DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[Fritzdude]

Situation - Denver needs more parks in the worst way, especially near downtown. Consider ripping up the asphalt on Lawrence between Broadway and Downing Street. That 11 blocks that could be turned into a natural, landscaped, promenade that would provide a shady respite from the surrounding neighborhoods seeing increased development.

Proposal - Lawrence is already a quiet, primarily residential street that has no driveways accessible from Lawrence as every home has alley garages. Why not use the Panhandle in SF as a reference point and create our own long, albeit narrow, urban park/greenery. The are 90 feet between opposing sidewalks, so if they were replaced by a natural path surrounded by trees and grass, the houses would be fronting a quiet courtyard, as opposed to a street. Would this improve property values in the area? Imagine having a mile long park for people to run, walk, bike, and play. Would this work in Denver?

[mhays]

It would be nice from my perspective. However the uproar from taking away people's ability to park in front of their houses would make it implausible.

A quarter-block park somewhere like Lawrence & Broadway would be nice. Or even a full block, though land alone would be in the tens of millions.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by mhays

It would be nice from my perspective. However the uproar from taking away people's ability to park in front of their houses would make it implausible.

A quarter-block park somewhere like Lawrence & Broadway would be nice. Or even a full block, though land alone would be in the tens of millions.

When you say land alone would be in the tens of millions, what do you mean? The city already owns the street.

I currently live on a courtyard and I love it. No loud cars ripping by at all hours of the day. And a nice greenway landscape to walk out onto from my front door. My property value reflects this amenity, so I’m wondering if people would consider giving up their street parking if it improved their home value by 10%.

And then, ultimately, what choice would people have, even those who are vehemently against the idea? The city provided the road, so can the city take it away? It’s not like they’d have to compensate anyone for the value of a road.

[Cirrus]

Interesting idea.

1. Skeptical you could ever get the politics to work, for sure. Guarantee that even with receptive city leadership, this would get 🞵🞵🞵🞵 🞵🞵 in court by NIMBYs for years.

2. What's so special about Lawrence in particular? Why that street? Not that this wouldn't be nice, but Curtis Park is already right there.

3. I think if your goal were a new linear park in that part of town then the path of least resistance would probably be to repurpose the 7 block long Rockies parking lot between Blake and rail tracks.

[mhays]

Sorry, I don't mean on the street, but the actual blocks, 1/4 of one or possibly a full one.

As for resident pressure, anything involving removing taking streets away would get a whole new level of fury. Politicians don't take that sort of thing lightly. If the goal is a nice thing for the neighborhood, step one is not making 50% of the closest people hate the idea and its leaders. There would be a well-funded and vociferous "no" campaign. Cities don't generally give big money to things that are that controversial.

[TakeFive]

I do like Fritzdude's vision

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Interesting idea.

1. Skeptical you could ever get the politics to work, for sure. Guarantee that even with receptive city leadership, this would get 🞵🞵🞵🞵 🞵🞵 in court by NIMBYs for years.

2. What's so special about Lawrence in particular? Why that street? Not that this wouldn't be nice, but Curtis Park is already right there.

Downtown Denver Partnership already has a plan for what they call the 5280 trail.

[mhays]

That looks far more doable.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Interesting idea.

1. Skeptical you could ever get the politics to work, for sure. Guarantee that even with receptive city leadership, this would get 🞵🞵🞵🞵 🞵🞵 in court by NIMBYs for years.

2. What's so special about Lawrence in particular? Why that street? Not that this wouldn't be nice, but Curtis Park is already right there.

3. I think if your goal were a new linear park in that part of town then the path of least resistance would probably be to repurpose the 7 block long Rockies parking lot between Blake and rail tracks.

Ha.. I think it would a bigger fight with the Monforts to take away their parking than it would be to transform a city street. Interestingly, Lawrence is the one street in 5-points area that doesn’t have personal driveways entering the street, with the exception of 2-3 commercial properties, which means the city wouldn’t be taking away points of egress.

