creation of a four-year Metropolitan State College ofDenver as part of his general resistance to growth in Colorado. However, Love's opposition did not mean an end to the proposed college: the Task Force, with the support of the Legislative Committee and the Joint Budget Committee, worked toward enacting the proposed legislation. As a response to specific legislation in February 1963, the Association recommended that the legislative subcommittee establish the first two years of classes for MSCD. Eventually the college would serve as a four-year institution offering a limited range ofbaccalaureate degrees. Despite the dissent of the University of Colorado, 31 Ibid, p. 9. 32 Ibid, p. 151. 26

PAGE 34

Governor Love, in response to the growing support of the proposal, signed House Bill 349 in May 1963, which created the new state college. With the institution underway, the Task Force planned the operation ofMSCD's first freshman and sophomore years. 33 In December 1964 the Association of State Institutions of Higher Education in Colorado published the initial financial and operational plans for MSCD in A Program for the Development and Coordination of Higher Education in Colorado, 1963-1970. By May of the next year MSCD acquired funding to open. The plans scheduled the first two years of baccalaureate education to begin in the fall and granted a $750,000 appropriation to fund the college's opening.34 Metropolitan State College of Denver opened in October 1965 with 1, 189 students, and Mayor Thomas G. Currigan directed the Denver Planning Office to seek a 200 acre site for the college facilities. The Denver Planning Office initially identified nine possible sites for the college facilities in April of 1966. By July, the Executive Committee chose 150 acres in west Denver as the best location. The designated area in west Denver was once the township of Auraria, so the Denver Planning Office changed the site's name from "west Denver'' to "Auraria" in recognition of the location's history. In 1965, Governor Love's approval ofHouse Bill 1170 created the Colorado Commission on Higher Education (CCHE) to address rising enrollments in the state. 33 Ibid, p. 152. 34 Ibid, p. 152. 27

PAGE 35

Just over 80,000 students enrolled in some form of higher education in Colorado in 1966. With enrollments rising, the CCHE released a preliminary plan called Strengthening Higher Education in Colorado. In the plan, the CCHE proposed the creation of a state-wide community college system and supported the expansion of MSCD from two to four years of education. The state appropriated $19,545,000 toward higher education, which funded plans for third year instruction at MSCD.35 CCHE went to work creating a state system of community colleges and a full baccalaureate program at MSCD. In March the legislature authorized a three-campus Community College of Denver system, appointed a new state board of Community Colleges and Occupational Education, and added full instruction at MSCD.36 While CCHE was at work creating institutions, DURA took over the site decisions for the Auraria project. In its "Metropolitan State College Site Selection Report," DURA looked at three possible sites for the new college. Comparisons of all locations took place for appraising land value and size in acres and square footage. Each of the districts DURA examined were considered blighted by definition of urban renewal. Out of the three districts appraised, (Civic Center, Auraria, and North Stadium), DURA considered Auraria at 126.40 acres for $12,671,392 as the best possible site. Although the initial report appeared to indicate that the North Stadium district was the cheapest in terms of cost per square foot for the urban renewal 35 Ibid, pp. 32-35. 36 Ibid, pp. 32-35. 28

PAGE 36

project, the report also stated that the figures did not include acres in the area already used for parks and playing fields.37 Included in the report was an estimate of the ultimate cost if the new college was to be built on the Auraria site. It indicated that the acquisition of 145 acres would cost $14,050,000. After adding in the costs of property demolition, public improvements, and miscellaneous other expenses, DURA predicted the gross project cost (125 acres at ninety cents per square foot) at $18,930,000. After subtracting the land sale proceeds, what DURA called the "net sharable costs" totaled $14,029,500. Twenty acres were included in the total square footage, but those acres were already used for church and street property. The local and state share for the project was one-third of the net sharable cost, and DURA indicated that Major Model City financial assistance may have been possible. 38 DURA then broke down the purchasing power in an economic impact report in which the agency estimated that 241 families, and 104 additional individuals lived in the designated area. According to the report, the average annual income was $3,105 for families and $1,972 for individuals.39 The Auraria district comprised many run-down factories, businesses, and homes, and the statistics told DURA that the people in the neighborhood did not have the money to fix them. 37 "Metropolitan State College Site Selection Report." Appendix I. In the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. 1976. Records, 1958-1974. Box 4, FF3. Manuscript Collection. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. 38 Ibid, Appendix II. 39 "The Economic Impact ... p. 2. In the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. 1976. Records, 19581974. Box 4, FF3. Manuscript collection. Denver Public Library Western history and Genealogy. 29

PAGE 37

State approval for the Auraria site came in March 1968. The Trustees of the State Colleges were the first to approve the Auraria site. In March the CCHE also gave approval for the site providing the state would not have to pay anything for the land. Once CCHE gave official approval, design planning began. The commission's president presented an idea of creating an "educational park" for institutions of higher education at the Auraria site. The idea was a success among the members of Denver Area Council on Higher Education. A "working committee" appointed by the council represented the involved institutions. By September of 1968 the CCHE announced the plans for Auraria publicly, and the Commission hired Lamar Kelsey and Associates to conduct a study of the area to conftnn feasibility. Kelsey reported in November 1968 that the Auraria site was appropriate and could accommodate a college campus. 40 The next step came in January 1969 with the approval from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Redevelopment. Along with the approval of Auraria as an Urban Renewal site, the Department allocated $12.6 million from the Model Cities funds as capital grant reservation. The $12.6 million funding was intended for site acquisition, relocation of residents and businesses, and clearance costs. Although CCHE had approved the prospective site in March 1968, providing the land acquisition would be at no cost to the state, the commission withdrew the stipulation after the $12.6 million allocation. With news of the allocation, the 40 Abbott, Auraria Higher Education Center, 39-51. 30

PAGE 38

Working Committee appointed representative committees to study the collaboration for the library, student services, physical education, and other programs for the new campus. In May 1969 the Legislature allocated $225,000 for initial planning ofthe campus but did not commit to the building of the higher education center. CCHE worked to obtain a federal grant, which it received in September, to help administer costs for Auraria planning. Although money was provided from many different places and organizations to help with the campus, the citizens of Denver were still held accountable to raise $6 million toward the new campus according to national urban renewal cost sharing requirements.41 A special bond election was set for November of 1969 at which the citizens could make or break the campus idea. The state committees and institutions did not consider the reaction of the residents of west Denver throughout the process. They had not been involved in the decision-making process, even though they had the most to lose. 41 Ibid, pp. 53-63. 31

PAGE 39

CHAPTER FOUR THE AURARIA NEIGHBORHOOD The area now commonly known as Auraria has experienced many changes during the course of its history. From the very beginning the area was quite different from the rest of Denver. West Denver was originally settled as its own township in the fall of 1858. The Russell Party from Auraria, Georgia staked claim in July 1858 to the land on the west side of the Cherry Creek River after discovering gold nearby. The official Auraria Town Company, named after the hometown of the party, established its township on October 3, 1858. After the creation of the township, the Larimer Party arrived in the area on November 16, 1858. Within six days the new party had staked claim to the land east of Cherry Creek and formed the Denver City Town Company, named for Kansas Territorial Governor James William Denver. For two years the separate townships were in constant competition to become the leading city of the area. Although the streets were unkempt, the houses were made of logs, and there was little organization, the people of the two towns made big strides to establish their new homes. Auraria was the home to the first school and the first newspaper in what is now Denver. It was not until April 5, 1860 that the leaders from each of townships met on the Larimer Street Bridge crossing at Cherry Creek and 32

PAGE 40

signed a pact consolidating into one Denver City. 42 From that point forward the township of Auraria became known popularly as West Denver for over one hundred years. Although considered part ofthe entire city, west Denver continued a life of its own even after consolidating into Denver. Home to many Irish and German immigrants, this section of Denver became and remained very mixed in use for over a century. Houses were scattered throughout the neighborhood, along with small neighborhood shops, but the area was also a harbor for many different industries. Some of the leading industries included a few enormous flour mills owned by Irish-born businessman John Kernan Mullen and several breweries owned and operated by different German immigrants. The most important and lasting of those breweries was the Colorado Brewery established by German immigrant Mortiz Sigi in 1866. Throughout the years the brewery expanded and became much larger in stature. In 1890, the building of a tower on top of the Colorado Brewery added to the striking architectural style of the building, and 1892 brought an attached Turnhalle Opera House. Eight years later John Good bought the brewery and named it after the Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen. 43 The striking architecture of the Tivoli Brewery has served as a significant landmark for the area ever since. 42 Stephen J. Leonard & Thomas J. Noel, Denver: From Mining Camp to Metropolis (Niwot: University Press of Colorado, 1990, 1994 paperback), pp. 8-9. 43 Historic Denver Incorporated. "Ninth Street Park Dedication" pamphlet. Denver, CO: August 1, 1976, p. 4. 33

PAGE 41

Other significant landmarks for the area were its churches. With the help and demand of many people in the area the German immigrant population constructed the St. Elizabeth's Catholic Church and school, in 1887. That year the Irish population of the area built St. Leo's Catholic Church.44 What is now known as the Emmanuel Gallery served as the Jewish temple in Auraria. The churches served as community centers for the different ethnic groups of the area for many years. Toward the end of the nineteenth century many of the Irish and German immigrants began to move out of the area for a combination of reasons. Street cars in Denver offered people the opportunity to move away from the crowded, semi industrial neighborhoods into neighborhoods outside of the inner city. By the last decade of the nineteenth century, Auraria had become strictly a working-class neighborhood. It was the west section of the city that the incoming immigrant groups to Denver typiclllly occupied first. At this point many other immigrants into Denver began to occupy the empty homes the other groups had left behind. While some of the homes were left open for purchase, many of the families that left the area maintained ownership of their old homes in west Denver. This left the new residents renting from the previous occupiers of the homes. Beginning around 1920, many Hispanic immigrants made the west side of Denver their new home. A large number had migrated from different parts of Mexico, New Mexico, and southern Colorado. When the Hispanics arrived to the 44 Gallegos, "History of the Hispanic Settlers in Auraria," p. 2. 34

