UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER Monuments and Landscapes The Story of Denver and the City Beautiful Courtesy of the Rocky Mountain News November 23, 1909AGift to Denver In the late decades of the nineteenth century, Americans had become highly conscientious of the conditions within their cities. When compared to their European counterparts, American cities were over-crowded, lacking in refined architecture and generally devoid of aesthetic beauty and proper infrastructure. The best and brightest minds in the fields of architecture and civic planning where put to task in developing a new standard in American civic design. The fruits of their labor were unveiled at the Chicago World's Fair in 1893. The White City, as it was known, became the premium standard for the beautification of American cities. By combining neo-classical architecture with ornamental landscaj ig and uniform structural design, the White City’s formula was admired by nearly every American city official. Within a few years, virtually every major city had embarked upon its own variation of these themes. America’s new found enthusiasm for civic improvement eventually became recognized as the City Beautiful movement. By the early twentieth century the City Beautiful would become a national phenomenon. While eastern cities had integrated City Beautiful projects into their urban environs, the movement would be most intense in the younger western cities which were still establishing their identities, Denver, Colorado was an ideal example of a western city's embrace of the City Beautiful. When Robert W. Speer was elected mayor in 1904, civic improvement became the city’s paramount concern. The City Beautiful movement would impact Denver on an unprecedented level. As Denver underwent massive upgrades to its civic facilities and infrastructure, Mayor Speer became mired in political conflict with his reputation tarnishedby perceptions of corruption. The legacies of Speer and the City Beautiful would be indelibly intertwined with one another. A cartoon featured by the Rocky Mountain News in November 1909 depicted Mayor Speer offering his City Beautiful projects as a gift to Denver. While this may have been the prevailing perception of the time, many modern historians find it easier to characterize the City Beautiful as a curse rather than a gift. For its critics, the City Beautiful movement is merely the product of an era of elitism and corruption. As prevalent as these views have become, they are fundamentally incompatible with the City’s Beautiful movement's driving philosophies. These were based on the notion that civic pride was deeply connected with aesthetic beauty. Charles Mulford Robinson, among the leading experts in American civic design, was called upon by Speer to become directly involved with Denver's beautification. ‘Through integrating Robinson's improvements with the city’s unparalleled natural beauty, Denver established itself as one of the premier destinations in American urban landscape. The legacies of both Robinson and Speer are forever embedded in the monuments and landscapes left behind by the City Beautiful movement. By the late twentieth century, any reverence for the accomplishments of the City Beautiful had been effectively replaced with cynicism. Increasingly dominant views of the City Beautiful movement as symbolic of a generational preference for aesthetic decadence over social welfare served as its new storyline. Subscribing historians generally looked upon the controversial administration of Mayor Speer to substantiate these views. Their evaluation would diminish the concepts of civic pride and aesthetic merit put forth by Robinson his colleagues. For these historians, the narrative of the City Beautiful became the story of Mayor Speer while the principles of civic visionaries like Robinson faded into the background.‘The Queen City of the Plains Like many events of comparable magnitude, s difficult to assign a single principle that inspired the City Beautiful movement of the early twentieth century. In its entirety, the movement can be characterized as an integration of various ideas, philosophies and fundamentals, all of which were initiated with a specific aim - the improved aesthetic quality of America’s urban areas. The motives and incentives for undertaking the various projects associated with the City Beautiful were immeasurable. Politicians, city planners and business interests maintained their individual rationales and agendas regarding the movement and its potential benefits, Even given the movement's substantial momentum, dissenting opinions between social progressives and civic planners defined discussion of the City Beautiful. Philosophical disagreements in the prioritizing the allocation of financial resources were of paramount concern in this regard. Social progressives remained concerned with the welfare of the city’s inhabitants including proper housing facilities and services while civic planners remained focused on the improvement of the city’s aesthetic qualities such as world-class architecture and landscaping. Dissenting opinions raged between and amongst both sides of this issue, further compounding the complexity of the City Beautiful. These precise themes were at the forefront of the minds of Denver citizens during the early years of the twentieth century. By the turn of the century, the city had achieved a degree of prosperity but it was by no means a world-class urban center. In Denver: The City Beautiful and its Architects, 1893-1941, Thomas Noel and Barbara Norgren describe Denver's aesthetic qualities: “A land speculator’s haven of derelict buildings and demolitions ringed the emerging commercial and industrial zones, as they encroached onolder residential areas. The frontier ethic of individualism prevailed; there was little sense of community."