DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[mr1138]

It seems this conversation always comes back around once every couple months. But rarely have I heard any real objective explanation of why these buildings are "ugly" except for broad generalizations that are easy to poke holes through. Not to sound like a broken record, but I for one can conclude that it has nothing to do with the buildings all looking alike. While I'll admit the modern "Colotecture" "Texas-Doughnuts" aren't of the same quality as New York tenements or the structures in cities like Amsterdam or Paris, I think its clear that the problem isn't that buildings of a similar vintage in a given city look alike. In fact neighborhoods of matching buildings can actually be quite aesthetically pleasing.

So what exactly is it that makes these buildings "ugly," and what is a realistic solution to solve this; other than the lazy response "hire a better architect"? Is it the stick-build structure (most of LoDo's historic warehouses were wood-frame unless they've had their inner structure rebuilt, and I think most of us think those are quality buildings)? Is it the modernist facades (by all means, join the architecture profession and tell them their aesthetic tastes suck if you think you can design something prettier on a similar budget)? Is it the city-block sized nature of the buildings (I actually agree to some extent on this one, but parking is a REAL constraint if you aren't in a well-established, walkable urban location, and I've yet to see a better solution to this problem than a hidden parking garage)?

Every example the author of that editorial gave of "innovative modern multi-family design" has at least one major urban design aspect to criticize. Be it the super-block from Copenhagen with the poorly defined public spaces, the city-block sized development in NYC that looks like it would only ever be economical in a place like Manhattan, the small-scale example from Seoul that solves the parking problem by putting it at-grade and deadening the pedestrian experience, or the example from San Francisco that looks no better aesthetically than the affordable housing going up at 10th and Osage.

I'm not trying to say that everything is roses, but I am saying that it's way easier to criticize than to offer constructive solutions that aren't in-and-of-themselves riddled with new design problems. Besides, I've never been to a city that doesn't have some ugly buildings anyway... there are ugly buildings from just about every era. These become the redevelopment opportunities once the vacant lots are all gone.

[Denverite]

Originally Posted by mr1138

So what exactly is it that makes these buildings "ugly," and what is a realistic solution to solve this; other than the lazy response "hire a better architect"? Is it the stick-build structure (most of LoDo's historic warehouses were wood-frame unless they've had their inner structure rebuilt, and I think most of us think those are quality buildings)? Is it the modernist facades (by all means, join the architecture profession and tell them their aesthetic tastes suck if you think you can design something prettier on a similar budget)? Is it the city-block sized nature of the buildings (I actually agree to some extent on this one, but parking is a REAL constraint if you aren't in a well-established, walkable urban location, and I've yet to see a better solution to this problem than a hidden parking garage)?

Well said. So, to answer your question of "So what exactly is it that makes these buildings ugly" from my perspective and that of many others:

1. I think, for me and many others, I see a lot of sameness. You could nitpick every project and point out dozens of differences at close range, but as a drive by observer overwhelmed with being in the city, they look so similar.

2. I, and many others, look to the roof line of a lot of buildings. This is how humans gage height in some cases. Let's face it, most people awe over skyscrapers and cool buildings. The roof lines of most of Denver's structures are squared-off flat. Then when we had the opportunity for a new tall building it has a toothpick barely visible from more than 5 miles away. Though, I do love the Four Seasons.

3. You guys can be irritated with me and this statement all you want, but the sameness of the lines and angles, the colors, and repeating patterns of the bulk of Denver's apartment projects looks cheap and Eastern Bloc-ish to me. If just half of them had something different going on I'd probably complain half as much.

4. Most won't have seen or noticed that these projects are almost all timber-based. Again, maybe I'm wrong, but having lived in timber-based apartments growing up and in houses, the floors creak, the soundproofing sucks, and they don't hold up to major severe weather. Maybe there are newer construction techniques that eliminate these concerns that I am unaware of. If so, point me to a study on this. I have also lived in high rise concrete floored structures and you can't hear a thing between floors. Through open windows and if you put your ear up to a wall then yes.

On the positive side (see, I'm not all negative Nellie):

1. The infill is great. Yes, is that what you want to force me to say? I love the infill. Do I like the product? maybe 1 out of 5 structures appeal to me.