PAGE 42

area west of downtown Denver they encountered many ethnic groups, predominantly of German and Irish decent. Several of these immigrant families started to move out to other parts of the city and were leaving vacated homes for occupation by these new groups. Many ex-residents retained ownership of the homes and rented to the new population of Hispanic settlers. The area was a mix of residential homes, small shops, and large industries that offered the new and existing groups a place to live and work. While the west side of Denver was an official part of the city, the geography and history of the area virtually cut off the section from other parts of Denver. The process of population ebb and flow in Auraria was tumultuous. For every family that moved out a new immigrant family moved in, often causing new ethnic turmoil in the area. Although both the established residents of the area and most of the new Hispanic settlers were Catholic, the established groups had acquired their own churches during the existence of the neighborhood. By the early 1920s the Hispanic population had grown significantly, thus creating a demand for separate church services. The Hispanic population started to hold church services in the basement of St. Leo's Catholic Church in 1922. Father Bartholomew Caldenty held services in Spanish, and the crowds became larger and larger. Many of the Hispanic children also attended school at St. Elizabeth Catholic Church. 45 The joint use of the churches worked for a short while, but, as the population of Hispanic residents 45 Ibid, p. 11. 35

PAGE 43

increased, the basement of St. Leo's was clearly too small for the large numbers of people. Ethnic tension also started to grow as an influx of Hispanic immigrants moved into the neighborhood. Sharing the churches in the neighborhood was not ideal for anyone involved. Most Hispanic residents in west Denver had very little means for taking care ofthemselves and their families. The idea of raising enough money to buy land, build a church, and maintain the building seemed completely out of reach for the residents. They found the assistance needed from the Mullen family, who had made their fortune in the area. J.K. Mullen first donated the land for the site of the new church. The family donated their old home at 1178 Ninth Street along with $5000 to the new parish. The Mullens also challenged the parish to raise matching funds. The Hispanic parishioners responded quickly and enthusiastically to the Mullen's challenge, raising $4000. Unfortunately the parish hit a major road-block when the bank holding their newly acquired money failed and closed its doors. Father Caldenty responded by moving the services into the Mullen's old home and took out a $20,000 loan from the German American Bank. Ground breaking for the new St. Cajetan's Catholic Church took place on October 1, 1924.46 Less than one year after breaking ground on the new church Catherine Mullen passed away. Following the wishes of his late wife, J.K. Mullen paid off the debt of 46 William J. Convery, "Pray for the Soul of Catherine Smith Mullen. John K. and Catherine S. Mullen and Philanthropy in Auraria." Historical StudiesJourna/14 (1997): pp. 13-17. 36

PAGE 44

the parish and hired architect Frank Kircofto finish the church for $47,708.47 The Spanish Colonial style St. Cajetan's Catholic Church was dedicated on March 21, 1926, in Catherine S. Mullen's honor. St. Cajetan' s became the cultural seat for the Hispanic residents of the neighborhood, providing spiritual leadership, a school, and economic assistance through the parish's credit union. Over the years the west side of Denver became its own community separate from the rest of the city, especially within the Hispanic community. In "Auraria Remembered," Gallegos quotes Russell De Leon as reminiscing, "We stayed in the neighborhood most of the time because it felt safe. "48 Although ethnic tension still existed in the area, west Denver was the safe barrio for the Hispanic population. The west side barrio took on a life of its own for three generations. Unfortunately, as time wore on, the already run-down community fell deeper and deeper into despair. The houses were deteriorating, the people were not making any more money than the generations before them, and west Denver became a concern for the entire city. Businesses were closing, and families were becoming increasingly destitute. St. Cajetan's had always served as a neighborhood center, but the neighborhood needed more help than the church could provide. As the years went on, the west Denver community fell further into a slump from which it would never recover. West Denver had become a slum, or a run-down neighborhood beyond 47 Ibid, p. 17. 48 Gallegos, "Aurnria Remembered," p. 13. 37

PAGE 45

rehabilitation, according to the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. The citizen vote of November 1969 had the potential of sealing the fate for the west side barrio. 38

PAGE 46

CHAPTER FIVE WEST DENVER AND URBAN RENEWAL According to Magdalena Gallegos, "In the late Sixties [many of] the people in the neighborhood did not know what was being planned for them until the decision had already been made."49 While the political machines like CCHE and DURA had been working to create new institutions and place them in a permanent location, the people affected the most had no say and claimed they were unaware of what was taking place. Because of this, the news of the demolition area and new campus came as a huge shock. In the process of designating west Denver as the new site for the educational park, the project became known as the "Auraria Project" to the agencies involved with the process. For years west Denver had been its own little world, separate from the rest of Denver. It was hard for the people to relate to the name "Auraria" for their neighborhood because the area had been, for many, their west-side barrio for generations. According to Lupe Arguello in "History of the Hispanic Settlers in Auraria," "The first time people in the neighborhood heard about the relocation was when leaflets were passed out to every house."50 Indeed, there are no 49 Gallegos, "History of the Hispanic Settlers in Auraria," p. 28. 50 Quoted in Gallegos, "History of the Hispanic Settlers in Auraria," pp. 28-29. 39

PAGE 47

records ofDURA contact with the area's citizens until after the CCHE received the federal grant in mid-1969. Residents in the neighborhood looked frantically toward local leaders for a solution to the impending neighborhood demolition. Father Pete Caldenty, Assistant Pastor of St. Cajetan's Catholic Church, stepped in as the leader of the people in the neighborhood. St. Cajetan' s Catholic Church became the center of resistance for the citizens of Auraria. In order to stop the campus, the people of the neighborhood had to sway the November 1969 vote to reject the perspective campus. Many interested organizations created the Westside Coalition and it acted as the leading group of resistance. While the first objective of the group was to sway the vote, the Westside Coalition took on many activities in the west Denver area, not just concerning Auraria, but Chicano rights in Denver and the nation. 5 1 The Westside Coalition concern for Chicano rights was part of a national movement. In the 1960s, after two decades of national efforts for equal rights, the Mexican Americans launched a distinct phase of the national civil rights movement that included the Mexican American Political Association (MAP A) and the Political Association of Spanish-Speaking Organizations (PASO). The United Farm Workers Union (UFW), organized by Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta in California in 1962, 51 George Jr. Rivera, Aileen F. Lucero, and Richard Castro. "Internal Colonialism in Colorado: The Westside Coalition and Barrio Control." In La Gente: Hispano History and Lifo in Colorado. Ed. Vincent C. DeBaca (Denver, CO: Colorado Historical Society, 1998), pp. 205-210. For more information about the Westside Coalition and Chicano Rights refer to this article. 40

PAGE 48

was instrumental in publicizing the plight of Hispanics to a national public. The UFW used nonviolent tactics and ethnic symbols, such as the Aztec eagle flag, to attract members and publicity. In the late 1960s, Mexican American organizations, like the UFW turned to litigation as an instrument for political mobilization and incorporation. 52 The Westside Coalition was among these groups in support of the Auraria citizens and other Denver concerns. All concerned parties and neighborhood groups in the area worked together as the crusade went on to save Auraria as a neighborhood. The residents campaigned all over the city in the months leading up to the special bond election. Some residents claimed that a few city planners provided them with information to help their cause. 53 Several resident accounts in Gallegos's work gave no mention ofDURA meetings in the basement of St. Cajetan' s. DURA officials invited the community to meetings in the basement of St. Cajetan's Catholic Church. At the October 1969 meetings, according to resident accounts, the city officials informed the people that while they needed to move out of the neighborhood, they could relocate to a different part of the city and remain together. 54 DURA officials at the October meetings reviewed the relocation process with the residents, but made no promises of remaining together. The officials assured 52 S. Dale McLemore and Harriett D. Romo, Racial and Ethnic Relation in America (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998 ed.), pp. 217-218. 53 Gallegos, "History of the Hispanic Settler in Auraria," p. 29. 54 While many of the residents in Gallegos's work made claim to the alleged promise by city officials, I have found no written evidence to confirm their claims claim 41

PAGE 49

I I i I i I I I i I i I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I i the residents, in the event the bond issue passed, that DURA would provide assistance to the residents and businessmen of the neighborhood. DURA officials recognized the concerns and stress of the area residents and assured that they would make the transitions as smooth as possible. The agency opened an office at 1056 Ninth Street, which served as DURA's base of operations for both contacting residents and administering the project. 5 5 The debate became very heated around the city in the last few weeks of October and first week ofNovember 1969. Newspaper articles and editorials presented several arguments and sides to the prospective families being displaced in order to build a college campus in the heart of Denver. Some Denver metropolitan area residents encouraged the advantage of the campus for the area's residents. In a letter to "The Open Forum" in the Denver Post, one Denver resident argued, "By far the biggest single employer of the West Side community within a few years will be Metro State College if it is located in Auraria." The letter acknowledged problems with the project, but encouraged that, "the opportunities should far outstrip the disadvantages."56 While many people around the city recognized the problems of the Auraria people, many did not sympathize because of the poor shape of the neighborhood. Denver Post Staff Writer Dick Johnston wrote, For too many years, the Hispanos have been a politically fragmented "invisible" minority. The living environment of the west side has gradually been eroded by deteriorating housing, by flight of shopping 55 McEncroe, Denver Renewed, pp. 508-509. 56 Frederick G. Bonfils, "The Open FofUIII, Denver Post, 3 November 1969, p. 19. 42

PAGE 50

facilities to more prosperous areas, by invasion of commercial and industrial developments, and by increasing traffic volumes through it. 57 It was no secret throughout Denver that the neighborhood proposed for demolition was in need of much repair. Located directly across from the Skyline Project on the east side of Speer Boulevard, the west side of Denver was a prime target for urban renewal. Most of the houses were deteriorating, and many of the residents had absolutely no means of financing repair. Many ofthe neighborhood's businesses suffered, while others closed their doors. Over the years the neighborhood had become a sore spot on the edge of the city, and there were opinions flying from every direction in the fall of 1969 as to what should become of west Denver. Everyone seemed to have an opinion concerning the proposed Auraria campus. The papers were filled with arguments for why Auraria campus was a good idea, the benefits of demolishing the neighborhood, and what great outcomes could result from building the educational park in the Auraria location. Mayor William H. McNichols, Jr., while showing some concern for the residents of the area, acknowledged that the area was in bad shape. When asked why Auraria was chosen as the site for the new education complex, he noted its central location and pointed out that, ... Auraria is a deteriorating area. That's not an indictment against the people in the it's a plain fact."58 57 Dick Johnston, "Is Auraria Key to Checking Denver's Decline as a Core City?" Denver Post, 2 November 1969, p. I (Perspective Section). 58 "McNichols Answers Question on Auraria," Rocky Mountain News. 2 November 1969. p. 5. 43

