DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[The Dirt]

Since the north and south sides of the building were built together, they are considered one structure. Landmark preservation would preserve either the entire structure or not. Any side deals where the hostile historic designation is retracted could preserve just the tower, however. Not my preference, but better than trying to save the whole monstrosity.

Do you truly think that you're in the majority? You're really out of touch if you think that the majority of people want to preserve that dog turd of a building. The fact that you're resorting to personal attacks means that you've already resigned to having lost the substantive argument about the merits of the building's architecture and would rather take low shots at everyone who disagrees with you (and that's pretty much everyone here, at least).

As I've said before, none of our tastes in architecture really matter, though. What you're saying is that you'd like Channel 7 to bear the brunt of your aesthetic needs and desires despite you having zero financial stake in the building. Maybe try practicing some empathy and realizing that your crying and whining has real work consequences on other people.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Since the north and south sides of the building were built together, they are considered one structure. Landmark preservation would preserve either the entire structure or not. Any side deals where the hostile historic designation is retracted could preserve just the tower, however. Not my preference, but better than trying to save the whole monstrosity.

Do you truly think that you're in the majority? You're really out of touch if you think that the majority of people want to preserve that dog turd of a building. The fact that you're resorting to personal attacks means that you've already resigned to having lost the substantive argument about the merits of the building's architecture and would rather take low shots at everyone who disagrees with you (and that's pretty much everyone here, at least).

As I've said before, none of our tastes in architecture really matter, though. What you're saying is that you'd like Channel 7 to bear the brunt of your aesthetic needs and desires despite you having zero financial stake in the building. Maybe try practicing some empathy and realizing that your crying and whining has real work consequences on other people.

1. What low shot did I take? It's true that YIMBY wants to turn this city into Dallas, and that's all I've said - FWIW I'm glad you still view that as an insult, but do a little retrospection.

2. It's not about Channel 7 or any other applicant. It's about the process and conforming to uniform standards and guidelines that produce the city's desired outcomes.

You've made this all very personal when it just isn't. That said, I too am optimistic that a compromise could preserve the (limited) architectural significance while also maximizing density. In fact, for like the 20th time, such a compromise is the only way this site is going above 12 stories as-currently zoned. You wanted density, right?

[TakeFive]

Back to the substantive...

Private property rights are near and dear to my heart

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

If Ch7 owner wants to sell, they don't deserve to have it designated historical and have their ownership potential hamstrung by 3 random ass "neighbors".

Originally Posted by The Dirt

At the end of the day, your taste versus everyone else's tastes doesn't matter because you have no business telling someone else what to do with their property.

Just because a property can check a few boxes and arbitrarily qualify for consideration doesn't mean it's a GOOD candidate for preservation. With respect to private property rights there should be a very high bar to win approval against the owners objection.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/n...ets-group.html

In November, Scripps applied for a Certificate of Demolition Eligibility from the City, which essentially would clear the way for demolition of the buildings within the following five years. The vast majority of demolition-related applications are approved by city planners within a matter of days, but a select number of buildings each year — about 5% in 2019 — are determined by city staff to have the potential for landmark designation, and a notice is posted on the site that gives local residents the chance to file a landmark-designation application.

So how often do such applications for historical designation succeed

In the past, several City Council members have voiced their reluctance to make a ruling in cases in which the owner of the property opposes a landmark designation. District 7 councilman Jolon Clark has called such decisions "heartbreaking."

Owner-opposed landmark-designation applications are in fact a rarity. Denver City Council has approved just one such application, for the former Beth Eden Baptist Church building at 3241 Lowell Blvd.

So a grand total of one has been approved.

Of all the parties interested in buying the property, not one was interested in preserving it. It's an ugly duckling unfit for adaptive reuse.

[twister244]

I'm all for preserving historic urbanism where it exists in Denver (Molly Brown house for example), but the Channel 7 building is just plain awful. Further, it doesn't have historical significance..... It's a TV studio.

I don't get it.... Denver seems to have this warped sense of what's historic urbanism, or worth preserving. Seeing people protesting right now to save Casa Bonita makes me want to vomit. Maybe some of these people haven't been to cities where you really see true historic urbanism worth preserving.