To compensate for the removal of streetside parking, perhaps the city can help fund the development of parking garages attached to street corner commercial entities at 24th, 27th, 30th, and 35th, all which happen to be empty? Would a resident prefer to park the car in a nearby enclosed garage rather than on the street? These garages could also be an asset to new businesses on Market and Larimer as well.. So, the question is, would the rise in property values for a house in downtown Denver fronting a natural Parkway calm the NIMBY outrage for anyone living on Lawrence? If done well, this natural amenity could be similar to New York City’s Highline Trail, which draws people from all over who just want to take a leisurely stroll without the hassle of cars. It would become a focal point of neighborhood activity, farmers markets, and outdoor events. I think Denver needs to think big because the surrounding area is booming with development and we have too much asphalt and not enough places to touch grass. The national press coverage would be crazy if this happened.

[mhays]

Parking garages and potentially a street fair in front of my (hypothetical) house? While some adjecent residents would love that, these points would add to others' fury.

One method seems realistic to overcome this politically: Let each block of homeowners vote. Build the blocks that get 100%. After completion, let the remaining blocks vote again, then do round 2 if any. The caveat: I doubt the idea would get a majority on any block, let alone 100%. Why 100%? Because of the visceral connection many people have with the ability to park in front of their houses. (Not me BTW, I don't drive.)

The High Line doesn't have street crossings. Also it has views.

[Cirrus]

It's way easier to build a gigantic parking garage for a stadium than to convince homeowners they have to walk multiple blocks to the neighborhood garage instead of parking in front of their home.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by mhays

The High Line doesn't have street crossings. Also it has views.

Seems more like a cross between the Atlanta Beltline and the Indianapolis Cultural Trail to me.

[TakeFive]

The High Line Trail is one of the most impressive outdoor assets that Denver has

The Conservancy which was created in 2014 has accomplished a lot since its formation. One of the biggest projects (and costly) was tunneling under the intersection at Colorado Blvd and Hampden Ave.

I'm sure it didn't hurt that the trail runs through the most exclusive area of Denver but over 71 miles it goes through all kinds of neighborhoods. At some point they teamed up with the Denver Water Board out of necessity and I believe they received some Biden Bucks in recent years. They have regular maps as well as digital maps for various segments.

Denver Water

High Line Canal -- A favorite urban getaway

The trail along the High Line Canal meanders 71 miles across the Denver area, offering places to hike, bike, jog and ride horses. While the waterway is owned and operated by Denver Water, this National Landmark Trail is maintained by municipal recreation agencies.

The High Line Canal Conservancy (Conservancy) is a non-profit providing leadership to harness the region’s commitment to preserving the future of the High Line Canal. With support from each jurisdiction and in partnership with Denver Water, the Conservancy is connecting stakeholders in support of comprehensive planning to ensure that the Canal is protected and enhanced for future generations.

• Video Link

[TakeFive]

Federal Buildings Board Calls For Disposing Of 7M SF Of Properties
May 22, 2025 By Emily Wishingrad, Washington, D.C.

The congressionally created entity tasked with recommending federal property disposals has unveiled the next round of buildings it says the government should get rid of.

For this list most properties (but not all) are in the NE especially D.C.

The next round will be more geographically distributed. The only properties in Colorado are one in Aspen and one in Eagle. Washington State appears to remains untouched (your day is coming).

For anyone who's interested in the pdf:

Recommendations Pursuant to the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 (“FASTA”)
May 2025

[mr1138]

Interesting discussion about needing more parks downtown and thinking outside the box about where this could go. I'm all for the idea of using our city streets as public spaces, although I do think it is possible to go too far with the street conversion idea and have these linear parks become spread too-thin.

But if we're thinking about places the city already owns land, I'd throw another option out there. The last time I checked, the city owns most of the surface parking lots along Water Street surrounding the Downtown Aquarium and the Children's Museum, and has previously shown all of these lots being turned over for private development (denvergov.org is down right now, so I cannot locate the exact sub-area plan or confirm ownership on the assessor's map).