PAGE 51

Emphasis on the centrality of location existed in every piece of Auraria procampus and pro-demolition propaganda. Several newspaper articles and flyers displayed maps showing how central the location was to the whole Denver metropolitan community. Groups like the Citizens for Auraria, a pro-campus organization, provided information to the citizens of the Denver metropolitan area in advertisements in both major newspapers in the city. One advertisement pointed out the numerous advantages and need for the college campus for the metropolitan area by stating, "The site is central. It's easy to reach from anywhere in Denver."59 A different advertisement from the same group broke down what would happen to the people in the Auraria neighborhood, but the information made the situation seem very impersonal. The advertisement claimed, "property owners will receive fair market value of their property."60 While some political figures may have shown some compassion for the people in the neighborhood, the propaganda could be quite brutal. The residents of the neighborhood and political figures were not the only groups that had a stake in the outcome. Metropolitan State College of Denver had accumulated a large number of students eager for a permanent home. One MSCD sophomore argued in the Denver Post that Auraria was the perfect location for the campus. The student pointed out that there had been many other possible locations 59 "Vote for Auraria Amendment #I." Auraria Campus Advertisement. Denver: CO: Citizens for Auraria. 1969. Appeared several times in Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post in 1969. 60 "Why Denver Needs the Auraria Center." Auraria Campus Advertisement. Denver: CO: Citizens for Auraria. 1969. Appeared several times in Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post in 1969. 44

PAGE 52

examined, but the Auraria site fit the goals for a central urban location. Also included in the student's debate was the fact that if the citizens ofDenver rejected Auraria the city would lose the $12.6 million in federal funds allocated to the project. Like many of the proponents of the campus, the student manifested little sympathy for the residents of the area. Instead the student focused on the political and financial benefits for building the new campus in the Auraria location. He not only pointed out the potential for the current students, but people of all races all over the Denver metropolitan area. The student asserted, "If blacks and Hispanos of Denver -and of the whole nationare ever going to gain equal footing in this society, they will need doctors, lawyers, businessmen and other professionals to eririch and serve their community."61 Many of those in favor of the college campus used the education argument against the Auraria residents. By encouraging minorities to become better educated, the people in favor ofbuilding the campus encouraged the rest of the Denver area to sacrifice one group for a better future for the whole. The student proceeded, "Those people who oppose Auraria ostensibly because they have the best interests of the Hispano community at heart are either incredibly short-sighted or more interested in personal political gain than in helping these people. "62 According to those advocates for the campus, it was in the best interest of everyone, including those displaced by its creation and construction. 61 Dave Ball, "Metro Student Defends Auraria," Derwer Post, I November 1969. p. 12. 62 Ibid, p. 12. 45

PAGE 53

Even though many people in the metropolitan area favored the Auraria campus proposal, residents kept fighting and petitioning to save their neighborhood. Up until a week before the vote, the people of west Denver believed that their efforts were paying off in the position of the voters. The special bond election was set to take place on Tuesday, November 4, 1969. It appeared as though everything was going in favor of the voters' rejecting the bond issue until Denver's Archbishop James V. Casey sent a letter to all of the Catholic churches in Denver one week before the vote. In the letter, read at every Sunday service in the area, Archbishop Casey encouraged all parishioners to vote in favor of the bond issue regardless of the displaced families and individuals. Catholic residents of the Auraria area saw his gesture as a huge blow to the efforts of the residents to save their neighborhood. "When we heard that the most reverend had endorsed the Auraria project, we felt a terrible let-down, a sense of being forgotten, of being pushed aside by this person we had always looked up to as one of our beloved spiritual leaders," one woman wrote in a letter just one day before the vote.63 According to her letter, Reverend James Purfield, then chairman of the archbishop's human relations committee, claimed the archbishop's first obligation was to Catholic education.64 Many in Auraria believed his "obligation" helped sway voters and in tum directly impacted the Tuesday vote results. 63 Mrs. Gennaine Arngon,, "Concern of Chicanos For Awaria Homes," (letter to The Open Forum) Denver Post, 3 November 1969. p. 19. 64/bid, p. 19. 46

PAGE 54

Sixty-one thousand voters in the Denver metropolitan area turned out on Tuesday, November 4, 1969, for the special bond election. Out ofthe 61,000 voters, the Auraria bond won by a margin of 3, 773 votes. It was a devastating defeat for the residents, but a huge victory for the efforts of DURA, AHEC, and the CCHE. Debate from all different groups including the residents of Auraria, members of the legislature, and other residents of Denver existed after the results of the vote became public. Although the citizens of the Denver metropolitan area voted in favor of the Auraria Project by only a small margin, the legislature still needed persuasion to follow through with the project. Within two days after the vote Mayor McNichols claimed, "I intend to do anything possible to influence anybody in the House and the Senate to get them to approve the $5.6 million appropriation."65 CCHE presented the request to the Joint Budget Committee in its 1970-1971 budgets, guaranteeing that the $5.6 million request was the only monetary request from their group for the commission that year. 66 In January 1970, Governor John Love then created the Auraria Higher Education Center (AHEC), whose board would act as landlord and mediator. While AHEC had the responsibility of resident communications and planning, DURA maintained the urban renewal duties, and the CCHE dealt with the institutions. 65 Don Lyle, "Mayor Vows Auraria Follow Through," Rocky Mountain News, 6 November 1%9. p. 8. 66 Dick Johnson, "Commission to Request $5.6 Million for Auraria," Denver Post, 7 November 1969. p. 52. and Richard Tucker, "CCI-IE to Seek Auraria Project Funds," Rocky Mountain News, 6 November 1969, pp. 5 & 6. 47

PAGE 55

DURA did, however, provide information to the residents after AHEC's creation, and worked to set relocation into motion. The Authority sent informational packets to the residents and businessmen of the area requiring relocation. The packets, provided only in English to the mainly Hispanic residents, began by explaining the general goals of urban renewal and providing a map of the designated urban renewal area. The rest of the packet written for the residents and businessmen contained details and stipulations as to when they needed to move, the monetary compensation available, and how to obtain compensations. Categories broke down each detail and answered virtually any questions DURA believed the residents or businessmen may have. Information provided in the packets detailed the required physical conditions of new housing for the residents in order to assure safety and happiness with their new homes. 67 According to the informational packet, Displaced families and individuals may be eligible for either (1) a payment to cover actual reasonable moving expenses; or (2) a fixed moving expense allowance not to exceed $300, plus a Dislocation Allowance of $200. In addition, a payment not to exceed $15,000 is available to eligible displaced homeowners in the purchase of a replacement dwelling unit and a payment not to exceed $4000 is available to eligible displaced tenants and certain homeowners to assist in the rental of a replacement dwelling unit or for use as a down payment on the purchase of a replacement dwelling.68 67 "Informational Notice to All Families and Individuals Living in the Auraria Urban Renewal Project." and "Informational Statement for Business Concern and Other Nonresidential Establishments in the Aurnria Urban Renewal Project." In the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. 1976. Records, 19581974. Box 4, FF15. Manuscript collection. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. 611 "Informational Notice to All Families and Individuals Living in the Auraria Urban Renewal Project." Denver Urban Renewal Authority. 1976. Records, 1958-1974. Box 4, FF15. Manuscript collection. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. 48

PAGE 56

Similar instructions provided businessmen with infonnation about monetary compensation. Displaced business concerns may be eligible for either (I) a payment to cover actual reasonable moving expenses in searching for a replacement or (2) in certain cases, a fixed payment equal to the business concern's average annual net earnings, but no less $2,500 nor more than $10,000.69 Mention ofthe word "reasonable" occurred several times in both packets without clarifying the definition of reasonable according to DURA. Those families merely renting in the neighborhood were offered some compensation, but were often evicted by the homeowner. With notice sent out to the residents and business owners DURA started to buy up vacant land in the area. Two years prior, in 1968, land in the neighborhood sold at about $1 0-$25 per square foot, but home and business owners in the neighborhood received $1.45 per square foot,70 far from fair market value before the site's designation. Angry and ready to resist, the residents of Auraria formally organized the Auraria Residents Organization, Inc. (ARO) under leadership from Father Garcia and the West Side Coalition.71 CCHE responded to the new group by creating a 69 "Infonnational Statement for Business Concern and Other Nonresidential Establishments in the Auraria Urban Renewal Project." Denver Urban Renewal Authority. 1976. Records, 1958-1974. Box 4, FF15. Manuscript collection. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. 70 Abbott,Auraria Higher Education Center, p. 54. 71 George Jr. Rivera, Aileen F. Lucero, and Richard Castro. "Internal Colonialism in Colorado: The Westside Coalition and Barrio Control." In La Gente: Hispano History and Life in Colorado. Ed. Vincent C. DeBaca (Denver, CO: Colorado Historical Society, 1998), p. 208. Gallegos indicates in History of the Hispanic Settlers in Auraria, p. 29, that the ARO was formally established before the vote. 49

PAGE 57

Committee on Community Involvement and appointed community representatives to become regular participants of discussion. 72 The ARO, in response to an earlier survey conducted by MSCD students, submitted their "Preliminary Analysis of the Survey by the Auraria Residents Organization" in January 1969. In their survey the ARO explains, The purpose of the group is: ( 1) to organize the residents of the (2) disperse information regarding the proposed higher education complex and urban renewal (3) see that all the residents of Auraria are properly relocated according to their needs and preferences; and ( 4) provide alternative proposals to the existing college plans (eg. housing on the site).73 Members of the ARO conducted the survey and gave information regarding who lived in the area, what the concerns were with moving, and their demands to DURA. Written text and tables provided details ofthe residents in statistical numbers, rather than individual cases. In response to the ARO's survey DURA agreed to answer several questions and concerns about the Auraria project. Many of the questions and answers reiterated the information provided in the informational packets submitted to the residents and business owners, but DURA held the responsibility of answering face to face rather than in a formal letter. Instead of merely providing details of residential and business 72 Abbott, The Auraria Higher Education Center, p. 65. 73 "Preliminary Analysis of the Survey Conducted by the Auraria Residents Organization. January 16, 1970." p. l. Derrver Urban Renewal Authority. Records, 1958-1974. Box 4, FF4. Manuscript Collection. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. 50