2. Denver has never been more vibrant in my lifetime. Having grown up and living in Denver since the mid-80s. It wasn't until the late 90s when Denver really started to move forward. Now it is pretty incredible just how vibrant it is. I love it!

3. The external lighting is fantastic.

4. Am I just being a whiner? No. I wouldn't even consider being critical of my city and wade into this forum if I didn't care. These are my opinions. You can disagree with me, but folks, you could at least respect them and acknowledge the reality from an objective point of view.

I have seen the "it's not economical here in Denver" statement a few times. To me, that's ignoring a bigger issue. Of course, concrete is more expensive than timber but I think it's more about profit margins for developers than it is trying to build quality product at an affordable price. Of course, I can't afford to live in any of these projects. And no, I'm not anti-developer. I know it's easy to target that statement as being anti-capitalist. I am pro development and love money as much as the next guy, so don't go there.

D.

[bcp]

Originally Posted by Denverite

I didn't see this posted here yet. (includes some comments by our own Mr. Infill):

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_27843517/great-city-bad-buildings

"Denver's planning department, developers, investors, builders and architects must begin asking whether the economic success of repetitive, five-story wood apartment boxes is enough. Housing solutions that enhance our environment, strengthen our urban condition and bring a sense of permanence and longevity to our collective future must be seriously pursued before it's too late." - Jeffrey Sheppard

I couldn't agree more. Not all infill is good infill and most of these matchstick Eastern Bloc like buildings are just hideous to me. Even most of the higher structures are just awful. I've long been annoyed with and a critic of the seemingly endless Lego-block like structures in Denver, but it's worse than ever now. I don't expect these all to be super strong, perfect, decked-out structures, but what we are seeing is just awful. Time after time.

In the last two years, I've had several out-of-towners stay with me. I love giving them a city tour. Almost all of them, without anyone bringing it up, commented on the ugly wood apartment buildings. It's disappointing and depressing.

On that note. Just how tall can these matchstick boxes get? I drove by the Alameda & Santa Fe apartment project (which looks like everything else) and from the distance it looked like the structure was 6 stories. I didn't see the ground level. I assume there's ground level retail with probably a concrete deck between the retail and the first floor of apartments. But, you know, I couldn't live in that. This is tornado country. How will these timber structures survive in a direct hit with a tornado when it's all timber-based? I would assume survivability in a tornado event is increased the less tall a structure is. These things don't stand a chance.

As for the awards that some of these "architects" are getting, most of them seem to be local to the project. It's not like these apartments are nationally recognized projects. If an award is made, it has to go to one of those monstrosities. Besides, they're almost all the same looking when observing as a casual urban visitor. There isn't much to choose from when comparing.

There isn't any fix to this other than a mandatory independent (or City sponsored third-party) architectural review board with a little bit of an attitude and demands in hopes it would result in something different than feeling like we're living in post-war Russia. Right now, these projects, with respect to their exterior architectural design, appear to be rubber-stamped in.

We deserve better.

D.

we deserve nothing...period. if you want better, then organize money, buy land, and get something built.

the only time "deserve" comes into it is if there is a zoning change request, PDC, or other extras requested.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by Denverite

A bit brash, aren't you? And, really, you're going to go all grade school on me and tell me I need better friends? Indeed, out-of-towners comment on how vibrant downtown is. Denver is vibrant. It has a lot going for it and that is fantastic. Has nothing to do with critique of the current architecture though.

These people who have 100% commented negatively on the Ballpark area condo projects come from Dallas, Minneapolis, and the Bay Area. Denver architecture can't hold up to any of those cities so, if you want to go deep into this you could argue that it's unfair for people in these cities to comment or compare the inner city architecture... I guess. I think it's more independent, knee-jerk, in the moment judgment by these visitors, but now you're getting into psychology. I don't think this is a complicated issue. It's all right there in front of our eyes. Maybe partly subjective, but no question there is a lot of banal sameness in Denver apartment and some high rise projects.



LOL, You're bringing rightwingnut politics into this? And call people "morons" for supporting a person based on their own political beliefs? Man, I hope you're not ever operating on me.