For all the hand-wringing regarding the need for parks in Denver, and the fight over the Park Hill Golf Course, I am actually somewhat shocked that this part of downtown never seems to come up as an option for a park in these discussions.

I am also somewhat surprised and disappointed that the River Mile development does not include anything as big as Commons Park (which I actually thought would have been a requirement for the land next to the river). Ideally, our Riverfront Greenway Park should be expanded to the south to increase its acreage. But this is where I think there is a huge opportunity along Water Street. Although I am as big of a YIMBY as you will often find - I do question why Denver would want to sell off all this land for private development when it seems to be an ideal location for a large new downtown park.

It seems to me that what Downtown really needs isn't more pocket parks or linear parks, but an expanded "central" downtown park. What would be great is if we could have something more like Wash Park or Cheseman Park, but walkable to downtown, and the best opportunity to do this would be to take the exiting Riverfront Park and make it bigger.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by mr1138

What would be great is if we could have something more like Wash Park or Cheseman Park, but walkable to downtown

Civic Center should be this, except it's not a good park for anything except big events.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Seems more like a cross between the Atlanta Beltline and the Indianapolis Cultural Trail to me.

There was a lot of discussion of the Indianapolis Cultural Trail when the '5280 Trail' plan was conceived.

Just for grins I checked to see how the Cultural Trail has 'weathered.' Other than for one scrum over removing bollards in one segment it appears that the Cultural Trail remains popular and highly regarded.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Civic Center should be this, except it's not a good park for anything except big events.

The problem with Civic Center is that it is too formal to work as a passive-use space, and too small (12 acres as compared to Cheseman's 80 acres and Wash Park's 165 acres). Civic Center works great for political rallies and sports team celebrations, but it really has nothing in common with more pastoral landscapes like Cheseman and Wash Park, which are more influenced by English landscape and gardening (more like the parks designed by Olmsted).

While I don't expect Denver (or any city really) to replicate NYC's Central Park, Boston's Commons, or something like London's Hyde Park, I still feel like this should be the ideal - a large, pastoral space where one can completely detach from the city. City Beautiful Civic Center plazas never work this way because they are rooted in the formality of the buildings around them. So they make great sense as places for civic gathering, but can't ever be a true alternative to a park like Cheseman or Washington which are fundamentally different. Civic Center also can't really ever be significantly changed or "fixed" because it is now considered a historic landscape that people seem to like (for better or for worse).

It's also a bit like comparing Chicago's Grant Park to Lincoln Park. Grant Park being more akin to Denver's Civic Center (albeit MUCH larger), and Lincoln Park a bit more like what I wish Denver had. Somebody pointed out in another thread about parks that Grant Park is "too focused for housing events rather than serving as a true city park." Jane Jacobs famously made this exact same critique about City Beautiful civic spaces.

Oklahoma City really hit the mark with their relatively-new 70 acre downtown Scissortail Park.

[TakeFive]

Speaking of City Park Systems, D.C. and Denver are on opposite ends of the list

But that's not so bad when the list is the Top Ten city park systems. Source

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Civic Center should be this, except it's not a good park for anything except big events.

It's true about accommodating Big Events which turns out to be an invaluable asset from celebrating sports Championships/parades to various seasonal offerings.

But you'd be agreeable with this then?

Currently, the park feels too formal, said Juliane Wolf, principal designer on the project during an implementation meeting on Oct. 29. Although the park is well-suited for large-scale events, like the annual ChristkindlMarket or concerts, individuals are turned off by the concrete-heavy, grand spaces of the park. Wolf said because of that, it feels like a disruption to the surrounding Golden Triangle neighborhood, rather than something that connects the community.

Backstory

Way back in 2005 the city grabbed the Civic Center Masterplan and started working on an update.