PAGE 58

relocation, DURA answered questions justifying the necessity of a new college campus. Their response stated, It is a fact that tuition and other costs for attending state-supported colleges and universities in Colorado are high. Many of the students can't afford to attend these institutions. The Auraria idea is to bring education costs within the reach of everyone. Its colleges will offer educational programs to all levels for all people. In response to questions concerning cost of schooling at MSCD, DURA answered, "At present, education costs, which include tuition, fees and books amount to approximately $400 a year."74 Residents received another formal letter signed by J. Robert Cameron, Executive Director, Denver Urban Renewal Authority dated April 2, 1970. Cameron assured residents and businesses that immediate evacuation was not the goal. He claimed that purchase and relocation activity would not take place until about May or June of 1971. As to the monetary compensations, Cameron stated, "The purchase price of your property will be established by two independent appraisals made by Denver appraisal firms. You will be offered a price that relates to existing market value of your property."75 In February of 1970 the Auraria Businessmen Against Confiscation filed suit before the State Supreme Court alleging that the Denver bond vote had been illegal, 74 "Questions and Answers. Auraria." p. 6. Denver Urban Renewal Authority. 1976. Records, 19581974. Box 4, FF2. Manuscript collection. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. I have heard from many sources that education at Metro was supposed to be free for former residents of Auraria. This is the only document I have found providing any reference to costs of tuition directly relating to the residents. 75 Letter to the residents and businessmen in Auraria Denver Urban Renewal Authority. 1976. Records, 1958-1974. Box 4, FF15. Manuscript collection. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. 51

PAGE 59

but their attempt was not successful. The ARO decided to take their complaints to the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. and demanded compensation for the residents. Both the state and national courts confirmed the legality of the November 1969 bond issue. In May 1971 Denver City and County approved DURA's finalized plans for the Auraria Project of acquisition, relocation, and clearance. 76 DURA continued purchase of the land properties, as well as relocating current residents. One resident, Isabel Ramos, owned three houses in the neighborhood and only received $35,000 for all three properties.77 DURA kept its promise to provide funds for relocation, even to renters, but, because some houses were in violation ofbuilding codes, landlords started to evict their tenants rather than repair the problems. Those evicted tenants were not eligible to receive relocation compensation and left their homes without help. As plans for the Auraria Higher Education Center continued, the residents still resisted. One of the last great efforts of the ARO came in 1972 when the group threatened to set up a "tent city" in Auraria as a protest against the excessive number of evictions and also to demand residents receive more funds. Their threats went unanswered, and demolition began. 76 McEncroe, Denver Renewed, p. 519-521. 77 Gallegos, History of the Hispanic Settlers in Auraria, p. 30. 52

PAGE 60

CHAPTER SIX A NEW CAMPUS WITH A FEW OLD BUILDINGS Auraria residents reluctantly left the neighborhood in which many had grown up. Although they had lost their battle against urban renewal, they had fought to let the politicians know they were not going to simply give up on their deteriorated neighborhood. Many of the residents moved close by the Auraria neighborhood, and others a little further west of the area. One of the most difficult things for the majority of the displaced Hispanic residents to leave behind was St. Cajetan, s Catholic Church. In their efforts to save the neighborhood in its entirety, the parishioners of St. Cajetan' s along with the ARO had succeeded in their fight to save their beloved church. The preservation St. Cajetan's Catholic Church was not a major concern for local preservationists, but the parishioners would not stand for its demolition. As DURA was making plans for demolition and construction on the designated area, the parishioners succeed in preservation efforts concerning St. Cajetan's Catholic Church. Initially the parishioners concentrated on salvaging the entire neighborhood, but they also wanted to preserve their cultural center. While the actual parish was not salvaged, the building received placement on the National Register of Historic Places and a Denver Landmark Preservation Commission 53

PAGE 61

landmark. Demolition of both the church's school and credit union took place, but the formal designations forced DURA to save the building and design construction plans around the existing location. In order to help keep the old community together in some way, the parishioners of St. Cajetan's Church opened a new St. Cajetan in Southwest Denver at 99 South Raleigh Street. The new church opened in 1975 and still serves as the Spanish National Church in Denver. 78 With the original news of the possible demolition of the Auraria neighborhood the parishioners and officials at St. Elizabeth Catholic Church began to buy up all of the land in the surrounding area in order to save the church from the wrecking ball. DURA did not meet the preservation efforts with much dissent. In their original "Metropolitan State College Site Report," the authority acknowledged that twenty acres included in the total square footage of the Auraria Project were areas used for church and street property.79 Brother Adrian, O.F.M. ofthe Sacred Heart province designed the church, built in 1898, in the German Gothic style. It received placement on the National Register of Historic Places and a Denver Landmark Preservation Commission landmark in 1969. Like the St. Cajetan' s school, the St. Elizabeth's school was demolished. The parishioners of St. Elizabeth's Catholic Church were not only successful in their preservation efforts for the church, they also retained use of 78 Thomas J. Noel, Colorado Catholicism and the Archdiocese ofDerrver, 1857-1989. (Denver, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1989), pp. 344-345. 79 "Metropolitan State College Site Selection Report." Appendix I. Derrver Urban Renewal Authority. 1976. Records, 1958-1974. Box 4, FF3. Manuscript Collection. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. 54

PAGE 62

the church. They started their efforts early with a much different agenda from the St. Cajetan's parishioners. Most of the parishioners of St. Elizabeth had moved out of the area years before the proposed campus. The majority did not try to save the neighborhood, only their church. Saint Elizabeth Catholic Church is still an active parish to this day. Although a very small structure, the Emmanuel Shearith Israel Chapel did not fall to the wrecking ball of urban renewal in Auraria. Known as west Denver's oldest extant structure, the small stone chapel features a mixture of Romanesque and Gothic architecture. Built in 1876 by Bishop John F. Spaulding as an Episcopalian chapel, the church was originally known as Emmanuel Episcopal. As the parishioners moved out of west Denver, there was little need for the Episcopal church. The congregation ofisrael purchased the church in 1903 and converted into a synagogue. Later, in 1963, the synagogue sold the building to a private owner who transformed it into an artist's studio. DURA decided to salvage the building and save it to use as an art studio for the new campus. The Emmanuel Shearith Israel Chapel, now commonly known as the Emmanuel Gallery, received placement on the Colorado State Register ofHistorical Places in 1969. Local preservationist groups took action in efforts to save some of Auraria's historical treasures. Dana Crawford's newly founded Historic Denver, Inc. took particular interest in a square block ofhouses located on Ninth Street in the Auraria neighborhood. The fairly new Historic Denver, Inc. sought to save houses from 55

PAGE 63

demolition because the block represented the oldest surviving residential block in Denver. Historic Denver, Inc. chose to fight to salvage fourteen structures with a predicted cost of$900,000. After succeeding in their efforts on Larimer Street the organization was prepared to work with DURA to create a viable use for the structures. They sought help from all over the Denver community to save the buildings. Many private businesses and foundations, like the Boettcher Foundation and the Gates Foundation, donated large amounts of money toward the cause. Thousands of private donors who invested their interests in preservation also contributed monetarily for the preservation of the historic homes. 80 Historic Denver, Inc. decided to restore the structures to their original architectural integrity, typifying a modest Denver residential neighborhood spanning from 1873 to 1905. All of the restored buildings have their own distinct characteristics that added to the architectural distinction of the Auraria neighborhood. Historic Denver, Inc. restored the houses to their original appearance and named them for their original occupants. The Ninth Street project also succeeded in preserving and restoring the neighborhood grocery store at the end of the block. The buildings tell a story of the original occupants of the area and their descriptions help place the neighborhood into Denver's history. The homes on Ninth Street typify the architectural style of early homes in Denver. All are modest in size, but each has its own striking little details adding to its appeal. There are two-story, one-story, and 80 Historic Denver, Inc. Ninth Street Park Dedication. Pamphlet. Denver, CO: August l, 1976. 56

PAGE 64

one duplex on the block. 81 These homes are significant partially because they are the only reminder of the original Auraria settlement. After restoration was completed, Historic Denver, Inc. sold 35,660 square feet of office space in the historic structures to AHEC for $19.20 per square foot. 82 Historic Denver, Inc. also participated in the efforts to preserve the Tivoli Brewery. In 1969 financial difficulties, labor disputes, and flood damage forced the Tivoli Brewery to close its doors, leaving the building virtually abandoned. Several groups, including Historic Denver, Inc. saw the building not only as a viable historic structure, but also as valuable space for the new college campus. Placement of the Tivoli Brewery on the National Register ofHistoric Places came in 1973. That same year DURA bought the building with help from federal funds and designated it for educational purposes. AHEC then decided that the costs of renovation were too high and turned the project over to private developers. The preserved buildings, along with the city streets that swept through the area, forced campus developers to plan buildings around them. Because of the existing design of the area the campus planners set up the campus on the city's grid. Parking lots occupied much of the original demolished space. In October 1973 Auraria held its ground-breaking ceremony. AHEC used the land for parking until they implemented a new building's construction. Formal dedication of the Auraria 81 Please refer to the appendix for detailed descriptions of the buildings. 82 Historic Denver Incorporated. Ninth Street Park Dedication. pamphlet. Denver, CO: August 1, 1976. 57