I disagree with your statement that "Quick infill is fine when all you have is barren waste". Perhaps most of the time but not always. Seems to me developers are taking advantage of Denver - which itself isn't a bad thing, but the product sure looks like crap. If the upside is simply infill, then sure, I get it. I do like and want infill. But at what expense? I don't think enough people are considering the long term conditions, let alone the architectural appearance, of these structures.

D.

I stopped reading after I saw you think pathologists perform surgery.. but from as far as I did get I don't really think you can arbitrarily say all three of those cities are that far ahead of Denver architecturally, certainly not so far that people should be expected to come to town and get nauseous when they see Denver's new buildings. The exception possibly being San Francisco (which is the ONLY part of the bay area that I'd accept that from).

[CPVLIVE]

Originally Posted by Denverite

Well said. So, to answer your question of "So what exactly is it that makes these buildings ugly" from my perspective and that of many others:

1. I think, for me and many others, I see a lot of sameness. You could nitpick every project and point out dozens of differences at close range, but as a drive by observer overwhelmed with being in the city, they look so similar.

2. I, and many others, look to the roof line of a lot of buildings. This is how humans gage height in some cases. Let's face it, most people awe over skyscrapers and cool buildings. The roof lines of most of Denver's structures are squared-off flat. Then when we had the opportunity for a new tall building it has a toothpick barely visible from more than 5 miles away. Though, I do love the Four Seasons.

3. You guys can be irritated with me and this statement all you want, but the sameness of the lines and angles, the colors, and repeating patterns of the bulk of Denver's apartment projects looks cheap and Eastern Bloc-ish to me. If just half of them had something different going on I'd probably complain half as much.

4. Most won't have seen or noticed that these projects are almost all timber-based. Again, maybe I'm wrong, but having lived in timber-based apartments growing up and in houses, the floors creak, the soundproofing sucks, and they don't hold up to major severe weather. Maybe there are newer construction techniques that eliminate these concerns that I am unaware of. If so, point me to a study on this. I have also lived in high rise concrete floored structures and you can't hear a thing between floors. Through open windows and if you put your ear up to a wall then yes.

On the positive side (see, I'm not all negative Nellie):

1. The infill is great. Yes, is that what you want to force me to say? I love the infill. Do I like the product? maybe 1 out of 5 structures appeal to me.

2. Denver has never been more vibrant in my lifetime. Having grown up and living in Denver since the mid-80s. It wasn't until the late 90s when Denver really started to move forward. Now it is pretty incredible just how vibrant it is. I love it!

3. The external lighting is fantastic.

4. Am I just being a whiner? No. I wouldn't even consider being critical of my city and wade into this forum if I didn't care. These are my opinions. You can disagree with me, but folks, you could at least respect them and acknowledge the reality from an objective point of view.

I have seen the "it's not economical here in Denver" statement a few times. To me, that's ignoring a bigger issue. Of course, concrete is more expensive than timber but I think it's more about profit margins for developers than it is trying to build quality product at an affordable price. Of course, I can't afford to live in any of these projects. And no, I'm not anti-developer. I know it's easy to target that statement as being anti-capitalist. I am pro development and love money as much as the next guy, so don't go there.

D.

The key component here is that the only residential being built here are apartments. If 50 percent of our new residential was for sale condos you would see a different product out there. Buyers care a little more than renters about the quality (architecturally, structurally, etc.) of their investment. All of which ties back into our problem of affordability. This is where Denver is failing. At the precise moment where demand is unprecedented in the city there is absolutely nothing for anyone to buy.

[TakeFive]

mr1138... Yes, very well said indeed. I can't improve on this other than to maybe add a few points.

Denverite... If I envision myself putting on your hat then I can pretty much agree with what your saying/thinking. But I don't think you're being realistic and by extension fair.

The first and primary issue is that Denver has grown up so fast over the last decade if you're thinking of residential. That's like a snapshot in time of most city's histories. Having visited most city business journals and/or the developer web sites if a city is seeing residential construction they are getting the same product as Denver is, srsly.

The next issue is that Denver has never had the deep pocketed local companies or wealth who might choose to build monuments to their legacies. For example, having an Amazon want to build/occupy 10 million SF of office space leads to demand for 30-40 story condo towers.

