DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[Pavlov]

I'm quite surprised by the negative impressions of Calgary here. Although Calgary is far from perfect (I grew up there but haven't lived there for a decade now), I didn't expect to hear people from Denver (with which Calgary is often compared) declare that they could NEVER live there.

Anyway, not here to defend the city at all (don't even live there anymore.) Just thought I would remark how surprised I was to stumble on these comments while lurking in this subforum (which I seldom do!)

[transistor]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Sure it is, here's what another part of the article says:

"Looking forward, the board expects Calgary’s economy to be third best in the country between 2016-2019, averaging growth of 2.5 per cent a year — behind only Vancouver at 3 per cent and Toronto at 2.7 per cent. "

Calgary continues to be Canada's #3 city.



I'd say that Calgary was the city that Denver should have inspired to be 20 years ago it we wanted a strong downtown at the sacrifice of the suburbs. The similarities between Denver and Calgary are strong given that both were large natural resource cities that diversified after the 1980's oil crash. Calgary certainly isn't as diversified as Denver, but it's in a hell of lot better position than it used to be; look at the projections of roughly 2-3 quarters of economic contraction followed by a turnaround in 2016 as an example of their diversification. But Denver is way to big with competing suburban interests to look to Calgary for inspiration- unless someone nukes the south I-25 corridor.



Calgary has an awesome downtown because a) oil companies and related activitives (such as banking, legal, etc.), b) restricted parking requirements, c) strong center city neighborhoods, and d) a transit system that makes Denver's look like the Wichita, KS. Calgary didn't have the massive hollowing out the center like Denver, but it also doesn't have the extra 2M people on the outsides that has permitted the dining and entertainment scene to explode in Denver and has contributed to the core's resurgence.

My argument is that Calgary is not the turd that you're portraying. Would it be my first choice in Canada? No. Toronto would be that. But it would probably be the the second with Vancouver as the third.

Fine, I'll concede that Calgary isn't terrible and that Denver can learn quite a bit from it. I still don't think that a nice skyline should be used as an indicator of the quality of a city.

Furthermore, I want to see what the assumptions are for those growth projections. Especially since oil seems to show no sign of recovery and the oil sands cost of production is really high.

I predict that its going to get a lot worse in Calgary before it gets any better.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Reesonov

I'm quite surprised by the negative impressions of Calgary here. Although Calgary is far from perfect (I grew up there but haven't lived there for a decade now), I didn't expect to hear people from Denver (with which Calgary is often compared) declare that they could NEVER live there.

Anyway, not here to defend the city at all (don't even live there anymore.) Just thought I would remark how surprised I was to stumble on these comments while lurking in this subforum (which I seldom do!)

Because Denver is the bestest city evah! We're so special that we're in a class of our own- complete with safety paper and padded floors.

[Pedalrob]

I'm not sure which project this guys is complaining about but he seems to be a bit of a nut. He's sending out mass emails to RNOs claiming the project at 29th and Tennyson is illegal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eci5Nx2OG6M

[CherryCreek]

This whole discussion of Denver vs. Calgary seems to presume that we are comparing only the vision of their respective urban planners when the most critical difference between these cities is that they are in different countries.

Canada has all sorts of different policies (not the least of which is high gas prices arising from high taxes) that nurture the development of highly dense urban cores (have you been to Vancouver? NO HIGHWAYS downtown or near downtown!!!!).

Further, Calgary has undergone much geographic expansion over the past 40 years, while Denver has been hemmed in by the Poundstone Amendment. According to Wiki-pedia, the City of Calgary has a population of 1,096,833 and a metropolitan population of 1,214,839. Thus, Calgary constitutes 90 percent of the population of of that metro.

My comparison, Denver with a 2014 estimated population of 663,862 constitutes only about 24% of the 10-county Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area (estimated 2013 population of 2,697,476) and only 20% of the Combined Statistical Area population of 3,277,309.

If Denver dominated this metro area the same way that Calgary dominates its metro area, and operated in the public policy space of a Canadian city instead of an American city, I suspect things would be different. Then again, if my auntie had b***s she'd be my uncle.