PAGE 65

Higher Education Center took place in January of 1976. By December faculty members occupied buildings on the site. Students from all three institutions, Community College of Denver, Metropolitan State College ofDenver, and the University of Colorado at Denver, filled the buildings for the first time. Over the last thirty years the Auraria campus has grown and expanded with more students and new buildings. Of the preserved structures, the Tivoli now serves as the Student Center with many shops and restaurants to serve the students, faculty, and staffofthe AHEC institutions. St. Cajetan's serves as an auditorium, computer lab, and classroom building. The buildings on Ninth Street house many different campus departments and offices, except for the Groussman Store which now serves as a deli (see the appendix for detailed descriptions of the buildings). While the educational park experiment has been a success in some ways, it has not been easy for the three separate institutions and AHEC to work together. New buildings are still appearing on the campus, and others are planned for the future. One of the biggest controversies that the experiment has introduced is the question of student housing. Very recently CU-Denver had proposed to build student housing just outside the campus's designated area. This proposal enraged several groups including the Displaced Aurarians (formerly the Auraria Residents Organization) and the West-side Outreach Program. The opposing groups are mostly descendents of those involved in the original battle of the late sixties and early seventies. Survival of these groups demonstrates the profound impacts ofurban 58

PAGE 66

renewal and the past that Auraria is forced to recognize today. These groups show concern for protecting those who have been affected by urban renewal dislocation in the past. If the campus were to spread beyond its originally designated area, it would encroach upon many of those residents affected by the original Auraria Project. Though the student housing proposal failed, it left a mark on the relationships between the campus institutions and local organizations. Thus, the effects of an urban renewal project that occurred thirty years ago still have an impact on urban politics in Denver today. The Auraria Project in Denver is merely one example of urban renewal and the politics involved with the movement across the United States. 59

PAGE 67

CHAPTER SEVEN URBAN RENEWAL PROJECTS IN OTHER U.S. CITIES Thousands of urban renewal projects occurred across the country from the 1940s through the 1980s. It is difficult to examine all projects and how they relate to the national movement. The following examples serve as a slice of what was taking place in other major U.S. cities. Urban renewal projects in Detroit, San Antonio, San Francisco, St. Louis, and Chicago are similar to the Auraria project and to each other, but each example is also very different. Each city entered into urban renewal projects at different times, with different motivations, and different sets of actors. While Detroit was concerned with highway construction, the city of St. Louis looked to urban renewal for commercial development. Chicago, similar to St. Louis, used urban renewal in the Hyde Park-Kenwood project, but residents of the area were successful in stopping the demolition of their way of life. San Antonio used urban renewal projects for civic developments, and San Francisco used urban renewal for private development. Urban renewal projects started in each city for different reasons with different effects, but all played key roles in the politics of their cities. 60

PAGE 68

Detroit's Highways In The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit, Thomas J. Sugrue examines the city politics of Detroit, including the urban renewal. According to Sugrue, the city politics of Detroit began to change drastically after World War II. Before World War II, large white populations moved outside Detroit's central city to surrounding suburbs, which created ethnically segregated areas of Detroit and its suburbs. The African-American and lower income families concentrated in the inner city, and the white populations sought direct highway routes across the city, avoiding those areas. Like many of the other major cities in the country, Detroit looked to urban renewal to help alleviate some of the problems many local politicians felt the city was facing, by the late 1940s. Sugrue states, "In the 1950s, they (politicians and scholars) proposed legislation to shore up depressed areas ofthe nation. But their agenda remained on the fringes of postwar economic policy. "83 Detroit politicians were ready to shore up their neighborhoods in the inner city. Unlike Denver's first major projects like the Skyline and Auraria Projects, Detroit was interested in using urban renewal programs to build cross-city expressways. Unfortunately, significant numbers of African-Americans lived in the path ofthese expressways. Consequently, by the 1950s the highways had devastated the most populated areas of Detroit. Sugrue states that the Detroit city planners were 83 Sugrue, pp. 5-6. 61

PAGE 69

careful to plan highways to run through lower income and black neighborhoods, not to disrupt any nearby middle-class homes. Detroit used urban renewal methods for highway construction as a "handy device for razing slums."84 Unlike Auraria, announcements for Detroit's urban renewal areas came years before construction. Residents of the affected area were given seemingly ample notice to sell their property and relocate because the announcement of highway projects came years before their actual construction. The problem was in the early notice itself, because home owners were unable to sell their property and there were very few places for the displaced population to relocate. The postwar highway projects exacerbated the already existent housing crisis that Detroit was facing, especially for the black community in the city. Much like the Auraria Project in Denver, renters suffered the most at the hands of the urban renewal projects in Detroit. Detroit did not have adequate relocation plans for the recently displaced residents. Even with the efforts of the Detroit Housing Commission, there was not enough housing. New high-rise public housing began to replace the deteriorating homes in the demolished slums. Although city planners promised improved neighborhoods and economy, it seemed that the major concern was easy access across the city for the suburban citizens. The Lodge Freeway was one of the largest highway construction projects in the city. The project, which spanned about seven miles, led to the demolition of 84 Ibid. p. 47. 62

PAGE 70

2,222 buildings. Similarly, the Edsel Ford Expressway caused the demolition of 2,800 buildings in the 1950s. Although one major project did affect a middle class neighborhood, out of the nine hundred structures cleared between Wyoming and Warren Avenues, seven hundred or so white families were able to move intact to other middle class areas in Detroit, according to Sugrue.85 Overall, the growing African-American population in the city felt the effects of urban renewal within Detroit's highway systems far more than any other ethnic group. The Detroit highway system case is much larger in size than that of the Auraria project, but the stories are very similar. In both cases large numbers of the most prevalent minority group were forced to move from their homes in order to make room for civic projects. In both Denver and Detroit the major groups affected by the urban renewal projects had the smallest voice in the decision. People were forced out of their homes that the state agencies had classified as slums. The cities did not see their neighborhoods as neighborhoods with real people, but desirable land for large projects. The places that they called home were demolished for what some claimed as the better good of the city and state. Instead ofhelping the residents by providing funds for the maintenance of their neighborhoods, it was easier for the cities to tear down the entire area and force the residents out. Denver's Auraria project and Detroit's highway project have benefited many of their residents-those who attend college on the Denver campus and those who drive the Detroit highways 85 Ibid, pp. 4 7-51. 63

PAGE 71

to get to work everyday. These projects also had a real negative impact on the residents forced out of their homes. The projects affected each city's overall politics as well. In both cases the state institutions heading the urban renewal movement in the city exercised largely arbitrary power over the poor residents in the city. San Antonio's International Exhibition San Antonio also experienced major urban renewal projects similar to the Auraria Project. Carl Abbott explains San Antonio urban renewal in The New Urban America: Growth and Politics in Sunbelt Cities. Abbott compares several cities in his 1981 book, including both San Antonio and Denver. According to Abbott, the urban renewal process in San Antonio was tightly controlled by the new establishment of municipal reformers and local businessmen. 86 Unlike Denver, which gave citizens more of a choice in urban renewal projects, San Antonio's projects were in the hands of businessmen and politicians. Many San Antonio businessmen and politicians claimed that the projects promoted metropolitan growth in San Antonio and would enhance downtown activity in the city. In order to reduce administrative chaos the San Antonio City Council formed the Good Government League in December 1957. The League's goals were to revitalize the Central Business District and refurbish the image of the city through 86 Carl Abbott, The New Urban America: Growth and Politics in Sunbelt Cities (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981), p. 152. 64

PAGE 72

urban renewal. After early efforts from the League, San Antonio approved a city renewal program in December 1957. In the early 1960s, the city proposed a large urban renewal project titled the Central West Project, which designated 68 acres west of the city's courthouse and city hall for demolition. The area, mostly occupied by Hispanic residents, was planned for commercial reuse. Next, San Antonio urban renewal advocates focused their attention on the Rosa Verde Project just north of the Central West Project. The project, intended for housing rehabilitation, was in the vicinity of major hospitals in the city. The city used spot clearance in the area in order to make room for new apartments. 87 San Antonio was chosen as the future site for the Hemis Fair-International Exhibition, set to arrive in 1968. With the announcement ofthe coming event, the city underwent another major urban renewal project. The city designated 149 acres southeast of the Alamo as the potential site for the upcoming exhibition. San Antonio's urban renewal authority acquired the land for $28 million, selling it back to the city for $3 million. In order to meet its federal funding requirements, the city used a large portion of the 1964 bond issue in order to finance the project. The Hemis Fair Project consisted of building a Civic Center encompassing a theater, arena, and exhibition building. The remainder of the land was to be leased to the Hemis Fair Company.88 87 Ibid, p. 152. 88 Ibid, p. 152-153. 65

PAGE 73

West-side Congressman Henry B. Gonzales first publicized the idea of the Hemis Fair Project in 1962. Gonzales gained support when Senator Ralph Yarborough secured federal participation for designation as an official international exhibition site. Soon after, Texas Governor John Connally supported the project by financing a multi-million dollar appropriation from the state. Twenty-six local banks financed $4.5 million for the operating corporation, and the loan was then secured by pledges of four hundred and eighty businessmen. The project had secured financing to proceed. 89 The Hemis Fair preceded the Mexico City Olympics, and proponents of the project emphasized the cultural and commercial ties between the United States and Latin America. Although the cultural ties were emphasized, what the proponents did not stress was that many Hispanic families were displaced in the process. The Hemis Fair Project was completed in time to host the exhibition, which drew about six million visitors. After the Hemis Fair International Exhibition closed the space was used for a convention center and federal buildings. The area also became the home to many tourist attractions including the Institute of Texas Cultures and the Tower of Americas. 90 San Antonio's Hemis Fair project actually compares more with the Skyline Project in Denver than Auraria on some levels. In the Auraria case, the city and other 89 Ibid, p, 153. 90 Ibid, p, 153. 66

PAGE 74

state institutions lead the urban renewal project instead of businessmen. Businessmen of the cities spearheaded both the Skyline and Hem is Fair projects for the revitalization of the central business district and ultimately for their own financial motivations. Skyline and Hemis Fair helped in the efforts to bring businesses back to downtown instead of other competing areas in the cities and suburbs. Civic development motivated both the Hemis Fair and Auraria projects, but while the Auraria project stood to benefit the entire area, the intent of the Hemis Fair project focused on one event without a clear plan for the future of the area. The sizes of the areas as well as the people affected by the demolition were similar. In both cases the Hispanic residents of the designated sites paid the biggest price for civic development. San Francisco's Golden Gate Project San Francisco is another city that Abbott examines in his book. San Francisco's urban renewal history is quite different from urban renewal in Denver. According to Abbott, the Golden Gateway Center was San Francisco's "key" urban renewal project. The Golden Gateway Center Project focused on private rather than civic development through urban renewal. The project demolished an old warehouse produce market near the ferry terminal. The Embarcadero Complex, which consisted of four "huge" office buildings, a Hyatt Regency Hotel, and high-rise upper-income 67