! In this regard, Denver would be no different than the dozens of other western cities which were assembled out of sporadic waves of migration. For Denver, the City Beautiful meant transforming a dysfunctional assortment of residences and businesses into a thriving, unified city. Wave upon wave of unorganized migration had produced an architecturally inconsistent theme throughout Denver's cityscape, Most frontier cities did not compare favorably when weighed against the polished visages of more formally planned counterparts to the East. Many of Denver's citizens felt their city languished beneath the aesthetic standards of the older, more architecturally prestigious cities of the East and Midwest and even San Francisco to the West. The City Beautiful movement represented an opportunity for Denver to enhance its visual identity and earn itself consideration among America’s more distinguished urban environments. Unlike its eastern counterparts, the City Beautiful would become for Denver a central component to this identity. Denver embraced the City Beautiful movement to a degree unmatched by any other American city. Before the era's end, Denver boasted a sparkling new civic center, a lavish municipal auditorium, an elaborate system of urban parks and an equally impressive ide of these assortment of outlying mountain parks. For Denver's citizenry, the magni improvements would leave upon the city an indelible mark of grandeur, one that suited not only its officials and business interests but the civic pride of its inhabitants. The City Beautiful and advocates would successfully elevate Denver's reputation as a thriving metropolis on the foreground of a majestic mountain backdrop. ‘Thomas j. Noel and Barbara S. Norgren, Denver: The City Beautiful and les Architects, 1899-1941 (Denver: Historic Denver, Inc, 1987),p.8.From the White City to the Mile High While isolating a particular definition for the City Beautiful can prove troublesome, it seems far more appropriate to attempt to embody its essence. A commonality of themes followed the movement wherever it was implemented. First and foremost among these was a sense of uniformity. This directly relates to the common reliance upon neo-classical architecture for maintaining an orderly and consistent appearance. Another frequently employed principle called for the development of elaborate gardens and landscapes. These were usually integrated into a larger overall scheme and were essential to supplementing the generally sterile facades of neoclassical architecture, While varying theories surrounding the precise causes for the City Beautiful’s popularity abound, some commonly contributing circumstances formed a recurring theme. Most prominent of these was an increasing concern in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century for the ever-increasing overcrowding of American cities. While this issue would have been of the greatest concern in coastal cities, inadequate housing was an issue faced on a national level, Equally concerning for American urban officials was the consistently unfavorable comparison of American cities to European cities. Critics commonly highlighted the aforementioned concerns of overcrowding and lackluster civic architecture and landscapes. Pinpointing a precise origin of the City Beautiful movement is just as complicated as any other of its aspects, yet most historians attribute this to the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago, While it may seem rather artificial to mark this as an official starting point, the event itself clearly intensified national interest in the City Beautiful movement's principles of design. The centerpiece of the World's Columbian Exposition was a collectionof neoclassical structures and supplementary landscaping known as the White City. The White City served as the culmination of various architectural and civic planning theories. Most notable among the contributors to the White City’s development was landscape designer Frederick Law Olmstead, best known for his design of New York's Central Park. To fully analyze the influence of the White City upon the City Beautiful movement it is best to understand the specific elements of its appeal. Christopher Tunnard examines this very point in his article “A City Called Beautiful”: “That this was a product of teamwork. first undertaken in Chicago is significant; it suggests that the Renaissance principle of collaboration was consciously if briefly revived in an age characterized by its “rugged individualism’."? The White City represented a departure from the unappealing aesthetic qualities of the industrial era. It replaced a general lack of aesthetic cohesion with a return to the comfort and familiarity of classical coordination. The White City’s reliance upon the tried and true techniques of the Greeks and Romans lent itself to a formula easily recognized and appreciated by civic planners and officials. ‘The impacts of the White City’s reception were immediate and far reaching. Urban planning experts and architects were recruited heavily by city officials. Within a few years, the City Beautiful movement was in full swing and major civic projects were underway in more than a dozen major American cities. Recurrent with themes of neoclassical architecture and abundant landscaping, each city attempted to apply its individual distinction to the formula. The effects could be seen from Washington, D.C. to San Christopher Tunnard. “A City Called Beautiful”journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol.9, No. 1/2 (March ~ May 1950): 31; available from: ; accessed March 1, 2012.Francisco. Whi most eastern cities already featured extensive infrastructure development, America’s western cities were still catching up. Denver was a prime example of the latter category. In addition to seeking significant upgrades to its architecture and infrastructure, city officials and local businesses voiced concerns that the city itself was simply not up to the standards of its surrounding natural beauty. While businesses, land owners and politicians served as