DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I'm totally with you here. The problem with Elitches is that it has been trying to compete as a "Six Flags" style park for decades, with less than half the rides and no room to expand.

I do disagree but your suggestion of re-thinking the business model has much merit.

These 'guys' have no interest in building a 'Six Flags' somewhere else. They have no penis envy. If somebody else wants to take on that risk, so be it. They've actually made significant investments into Elitches in recent years. Beside, there's more than enough 'parking lot' land available for redevelopment to keep them busy for the next couple of decades, I'd guess. It will presumably take a decade to get all their ducks in a row to break ground on the first project.

I don't think most realize how much of a cash cow something like Elitches can be. With respect to the Pepsi Center land, while I wouldn't be surprised to see development there as well I'm certain that Kroenke is happy as a lark to own the site. While the land may be 'too' valuable I'll assume that Kroenke's philosophy is that it will be even more valuable after a few more decades.

Originally Posted by mr1138

That said, it is definitely fun to have on the skyline, is a big part of our city's history, and I think could have a long future if they could re-think the business model...

And no, theme parks are not "tacky as hell" just because one fails to understand why others find them fun.

Yes, this, very impressive!




Rendering and photo courtesy of Elitch Gardens

And yes, even tacky can be cool, especially at night.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

And yes, even tacky can be cool, especially at night.

Totally! Perfect pictures. Lakeside is even better with all its cool old art deco neon (though sadly much of it got HAMMERED by this spring's hailstorm). My personal favorite thing about Elitches has always been the big white roller coaster as part of the Denver skyline...



I still enjoy Elitches, though admittedly haven't been in over 5 years (because they haven't added a large new coaster since the Mind Eraser when I was in middle school). These days I prefer Water World. I have been a thrill park nut since I was a kid- I guess that makes me a country bumpkin .

Including parking, the park has about 65 acres. Most parks with the nerve to charge $40 for admission are closer to 150-300+ acres. Worlds of Fun, my favorite prototype for this kind of thing, has 7 coasters... Elitches has 4. Elitches simply isn't the kind of park that can sustain this way forever, though I'm sure you're right, it's still a cash cow. A new and larger park outside of downtown, I would imagine, won't be another re-location of Elitches, but rather a brand new business venture of some kind.

But given its history, location, and classic rides like the carousel, the classic wooden coaster, and the Ferris wheel, I can't help but dream up ways for it to co-exist with something larger. And I legitimately think that something like the European examples, with open gates more like a public park, could be given an honest try here in the states.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Denvergotback

... one thing Denver does better than most cities in America is they have almost all of their big attractions in the city's core (outside of the mountains). It helps make downtown as vibrant as it is.

I mean nobody thinks going to downtown Houston or Phoenix is awesome.

BTW, a HEARTY WELCOME. Your instantly a positive contributor.

Thanks for making this point; it goes to old axes I still need to grind from time to time. It goes to more recent arrivals that lack the perspective of history.

There's also a growing number of well-intended city folk who, when it comes to transit especially, act like suburbanites are the enemy and suburbs are merely irrelevant trash.

There was a time, not all that long ago if you can reflect over a few decades, that downtown Denver was not the cat's meow but more like the cat's litterbox. Over the years the suburbs have joined to support the core Capitol City as the primary center of sports and culture as opposed to competing with them. Phoenix is an ideal example of what happens when all the metro cities compete rather than cooperate.

It's but one example but the CEO of the state's largest public company is a yuge supporter of the Denver Zoo. The City of Denver needs to be welcoming and appreciate the contributions of all their good friends and neighbors regardless of their residence address.