Fast Forward

Denver's Civic Center Park Is Set to Undergo Major Transformation in 2025
October 16, 2024 By By Catie Cheshire -- Westword

Civic Center Park will be transformed over the next few years, starting with a complete shift of the park’s famous Greek Amphitheater and changes to the promenade that connects the amphitheater on the park’s south side to the northern end bordering downtown.

It's called "Next 100"

The city, along with the Civic Center Conservancy — a nonprofit dedicated to programming activities in the park — has been developing the Civic Center Next 100 plan since 2021. Construction is scheduled to begin in 2025

A difference of opinion is not unusual nor bad.

“We've all been at this for twenty-plus years,” says Eric Lazzari, executive director of the Civic Center Conservancy. “This is not what the city has wanted. This is not what the conservancy has wanted, but it's what the community has continued to tell both the conservancy and the city that they want out of Civic Center.”

Landmark Preservation Approves Civic Center Design Plans
January 27, 2025 -- Mile High CRE

Civic Center Park serves as Denver’s front door and connects the Golden Triangle, Cultural Complex, and Capitol Hill to the bustling downtown. The upcoming transformation will honor the park’s history while preserving the heart of this important downtown network. This revitalization effort honors Civic Center Park as Denver’s first National Historic Landmark while ensuring that it remains a dynamic and engaging space for future generations. With improved infrastructure and enhanced programming capabilities, the park will retain its historic character while integrating contemporary elements for both everyday use and special occasions.

[Cirrus]

I agree Civic Center park is bad for everything except events. I reject that it's because it's "too formal" or that pastoralism is the only way to have a good park. The world is full of extremely formal parks that are way better public spaces than Wash Park or Cheesman Park. The trick is to put things in the park besides just lawns.

Pic related:

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I agree Civic Center park is bad for everything except events. I reject that it's because it's "too formal" or that pastoralism is the only way to have a good park. The world is full of extremely formal parks that are way better public spaces than Wash Park or Cheesman Park. The trick is to put things in the park besides just lawns.

Fair point - but there is also the size. The Jardin du Luxembourg is 50 acres in size! Which means it is big enough to explore and feel like you have escaped the city in a way. It also allows the design to be organized around more than just the one big central space.

I should walk back my earlier comments just a bit, because I do agree that formal landscapes can be wonderful. I once mentioned in a mixed-discipline planning studio that I would love to see Denver use more crusher fines in our parks, and showed a picture of one of Jardin du Luxembourg's allées. But then one of the Landscape Architecture instructors chastised that this would be "copying a French aesthetic"

Nevermind the fact that all of the roads in Denver parks like Cheseman, Wash Park, Sloans Lake, and City Park were originally gravel or crusher fines. But this experience also taught me to be very careful suggesting a formal design in today's Colorado (and to definitely not say you want to be like Paris - for some reason).


Edit: Having not had access to my copy of Death and Life earlier today when I posted, I just flipped it open when I got home to re-read Jacobs' specific criticism of City Beautiful. What she says kind of aligns with what we are both saying about "aesthetics" not really being the reason a design succeeds or fails. Instead, she calls the movement an "architectural design cult" and writes "Modern [1950s] city planning has been burdened from its beginning with the unsuitable aim of converting cities into disciplined works of art... Instead of attempting to substitute art for life, city designer should return to a strategy ennobling both to art and life."

The point being that there are other reasons a space works or does not work. In the case of Civic Center, it is trapped in its 12 acres and hemmed-in by significant government institutions. The case I'd make is - if this was supposed to be Denver's "central commons," they should have grabbed a LOT more land. Which, I think, is what brought us to Fritzdude starting this conversation that "Denver needs more parks in the worst way, especially near downtown." And I constantly hear others saying the same thing. Confluence, Commons, and City of Cuernavaca are collectively a little under 50 acres. I guess I always just assumed this greenway park would grow to the south when Elitches eventually redeveloped - but have since learned never assume anything.