the primary voices of these concerns, the issue itself affected the citizenry as a whole. In a 1909 issue of the publication, Denver Municipal Facts, noted civic provement expert Clinton Rogers Woodruff comments on the overall status of civic improvement in America: Civic improvement is a good overall asset. The modern cities are competing with each other not in the matter of population, not in the matter of railroads, but in what they are doing to make life more pleasant to thase who live within its borders. The cities that you think of first in this country are the cities which have been most active in a policy of civic improvement: Precisely how indicative Woodruff's comments were of the people's will is debatable. What is clear is the value in properly articulating the City Beautiful movement's merits. For Denver, the challenge was to find a cohesive means of improving the city’s aesthetic reputation and property values without incurring excessive costs or massive debt. As favorable as Denver's political and economic climate was for major civic renovations, formal organization and leadership would be required for executing these ambitious endeavors. Such an opportunity arose with the 1904 election of Robert Speer as Denver's mayor. Having been exposed to the splendor of Chicago's White City, Speer witnessed the fundamental value of world class architecture and its innate effects on Chicago's citizenry and reputation, 3 Clinton Rogers Woodruff. “Civic Beauty Expert Discusses the Municipal Improvements of American Cities”, Denver Municipal Facts Vol. 1 No. 3 (6 March 1909): 8.jenver’s New Visionaries Shorty after taking office, Speer made the civic improvement of Denver the central theme of his administration. Many historians credit Speer as the principal visionary force behind Denver's City Beautiful projects. While Speer’s contributions to Denver's civic works are undeniable — he was directly responsible for developing popular and financial support - it would be a stretch to characterize him as much more than an enthusiastic spokesman. Credit for the specific vision and principles behind Denver's City Beautiful projects belongs to the civic planners and architects who Speer reached out to. Among these was Charles Mulford Robinson. Born in 1869 in Rochester, New York, Robinson’s professional career began as an engineer and writer. His consistent advocacy for urban improvement evolved into a career in civic planning, Robinson's involvement with the City Beautiful began in a mere commentator capacity. In addition to the various pieces composed for multiple civic proposals and publications, Robinson authored a few books dealing with the subjects of civic development and aesthetic value. ‘These include The Improvement of Towns and Cities (1901), Modern Civic Art or, The City Made Beautiful (1903) and City Planning (1916). Robinson's work consisted mainly of architectural and civic design theory. His principles were adapted into civic projects for dozens of American cities and he would become one of the most sought after urban planners as the City Beautiful movement accelerated. Robinson's principles were not entirely unique from Olmstead or any other City Beautiful era planner. Among these principles was a conscientious effort to maintain the natural equilibrium between an urban environment and its surrounding natural features.10 ‘This is one of Robinson's fundamental principles and the basis for the opening of his 1901 book, The Improvement of Towns and Cities: The site is a primary consideration in the construction of a beautiful city or village...Of itself it can neither secure nor prohibit city beauty. A dozen cities make some pretence of splendor without the slightest regard for the natural features of their site, and a hundred are plain or ugly when, on such a site, they might have been rendered splendid.* ‘The notion of urban and natural balance was not necessarily an American concept. However, American cities presented a unique opportunity to achieve new standards in this, regard. Architects and civic planners like Robinson were afforded the luxury of using American cities as blank canvas’s for which they could experiment and refine their formulas for urban and natural balance. While much of Robinson's early theorizing on this subject was intended to address waterfront cities, many of these principles factored into his recommendations for Denver's civic projects. Many of Robinson's theories were adaptable to various urban environments and circumstances and Denver was no exception in this regard. Significant consideration for Denver's natural backdrop was a central concern for all those involved in its civic planning. While Robinson's principles were not necessarily developed with the Rocky Mountains in mind, they were well suited for application to the city’s concerns: Of all building regulations, those that are adopted with a view to municipal aesthetics are comparatively few and simple....Accordingly they undertake to limit the height of all structures (generally hygienic considerations are involved in this requirement), to secure in their appearance some degree of harmony with their neighbors...5 ‘Charles Mulford Robinson, The Improvement of Towns and Cities (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1901), p. 1. 5 Robinson, Improvement of Towns and Cities, p. 63.aw ‘Though Robinson's primary consideration was for an aesthetic unity between neighboring buildings, this principle could be applied to natural neighbors. Self imposed standards addressing height and alignment were consistently implemented into Denver's urban development well before the City Beautiful movement. Of equal importance to both Robinson and the city of Denver was the implementation of urban parks. Among Robinson's fundamentals for civic planning was the inherent value of city parks and their essential benefit to urban dwellers. Denver's movement for an enhanced urban park system was already underway by the turn of the century yet the emergence of the City Beautiful movement served to further process, Robinson's intellectual basis for the merit of urban parks was illustrated in his 1916 work, City Planning: “It is found in the fact that a chief value of these thoroughfares as their hygienic and social contribution to the city’s life. They have the advantage..over any eguivalent area of park, that their aesthetic attraction may be at the very doors of the largest possible number of people..."