Denver has some pockets of this (LoDo, parts of Cap Hill), but overall, Denver just doesn't have vast swaths of the city worth saving. It's not a knack on Denver as it was a city that took a very different path compared to Northern/Easter cities, but it's worth taking note of that.

[jhwk]

Originally Posted by twister244

I'm all for preserving historic urbanism where it exists in Denver (Molly Brown house for example), but the Channel 7 building is just plain awful. Further, it doesn't have historical significance..... It's a TV studio.

I don't get it.... Denver seems to have this warped sense of what's historic urbanism, or worth preserving. Seeing people protesting right now to save Casa Bonita makes me want to vomit. Maybe some of these people haven't been to cities where you really see true historic urbanism worth preserving.

Denver has some pockets of this (LoDo, parts of Cap Hill), but overall, Denver just doesn't have vast swaths of the city worth saving. It's not a knack on Denver as it was a city that took a very different path compared to Northern/Easter cities, but it's worth taking note of that.

It’s half BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) like the group preserving Denver 7 and half people being upset that a business they like is closing and assuming it’s the building’s fault like Tom’s.

[gopokes21]

I agree that the entire site is a dump in its current state, but just the corner tower by itself is a diamond in the rough. There's a lot of visible deferred maintenance, windows need replaced, the smooth corner needs a vertical element (mural, lights, clock, anything), and the street-level plaza has to be gutted and opened-up.

I'm all for density and infill nearly everywhere, but we should also preserve landmark opportunities. I think we can maximize high-density infill while still preserving historic jewels which include quirky mid-century landmarks. People who side with developers often like to minimize historic architecture to just Victorian or whatever stereotype fits their narrative, so these arguments aren't surprising.

Originally Posted by twister244

Denver has some pockets of this (LoDo, parts of Cap Hill), but overall, Denver just doesn't have vast swaths of the city worth saving. It's not a knack on Denver as it was a city that took a very different path compared to Northern/Easter cities, but it's worth taking note of that.

I just can't imagine living in Denver and having that much antipathy for it. It's kind of an expensive place to live if you hate it. I would also argue that "different path compared to Northern/Eastern cities" means tearing down most of our historic dense building stock, and here we are again.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

This is the weirdest post I have read here in a long time. I have to ask, how old are you? The “infill practically happens on autopilot in Denver” comment makes me think you’re not yet 30.

This comment here is also a gem. Not that there is anything wrong with being under Denver's median age (or "30" lol), but you have to be not yet 30 if you fail to realize developers want to be here regardless of any rezoning difficulty. Denver has clearly risen as a top market for big money to safe harbor their capital in the form of as many development deals as possible. I can't even keep count how many active deals Greystone alone has. I don't worry about Denver getting dozens of shiny new Texas donuts each year. I do worry about preserving gems, even diamonds in the rough, that may be in their way.

The only way to maintain a City's historic fabric is to extend HP protections to diamonds in the rough. Otherwise demolition by neglect is the way out, just look at East Colfax right now. I would strongly advocate clearly defining potentially eligible historic resources and non-eligible sites so that developers can better focus on the type of opportunity they want instead of arguing every site.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by twister244

Seeing people protesting right now to save Casa Bonita makes me want to vomit. Maybe some of these people haven't been to cities where you really see true historic urbanism worth preserving.

It helps if you know what your talking about.


n case you're new to town, this is Casa Bonita/Evan Semón

With respect to Casa Bonita, those aren't protestors for historic property preservation; it's all about the business and its long-standing tradition.

The push to save Casa Bonita is rooted in broader fears that the pandemic is changing Denver
April 25. 2021 By Kevin Beaty - Denverite

Rick Griffith yelled the battle cry, surrounded by two guys in monkey suits. It was a small rally for Casa Bonita, the famed Lakewood restaurant that’s really more of an experience. There weren’t a lot of people beside him on West Colfax Avenue, but it was clear the message resonated. Endless honks poured from the street as drivers passed by.

What's the story here?

