[bunt_q]

I think this is a close one. I'm sure it's not clear cut. Copying my post from the other thread:

From the Landmark Ordinance:

A structure or district may be designated for preservation, if it meets at least one (1) criterion in two (2) or more of the following three (3) categories:

(1) History. To have historical significance, the structure or district shall be thirty (30) or more years old or have extraordinary importance to the historical development of Denver, and shall:
a. Have direct association with the historical development of the city, state, or nation;
b. Be the site of a significant historic event; or
c. Have direct and substantial association with a person or group of persons who had
influence on society.

(2) Architecture. To have architectural significance, the structure or district shall have design quality and integrity, and shall:
a. Embody distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style or type;
b. Be a significant example of the work of a recognized architect or master builder;
c. Contain elements of architectural design, engineering, materials, craftsmanship, or
artistic merit which represent a significant or influential innovation; or
d. Portray the environment of a group of people or physical development of an area in
an era of history characterized by a distinctive architectural style.

(3) Geography. To have geographical significance, the structure or district shall:
a. Have a prominent location or be an established, familiar, and orienting visual feature
of the contemporary city;
b. Promote understanding and appreciation of the urban environment by means of
distinctive physical characteristics or rarity; or
c. Make a special contribution to Denver’s distinctive character.

I thing an argument can be made for (1)(c) based on its history with the Catholic Church. But that seems like a stretch. Anything else under (1) seems unlikely (although I confess, I really just don't know).

I'm not much more knowledgable on the architecture. It seems an argument can be made for both (2)(a) and (2)(b). It's certainly of a style not common in Denver, but whether it has distinguishing characteristics of a real recognized style, I'd have to do more homework. Same for the architect (although that post above seemed to indicate he was a fellow of some importance).

(3)(b) (and/or) (3)(c) seem like the easiest criteria to meet.

I'd like to get my hands on the actual filings from CPI/Historic Denver/whoever else, see what they're saying.