° For Robinson, as well as most American civic planners, urban park areas offered an efficient balance of affordability and appeal. While Robinson's views on city parks were hardly revolutionary and the movement for Denver city park enhancement was already well underway, his thinking did reveal a vital component to his overall philosophy and that of the City Beautiful movement. The quantity and quality of a city’s parks were just as vital to its aesthetic value as its architecture and natural surroundings. Robinson further contended that urban parks offered additional economic value to their municipalities. In addition to being inexpensive, city parks offered a simple means of increasing neighborhood land value while improving “Charles Mulford Robinson, City Planning (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1916), p. 183.12 the residents’ quality of life. Robinson emphatically endorsed park integration wherever possible and considered ita favorable option to more extensive projects, The City Political Robinson's expertise and familiarity with these principles made him an ideal choice to spearhead the development of Denver's civic projects. By 1906, Speer had personally recruited Robinson to aid in the promotion of Denver's beautification. By this point, the mayor had found himself embroiled in mounting skepticism. Speer’s ambitious proposals were met with critical questions of its financial feasibility. Speers inability to overcome these questions while remaining committed to his cause had left him open to criticism. ‘These criticisms were most intensely expressed within social progressive circles, but affected Denver's citizenry as a whole. Financial prudence was of paramount concern among those in opposition to Speer, even when the value of his proposals was apparent. These critiques of Speer and the City Beautiful movement only gained momentum in the decades that followed. Historians such as J. Paul Mitchell, contend that Speer’s vision of Denver went beyond practical reason. In Mitchell's article, "Boss Speer and the City Functional” this point is repeatedly emphasized: “Speer’s expansive - and expensive ~ program of improvements facilitated intracity travel, provided jobs, and enhanced the quality of life in Denver...”” For all of the merits to Speer’s proposals, Mitchell's analysis comes down to questions of their costs outweighing their benefits. These questions lend themselves to an increasingly hostile political environment. 7 J. Paul Mitchell, “Boss Speer and the City Functional: Boosters and Businessmen versus Commission Government in Denver’, The Pacific Northwest Quarterly Vol. 63, No. 4 (October 1972): 159; available from http://0-wwwjstor.org skyline.ucdenver.edu/stable/40489031; Internet; accessed March 1, 2012.13 While Mitchell focuses heavily on this political disunity which surrounded the Speer admi tration, his work more heavily focuses on the mayor's ethical practices than the values of his vision. As more mature American cities implemented limited civic projects during this period, Speer envisioned a campaign of grand scale with potentially disastrous expense. To properly plan and organize Denver's massive beautification projects, Speer appointed key contributors to a formal commissioned body. The Denver Art Commission had come into formal existence in 1904. At its head, Speer appointed the English artist Henry Read, founder of Denver’s Students School of Art. The commission would also employ the talents of leading architects, sculptors and civic planners; among these were renowned architect Edward H. Bennett and the aforementioned urban planner Charles Mulford Robinson. To see Speer’s vision come into reality, the commission needed to take as much care in cultivating public opinion as in developing a workable beautification plan, When the commission approached Robinson in 1905, it would be for his ability to express their objectives in written word. This would come into full fruition in 1906 with the publication of Rol .on’s Proposed Plans for the Improvement of the City of Denver ~ a twenty-two page proposal of the potential civic improvements and their specific application to the beautification of the city. Robinson's proposal consisted of two major component n elaborate civic center that would conjoin city hall with the state capitol and a series of aesthetic improvements to Denver's urban park system. For those familiar with Robinson's previous work, the content of his proposal hardly came as a surprise. Several of his core themes were integrated throughout the proposal and their specific application to the city of Denver served as its central theme. Robinson14 began by focusing upon the city’s notable features, namely *...its union of delightful climate and superb mountain view” and its role as “the capital seat of Colorado.”® It was in this second component that Robinson based his first recommendation: “But upon the significance of the municipality as the capital of the state, we have a right to expect all emphasis that street plan and artistic development can place.”? Robinson’s plan called for an integration of the state capitol and its corresponding structures with Denver's municipal government buildings. The entire complex was to be augmented by parlclike grounds and ornamental trees. To provide adequate real estate for this project, Robinson proposed to “Extend Sixteenth Street to the Capitol Grounds, so restoring to that important thoroughfare the State House vista..”