After 47 years in business, Casa Bonita’s owners filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection earlier this month. It doesn’t mean the immersive eatery will necessarily disappear – it’s an opportunity for it to restructure its finances – but the move prompted a lot of nostalgia and concern from metro residents. If you grew up in the area, you probably have a very soft spot in your heart for Casa Bonita’s weirdness, a memory of childhood wonder rooted in its tropical mists, pirate’s cave and, yes, cliff diving.

I'm not necessarily a Fanboy of Casa Bonita but has been beloved by lots of people - especially children - over the decades.

[TakeFive]

This is fair, reasonable

Originally Posted by gopokes21

This comment here is also a gem. Not that there is anything wrong with being under Denver's median age (or "30" lol), but you have to be not yet 30 if you fail to realize developers want to be here regardless of any rezoning difficulty. Denver has clearly risen as a top market for big money to safe harbor their capital in the form of as many development deals as possible. I can't even keep count how many active deals Greystone alone has. I don't worry about Denver getting dozens of shiny new Texas donuts each year. I do worry about preserving gems, even diamonds in the rough, that may be in their way.

But all these side arguments aside, there's only two key questions to be decided.

First
is the subject property (really) a good candidate for historical preservation?

Second
is it reasonable for the Denver City Council to rob the property owner of its "fair and present" value. If the DCC and/or others are willing to compensate the owner for its fair market value then FINE (to piggyback on a point The Dirt has made). If not then don't be screwing with a party's property rights. In fact, the Supreme Court has typically taken a very dim view of government confiscation of private property.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Step one: Import more Texans and there over-inflated sense of superiority.

There is only one solution for a society in which people view the 7News building as a "diamond in the rough." Towers of skulls. In modern parlance, "hitting reset." The only redeeming feature of that building is that it's somewhat defensible, relatively speaking.

I propose to revise the landmark ordinance as follows: if the City Council wouldn’t be willing to rebuild a structure after an aerial bombardment of our city, then it shouldn’t be preserved. (At least as a hostile preservation.)

[TakeFive]

Just to pick a nit

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

...but Denver is not SF, Portland, or Boulder as far as I can see. If we were anticorporate, I fail to see how we seem to attract so many corporations.

"Corporations" is a pretty nebulous category.

It is fair to point out that some of the largest tech companies that can afford to go wherever they want to are generally bypassing Colorado aside from a token presence.

For example, Apple just opened two South Lake Union towers in Seattle, enough for ~3,000 workers. They also announced a $1 billion future campus in North Carolina for ~3000 employees a couple of years after announcing a $1 billion campus in Austin. Worth noting is that North Carolina has passed significant reductions in their tax rates starting in 2013.

Microsoft is expanding in Hillsboro, Oregon, which is the techie part of Portland metro and benefits from its Left Coast location (like Seattle).

I like to repeat that metro/Denver/Colorado benefits from its diversity along with recruiting smaller tech companies. It is still growing, if at a slower pace and remains generally business-friendly. Many growing companies do keep up with trends for cost of doing business. Polis, for his part understands this.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

1. It's true that YIMBY wants to turn this city into Dallas, and that's all I've said - FWIW I'm glad you still view that as an insult, but do a little retrospection.

I can't imagine a better way to make Denver synonymous with a useless lifeless city full of nothing significant (which context makes me believe is what you're using the word "Dallas" for) than proclaiming to the world that this building is among the best and most significant architecture that Denver has to preserve.

It's the historic preservation equivalent of bragging that "I got a trophy for placing 5th place in a darts league on East Colfax back in 2005"

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Developer scraps Golden Triangle office project (955 Bannock) and plans apartments instead

The city wants more non-residential development in the neighborhood south of downtown but Alpine Investments said there was too much “uncertainty in the office leasing market.”

https://businessden.com/2021/04/27/d...r%23newsletter

[seventwentyone]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

There is only one solution for a society in which people view the 7News building as a "diamond in the rough." Towers of skulls. In modern parlance, "hitting reset." The only redeeming feature of that building is that it's somewhat defensible, relatively speaking.