[DownhomeDenver]

Originally Posted by transistor

I just don't understand why Calgary keeps getting brought up like its a model city for Denver to aspire to. Then, whenever someone points out that its downtown is nowhere near as vibrant as Denver's, the skyline argument gets made like that is the ultimate city defining characteristic.

Because every few months or so the troll named Matt rears his ugly little head and has to make a comment about how drab or boring or old or lacking or stupid or senseless or brown or dead our skyline is...and then like clockwork someone has to chime in and feed the pig his attention. And we spend a whole day or two going on about how Denver doesn't compare to these other cities and blah blah blah. It's been the same bullshit rhetoric since the turn of the century. I don't give a shit what anyone thinks about our skyline. If there was a big "flip the bird" smilie I'd use it right now. And I'd use it on every other moron who judges a cities worth by its big tall phallic symbols.

But for you Matt here... I hope you enjoy your grumpy pussy face.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

This whole discussion of Denver vs. Calgary seems to presume that we are comparing only the vision of their respective urban planners when the most critical difference between these cities is that they are in different countries.

Canada has all sorts of different policies (not the least of which is high gas prices arising from high taxes) that nurture the development of highly dense urban cores (have you been to Vancouver? NO HIGHWAYS downtown or near downtown!!!!).

Further, Calgary has undergone much geographic expansion over the past 40 years, while Denver has been hemmed in by the Poundstone Amendment. According to Wiki-pedia, the City of Calgary has a population of 1,096,833 and a metropolitan population of 1,214,839. Thus, Calgary constitutes 90 percent of the population of of that metro.

My comparison, Denver with a 2014 estimated population of 663,862 constitutes only about 24% of the 10-county Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area (estimated 2013 population of 2,697,476) and only 20% of the Combined Statistical Area population of 3,277,309.

If Denver dominated this metro area the same way that Calgary dominates its metro area, and operated in the public policy space of a Canadian city instead of an American city, I suspect things would be different. Then again, if my auntie had b***s she'd be my uncle.

I am not sure I agree that different countries is relevant. Different cultures, maybe. But there is very little that Canada/Calgary is doing that Colorado couldn't also do. It's not like the federal government is driving our zoning/annexation/land use policies. Hawaii is in the same country as us, and they've had state level planning for 40 years.

Plenty of U.S. cities dominate their metros, mostly in the Sun Belt. They don't look like Calgary because they don't want to.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by DownhomeDenver

Because every few months or so the troll named Matt rears his ugly little head and has to make a comment about how drab or boring or old or lacking or stupid or senseless or brown or dead our skyline is...and then like clockwork someone has to chime in and feed the pig his attention. And we spend a whole day or two going on about how Denver doesn't compare to these other cities and blah blah blah. It's been the same bullshit rhetoric since the turn of the century. I don't give a shit what anyone thinks about our skyline. If there was a big "flip the bird" smilie I'd use it right now. And I'd use it on every other moron who judges a cities worth by its big tall phallic symbols.

Hey, be nice to Matt. Back in the early 2000s, when he was a regular presence, I was thought to be a normal, sane, friendly forumer. It's all relative. Neither he nor I have changed - the forum has! You guys are all too damn nice now. I blame millennials and their non-confrontational "everybody wins" 10th place "you're a champion" ribbon attitudes and all.

[Matt]

Awww, glad to see I continue to enjoy the celebrity I once did on this forum. I feel like a retired Betty White. Not nearly as active, but still a legend.

I will always have a right to my opinion that Denver's skyline is an abhorration to what a prosperous, progressive, and thriving modern metropolis should look like.

However, I never understood those who, for some odd reason, fail to realize that having a great city skyline and having a vibrant city at street level are NOT mutually exclusive. It's not an "either or" scenario. Those who believe it is can only see a city in a one-dimensional context.