!° Robinson's emphasis on distinguished architecture in conjunction with expansive supplemental landscaping drew immediate comparison to the distinguished characteristics of Chicago's White City. Robinson's civic center plan comprised the most ambitious component of his proposal and likewise required his most compelling arguments. Though secondary to the civic center plan, Robinson's proposal for the beautification of Denver's urban parks required every bit as much vision. Robinson's advocacy for the value of urban park land served as the basis for these suggested projects: “in discussing the possibilities for enhancing the city’s beauty, it would not do to ignore entirely the claims of these - usually the most prominent ~ aesthetic assets of a city.” Robinson's words served as warning to not let the scale of Denver's architectural projects ® Charles Mulford Robinson, Proposed Plans for the Improvement ofthe City of Denver (Denver, January 18, 1906), p.3. Tid, p3. 1© Robinson, Improvement of the City of Denver, p. "Ibid, p. 1.15 overshadow an emphasis on urban park integration. The emphasis of these renovations fell upon City Park - Denver's multi-purpose recreation area. Robinson's suggestions were both aesthetic and functional. He saw little need for extensive real estate expansion, commending the city for its accumulation of quality park land, nor a great need for extravagant landscaping. Robinson's core argument for Denver's city parks was maximized utility while maintaining emphasis on the city's mountain vistas. ‘The Proposed Plans for the Improvement of the City of Denver served as much as a motivational piece as a comprehensive urban plan. The proposal is rife with inspirational statements such as: “You have the courage, and the enterprise, and the aspiration - the Denver spirit....This alone is needed; and if the citizens will show it now, that Denver s will write itself on the city map, so that none who come after will fail to see it”? Robinson's work appeared to be more concerned with rousing Denver's citizenry than appealing to his colleagues. The central component of Robinson's proposal - the civic center ~ would evolve to become the movement's primary point of contention. While Robinson clearly envisioned a complex assortment of classical architecture and lush landscaping, Thomas Noel and Barbara Norgren contend that the civic center plan was about more than a mere expression of Denver's new found sophistication. “Civic Centers...were designed to promote inter- governmental cooperation by clustering city, state, and federal offices in an office park."!? Noel and Norgren contend that efficiency in government operations was just as vital a factor in the civic center plan as showcasing the city’s aesthetic appeal. Ibid, p. 11. * Noel and Norgren, Denver: The City Beautiful and Its Architects, p.27.16 Robinson's 1906 proposal also demonstrated that his expertise in generating support for Denver's proposed civic projects was every bit as valued as his knowledge of urban planning. Asa professional journalist and writer, Robinson was exceedingly adept at eloquently expressing his opinions on paper. The influential power of the written word was one of many tools that Robinson had openly advocated employing: “And there is another factor of power which is helping the cause of city beauty....t is the number of periodical publications - weekly, monthly, or quarterly - now devoted to municipal affairs and public improvements.” Robinson seemed to understand the value of a media blitz even while the concept of the media was merely in its infancy. However Robinson rationalized his methods, he fully understood the value of media influence. This would become an integral component of Speer's campaign when in September of 1909 the first issue of Denver Municipal Facts was circulated. ‘This publication was directly sponsored by Denver's city government and from its very first issue, support for Denver's civic improvement served as its core theme. ‘To refer to Denver ‘Municipal Fact as a mere vehicle for advancing the Speer constituency’s agenda is not entirely accurate. The publication's formal intent was to offer a platform for those interested in and in support of the advancement of Denver's improvement plans. Denver ‘Municipal Facts would remain in publication well beyond the tenure of Speer, yet its early years of existence indicate a strong influence from the philosophies of Robinson. Robinson strongly advocated the proper edification of a city’s population to the full value of civic improvement. Among his central aspirations was for urban dwellers to value these improvements for more than their mere aesthetic qualities, Robinson endeavored to Robinson, Improvement of Towns and Cities, p,275,7 convey a deeper and more enriching context for the City Beautiful movement. He intended to tie his work to a sense of civic pride that would permeate beyond any concerns of feasibility or prudence. Denver Municipal Facts fulfilled this very purpose. Articles from any related field of study as well as endorsements from Denver's general citizenry populated every issue. They recurrent theme was generally affirming and supportive perspective of the work being down to enhance the city of Denver. Robinson not only inspired the existence of Denver Municipal Facts, but in 1910 served as a contributing writer. His article, “The Development of Denver”, first appeared in the national publication The American City, shortly after financing plans for Denver's civic center had been approved. Robinson's article recounted his involvement with Denver's city beautification projects as well as the ensuing political battle fought by Speer to procure their financing, The article itself would serve as little more than an exclamation point on the potential benefits of the approved civic center, Robinson wrote, "... civic improvement is properly interpreted as meaning much more than the appearance of a city or town.”