DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[seventwenty]

Ryan, your photos need more memes in them.

[Denver]

I love all the development going on at DUS but walking down there is a nightmare. There are entire stretches with construction on both sides and no sidewalks. I am a little disappointed more was not done to put temporary barriers in place for pedestrians.

[derek.berardi]

Hey folks! You're a resourceful bunch. I am needing some media evidence of the disparity between apartment vs. condo construction in the city over the past few years. Does anybody have quick access to an article pointing out those numbers? I know I've read several, but they were likely dated a year or further out and I'm struggling to find them. Anything helps!

Thanks!

[derek.berardi]

PS, may not be a skyscraper, but here's another addition to the skyline in 2017. http://www.denverite.com/elitch-gardens-building-17-story-chair-swing-21215/

[comoneymaker]

lol, "flying over the clouds at 17 stories".

[comoneymaker]

Anyone else see this? They want to tear up City Park Golf course to build a drainage ditch for i-70???

https://www.change.org/p/sign-petition-s...ublish&utm_term=mob-xs-no_src-reason_msg

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by comoneymaker

Anyone else see this? They want to tear up City Park Golf course to build a drainage ditch for i-70???

https://www.change.org/p/sign-petition-s...ublish&utm_term=mob-xs-no_src-reason_msg

Wow.... Mayor Hancock sure sounds like a terrible guy according to this petition.

Whether there is or isn't some merit to this argument, I hate the strategy of derogating complex decisions to pander to emotion in order to sway decisions. Oh my God; the trees! Someone may have their golf game affected for two years! Where is the pros and cons and proper context of the argument? I'm instantly skeptical of anyone who chooses this strategy.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by comoneymaker

Anyone else see this? They want to tear up City Park Golf course to build a drainage ditch for i-70???

https://www.change.org/p/sign-petition-s...ublish&utm_term=mob-xs-no_src-reason_msg

It is not for I-70; it is because northeast Denver floods.

[ddvmke]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

Wow.... Mayor Hancock sure sounds like a terrible guy according to this petition.

Whether there is or isn't some merit to this argument, I hate the strategy of derogating complex decisions to pander to emotion in order to sway decisions. Oh my God; the trees! Someone may have their golf game affected for two years! Where is the pros and cons and proper context of the argument? I'm instantly skeptical of anyone who chooses this strategy.

The sentiment is probably more directed towards how terrible this project is rather than how terrible he is (although he is having a bit of tunnel vision on this one). But I do think it's pretty clever how they're pushing some costs for a highway expansion down by increasing our stormwater rates.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by ddvmke

The sentiment is probably more directed towards how terrible this project is rather than how terrible he is (although he is having a bit of tunnel vision on this one). But I do think it's pretty clever how they're pushing some costs for a highway expansion down by increasing our stormwater rates.

Only terrible if you think that I-70 should be rerouted and a fancy boulevard be built in its place, cost be damned.

I'm very much against the storm water project as it would decrease the liklehood of washing out the neighborhoods north of City Park and only a flood will wipe out the NIMBY's up there.

[mr1138]

This one, to me, is beyond the pale. Attempting to tie this drainage project directly to I-70 is as murky and dishonest as using the emotional arguments Frtizdude mentions. Improvements to the drainage network leading to the outfall near the Coliseum have been on Denver's wishlist for a very long time - driven by flood mapping. The fact that doing the project sooner than later will help simplify the drainage engineering that an I-70 trench would need does NOT change the impetus for doing the project in the first place.

Good urban drainage has been a hallmark of sophisticated cities since the Cloaca Maxima. Arguing against implementing needed urban drainage improvements because of "the trees" (on a crappy golf course), and "the corrupt I-70 deal" is the very definition of backwards NIMBYism.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by mr1138

This one, to me, is beyond the pale. Attempting to tie this drainage project directly to I-70 is as murky and dishonest as using the emotional arguments Frtizdude mentions.

It's funny because everybody is doing that...

Hancock Administration to Buy 27 Properties for Drainage Project Tied to I-70

Public Works Gets Green Light to Borrow Millions for Drainage Project Tied to I-70 Widening

Cultural Landscape Foundation: I-70 Drainage Pit Endangers City Park Golf Course

City Council Passes Steeper Fees for Property Owners to Fund I-70-Related Drainage Project

Advocates fighting the I-70 expansion want to pack City Council chambers for a public hearing about a drainage project tied to the highway widening.

City Council Debates Higher Utility Bills to Pay for Drainage Project Tied to Expansion

It’s Official: Drainage Project Tied to I-70 Will Strip Golf Course Land as Costs Soar

DenPo Looks Deep Into Drainage Project Tangled Up With I-70 Boondoggle

CDOT, City Play Down Pricey Drainage Project’s Connection to Future I-70 Ditch

Etc, etc, etc...

[mr1138]

^That is really interesting and disturbing if you ask me. 4 or 5 years ago now, I was in an urban design studio at CU assessing the Stock Show/Globeville Landing area with a focus on environmental issues - brownfield cleanup, blue-green infrastructure, etc. I definitely remember seeing flood maps and documents acknowledging the flooding concerns in the area, and the fact that the existing main storm sewer is not adequate for the kinds of floods we need to plan for in Colorado. I believe that at the time, the PEIS for I-70 was still underway, and the flood documents I viewed really had nothing to do with the highway project.

Granted, there was no real timetable for improving the drainage infrastructure that I could find at the time. I assumed that the gradual South Platte River Greenway expansion, and perhaps some environmental remediation funds would ultimately cause the project to happen. The fact that the preferred alternative for I-70 would benefit from this project may have, understandably, accelerated the timetable and caused the city to shuffle some funds around. But that doesn't mean that it is the fundamental reason for the project. These scare-stories that prey on I-70 opposition are fundamentally dishonest, because this drainage infrastructure will still be needed even if the NIMBYs are somehow successful in derailing I-70.