PAGE 75

housing, replaced the market.91 The Golden Gateway Project also provided the Bay Area Rapid Transit station, which brought people into the area from all over the city. C.B. Zellerbach and Charles Blyth, San Francisco industrialists, first proposed the idea of the Golden Gateway Center. The two men provided support for the project by forming a businessmen's committee in 1955. After the committee formed, members advanced funds for the planning stage of the project. Although adjacent building owners to the project area raised complaints regarding unfair competition, the plans were already underway. It took less than six weeks for the redevelopment agency, planning committee, and board of supervisors to approve the final plans in the spring of 1959. The San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association (PURA), a committee formed from the Blyth-Zellerbach Committee in 1959, also backed the Golden Gateway Center project.92 The Golden Gateway Center project helped to trigger private development in the San Francisco financial district in the 1960s. By the end of the 1960s, the Yerba Buena project was the center of urban renewal arguments in the city. Through the Y erba Buena project, the redevelopment agency hoped to demolish eighty-seven acres of cheap hotels, parking lots, and warehouses north of Market Street, replacing them with a convention center and additional offices. According to Abbott, City officials saw an annual tax increment of $5.2 million add to the $3.4 million gain from Golden Gateway, large corporations saw extra facilities for the metropolitan community, members of the Convention 91 Ibid, p. 149. 92 Ibid, p. 149-150. 68

PAGE 76

and Visitors Bureau saw flush times for owners and employees of hotels, restaurants, entertainment, and professional sports, and the Building and Construction Trades Council saw more jobs. 93 This project evicted three thousand low-income elderly and transient residents of the area. Public protests and extensive litigation blocked federal funds in 1968. These resulted in a public agreement in which the redevelopment agency proceeded with the construction of the Yerba project, but the agreement required the agency to add 1,200 housing low-rent housing units for the elderly. Additionally, the agreement required the agency to rehabilitate 1,500 low-income housing units in other parts of the city as part of the agreement. 94 The San Francisco public did not widely accept urban renewal projects in the 1960s. Although the Y erba Buena project was completed, the efforts of the protestors had more of an impact than those ofthe residents in west Denver, Detroit, or San Antonio. Unlike residents in the other three cities, the residents in the Yerba project area gained support from other community activists who lobbied the state in protest of the project. In Denver, Detroit, and San Antonio, residents gained little support outside their area. The urban renewal project in San Francisco caused a stir, but it may not have been met with as much contention from the public had the proposed site been intended as a civic development project. Some of the public may found it hard to support a project that displaced thousands of people for the good of private 93 Ibid, pp. 150-151. 94 Ibid, p. 151. 69

PAGE 77

interests in the city. Although the city stood to benefit in the long run with increased investment and capital flow into the city, the residents did not feel any immediate impact from the success of local businessmen. It seemed that the favored businessmen gained the most by dislocating low-income and nearly destitute people. St. Louis's R-11 Folly Dennis R. Judd and Robert Mendelson examine urban issues in East St. Louis in The Politics of Urban Planning: The East St. Louis Experience. Urban renewal in East St. Louis started to take form in the last 1950s. Although the city appointed a new position of city planning director, urban renewal remained the responsibility of the local housing authority. In 1959 forty-nine acres of deteriorated housing and commercial facilities were cleared in the Illinois R-11 urban renewal project. The project found support from both a community development program and a coalition of neighborhood groups assisted by business interests. The project, while initially successful in clearance of the area was not successful in development. The Illinois R-11 area was originally designated for commercial development as an extension of the St. Louis downtown business district. All but thirty percent of the area was left undeveloped as ofthe early 1970s. The designated development did not attract developers. The city council had marketed the R-11 area unsuccessfully for five years. Due to the lack of success, the city, along with suggestions from several local 70

PAGE 78

businessmen, decided to bring the urban renewal function back into the city administration from the housing authority. In 1964 the city hired Edwin Denman, a former urban renewal director in an Indiana city, as their new urban renewal and planning director. His primary concern was to bring success to the R-11 project. He hired a consulting firm from New Jersey to prepare a master plan for the area which was completed several years after his appointment. Only two years after his appointment, the business and banking interests of the city united to form the Progress Action by Citizens Efforts (PACE). Members ofPACE had become very impatient and skeptical with the results of urban renewal in St. Louis. The group's primary concern was the economic future of the city. The city government had failed in efforts to stop the declining property values and the members ofPACE were feeling the effects in their businesses. Taking their own initiative for the R-11 project, PACE hired a local architectural firm and planning firm to develop a plan for the city, including the R-11 project. Their final plans were quite extravagant, suggesting large-scale clearance of existing residential areas only to be replaced with commercial, residential, and entertainment areas. This plan also failed to attract developers to the R-11 area. PACE realized that there was little future for commercial development of the area and proposed using the area for housing. The city did not respond. At the same time the city hired a local realtor to market the land, but the attempt failed to make a sale. It seemed that urban renewal was not going to have any success in East St. 71

PAGE 79

Louis, despite the efforts of PACE and the city. The project was not made feasible until a 1970 decision to place more public housing in the area. The city cleared out forty-nine acres of low-income housing in the R-11 project area and built a new motel, a federal building, an expansion of an existing hospital, and public housing. 95 Unlike the other projects examined, St. Louis did not have a plan for the R-11 area other than to demolish it and dislocate its businesses and residents. The project, obviously unsuccessful, was very different from the Auraria project. St. Louis used urban renewal as a tool to demolish an area, just as in the Auraria project, but that was it. It was not until PACE became involved that any progress took place in the development of the R-11 area. Developers deemed the area undesirable even after the demolition of the existing properties. Denver sought the Auraria site because of its desirable location, and clear plans were set for the future of the site before demolition began in the area. St. Louis may have learned from the R-11 project, but the lesson was very different than that learned from the Auraria project. Mass Renewal in One Chicago Area Urban renewal in Chicago, one of the nation's largest cities, affected several areas of the city. In The Impact of Urban Renewal on Small Businesses: the Hyde Park-Kenwood Case, Brian J. L. Berry, Sandra J. Parsons, and Rutherford H. Platt 95 Dennis R. Judd and Robert E. Mendelson. The Politics of Urban Planning: The East St. Louis Experience (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1973), pp. 47-49. 72

PAGE 80

examine one large area affected by urban renewal. The authors, while looking at the total impact of the area, detail every case in each smaller area of the Hyde Park Kenwood area. As part of the overall plan for the large area, the Kimbark Plaza emerged as a novel experiment proving to be of importance and significance to commercial planning elsewhere. Plans for the experiment were underway in 1956 after the initial A and B plans for the area were already in motion. According to the authors, the Kimbark Plaza area comprised eight hundred and fifty-five acres, containing thirty-one hundred structures, and housing sixty-five thousand people. The goal of the plan was not to dislocate the existing community and businesses, but to "conserve" the area and therefore to use clearance selectively. The Preliminary Plan called for the thorough clearance of an entire block, and the relocation of another. When added to existing clearance plans in the larger area, the overall clearance anticipated by the plan would eliminate an entire "commercial rectangle" in the area. While the plan called for the vacancy of one hundred and twelve businesses, there was a provision in the Preliminary Plan for the restoration of a limited amount of commercial space to the community. This was an effort to help the displaced citizens and also to avoid depriving sixty-five thousand people in the neighborhood of their neighborhood walk-in stores. After initial efforts, the plan designated ten scattered sites for commercial redevelopment. The Housing and Home Finance Agency (HHF A) received the plans in August of 1956 and approved them approved 73

PAGE 81

that December. This measure enabled the local merchants to maintain their businesses. The only opposition came from chain-stores that claimed the decision favored the small merchants. Either way, the local demand to keep small businesses prevailed in the Kimbark Plaza project in Chicago.96 Residents in Chicago, like those in San Francisco, exercised their voices against city urban renewal politics. They also successfully preserved some of their neighborhood and way of life. Urban renewal in the Hyde Park-Kenwood case affected a much larger population than that of any other city examined. This may explain the effect of their voice in the political decisions for their area. The residents and businessmen of Auraria, a much smaller group in comparison, did not fall upon deaf ears in Denver, but their efforts did not have the same impact as in the Chicago project. Chicago's residents fought not only to save their neighborhood, but the integrity of the area. Denver deemed Auraria a slum, but the city of Chicago saw the Hyde Park-Kenwood area as a prime commercial area, not necessarily a blight on the city landscape. Project Distinctions No matter which city is examined in the United States, urban renewal played out in different ways. Preservation played a crucial role in the Auraria case, unlike 96 Brian J. L. Berry, Sandra J. Parsons, and Rutherford H. Platt, The Impact of Urban Renewal on Small Businesses: The Hyde Park-Kenwood Case (Chicago: The Center for Urban Studies, The University of Chicago, 1968), pp. 48-52. 74

PAGE 82

many other cities. Although buildings on the Auraria site had deteriorated over the years, people like Dana Crawford, fought to save the historical treasures for generations to come. In most other cases, like the highway projects in Detroit, the public paid little attention to the buildings on the demolished areas. Deteriorated buildings made them candidates for demolition, regardless of the historical or architectural significance. Most likely, demolition of many of the nation's historic treasures took place during urban renewal projects. Times are different now, and what may have been thought of as deteriorating during the urban renewal era is now often considered a historic treasure lost at the hands of urban renewal. Not every building preserved needs a famous name or event to justify its importance. Denver, with the efforts of preservation groups, preserved some of the city's simple structures to offer future generations a broader story. Preservation has not been the only difference in urban renewal projects across the country. Some projects were designed for civic development, while others reflected more concern with the commercial side of development. Whether designated for a college campus or commercial park, every urban renewal project produced a new group of heroes and victims, according to various perspectives. Although not every project affected a large number of families or residents living in the area, someone always felt the impact. Businesses, especially small ones, suffered due to urban renewal projects in every major city regardless of the size of the project. Many of those businesses did not survive the effects of dislocation and never opened 75