!5 Robinson used this article as another opportunity to assert the philosophical value of the City Beautiful movement's principles. Robinson's article also addressed another objective for Denver Municipal Facts: the alleviation of the Denver citizenry’s concerns for the fiscal viability of Denver's civic projects. Robinson recounted the faltering public sentiment for his civic center proposal and specifically against Speer’s proposed means of issuing municipal bonds for its financing, Shortly after the publishing of Robinson's Improvement of the City of Denver in 1906, Speer launched a campaign for “a charter amendment permitting the issue of long 'S Charles Mulford Robinson, “The Development of Denver”, Denver Municipal Facts No. 20 (14 May 1910): 3.18 term bonds.”! Though Speer’s proposition was defeated, his re-election as mayor served to demonstrate that support for his vision remained strong though support for its financial backing did not. The Development of Denver was intended to perpetuate momentum for a project that had fluctuated in the eyes of the public over the preceding three years, The fact that Robinson had authored such an emphatic endorsement of a plan that had already been approved affirms the administration's uncertainty for its future. The very existence of this article suggests an attempt to reinvigorate popular support: “The people of Denver have, speaking in a civic sense, traveled a long way in three years...The Civic Center which has just been authorized is the one most striking undertaking, epitomizing in a single achievement the spirit that pervades the whole city.”!” The article was designed to subdue any public uncertainty for the civic center's virtues. Nonetheless, Denver's civic center plans would again stagnate even after its apparent inevitability in 1910. Once again, the civic center’s development would suffer under the strains of financial feasibility. Though the city itself held a miniscule amount of debt, Denver's relatively limited population - approximately 134,000 in 1900, making it the twenty-fifth most populous city in the United States at the time!® - made the acquisition of new debt a dangerous proposition. Mayor Speer was essentially gambling of Denver's future. The expectation was that the city’s urban and economic growth would offset the accumulation of fresh debt the City Beautiful projects would incur. The key for the Speer ‘bid, 4, 2 tbid, 13, ¥ Population of the 100 Largest Urban Places: 1900, ocated at bttp://veww.census.gov/population /www /documentation/twps0027/tab13.tx, Internet release dat 15, 1998; courtesy of the US. Bureau of the Consus; accessed February 2219 administration would be to achieve a proper balance of improved land values while only minimally increasing Denver's overall debt. ‘To further compound these problems was the increasingly embattled nature of Speer’s administration. While perceptions of inefficiency and corruption had plagued Speer throughout his first two terms, these issues were about to cost him his third electoral bid. ‘This was in spite of his expectations for Denver's growth and prosperity having been Proven correct. By 1910, Denver's population had exceeded 213,000"? - a 59% increase from the previous decade. The city’s population growth seemingly justified additional expenditures on its infrastructure and aesthetic value, Denver appeared poised for further civic advancements and Speer apparently prepared to lead the way with his second re- election bid in 1912. Though the city’s social and economic climate appeared favorable to Speer's re-election campaign, it would be Denver's political atmosphere that would prevent Speer’s third term. At the root of Speer’s predicament was an emerging opposition to the form of municipal government through which the mayor had functioned, Increasing advocacy for a new form of civic government had reached a deafening volume by 1912. J. Paul Mitchell identifies this in “Boss Speer and the City Functional”: ‘Those who bitterly opposed Boss Speer...could scarcely be identified as the exponents of efficiency and beautification disgruntled by informal boss government...Rather, Denver's reformers were middle-class moralists outraged by the grosser features of Speer’s political machine. Speer was a city builder, but he never forsook the methods which he had used to get to # Population of the 100 Largest Urban Places: 1910, located at hitp://www.census.gov; 27 {tabi 4,.txt, Internet release date: June 15, 1998; courtesy of the U.S. Bureau of the Census; accessed February 22, 2012.20 the top...where city fathers saw monuments to Speer's vision, reformers saw graft and favoritism.20 Mitchell offers conjecture as to the complex grievances reformers held against Speer’s political methods. Without the use of any quotes or citations, Mitchell outlines the key elements to the reformist argument. Among these were the City Beautiful projects and their representation of Speer’s unethical status quo. Mitchell's description of Denver's charged political environment adds alternative perspective to the scope of Speers public career. Speer’s reputation as Denver's champion builder is not called into full question, but merely allowed to reveal its dirty undercarriage. Mitchell offers the reformist context for the very events Speer had been traditionally celebrated for: “...Speer’s support from wealth entrepreneurs outraged reformers, who had ceased to accord these men the status of city fathers and were emphasizing their riches and power instead of their past contributions to the city's development.” Mitchell eloquently voices the reformers’ position without written evidence to substantiate it. This should not be construed as an attempt to fabricate their argument, but as evidence that their case lacked a platform as effective as their opposition’. “Boss Speer and the City Functional” illustrates the fundamental incompatibility of Speer’s business friendly policies and the increasing call by reformists for a