[Pencil]

Denver looks amazing and is somewhere I want to move to (as much as I love Salt Lake City) when I am older but heard that people from Colorado don't like outsiders which would be something that puts me off

[semiurban]

Originally Posted by Pencil

Denver looks amazing and is somewhere I want to move to when I am older but heard that people from Colorado don't like outsiders which would be something that puts me off

Most of us here are outsiders. Just don't be from TX

Interesting new public art display along the south bound I-25 lanes:

https://app.oxblue.com/open/confluentdev/16platte

[corey]

I'm REALLY sad to hear the neon signs at Lakeside got hammered by hail. I definitely hope they all get restored quickly. I LOVE Lakeside! As for Elitches, I'm perfectly fine if it never moved. The land along the river where it is located doesn't need to be redeveloped. Yes, the parking could be put into garages and the parking lots could be developed for a higher use. I would rather see the Pepsi Center torn down and rebuilt into more of a Staples Center and Sacramento Kings multi-use, entertainment center, design. I was never in love with the looks of the Pepsi Center any way. The American Airlines Arena (I think that is what it is called) is an awesome looking arena. I haven't been inside it so I can't say how large it is or how well it functions. Barklay Arena in Brooklyn is nice also.

[corey]

Has anything happened with the Cottrell's building on 16th? I thought it was supposed to be turned into a restaurant.

[enjo13]

Anyone know why the parking lot on the north side of 15th/stout is fenced off?

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by enjo13

Anyone know why the parking lot on the north side of 15th/stout is fenced off?

Dual-brand hotel going up there.

[DenBronco8]

Looks like every building over 25,000 ft will be required to have a green roof now. Wonder if that will drive away business or not.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by corey

I would rather see the Pepsi Center torn down and rebuilt into more of a Staples Center and Sacramento Kings multi-use, entertainment center, design. I was never in love with the looks of the Pepsi Center any way.

I would rather have Kate Uptown give me a bubble bath every night. The odds are probably about the same..

[LooksLikeForever]

So it appears that Denver Ordinance 300 (the green roof initiative) is about to pass: http://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/07/green-roof-initiative-denver-results/

How do we collectively feel about this, now that we know the result? While I think green roofs are something that should be encouraged, I'm not sure if a sweeping mandate is the best way to do it. Plus: what about the increased water usage for 'living' green roofs, or what about when a hail storm comes through and decimates whatever solar panels are constructed? Will those costs entirely be shouldered by the property owners, and subsequently passed on to the tenants (apartment renters in high-rises over 4 stories, or perhaps restaurants and shops)?

It appears that City Council has the option to repeal the regulations or make changes with a two-thirds majority. I wonder if Ordinance 300 passing will finally encourage City Council to look at this issue seriously and perhaps institute some meaningful requirements that are a little more finely-tuned than 300.

I'm conflicted: on one hand I recognize the need to combat climate change and improve our quality of life with these measures, but at what cost? Will we just encourage development to move out of the City of Denver, thus encouraging sprawl and defeating whatever benefits are achieved in the city limits?

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by LooksLikeForever

So it appears that Denver Ordinance 300 (the green roof initiative) is about to pass: http://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/07/green-roof-initiative-denver-results/

How do we collectively feel about this, now that we know the result? While I think green roofs are something that should be encouraged, I'm not sure if a sweeping mandate is the best way to do it. Plus: what about the increased water usage for 'living' green roofs, or what about when a hail storm comes through and decimates whatever solar panels are constructed? Will those costs entirely be shouldered by the property owners, and subsequently passed on to the tenants (apartment renters in high-rises over 4 stories, or perhaps restaurants and shops)?

It appears that City Council has the option to repeal the regulations or make changes with a two-thirds majority. I wonder if Ordinance 300 passing will finally encourage City Council to look at this issue seriously and perhaps institute some meaningful requirements that are a little more finely-tuned than 300.

I'm conflicted: on one hand I recognize the need to combat climate change and improve our quality of life with these measures, but at what cost? Will we just encourage development to move out of the City of Denver, thus encouraging sprawl and defeating whatever benefits are achieved in the city limits?