PAGE 83

their doors in a different location. The small businessmen in the Hyde Park-Kenwood area did not feel the effects as did those in the Auraria neighborhood or the Golden Gate Center area. While the Chicago businessmen opened their doors after urban renewal swept through their area, their counterparts in other cities watched their buildings fall to the wrecking ball. Residents all over the country saw their homes (filled with memories) tumble at the hand of urban renewal. 76

PAGE 84

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I CHAPTER EIGHT CONCLUSION: THE LASTING LEGACY OF URBAN RENEWAL Urban renewal is complicated. Not every project worked just as the city or locality planned, but some projects have been more successful than originally anticipated. St. Louis dropped the ball on the R-11 project, while residents of Detroit travel the city's highways everyday. No city could claim that any of its urban renewal projects went exactly according to plan. Every city met the concept and projects with different ideas and executions of those ideas. Some urban renewal agencies were practically met with open arms from the majority of the city's residents, while others were met with contention on different levels and by different groups. Groups opposed urban renewal projects for different reasons. Some tried to save their homes and businesses, while others were not willing to fund the projects for their city. Regardless of the reasons for opposition, some groups found success in their efforts, while others were forced to leave their homes behind. Many affected groups, like the residents of Auraria, were Hispanic and an ethnic minority group within their cities. Although many of the groups did not find success initially in their efforts against urban renewal, their efforts played a key role in the urban politics of many major U.S. cities. The Chicano civil rights movement succeeded in increasing the group's political rights in cities all over the country. 77

PAGE 85

Several ofthe country's major cities experienced increased political footing within Hispanic populations as a result of the movement's efforts, and a rise in Hispanic population all over the country. According to Mike Davis in Magical Urbanism: Latinos Reinvent the U.S. City, by the early 1990s, Hispanic populations have outnumbered Mrican-American populations in six major cities. Hispanics, as the "majority-minority" group, have exercised political powers in cities all over the country, including Denver.97 Their influence on urban politics has changed and increased, partially due to their organizing efforts in the fight against urban renewal. The politics of urban renewal are too complex to summarize one side or another when examining a particular project. This is not to say that Frank Abbott and Magdalena Gallegos did not tell some version of the "truth" in their accounts of the Auraria project. However, each told a version from a single perspective, or in Gallegos's case, the version of the story from the residents' perspectives. Together, and supplemented with a good bit of additional research, their accounts help draw a more clearly defined picture of what took place. The Auraria residents were not passive victims, although it may be easier to tell a story of neighborhood pride and unity after a neighborhood no longer exists. People often have an unintended tendency to romanticize the past when reflecting upon it. It is important to remember that the residents' accounts were recorded after the battle, and after they were displaced by the campus. Had interviews taken place 97 Mike Davis, Magical Urbanism: Latinos Reinvent the U.S. City (New York: Verso, 2000), p. 2. 78

PAGE 86

before the idea of displacement, their recorded story of the area may have been quite different. Their stories are important in understanding the effects of the Auraria campus on the displaced residents, but it is crucial not to take every word as absolute truth. In the same respect, AHEC commissioned Abbott to write an institutional history. His primary concern was to glorify the success of the institution. He was not, however, concerned with incorporating the story of the residents. The CCHE, AHEC, and DURA are neither the heroes whom Abbott describes or the villains whom displaced Aurarians describe. Each of these three institutions carried out its plans for an urban renewal project, resulting in a college campus. Although the institutions did take the concerns of the residents into some consideration, none were interested in salvaging the neighborhood. In several cases the residents were treated as statistics, but DURA made a concerted effort to conduct face-to-face sessions with the residents. The authority also tried to compensate the residents as best as possible. Unfortunately, the majority of the residents did not benefit from their efforts because they were renters, not owners. This is not the fault of DURA; it is just a part of the complicated situation. The educational park experiment has provided a place of education for many tens of thousands ofDenver area residents in the past thirty years. Although the project came at the cost of the homes and businesses of many residents of west Denver, the project is a huge success for the city and state institutions, in addition to 79

PAGE 87

Denver metropolitan area residents. While some ofthe propaganda in favor of the campus may have been extremely biased, some of its arguments made good points. Auraria campus has served as a great resource for the metropolitan area. MSCD has opened the door of education to many who may not have sought higher education elsewhere. The educational park experiment has brought a wide variety of students to the campus, adding to the whole experience. Auraria has become an exceptional setting for higher education in the state of Colorado. Preservation of historical buildings on the Auraria Campus adds to the site's distinction in the Denver area and the country. Although the different preservation groups worked separately in the efforts, their similar goals enriched the campus setting. Historic Denver, Inc. not only sought to save Ninth Street for the architectural and historical integrity of the buildings, but also for functional use. The group received money from other resources to preserve the houses for office space, and then they sold the space to AHEC and turned a profit in the end. The parishioners of St. Cajetan' s, while losing their homes, saved their church. AHEC uses St. Cajetan's as an auditorium and classroom, but it also serves as a symbol of the battle against the campus. The parishioners of St. Elizabeth Catholic Church make their way to mass every week. Auraria Campus is often symbolized by the Tivoli, the largest and most distinctive building. Without the efforts of the different groups, with their similar goals, the historic treasures may have been lost to wear and tear over time, if they survived wrecking crews. 80

PAGE 88

People and politics are difficult to comprehend. This is only one study of one example of urban politics in the United States, but it attempts a balanced interpretation of a complicated situation by giving credence to multiple voices and sources of evidence. The Auraria story not only demonstrates urban politics in action and in impacts, but it also offers an interpretation of the landscape that students and Denverites see every day: a new campus with a few old buildings. Every area has its own story to tell for those who seek it out. 81

PAGE 89

APPENDIX A NINTH STREET RESTORED STRUCTURES The Groussman Store, owned by a Jewish family, is located at 900 Curtis Street. The commercial structure, designed by F.C. Eberly, who also designed the Tivoli Brewery, was built in 1906 for Albert B. Groussman and his wife, Belle. It represents tum-of-the-century commercial architecture in Denver. The Groussman Store is a red brick building with an elaborate parapeted roof of globes. 98 Very little is known about one lonely house on the block located at 1061 Ninth Street. It is believed that the Italianate structure was built in 1874. The house has simple proportions with classic lines, and a porch was added to the original structure. The Rundle House, located at I 059 Ninth Street, was built in 1880 for William B. Rundle, the manager of the Colorado Electric Company. The house was originally a one-story, brick building. Sometime between the original construction and 1890 a second story and mansard roof designed by Frank E. Edbrooke, one of Denver's premier architects, was added. Metal panels and dormer windows now puncture the mansard roof, which once established angular patterns. The porch, Victorian in style, has a porch screen in Philadelphia lattice. 98 "A Walking Tour of Auraria." Pamphlet. 82

PAGE 90

The Young House, located at 1051 Ninth Street, is an example of the classic cottage. It has a central dormer window, a tall chimney, neoclassical posts, and a hip roof The shingled roof contains metalwork along the ridges, and the house uses classical dentil detailing. The Shultz House, the only double on the block, is located at 1045/1047 Ninth Street. J.J. Brackus for William Schultz, the bookkeeper for the Milwaukee Brewery, designed the house, which was built for $3,700. The two-story double was originally constructed with brick but has been covered over with stucco. A lot of detailing was lost over the years, including a metal cornice along the roof There are three dimensional brackets on the porch posts, produced by various milled and turned elements. The Wheeler Grieb ling House, located at 1041 Ninth Street, is the most striking Italianate on the block. With tall bays extending to the height and long windows, this house certainly stands out. It has decorative details and a simple flower scroll. A mansard roof above the kitchen was added in 1907. The most striking detail of the house is wonderful iron cresting along the roofline. The Gardner House, located at 1033 Ninth Street was built in 1873. It is one of only two frame structures on the block. The house has an L-shaped floor plan, iron cresting, and roof molding. Framing located in the angle of the floor plan supports its shingled tower. 83

PAGE 91

One ofthe oldest houses on the block is located at 1068 Ninth Street. Built circa 1873, The Davis House is a lovely Italianate villa. It has a full porch across the front with "Gothic" carpenter detailing. The house is cubical with projecting bracketed eaves and an iron fence, and is set on a low, red sandstone wall. Little is known ofthe Dolan House, located at 1056 Ninth Street. It is a classic little cottage designed by William Crowe with a hip roof and donner window that characterizes it. The Centennial House, located at 1050 Ninth Street, is a one-story brick cottage. The house, built by Henry Cole circa 1875, has beautifully proportioned windows. It has an asymmetrical plan, and is accented by a white picket fence. The Centennial house may be the oldest standing brick residence in the city of Denver. The Roop House, built in 1875, is located at 1024 Ninth Street. It is a plum colored house with an iron cresting roofline and iron fencing. The inside of the house has a finely crafted oak staircase. The Smedley House is the second oldest house in the block. It is a frame house, located at 1020 Ninth Street, and has been through several structural alterations. When first constructed water was drawn from a well in the basement. The porch might have been original to the building and the bracketed eaves have stood the test of time. The Knight House, located at 1 015 Ninth Street, is a quaint little Victorian style dwelling. It has one ofthree mansard roof houses on Ninth Street Parkway. 84

PAGE 92

There was a cupola on the original structure that does not exist now. The Knight-Ben family assisted in the addition to the house. The Witte House, located at 1027 Ninth Street, is towered and crested. Built circa 1883, this house has spacious rooms and a defining tower. Prior to 1890, the house contained six rooms. More rooms, the tower, and a box bay on the north side were added after 1890. During restoration a skylight was added on top of the tower to provide more natural light. 99 99 "A Walking Tour of Auraria." Pamphlet. 85