The playbook has always been the same: I criticize the Denver skyline, and two things happen:

1. The "Red Herring" argument: You say Denver has a bad skyline? Well, we've got a great downtown, fine dining, bike trails, we cater to the pedestrian and cyclists, we're so progressive in so many ways and, thus, your argument about us having a dismal skyline is invalidated.

2. "False Equivalance": OK, so if I accept as true that Denver has a dismal skyline, let's take a look at how all the other cities with so-called GREAT skylines compare to Denver on a multitude of unrelated criteria, and focusing nearly exclusively on criteria where Denver outperforms them (the bashing of Calgary is a great example of this).

I've been dissing Denver's skyline for 20 years now, and seen forumers come and go since 1999. I led our city's charge in the "Minneapolis vs. Denver War of 1999". I know the game quite well, and you know what? Denver's skyline still looks like Honey Boo Boo's mother after she's done rolling around in the mud with her pigs. Late city planner Jennifer Moulton even told me in person "Yeah, our skyline sucks" (her words, verbatim). Again, having a stunning skyline and a vibrant city at street level are NOT mutually exclusive. Places like Seattle, Minneapolis, Miami, Chicago, New York, Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver and scores of cities around the world are proof positive of this. In the end, it all comes down to Denver's own insecurities about itself whenever the topic is brought up.

[bunt_q]

"But the mountains are our beat skyline."

God help us, I don't disagree with what you had to say.

[DenverInfill]

I agree that having a great city skyline and having a vibrant city at street level are not mutually exclusive, and I would think that everyone, if given the choice, would prefer to have both.

However, while these two factors may not be mutually exclusive, they are not necessarily equal in importance. If one had to choose between a downtown with a stunning, jaw-dropping skyline but that was dead at the street level and had a crappy public realm, versus a downtown with a bland, snoozer skyline but that was vibrant at the street level and had an exceptional public realm, most urbanists would choose the latter. Ultimately, having a vibrant city at the street level is more important than having a stunning skyline--if for whatever reason we don't have the energy or resources to ensure we can have both--and Jennifer Moulton would be the first to agree with that statement. But we definitely should endeavor to have both!

A key issue here is that we, the public, have a higher degree of control over the "vibrant street level" factor than we do over the "stunning skyline" factor. Many of the qualities that make for a vibrant city at the street level occur within the public realm, owned by the public, within which we can spend public money on things like streetscaping, public art, transit and other multimodal transportation facilities and services, programmed activities and events, etc. We also can control through the zoning code certain aspects of private-sector buildings at the street level, such as requiring active ground-floor uses, high degrees of facade transparency, higher quality building materials, etc. These things are relatively easy for the public to control, whether through plans, policies, or public investments.

On the other hand, we generally have less control over the architecture of a private-sector building, particularly above the street level. We can offer incentives for better design and possibly even have full architectural design review of every building from bottom to top, but those will only take us so far in ensuring a stunning skyline. Many people argue that having full architectural design review, like what we currently have in Lower Downtown, perhaps allows us to avoid the worst designs, but will rarely ensure exceptional designs. There has been some talk recently about possibly extending full architectural design review to all of Downtown, and it is certainly a debate worth having. But there are pros and cons, and having it won't necessarily ensure stunning skyscrapers. That leaves us then with things that we have very little control over like developer ego, big corporate headquarters, or other deep-pocketed do-gooders who want to pay for exceptional buildings. Unfortunately, Denver simply lacks in those categories. That leaves us in a situation where we have to convince our low-to-moderate budget developers to spend the extra money on better designs and/or convince our public officials to increase the regulatory and political pressure on developers to spend more money on their buildings.

So, I'm all on board with endeavoring for both, but getting the stunning architecture is simply a bigger challenge for a city like Denver than it is for some of the other bigger cities you mentioned. We tend to be more successful in the public realm/street-level area. However, as Denver continues to grow and land values and rent prices increase, we will probably see a commensurate increase in quality design. Of course, that makes the affordability issue even a bigger challenge...

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

But it would probably be the the second with Vancouver as the third.

Dude no, Montreal is #2, Vancouver is #3, and Calgary is #4.

