CB debates design freedom outside historic districts

Is ugly the same as quirky?

[  By Mark Reaman  ]

During the second work session on updating design standards with the Crested Butte town council and members of the Board of Zoning and Architectural Review (BOZAR) on September 8, the biggest debate was over how much to regulate design standards outside of the town’s historic districts.

Not surprisingly, councilmember Gabi Prochaska reiterated, as she has for months, her desire to allow more modern building designs throughout town, especially outside the designated history districts that focus on the old mining period and the early recreation period.

“Let people build for today,” she said. “It’s 2026. I think it can actually enhance the historic buildings of town. Not everything has to be a replica of an old mining house. There should be flexibility especially outside the historic districts.” 

Prochaska added that new buildings in town should be a reflection of the current designs vis-a-vis materials, climate mitigations, etc. “While we should preserve and value what was built in the late 1800s, and we want to preserve and honor what was built in the 1970s — we should be building something that 50 years from now others will want to preserve and honor what was built in the late 2020s.”

“Buildings constructed a few decades ago that might have been questionable, now add to the quirkiness we all want in Crested Butte,” said mayor Ian Billick. “I think we can accept a few ugly houses in town if you get some quirky buildings. Retaining mass and scale limitations is still important.”

“I’m open to new expressions,” said councilmember John O’Neal.

“I don’t want million-dollar homes trying to pretend that they are mining shacks,” added councilmember Mallika Magner.

“The bottom line is that Crested Butte is a mountain town and that should be reflected in the design,” countered BOZAR member Luz Spann-LeBato.

“Somehow limiting the rooflines to three or four choices could help,” suggested BOZAR member Donny Davol. “One thing to think about is that if we allow flat roofs, engineers will throw steel at anything, and we should take that into account for its carbon footprint.”

“Architectural design is a series of compromises based on the regulations” said BOZAR member Ed Schmidt. “There is only so much one can do. It goes back to the town values that imposes the compromises.”

“This discussion is an example of why the rules that come out of the updated design standards need to be as clear as possible,” said BOZAR chair Erik Nauman, who gave examples of where he could anticipate future “knock-down, drag-out” fights between BOZAR and building applicants. “Chasing the trendy design of today to get possible ‘quirky’ later is not the right way to get there. A good architect working within clear regulations is the way to get there.”

The next two-hour work session discussing design standards is scheduled for October 5.