PAGE 93

BffiLIOGRAPHY BooksDenver and Local History Abbott, Frank C. The Auraria Higher Education Center: How It Came To Be. Denver, CO: Auraria Higher Education Center, 1999. Coel, Margaret, Jane Barker, Karen Gilleland. The Tivoli: Bavaria in the Rockies. Discovering Historic Colorado. Boulder, CO: Colorado and the West, 1985. Eitemiller, David. Historic Tours: For Automobile. Bicycle. Omnibus. or Walking: Denver. New York: Dover Publications, 1977. Eitemiller, David J. A Tour of Historic Denver. Including Auraria. Lower Downtown Denver. 17th Street, Civic Center. Brown's Bluff. Quality Hill. and Humboldt Island (The 2nd Historic District). A Bus Tour Prepared for the Catholic Alumni Club ofDenver. Denver, CO: Denver, 1974. Etheredge, Tracie and Stan Oliner. "An Inventory of the Records of the Auraria Town Company: Collection Number 23: a Holding of the Library of the Colorado Historical Society." In Auraria Town Company, Colorado Historical Society Library. ed. Denver, CO: The Society, 1993. Etter, Don D. Auraria: Where Denver Began. Denver, CO: Colorado Associated University Press, 1972. Leonard, Stephen J. and Thomas J. Noel. Denver: Mining Camp to Metropolis. Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1990 & 1994. McEnroe, Donna. Denver Renewed: A History of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority, ed. by Dick Johnston. Denver, CO: The Denver Foundation and Alex B. Holland Memorial Fund, 1992. Noel, Thomas J. Colorado Catholicism and The Archdiocese ofDenver. 18571989. Denver, CO: University Press of Colorado, 1989. 86

PAGE 94

Noel, Thomas J. Denver's Larimer Street: Main Street. Skid Row. and Urban Renaissance. Denver, CO: Historic Denver, Inc., 1981, 1983. Rivera, George Jr., Aileen F. Lucero, and Richard Castro. "International Colonialism in Colorado: The Westside Coalition and Barrio Control." In La Gente: Hispano History and Life in Colorado, ed. Vincent C. DeBaca. Denver, CO: Colorado Historical Society, 1998. Smiley, Jerome C. History of Denver. Denver, CO: Western Pub. Co., 1978 (Reprint of the original 1901 edition). BooksUrban History and Analysis (other than Denver and Local) Abbott, Carl. The New Urban America: Growth and Politics in Sunbelt Cities. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981. Berry, Brian Joe Lobley. The Impact of Urban Renewal on Small Business: the Hyde ParkKenwood Case. Chicago: Center for Urban Studies, University of Chicago, 1968. Davis, Mike. City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. New York: Verso, 1990. Davis, Mike. Magical Urbanism: Latinos Reinvent the US City. New York: Verso, 2000. Garreau, Joel. Edge City: Life on the New Urban Frontier. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Judd, Dennis R and Todd Swanstrom. City Politics: Private Power and Public Policy. New York: Longman, 2002. Judd, Dennis R "From Cowtown to Sunbelt City: Boosterism and Economic Growth in Denver." In Fainstein, S., Fainstein, N., Hill, RL., Judd, D., and Smith, M.P. eds., Restructuring the Political Economy of Urban Development. New York: Longman, 1972. Judd, Dennis Rand Paul P. Kantor, eds. The Politics ofUrban America: a Reader. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998. 87

PAGE 95

Judd, Dennis R. and Robert E. Mendelson. The Politics of Urban Planning: the East St. Louis Experience. Urbana, IT.-: University of Illinois Press, 1973. Logan, John R. and Harvey L. Molotch. Urban Fortunes: the Political Economy of Place. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1987. McLemore, S. Dale and Harriet D. Romo. Racial and Ethnic Relations in America. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998 ed. Mohl, Raymond A. The Making of Urban America. Willmington, Delaware: Scholarly Resources, Inc., 1997. Sugrue, Thomas J.. The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996. Journal Article Convery, William J. 1997. "Pray for the Soul of Catherine Smith Mullen" John K. and Catherine S. Mullen and Philanthropy in Auraria. In Historical Studies Journal, v. 14. Denver, CO: University of Colorado at Denver, 1997. 1969 Newspaper Articles and Letters. and Advertisements c-,, "21 Denver Legislators Favor Auraria." Denver Post, Sunday, 2 November 2, 1969: 33. _." Auraria Foes Plan Fight in Legislature." Denver Post, 5 November 1969: 48. \_." Auraria: A Bargain Denver Needs." Denver Post, 2 November 1969: 3G. "Auraria: Fine But Too Close." Denver Post, 5 November 1969: 34. "Citizens for Auraria To Continue After Vote." Rocky Mountain News, 1 November 1969: 26. "Dedicated Students Show the Way." Rocky Mountain News, 6 November 1969: 62. 88

PAGE 96

"Denver Election Turnout Light." Denver Post Qlome Edition), 4 November 1969: 1A. t" Denver to Decide Auraria Proposal." Denver Post, 3 November 3, 1969: 1A. "Hispanos Cite Church Failure." Denver Catholic Register, 18 December 1969: 1. "McNichols Answers Questions on Auraria." Rocky Mountain News, 2 November 1969:5 & 10. Metro Student Survey Shows: Central College Good for Jobs". Denver Catholic Register, 27 November 27 1969: 10. "Official Cites Reasons for Auraria Vote." Rocky Mountain News, 1 November 1969: 42. c)" Opposition Seeks Auraria Fund Block." Denver Post, 2 November 2 1969: 34. "Vote for Auraria Amendment # 1." Auraria Campus Advertisement. Denver: CO: Citizens for Auraria. 1969. ::._;'West Side Action Council Opposes Auraria Issue." Denver Post, 2 November 1969: 37. "Why Denver Needs the Auraria Center." Auraria Campus Advertisement. Denver: CO: Citizens for Auraria. 1969. :.-Aragon, Mrs. Germaine. "Concern of Chicano For Auraria Homes." (letter to The j Open Forum) Denver Post, 3 November 1969: 12. Ball, Dave." Metro Student Defends Auraria." Denver Post, 1 November 1969: 12. Bonfils, Frederick G. "The Open Forum." Denver Post, 3 November 1969: 19. t Ditmer, Joanne. "Broken Pledges Threaten Auraria." Denver Post, 2 November 1969: 93 j Johnston, Dick. "Voters of Denver Approve College Project in Auraria: Legislature Next Hurdle for Complex." Denver Post, 5 November 1969: 1 A & 3A. 89

PAGE 97

Johnston, Dick. "Commission to Request $5.6 Million for Auraria." Denver Post, 7 November 1969: 52. Johnston, Dick. "Is Auraria the Key to Checking Denver's Decline as Core City?" Denver Post, 2 November 1969: 1 (Perspective Section). Lyle, Don." 2nd Charter Amendment is Explained." Rocky Mountain News, 2 November 1969: 8. Lyle, Don." Mayor Vows Auraria Follow Through." Rocky Mountain News, 6 November 1969: 8. Morehead, John. "Mayor Sees Vote Turnout of61,000." Denver Post, 2 November 1969: I & 4. Tucker, Richard. "Auraria Wins by 3,773 Margin, City Voters Give Okay to Auraria." Rocky Mountain News, 5 November 1969: 1,5,8. Tucker, Richard. "CCHE to Seek Auraria Project Funds." Rocky Mountain News, 6 November 1969: 5 & 6. Manuscripts Denver City and Auraria, the commercial emporium of the Pike's Peak gold regions in 1859: St. Louis? 44 pp., 15 pp. advertisements, illus., map. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. Auraria Town Company. 1858-1860. Records ofthe Auraria Town Company, from October 1858 to March 1860. 23 pp. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. Auraria Town Company. Circa 1930. Copy of original "Town record" of Denver City, Colorado [1858-1861]: copy of original "Town record" of St. Charles Town Association [1858]. Denver, CO: Document Division, Denver Museum Collection. 62 pp., 12leaves. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. 90

PAGE 98

Barker, Anselm Holcomb. 1959. Anselm Holcomb Barker, 1822-1895, pioneer builder and early settler of Auraria: his diary of 1858 from Plattesmouth, Nebraska Territory, to Cherry Creek Diggings, present site of Denver, Colorado., 1:83. Denver, Colorado: Golden Bell Press. 83 pp., illus., bib., index. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. Barney, Libeus. 1959. Letter of the Pike's Peak gold rush (or, Early day letters from Auraria) Early-day letters, by Libeus Barney, reprinted from the Bennington Banner, Vennont, 1859-1860. San Jose, CA: Talisman Press. 97 pp., illus., port., fold map (in pocket). Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. Denver Urban Renewal Authority, Records, 1958-1974. 1976 [manuscript]. Denver, CO. 7 boxes, finding aid, Auraria project in Box 4. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. Thesis and Dissertations Corson, Dan William. 1998. "Dana Crawford: from Larimer Square to LoDo, Historic Preservation in Denver.": Thesis (M.S.) University of Colorado at Denver, 1998. Gallegos, Magdalena. "History of the Hispanic Settlers in Auraria: the Forgotten Community." Denver, CO, 1985. Gallegos, Magdalena. "Auraria Remembered." Denver, CO: Community College of Denver, 1991. Milstein, Philip. "The Auraria Higher Education Center." Thesis (D.P.A.) University of Colorado at Denver, 1990. Surveys. Maps. and Pamphlets "A Walking Tour of Auraria." Denver: CO: Auraria Higher Education Center. 2002. Pamphlet. 91

PAGE 99

BRW, Inc. and Flores Associates, Madison, Madison, International, Felsberg, Holt, and Ullevig, Hammer-Siler-George Associates. 1986. Auraria Parkway Corridor Study: 153. Denver, CO: BRW, Inc. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. Emrich, Ron and Barbara Norgen. Architectural and Historical Survey of Downtown Denver. Denver, CO: Preservation Alliance, 1984. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. Denver Planning Office. Community Renewal Program. Denver. Condition of the City: March 1973 I Prepared by the City and County of Denver Planning Office: Community Renewal Program. Denver, CO: Planning Office, 1973. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. Denver Urban Renewal Authority. Denver Urban Renewal Authority. Denver, CO: The Authority. I map, 1983. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. Fetter, Rosemary. "A Brief History of Auraria: Celebrating 20 Years of Innovation In Higher Education." Denver, CO: office of the Executive Vice President for Administration, Auraria Higher Education Center, 1997. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. Historic Denver, Incorporated. "Ninth Street Park Dedication." Denver, CO: Historic Denver, Inc. August 1, 1976. Pamphlet. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. University ofDenver and Social Welfare Institute. "A Survey ofHuman Needs and Utilization Patterns Among Mexican-American Residents in the Auraria Barrio ofDenver." Denver, CO, 1972. Denver Public Library Western History and Genealogy. Survey. 92