This is just a Denver ordinance right? What worries me is that developers are going to be like, hey I don't have to follow this in Glendale, Lakewood, Englewood, Littleton, Aurora, Lone Tree, Highlands Ranch, Golden, Thronton, Westminister, Commerce City, Superior, Louisville, Broomfield, Centennial, Greenwood Village so I'll save a good amount of money and just build there. Or we're going to get a lot of even cheaper construction to offset the costs.

I voted no for this because it's not a statewide ordinance and I truly think it is going to hurt Denver's development. It's, as Hancock said, "too much too fast". I'm all for saving the environment but this is just going to drive development out of the city. I really hope they fine tune this.

[transistor]

Originally Posted by LooksLikeForever

So it appears that Denver Ordinance 300 (the green roof initiative) is about to pass: http://www.denverpost.com/2017/11/07/green-roof-initiative-denver-results/

How do we collectively feel about this, now that we know the result? While I think green roofs are something that should be encouraged, I'm not sure if a sweeping mandate is the best way to do it. Plus: what about the increased water usage for 'living' green roofs, or what about when a hail storm comes through and decimates whatever solar panels are constructed?

I work in solar, and hail while an issue, has to usually be of cataclysmic proportions to destroy a cell. NREL even has something called a "hail gun" which essentially fires balls of ice fast as hell into solar panels to test their ability to withstand this.

The trees and grass will get wrecked though yeah.

Check this video. Solar cells are more resilient than your house.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6v2lDa8Hos

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.businessden.com/2017/11/08/la...b1506f0c-a2ddcbc566-147998669#newsletter

[twister244]

This one appeared to fly under the radar a bit yesterday....

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/...7-denver-hotels-raise-own-taxes-for.html

Seems like a win-win though.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by RyanD

This is just a Denver ordinance right? What worries me is that developers are going to be like, hey I don't have to follow this in Glendale, Lakewood, Englewood, Littleton, Aurora, Lone Tree, Highlands Ranch, Golden, Thronton, Westminister, Commerce City, Superior, Louisville, Broomfield, Centennial, Greenwood Village so I'll save a good amount of money and just build there. Or we're going to get a lot of even cheaper construction to offset the costs.

I voted no for this because it's not a statewide ordinance and I truly think it is going to hurt Denver's development. It's, as Hancock said, "too much too fast". I'm all for saving the environment but this is just going to drive development out of the city. I really hope they fine tune this.

I think the City Council will be quick to adjust it in six months time. Comrade Espinoza will probably resist, but once local property owners in Globeville talk about how they will be crippled by costly roof replacements he'll hop on board. It's well-meaning, but needs some serious adjustment to minimize the impact. A more impactful initiative would have been to increase possible building density city-wide, but that wouldn't have gotten the attention of voters and be vehemently opposed by groups like Denver Fugly that don't realize that the majority of their followers are NIMBY's- not mere architectural critics.

Though this might lead to a mini-boom in the next few months as projects in the pipeline are fast-tracked to get going before the 1.1.18 effective date.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

I would rather have Kate Uptown give me a bubble bath every night. The odds are probably about the same..

Especially now that Kate just married Justin Verlander of the Houston Astros.

The problem is likely that tee vee revenues dwarf arena revenue so why build a new arena?

Originally Posted by LooksLikeForever

While I think green roofs are something that should be encouraged, I'm not sure if a sweeping mandate is the best way to do it.

Not a fan of mandates nor Nanny Govt... although this was voter approved.

Originally Posted by RyanD

I truly think it is going to hurt Denver's development. It's, as Hancock said, "too much too fast". I'm all for saving the environment but this is just going to drive development out of the city. I really hope they fine tune this.

Encouraging more development outside of downtown is a good, not bad idea but this is admittedly a poor way to go about it.

[The Dirt]

Modera Cap Hill Construction Cam:
https://app.oxblue.com/open/residentialdemo4

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by yaklof

Project is dead and land is for sale off market right now.

Is this a definite? I just passed by for the first time in a couple of weeks and it looks like there is definitely more dirt moved around and new heavy equipment on the site...