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I agree that having a great city skyline and having a vibrant city at street level are not mutually exclusive, and I would think that everyone, if given the choice, would prefer to have both. However, they are not necessarily equal in importance.

I'm with Ken. Sure, having a more attractive skyline would be nice, in the same way that having an attractive city logo would be nice, or having giant pandas in the zoo would be nice. But it doesn't affect how the city functions enough for it to rise to anywhere near the top of my advocacy list.

[The Dirt]

Can we advocate for the improvement of our skyline using giant pandas?

[Sam Hill]

I think the main reason Denver ended up with a bland skyline is because the vast majority of its skyline was built practically all at once during an era when simple, rectangular buildings with very straight lines were all the rage. At the time they looked sleek and modern to most people. Now they look boring. Every big city has plenty of examples of them, but unlike Denver, most of those cities also have a substantial number of buildings that were built outside of that era – skyscrapers that were built more recently during an era when designs tended to be much more interesting, or perhaps some older art deco towers, etc. If you took any other skyline and removed all buildings except for those that were built between 1955 and 1985, you’d likely end up with a skyline that looks no better than Denver’s.

If Denver’s current boom can continue long enough for us to get a substantial number of newer towers that look more like 1144 15th Street or the Four Seasons, etc., the skyline will dramatically improve.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I agree that having a great city skyline and having a vibrant city at street level are not mutually exclusive, and I would think that everyone, if given the choice, would prefer to have both.

However, while these two factors may not be mutually exclusive, they are not necessarily equal in importance. If one had to choose between a downtown with a stunning, jaw-dropping skyline but that was dead at the street level and had a crappy public realm, versus a downtown with a bland, snoozer skyline but that was vibrant at the street level and had an exceptional public realm, most urbanists would choose the latter. Ultimately, having a vibrant city at the street level is more important than having a stunning skyline--if for whatever reason we don't have the energy or resources to ensure we can have both--and Jennifer Moulton would be the first to agree with that statement. But we definitely should endeavor to have both!

A key issue here is that we, the public, have a higher degree of control over the "vibrant street level" factor than we do over the "stunning skyline" factor. Many of the qualities that make for a vibrant city at the street level occur within the public realm, owned by the public, within which we can spend public money on things like streetscaping, public art, transit and other multimodal transportation facilities and services, programmed activities and events, etc. We also can control through the zoning code certain aspects of private-sector buildings at the street level, such as requiring active ground-floor uses, high degrees of facade transparency, higher quality building materials, etc. These things are relatively easy for the public to control, whether through plans, policies, or public investments.

On the other hand, we generally have less control over the architecture of a private-sector building, particularly above the street level. We can offer incentives for better design and possibly even have full architectural design review of every building from bottom to top, but those will only take us so far in ensuring a stunning skyline. Many people argue that having full architectural design review, like what we currently have in Lower Downtown, perhaps allows us to avoid the worst designs, but will rarely ensure exceptional designs. There has been some talk recently about possibly extending full architectural design review to all of Downtown, and it is certainly a debate worth having. But there are pros and cons, and having it won't necessarily ensure stunning skyscrapers. That leaves us then with things that we have very little control over like developer ego, big corporate headquarters, or other deep-pocketed do-gooders who want to pay for exceptional buildings. Unfortunately, Denver simply lacks in those categories. That leaves us in a situation where we have to convince our low-to-moderate budget developers to spend the extra money on better designs and/or convince our public officials to increase the regulatory and political pressure on developers to spend more money on their buildings.

So, I'm all on board with endeavoring for both, but getting the stunning architecture is simply a bigger challenge for a city like Denver than it is for some of the other bigger cities you mentioned. We tend to be more successful in the public realm/street-level area. However, as Denver continues to grow and land values and rent prices increase, we will probably see a commensurate increase in quality design. Of course, that makes the affordability issue even a bigger challenge...