How easily we forget... Thinking back just a few years 14th street and LoDo were the hot spots. Generally, I think the LoDo projects are mostly very good. On 14th Street nobody could know in advance how successful the new convention center would become. Without the city's backing the convention center Hyatt would never have happened, at least in the needed timely manner. White Lodging, a well regarded hotel developer went back and forth on their Embassy Suites project; how many stories etc. Finding the necessary capital obviously wasn't a slam dunk at the time. Same with the Four Seasons. Now if we could have known then what we know now perhaps even bigger/better projects would have been built. But life doesn't happen in that order.

I could drone on but I won't.

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by Denverite

Seems to me developers are taking advantage of Denver - which itself isn't a bad thing, but the product sure looks like crap.

I ask this every time, but I feel like it's important. Which projects "look like crap" exactly?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

If you look closely, you'll also notice that there were plans for a hotel as part of this project (one of the buildings has a ton of hotel facilities in the floorplans) that has also been cut. So all that's left is an entertainment lifestyle center with shitty traffic connections. You'll see that they are aiming for a movie theater, a bowling alley (aka Lucky Strike) and a couple of large restaurants to anchor the other retail and food and beverage options. Yeah, that's going to get me to drive to the "entertainment hub of the Denver Metroplex."

Now the open beverage option where I can walk from place to place in the complex with a drink and get absolutely shit-faced before jumping back in my car certainly is an interesting idea....

The hotel isn't cut, that'll still be a part of the eventual project. This thing is going this year. Comoneymaker doesn't know what he's talking about. (Although, this isn't my project anymore, since I quit my job!)
'

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The hotel isn't cut, that'll still be a part of the eventual project. This thing is going this year. Comoneymaker doesn't know what he's talking about. (Although, this isn't my project anymore, since I quit my job!)
'

So they're building the bottom two floors of the hotel and waiting on the rest? Or is the hotel going to go on one of those empty patches of grass?

BTW, congratulations on quitting your job and doing something truly nerdy! I now have a name to curse while driving.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by Denverite

2. I, and many others, look to the roof line of a lot of buildings. This is how humans gage height in some cases.

We all hope for the day when there is more pointy and less blunty on our poor skyline, however I think a lot of those new flat-topped buildings interact with the street pretty well. I feel like a lot of places suffer from a "good from far, far from good" problem with their urban architecture. Sure, it makes for pretty pictures, but the street below is nothing but inactive glass facades or lifeless plazas.

Originally Posted by bcp

we deserve nothing...period. if you want better, then organize money, buy land, and get something built.

the only time "deserve" comes into it is if there is a zoning change request, PDC, or other extras requested.

Hear, hear.

This is not Astana or Brasilia or Pyongyang, we WANT better.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bcp

we deserve nothing...period. if you want better, then organize money, buy land, and get something built.

the only time "deserve" comes into it is if there is a zoning change request, PDC, or other extras requested.

God bless the free market system! All hail Adam Smith!

[Denverite]

Originally Posted by enjo13

I ask this every time, but I feel like it's important. Which projects "look like crap" exactly?

I don't think it serves any good for me to go through a list of what I think looks like crap. I think it's obvious I'm not thrilled with the bulk of typical apartment buildings that have been and are being built throughout the LoDo and Ballpark areas in particular.

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

I stopped reading after I saw you think pathologists perform surgery.. but from as far as I did get I don't really think you can arbitrarily say all three of those cities are that far ahead of Denver architecturally...

If you choose to ignore then you why should you comment? IMO, all 3 of those cities do have more going on architecturally. I've only seen Dallas in photos, but Minneapolis and SF are obviously way ahead with more interesting condo and apartment projects that I have seen as a casual observer - don't ask me to cite specific stuff, I don't know addresses or projects in detail. Also, note that I'm using those cities as examples because those are the home cities of the people that I toured in Denver who commented on the LoDo and Ballpark area apartment projects.

They all did comment on how vibrant Denver is and that our food is better.

Originally Posted by bcp

we deserve nothing...period. if you want better, then organize money, buy land, and get something built.

the only time "deserve" comes into it is if there is a zoning change request, PDC, or other extras requested.

I would think that in the context of my post it would be clear that that is a somewhat rhetorical statement. But, yeah, what's wrong with saying it anyway? Denver is a great city littered with cookie-cutter apartments that dot the landscape. We do deserve better.