commission form of municipal government. This would essentially remove the concentration of power from the mayor's office and into the hands of various reformist factions. The driving principles behind their movement called for a more financially prudent approach to civic government policy. Denver was not the only city to witness a commission government ® Paul Mitchell, “Boss Speer and the City Functional”, The Pacific Northwest Quarterly (October 1972): 159; available from htry://O-www jstor.org.skvline.ucdenver.edu/stable 40489031. Ibid, 159.2 movement and in many cases, these movements were considerably successful in reforming the manner in which American cities conducted business. The recurring theme for commission government was an emphasis on fiscal prudence and the removal of lavish spending and pandering to wealthy entrepreneurial interests. Considering Mitchell's analysis, it is highly unlikely that Speer’s key opponents would have ever endorsed the majority of Speer's city beautification projects. The focus of their contention was the Denver Civic Center plan, which they considered to be a supreme symbol of Speer's irresponsible allocation of public funds. In the reformist view, the City Beautiful movement was symptomatic of the overt decadence indicative of top down government. While Speer considered Denver as a city on the cusp of greatness, reformists took an alternative assessment of their city. Mitchell encapsulates their argument: enver was a western city passing from the promotional phase of its development, its boss was the local personification of businesslike administration and the City Beautiful, its government structure was not diffuse, and its reformers were moralists.”2® By defining moral integrity as the centerpiece for reformist government, Mitchell highlights the unethical practices the City Beautiful projects ~ and particularly the civic center - had come to represent. Mitchell's characterizes his reformists as crusaders against the tyrannical leadership of an elitist mayor. While Mitchell openly acknowledges the ultimate failures of the commission government experiment, it is nonetheless apparent in what esteem he holds their values. He contends that the defect to the reformist administration was its inability to unite on any principals beyond their distaste for Speer. In Mitchell's final assessment, Ibid, p. 156.2 Speer'’s antiquated political machine proved far more effective and efficient in conducting the business of municipal government. This is attributed less to the abilities of its leadership and more to the conditioning of its system. Mitchell suggests that for all its imperfections, Speer’s system of government was far more effectively designed to attain results and overcome obstacles, especially when this required the compromise of ethics, Speer would eventually find his way back into the mayor's office in 1916 and quickly reinitiate his campaign for Denver's Civic Center. Another committee was formed to present a preliminary plan in which specific guidelines and standards were outlined in the hopes of regaining popular appeal. The Denver Civic Center Plan of 1916 was little more than an introductory framework and dealt little with rehashing the same philosophical arguments engaged in the campaign's earlier stages. The document's focus was on the logistical elements of the Civic Center such as land allotment, building alignment, materials, infrastructure, height regulations and architectural style. ‘The 1916 plan was composed with a tone of urgency for initiating construction. While the document itself served to re-engage Denver's financial resources to complete the Civic Center project, the precise plans would undergo multiple iterations before the final phases of construction. Neither Mayor Speer, who had died in office in 1918, nor Charles Mulford Robinson, who had passed the year before, would live to see its completion. While general landscaping and other features of the civic center's plan had been completed over the preceding decade, the Civic Center itself was officially completed in 1919. Its grand ‘opening was conducted amid fanfare by the Denver Municipal Facts and other supporting groups who perpetually consider the center as a testament to Speer’s prevailing vision of Denver's City Beautiful legacy.23 In reality, the reception of Denver's Civic Center was been every bit as polarizing as, the public career of its champion. The ongoing assessment of Mayor Speer has offered no more clarity today than it did nearly a century ago, Noel and Norgren write, “If his Sometimes illegal methods and sometimes corrupt followers enabled Speer to accomplish many things, they also provoked constant and justifiable criticism that diminished both his aspirations and his achievements."®> Though Mayor's Speer reputation would continue to undergo severe criticism, Noel and Norgren maintain the position that any balanced assessment of Speer must include his civic improvement contribution. The Ensuing Decades While to assume Speer innocent of any corruption or unethical behavior is beyond naive, it bears mentioning that the bulk of his harshest critiques, such as Mitchell's article, were published throughout the 1960s and 70s — at the height of an era in which historians commonly questioned the moral and ethical integrity of past accomplishments. As Mayor Speer’s reputation has become the subject of increasingly intense scrutiny, so have the values of Denver's city beautification projects. While the City Beautiful movement may have had its skeptics during the turn of the century, it would be nearly half a century before intellectuals like Mitchell would begin defining it as a manifestation of blatant elitism and unnecessary extravagance. Far less cynical assessments were prevalent in preceding decades, Before the City Beautiful movement had been characterized as the structural embodiment of social inequalities, it had been evaluated based on the merits its advocates