Yes. If all we know about a city is that it has exceptional vibrancy at street level and world-class public realm, it’s probably pretty safe to conclude, knowing nothing else, that it’s a great city. If on the other hand all we know about a city is that it has a world-class skyline, we can’t make that conclusion at all. We still need more information.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by Matt

having a stunning skyline and a vibrant city at street level are NOT mutually exclusive.

No one ever implied that they are.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Dude no, Montreal is #2, Vancouver is #3, and Calgary is #4.

Yep.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Yes. If all we know about a city is that it has exceptional vibrancy at street level and world-class public realm, it’s probably pretty safe to conclude, knowing nothing else, that it’s a great city. If on the other hand all we know about a city is that it has a world-class skyline, we can’t make that conclusion at all. We still need more information.

While I agree with Ken and Cirrus, I think this statement takes it too far. Knowing a city is vibrant at the street level tells me it is a nice place to live. I think "great city" requires more, much more, unless we're narrowly focused on U.S. examples. Plenty of examples of cities, particularly in middle income countries and in the developing world, that are heavily focused on ego-boosting things like skylines, to boost their great city status. Many of these cities are garbage at the street level. But they are vibrant and undoubtedly great. By contrast, every European city you've never heard of has the street level we are still struggling to achieve in Denver, because we are countering decades of disinvestment and demolition. These things have to come first, but let's not kid ourselves, we're struggling to achieve what many cities simply enjoy automatically. What Matt is saying is not wrong - skylines and images matter, not for day to day quality of life, but certainly in terms of wider perception. The street level doesn't have the same marketing power.

Take this very thread as a perfect example. Somebody listed Canadian cities as Toronto #1, Vancouver #2, Calgary #3. That could just be American ignorance at play, but it's also telling. The best city in Canada might be Montreal. Historically, the top city in Canada was Montreal. At street level, probably nothing else in Canada compares to Montreal. But he completely forgot Montreal. I'd argue that is a function of its bland skyline and generally low-flung Paris-like look. But only Paris can be Paris - the lookalikes, while great places to live, don't even register on outsiders' lists. If those ego- things matter to you, and you want Denver to register on outsiders' lists, then let's not pretend that having a compelling skyline doesn't matter.

[RyanD]

I was driving on I-70 on Christmas and New Years, whipping right past Downtown Denver. Both times I looked out the window and was saddened by how dark and drab we look at night. You can barely see any buildings minus a lit spire, an 'M' shape on 1800 Larimer, some green weaves on 1999 Broadway and a bunch of logos. Honestly, it looks horrible. Like nobody's home.

So, given our skyline really isn't going to change in the way everyone wants it to, why can't we work with what we have? Light some damn buildings up. Make it look like it's a desirable place to go at night. I still don't understand why this is such a problem here. You go ANYWHERE else and their lighting kicks the pants on ours. Can you imagine Republic Plaza with some white up lights? It would look great!

That's my solution, at least for the next forseeable few years. LIGHT. DENVER. UP. And screw the neighbors opposing it.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Take this very thread as a perfect example. Somebody listed Canadian cities as Toronto #1, Vancouver #2, Calgary #3. That could just be American ignorance at play, but it's also telling. The best city in Canada might be Montreal. Historically, the top city in Canada was Montreal. At street level, probably nothing else in Canada compares to Montreal. But he completely forgot Montreal. I'd argue that is a function of its bland skyline and generally low-flung Paris-like look. But only Paris can be Paris - the lookalikes, while great places to live, don't even register on outsiders' lists. If those ego- things matter to you, and you want Denver to register on outsiders' lists, then let's not pretend that having a compelling skyline doesn't matter.

Nah, it's because: a) I haven't been to Montreal, and b) my profession has a strong presence in Toronto, Calgary, and Vancouver; but not in Montreal. What I've seen from afar (i.e. cruising the streets via Streetview) of Montreal shows a stunning city, but I'd have a hard time professionally there.

The urban nature of a city is one thing, but being able to make a good living in that city is something else. Not all of us want to work menial jobs and bike around a city while living in a studio with three other guys. I enjoy the flavor such individuals give a place, but have no desire to be one of them.