What can I do? Buy land and build my own? Kind of a silly response. I'm annoyed with these projects and most others I personally know and are into this stuff feel the same way. Including locals.

Not that anyone of any power is listening, but I think the more we raise a stink over these (assuming you think these apartments stink) then maybe the more the City might take notice.

In the past, I've had correspondence with one of the members of the Denver City Council where I expressed my concerns with some of these projects and the response I got back was that most of everything they see is "value engineered". Value engineering is, in part, defined as "marketers expect a product to become practically or stylistically obsolete within a specific length of time, they can design it to only last for that specific lifetime. The products could be built with higher-grade components, but with value-engineering they are not because this would impose an unnecessary cost on the manufacturer". It was, at the time, the first time I heard the term but I think this is what we're mostly seeing.

I also don't buy that if there were stricter design guidelines that we wouldn't see these projects break ground. Maybe some marginal developers here and there, but even then, there could be exceptions for some of these inferior projects. Not to mention that Denver is repeatedly listed as having one of the best economies, lowest vacancy, and highest rental rates in the country.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

These EIFS boxes are going to be the affordable or moderately-affordable housing and thus are necessary, even if they aren't inspiring to look at.

For instance, some including myself on here consider these types of buildings filler. Many are replacing parking lots it seems. My sister-in-law lives in the Station at Riverfront. Since its not as nice a building, she can live there on a living wage without having to pay Glass House prices, but still be in Riverfront.

While I am not a huge fan of the 5 story stick-built, college dorm-style apartment buildings that have sprouted up and continue to be built, I am actually amazed walking around at what Denver is building!

This is by no means a complete list and just off the top of my head:

16M
The Platform
Cadence
17W
Union Station Wing Buildings
Joule
Confluence
250 Columbine
Steel Creek
Skyhouse
Verve
etc. etc.

We're also getting really nice buildings in addition to filler.

Wong seems to know a lot about this kind of stuff, but many of these 5 story bland developments are being built by huge corporate REITs not marginal developers, and they probably don't care what it looks like, as long as the #'s pencil out.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

This is by no means a complete list and just off the top of my head:

16M
The Platform
Cadence
17W
Union Station Wing Buildings
Joule
Confluence
250 Columbine
Steel Creek
Skyhouse
Verve
etc. etc.

To add to this list:
Union West Tower
Kimpton Denver
Coda Cherry Creek
The Art Hotel
Eviva
25th and Welton
Country Club Towers
Triangle Building


Denver has some great projects going up or planned. It is easy to hate on the bad but difficult to appreciate the good.

Also am I the only one that thinks the triangle building looks freaking awesome?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

(I quit my job!)

Thanks to sodahead.com

[bcp]

Originally Posted by Denverite

What can I do? Buy land and build my own? Kind of a silly response. I'm annoyed with these projects and most others I personally know and are into this stuff feel the same way. Including locals.

now that is just sad...what's silly about that? If you don't believe you can do that, then I believe I don't want you telling other people how to build on their land...what's old was once new, and someone had an opinion back then about it.

Originally Posted by Denverite

Not that anyone of any power is listening, but I think the more we raise a stink over these (assuming you think these apartments stink) then maybe the more the City might take notice.

You'd be surprised who is on here, and who reads this input...if you are annoyed and feel the need to take action - you should go to zoning hearings and exemption requests and speak up...but the day-to-day permitting and design review process will not be impacted when a project is a use-by-right.

There is also a serious unintended consequence of wanting each new building to be a masterpiece - housing prices go up, density goes down, and the perception of denver as "rich only" gets very very real.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by Denverite

I don't think it serves any good for me to go through a list of what I think looks like crap. I think it's obvious I'm not thrilled with the bulk of typical apartment buildings that have been and are being built throughout the LoDo and Ballpark areas in particular.



If you choose to ignore then you why should you comment? IMO, all 3 of those cities do have more going on architecturally. I've only seen Dallas in photos, but Minneapolis and SF are obviously way ahead with more interesting condo and apartment projects that I have seen as a casual observer - don't ask me to cite specific stuff, I don't know addresses or projects in detail. Also, note that I'm using those cities as examples because those are the home cities of the people that I toured in Denver who commented on the LoDo and Ballpark area apartment projects.

They all did comment on how vibrant Denver is and that our food is better.