would have put forth. While contentions had always persisted as to whether the movement had achieved the ° Noel and Norgren, Denver: The City Beautiful and Its Architects, p. 26,24 aims its promoters envisioned, the tone of this argument was significantly less charged. ‘The fog of contempt around great civic works had not completely settled in 1950, when Christopher Tunnard authored his article, “A City Called Beautiful”. Tunnard assesses the climate of derision surrounding the City Beautiful movement: It is easy enough to criticize the City Beautiful movement because it created so much that we now see around us; when the City Beneficial has arisen our ex post facto judgments may be equally severe. Perhaps neither should be judged entirely by its creations, which in the art of city-building are so often smirched by compromise, but at least partly on the intent of its originators, which must be unwoven from the fabric of the times.2* ‘Tunnard suggests that the sheer volume of what the City Beautiful movement accomplished establishes it as an ideal object of social commentary. Evidence of its effects is displayed in virtually every major American city. The ideological analysis shift from Tunnard to Mitchell is indicative of not only the way historians evaluated the City Beautiful movement, but in how they consider subjects like civic pride and urban improvement. The story of the City Beautiful movement and particularly Denver’s role therein indicates a dramatic evolution in how it was characterized. In the first half of the twentieth century, projects involving lavish civic structures were considered by public officials and urban planners to be an indicator of city’s economic well being and were generally regarded by its citizenry as monuments to their city's development. Few in the early twentieth century considered what precisely the funds that paid for these projects were being diverted from. The majority of objections did not outline better ways for municipal governments to spend their money but merely questioned whether the money needed to be spent at all. Terms like social injustice and 2 Christopher Tunnard, “A City Called Beautiful’, journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 9, N 1/2 (March ~ May 1950): 36; available from http:/ /O-www.jstor.org.skyline.ucdenver.edu/stable/4048903, Internet; accessed March 1, 2012.25 inequality would not appear in the mainstream vernacular until the latter half of the twentieth century. Historians such as J. Paul Mitchell are able to assess they City Beautiful movement on values that earlier critics likely would not have considered. The ethics of government spending have gained significant scrutiny since the beginning of the twentieth century. Mainstream thought no longer credits government officials with the inherent wisdom of how to best care for their constituency. Clearly Speer has fallen under considerable criticism for his management of Denver's municipal affairs, yet to gauge his ethics by modern standards is relatively pointless. Speer’s public career ran congruent to an era in which city officials were judged on an aesthetic standard for how their legacy benefitted their cities. It is in this regard that Mayor Speer has been considered among Denver's most successful mayors. Lastly, to perpetuate the narrative focus on Mayor Robert Speer and the political ‘turmoil the City Beautiful movement epitomized is to neglect to recognize the movement's talented contributors. Men like Charles Mulford Robinson, Henry Read and Edward #. Bennett, who formed the intellectual nucleus of Denver's civic beautification, deserve at least as much consideration. Their legacy adds a degree of significance to the products of the City Beautiful. While the relevance of their ideals may appear antiquated by modern standards, in the early twentieth century they struck a vital chord with Denver's citizens and elevated the level of pride felt for living in their city. At its core, this is what made the City Beautiful movement so successful and men like Charles Mulford Robinson and Mayor Robert Speer worthy of historical analysis. ‘Their hope was for citizens to look upon their city and see its works of beauty and grandeur as tokens of their leadership's gratitude to the citizenry and not exclusively to the wealthy26 or powerful. Their hope was contingent on an inherent sense of pride every citizen was expected to feel for the city they call home. In a 1909 issue of Denver Municipal Facts, the question of what precisely constituted a model city was posed by Reverend Dr. William S. Friedman, His brief essay began: What is a city, a model city, a great city, a beautiful city? It consists of a city where the people are consecrated to a common ideal, where they are under the common consciousness of civic pride and civic beauty. There are those who look upon a city as an opportunity for making something and not as an opportunity for contributing something to the lives of ali25 Friedman's words were designed to appeal to an emotional context the citizen should for their city. This suggested that citizens should consider their city to be an extension of themselves and not merely a collection of unrelated structures and landscapes. Time has not been kind to these concepts. While neither side to the City Beautiful debate is necessarily incorrect in their assessment of its legacy, it bears mentioning that fully understand its principles requires an understanding of its context. Over the ensuing decades, American populations have become increasingly mobile and the typical American less likely to spend their entire life in one place. For those in the early twentieth century, the place they called home was where they intended on dying and though they may not have needed this place to be particularly beautiful, it likely made them feel a great deal better if it was. iam S. Friedman, “What is a Model City?", Denver Municipal Facts Vol. 1 No. 36 (23 October 1909): p.6. * Rev. Dr,