I propose to revise the landmark ordinance as follows: if the City Council wouldn’t be willing to rebuild a structure after an aerial bombardment of our city, then it shouldn’t be preserved. (At least as a hostile preservation.)

Best we can do is change the ordinance to include diamonds in the rough.

Clearly Denver 7 needs to be presevered, because it is the most well known, most preserved, and most rare example of of the 30 plus years old style turd-itectue, contributuing to the culture of adjacent Wendys and maintaining the integrity of that urban district as a result.

[The Dirt]

30 years is just such an arbitrary and low number. The east coast is laughing. In 20 years, we'll be preserving slot homes.

[davedensf]

I'm not necessarily a Fanboy of Casa Bonita but has been beloved by lots of people - especially children - over the decades.

I hope Casa Bonita isn't torn down, but then I'm a child at heart. I have great memories of my adventures there from the 1970s.

--Dave

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

30 years is just such an arbitrary and low number. The east coast is laughing. In 20 years, we'll be preserving slot homes.

...and this, where it will hailed as "industrial chic with hints of shipping container"


courtesy of SirLucasTheGreat

[TakeFive]

We have a deal


Image courtesy Johnson & Wales University Denver Campus

BusinessDen and others are reporting that Denver Urban Land Conservancy will acquire the Johnson & Wales University campus in Denver.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

30 years is just such an arbitrary and low number. The east coast is laughing. In 20 years, we'll be preserving slot homes.

Agreed. And this is not to mention what people in Europe must think about this sort of thing.

Recently I have been living a bit vicariously through the Rotterdam discussion forum over on Skycrapercity after kind of falling in love with the place when I visited several years ago. It's fascinating to read their discussions. Their entire city center was rebuilt in the 1950s (after being completely destroyed during WWII) into a sort of real-life realization of Corbusier's "Radiant City," complete with the total separation of residential from the Centre - turning it into a very American style Central Business District with giant traffic arteries.

The cornerstone of the 1946 plan was a shopping district called the "Lijnbaan," which was one of the earliest pedestrian malls ever built that I'm aware of (it predates Strøget in Copenhagen by well over a decade). Despite the huge success of Lijnbaan as a shopping district, the architecture leaves a LOT to be desired. For most of the second half of the 20th Century, the city had a reputation as the "armpit" of The Netherlands - kind of like how Americans talk about the "Rust Belt."


image from: https://wederopbouwrotterdam.nl/en/

Today the city is experiencing a kind of renaissance and is completely re-assessing the decisions made in the 1946 "Basis Plan." It is quite interesting to read the commentary from their local urban planning enthusiasts about how they feel about mid-century planning and architecture. While I have seen some of their forumers make the case that the Lijnbaan buildings are "historic" due to the success of the shopping district and connection to WWII reconstruction, many others are EXTREMELY derisive of these "ugly" buildings. The notion that buildings less than a century old and with poor urban design qualities are "historic" is downright laughable in a country that has UNESCO world heritage sites like Amsterdam a stone's-throw away. They actually got a version of Corbusier's urban planning vision, and seem to have decided that they don't like it and it's not worthy of preserving.

The city government itself seems to have decided that the vast majority of the reconstruction-era buildings are nothing more than development sites for newer buildings that create a better urban environment. The concept of segregated land uses, streets used as traffic sewers, and an emphasis on horizontal lines has been abandoned in favor of more post-modern ideals - like human-oriented streets with traffic calming that puts American cities to shame, the return of residential to the Centre, and giving Dutch architects a place to look toward the future and not the past (including SKYSCRAPERS!).


Image from: https://www.rotterdamarchitectuurprijs.nl/prijs-2021

Sorry for the long post, but given that Denver is less than 200 years old, and we are talking about the preservation merits of 30-year-old structures, I think this kind of perspective can be very important.

[seventwentyone]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

...and this, where it will hailed as "industrial chic with hints of shipping container"

How'd we get the Ever Given into Colorado anyways?

[The Dirt]

Unpopular opinion, but I think it's looks Fine(TM). Like, it's just big bulky infill because the city and lenders require 100 million parking spaces per person.