I would think that in the context of my post it would be clear that that is a somewhat rhetorical statement. But, yeah, what's wrong with saying it anyway? Denver is a great city littered with cookie-cutter apartments that dot the landscape. We do deserve better.

What can I do? Buy land and build my own? Kind of a silly response. I'm annoyed with these projects and most others I personally know and are into this stuff feel the same way. Including locals.

Not that anyone of any power is listening, but I think the more we raise a stink over these (assuming you think these apartments stink) then maybe the more the City might take notice.

In the past, I've had correspondence with one of the members of the Denver City Council where I expressed my concerns with some of these projects and the response I got back was that most of everything they see is "value engineered". Value engineering is, in part, defined as "marketers expect a product to become practically or stylistically obsolete within a specific length of time, they can design it to only last for that specific lifetime. The products could be built with higher-grade components, but with value-engineering they are not because this would impose an unnecessary cost on the manufacturer". It was, at the time, the first time I heard the term but I think this is what we're mostly seeing.

I also don't buy that if there were stricter design guidelines that we wouldn't see these projects break ground. Maybe some marginal developers here and there, but even then, there could be exceptions for some of these inferior projects. Not to mention that Denver is repeatedly listed as having one of the best economies, lowest vacancy, and highest rental rates in the country.

So I think I have more of an insight into the way you're thinking here. I'll just list some things without spending too much time expounding.

1. I said I stopped at that point.. which was after you mentioned the other three cities.. thus whatever you said after that I missed.

2. What you basically are saying distills into this: I hate everything. Don't ask me to give specific examples of everything. Don't ask me to give specific examples of what would be better than everything I hate. Also clearly as a hard working fellow who is completely unwilling to bring any evidence to bear to back up the "I hate everything part" besides "my friends also hate everything", I feel I deserve everything to get better.

I'm sure you're not at all unintelligent, lazy, or any other disparaging thing.. but seriously, What exactly did you think the impression of your few posts would be? Catty friends who think it's imperative to call out filler infill as filler infill. An editorial from an architect whose grapes are so sour I nearly had to drink a glass of water to finish reading his rantings. The implication that a giant southern suburban nightmare, the one city where not even all of the 1% can afford to live and uhm the Twin Cities have SO MUCH to show Denver... (probably one or two things honestly, maybe) but do you SERIOUSLY want Denver to be Dallas or San Francisco? Because if you do I think you're in a very small minority.

Finally, I don't know how long you've been reading the forums here but the last person to make a hobby out of hating everything Denver allows or did/didn't do to become the perfect super dense architectural digest centerfold utopia got so fed up with it all that he up and left...... to an island. Which presumably, to him, was denser and more urban somehow. So forgive me when I react negatively to the latest person who isn't the head of an REIT or has a few spare powerball winning lotto jackpots in the bank to back his critiques up when he decides Denver needs to be more preeeeety. I think the neighbors in West Highland decided that too... the LAST thing Denver needs is everyone who wants to have a say gets to have a say in every building ever built.

Edit: Siri frustrates me!

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

(Although, this isn't my project anymore, since I quit my job!)
'

I hope that was for something better or at least more fun. I'm jealous if so. Planning to retire/switch so you can move back to the city you love is WAY too long a process sometimes.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

I hope that was for something better or at least more fun. I'm jealous if so. Planning to retire/switch so you can move back to the city you love is WAY too long a process sometimes.

Well I sure hope it'll be better - it'll definitely be more interesting. I haven't started yet - I am playing, been traveling Asia. But I'm going over to the Attorney General's Office, I'll be the AG representing CDOT's High Performance Transportation Enterprise. So, basically, I-70 is my problem now. (It also means I'll sadly no longer be able to engage in the many forum conspiracies about secret contracts selling our infrastructure to shady foreign corporations. )

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Well I sure hope it'll be better - it'll definitely be more interesting. I haven't started yet - I am playing, been traveling Asia. But I'm going over to the Attorney General's Office, I'll be the AG representing CDOT's High Performance Transportation Enterprise. So, basically, I-70 is my problem now. (It also means I'll sadly no longer be able to engage in the many forum conspiracies about secret contracts selling our infrastructure to shady foreign corporations. )

Well of course not... since you're obviously in Asia negotiating said contracts. :-P