1

CONSULTING PARTIES MEETING 

For Development of an MOA for

Building 1 Renovation, Wings 4, 5 & the Spine 

June 27, 2018 @ 1 pm 

Bldg 81 - 1A116 

325 Broadway

Boulder, CO

Meeting Participants

1 AECom Mr. Gordon Tucker gordon.tucker@aecom.com

2 City of Boulder Mr. Marcy Cameron Cameronm@bouldercolorado.gov

3 Historic Boulder Ms. Carol Taylor historicboulderinc@gmail.com

4 NIST Ms. Emily Parkhurst emily.parkhurst@nist.gov

5 NIST Mr. Joseph Mahlberg joseph.mahlberg@nist.gov

6 NIST Mr. Nat Keller NKeller@doc.gov

via 

VTC

7 NIST Mr. Wayne Pierce wayne.pierce@nist.gov

8 NIST Ms. Jennifer NIST jennifer.nist@nist.gov

via 

VTC

9 SHPO Mr. Joseph Saldibar joseph.saldibar@state.co.us

10

studiptroppe 

Collective Ms. Anne Pharamond apha@studiotrope.com

11 NIST Mr. Phillip Neuberg phillip.neuberg@nist.gov

12 AECom Ms. Kirsten Johnson kisten.johnson@aecom.com

13 NIST Mr. Jim Burrus james.burrus@nist.gov

 

M E E T I N G N O T E S 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

I. Introductions

All participants introduced themselves and their organizations as well as their 

connection with the Building 1 Renovation Project

II. Background/ Program Objectives/ Proposed Design

A. Background and Program Objectives – Phillip Neuberg, FAIA-- NIST FPO
2

1. Mr. Neuberg explained that NIST surveyed and evaluated Building 1 in 

coordination with the Colorado SHPO and jointly they determined its 

eligibility for listing in the National Register in 2016.

2. At the same time, NIST was completing Phase 1 (Wings 3 & 6) of a multi-year, 

multi-million dollar Building 1 Renovation project.

3. NIST had, however, failed to consult with the Colorado SHPO and because 

the resultant design, (of the renovated wings 3 & 6) does not comport with 

the Secretary of the interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Structures, Phase 1 was determined an Adverse Effect.

4. As a result, NIST worked with the Advisory Council and the SHPO to host a 

meeting of potential consulting parties on 8/31/2017. Participants at that 

meeting suggested that NIST mitigate the Adverse Effect by developing an 

Historic Structures Report (HSR)and series of Preservation Zone Maps that 

could then serve to guide all subsequent phases of Building 1 

5. NIST developed an MOA that stipulated the production of such documents 

and commenced the survey, documentation and writing of the HSR by hiring 

a team of cultural resource specialists all meeting the SOI Qualifications for 

historic preservation projects. Subsequent to today’s meeting, the HSR has 

been completed and may be viewed at :

https://www.nist.gov/ofpm/boulder-building-one-moa

6. Finally, Mr. Neuberg explained that the development of the HSR in 

conjunction with the development of the schematic design earlier this year 

allowed for a sensitive design that incorporates much of the guidance from 

the SOI Standards. Nonetheless, a strict application of the SOI Standards has 

rendered a determination of Adverse Effect. Avoidance of the planned Wings 

4, 5 and the Spine (Phase 2) is not an option and the team has concluded that 

the current design is the best to meet NIST’s scientific mission. Thus today’s 

meeting is to look at mitigation measures which NIST can then consider as it 

goes forward.

B. Proposed Design – Anne Pharamond, AIA –studiotroppe Design Collective

1. Ms. Pharamond, served as the project architect working closely with the 

scientists, OFPM staff and the Federal Preservation Officer to balance needs.

2. Ms. Pharamond described their data collection process. Through a series of 

slides, she presented the design program, as it evolved and how the SOI 

standards were applied and interpreted as the design evolved. 

3. The design looks to maintain and preserve much of the original character 

defining features and to also find opportunities for activating outdoor spaces 

that were previously ignored or avoided.
3

4. Mr. Saldibar of the SHPO voiced his concern that the entry additions 

proposed for the east and west ends of Wings 3 and 4 were not necessary to 

meet scientific program, these same elements being a significant reason for 

the adverse effect determination.

5. The design team and OFPM staff accepted SHPO’s concern but stated that 

existing blank walls inhibit access and that the additions are critical to 

creating new welcoming points of entry, without which activation of the new 

wings and adjoining courtyards would be thwarted.

III. Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Content

1. Discussion ensued, and many interesting ideas were shared among the participants

who all expressed a sense of appreciation that NIST, a valued member of the 

Boulder Community since the middle of the last century, is seeking their input.

2. It was emphasized that the establishment of the campus, and by extension the 

construction of Building 1 remains a seminal event in the history of Boulder and that 

it signaled a change for Boulder in becoming a city that was looking outward rather 

than inward.

3. To the City of Boulder, the Building is viewed as a Mid-Century icon. It prompts 

questions about mid-century Modern in Boulder. Where did the scientists who 

worked here live? What was the influence of NIST on Modern design in Boulder?

4. While it is understood that the primary point of entry for Building 1 is no longer 

directly off Broadway at the “headhouse” or front of the building, it was 

recommended that NIST maintain the front entry and courtyard, even if it is, in fact, 

a secondary entry.

5. It was suggested that the Headhouse lobby house some type of public exhibit, 

especially since the auditorium is an area the public and/or invited visitors are prone 

to frequent. Furthermore, with the planned move of the physical security and 

badging office to this general area, it might not be difficult to provide requisite 

security to segregate the public from entering more secure parts of the building 

(Wings 1-6 and the Spine). 

6. Specific ideas that came out of the meeting included:

a. Changing Gallery space included in the design for the renovated spine might 

feature Exhibits on Boulder, Building 1 and its significance.

b. The front Lobby might also house changing exhibits developed by NIST or 

others to educate the staff and the public.

c. An annual Lecture Series (on or off campus) that partners with the City and 

Historic Boulder (and perhaps the university) brings speakers to look at 

aspects of Mid-Century Modern life in Boulder -all designed to enhance 

public awareness.
4

d. Opportunities to partner with Historic Boulder for tours of the campus and or 

Building One.

e. More information about the history of the Boulder campus on the NIST 

public website since most viewers will not be able to visit the campus nor 

lobby for viewing the exhibits.

f. An exhibit or display that features the significance of Eisenhower’s visit to 

Boulder and NIST for the dedication

IV. Next Steps

1. Mr. Neuberg promised to review all these matters with NIST leadership and 

develop a draft Memorandum of Agreement for review and comment later this 

year.

2. The meeting ended at 2:30 pm

These notes represent the author’s interpretation of the meeting. If there are any additions, omissions, 

edits or corrections, please notify the author at once.

\\elwood.nist.gov\190\users\pwn\my documents\4.0 historic preservation\boulder co campus\bldg 1\moa\moa for b1r 

project\2018_06-27 meeting notes - consulting parties meeting.docx