The city would do well to give us some more documents and maps to help put the facts on the table. They talk about "daylighting" the drainageway on the project page, which would be awesome and very much in keeping with modern thinking on proper urban drainage, but then provide no real maps or detailed plans that I can find - only a sketchy drawing of a greenway with no geographic context. Presumably this stretch of the drainage would go somewhere west of Steele in the industrial lots around 38th or 39th, and avoid removing any historic homes... but again, there are no maps provided, so all we have to go off of is sensationalized reports from people like B-rad Evans. I find it impossible to envision a "daylit" greenway all the way from the Golf Course to the outfall near the Coliseum, there simply isn't the ROW. It will likely remain in a below-street storm sewer.

Edit: It looks like the project pages have been updated to include better maps. The Open Channel will indeed be in the 39th Avenue area, and the golf course detention infrastructure will enter below-grade storm sewers, not fundamentally affecting anything other than the topo lines on the golf course itself.

[TakeFive]

mr1138... Mostly over my head; what I am aware of is the Denver Storm Drainage Master Plan was updated by Matrix Design Group, Inc. in 2014.

With respect to I-70 expansion I debated briefly with someone who was passionately opposed. I asked how many of the CDOT "Open House" meetings he had attended and if he had read any of the various EIS documents created over a dozen years of effort. I got no response.

[PLANSIT]

It's extremely disingenuous.

I get that people don't like the Central I-70 project. I don't necessarily care for it myself, but it's going to happen. So.... if this is the case, why wouldn't the City take every opportunity to leverage that investment to improve longstanding (read: very much needed and planned regardless of I-70 expansion) stormwater issues in a large part of the city, on CDOT's dime? People are unbelievable.

Cities did the exact same thing with LRT and FasTracks build out. Folks joke that FT was a stormwater project that happened to include some rail infrastructure.

[comoneymaker]

found this webpage. I , like a smart person did my own research before I signed that. This is actually a great thing. More parks, new parks/ trails and a re-designed golf course.

http://www.denverite.com/north-denver-flood-plan-explained-2541/

[ddvmke]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Only terrible if you think that I-70 should be rerouted and a fancy boulevard be built in its place, cost be damned.

I'm very much against the storm water project as it would decrease the liklehood of washing out the neighborhoods north of City Park and only a flood will wipe out the NIMBY's up there.

I meant terrible as in promising reduced congestion and reconnected neighborhoods and, after spending $1.5B+, accomplishing neither. If then it's simply a highway reconstruction project, it should be debated on such merits against the potential to invest and redevelop that entire area of central Denver into a functioning tax base (and new stormwater detention) and allow traffic to flow around the city as initially intended via 270 and 25/76. (See: momentum for removal of I-345 in Dallas as example of what we should be doing)

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by comoneymaker

found this webpage. I , like a smart person did my own research before I signed that. This is actually a great thing. More parks, new parks/ trails and a re-designed golf course.

http://www.denverite.com/north-denver-flood-plan-explained-2541/

Thank you!

I believe that was written before I started following the site. That's a very good piece by Andrew Kenney who I've found to be very good generally.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by ddvmke

I meant terrible as in promising reduced congestion and reconnected neighborhoods and, after spending $1.5B+, accomplishing neither. If then it's simply a highway reconstruction project, it should be debated on such merits against the potential to invest and redevelop that entire area of central Denver into a functioning tax base (and new stormwater detention) and allow traffic to flow around the city as initially intended via 270 and 25/76. (See: momentum for removal of I-345 in Dallas as example of what we should be doing)

Interstate 70 is a major East-West commercial corridor that has existed since the 1950's. It benefits downtown, the city, the metro area, the mountains, the state and the region. For decades it was surrounded by industrial brown fields.

CDOT has to be one of the worst funded state DOT's in the country especially considering Colorado's growth. Two similar states with growth, Georgia and Washington last year each increased their state DOT funding by a $billion per year. Is it any wonder that according to USDOT as reported by Business Insider that Colorado is tied for the 6th worst roads in the country?

With respect to Interstate 345 in Dallas that is nothing more than a 1.4-mile-long shortcut for convenience. Why would it be any big deal to tear that down? With respect to TxDOT and Dallas if they were dealing with a critical commercial corridor like I-70 it would have been rebuilt and completed years ago. When is the last time you compared TxDOT funding to Colorado? Hint: CNBC rates Texas 9th best for infrastructure despite dealing with tremendous growth.

I-70 expansion has been needed for a long time; it has been over a dozen years of painstaking process for CDOT to determine how best to proceed. There has been more than ample time for Colorado to raise the gas tax like other states have done to obtain the critical funding they have needed. If metro area residents much preferred to detour I-70 there's also been more than enough time to create an initiative specific to transportation funding for the metro area. As far as I'm aware nobody or group has offered to write out a big check for the cost of such a highly questionable idea. The only way CDOT has been able to move forward on many critical projects is by utilizing a P3 as they will with the I-70 expansion.

As far as reduced congestion that is the purpose of utilizing toll lanes. With respect to "induced demand" that is the silliest argument I've ever heard. Of course expansion invites additional traffic. That's part of the purpose since it's needed in the 1st place.

Lastly, what CDOT will do is no different that what Phoenix accomplished 25 years ago. If you're not fond of the park deck, fine, but it works OK down here. In any case I-10 is no big deal and essentially divides downtown from mid-town.

[RyanD]

Well, I don't really need to use parking garages anymore! YAY!

Welcome to the Skyline 1401 Lawrence!