DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Unfortunately, if you've read the stupidity here, perhaps supplemented with a little bit of facebook drivel from the likes of Denver Fugly, you are fully up on the pulse of Denver these days. Think the piousness and hypocrisy of San Francisco, with more white people, sloppier dress, and beer>wine. Or Boulder on steroids. (Wait, did I just describe Portland?)

Most of your posts sound like the disgruntled rumblings of a conservative boomer who is drowning in a pool of cultural resentment. Is there a model that you think Denver should follow as it develops or do your contributions not extend beyond your complaints about the fact that Denver is a liberal city?

[seventwentyone]

Oh are we fighting one another still? In that case, Cirrus, I still dislike your reasoned posts.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Most of your posts sound like the disgruntled rumblings of a conservative boomer who is drowning in a pool of cultural resentment. Is there a model that you think Denver should follow as it develops or do your contributions not extend beyond your complaints about the fact that Denver is a liberal city?

We were a liberal city long before the current NIMBY/BANANA undercurrents started to gain real traction and slowly strangle the Denver that could still do big things. Denver was a liberal city back when it had almost nothing in common with Boulder. It has nothing to do with Denver being a liberal city. There are liberal places that still make big plans and have big visions. And then there are liberal that reject everything. Whether it's because of faux environmentalism (of the SF/Boulder variety), or symbolic anti-corporatism (of the Queens/Amazon/AOC variety), or just plain anti-everything-ism, it doesn't matter. We were the former, now we are becoming the latter.

There are still more liberal places nationwide that are like the old Denver than there are places like the Denver we are becoming. Do I lament this evolution? Absolutely. But there's a big difference between being a disgruntled conservative boomer (not me) and thinking most of the West Coast and Boulder are really 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 urban models to follow (that's me).

One example of the dichotomy (not a perfect analogue, but I happen to have just been reading this): https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn.amppr...5-bffc3a39f6d3_story.html?outputType=amp

Give me more Northern Virginia and less Maryland. Both are blue places. (Whether they are "liberal" as you see it, I am not sure.)

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Ok that's a useful perspective. There's NIMBYism here but not the Boulder, Lakewood, and Golden variety where development is artificially limited. Hancock beat out his more liberal challengers, the camping ban was overwhelmingly affirmed, group living was expanded to the entire city, and the Green Roof Initiative was immensely altered to accommodate private business interests. There are obviously still problems with our zoning and odd sentiments regarding historical preservation but Denver is not SF, Portland, or Boulder as far as I can see. If we were anticorporate, I fail to see how we seem to attract so many corporations. What, if any, specific changes on a governmental or cultural level do you think Denver would benefit from? I'm just not so sure that it is as much of a cult of wokeism as one might find in the bay area or in Brooklyn

[Brainpathology]

It's weird that those advocating for allowing change in the cityscape by replacing ugly, under-dense, poorly planned, or underused buildings or lots are being labeled as disgruntled conservatives and those that are advocating for preserving the status quo at the absolute expense of everything else including affordability or opportunity for more people (including the poor, middle class and in Denver's case anyone not rich) to enjoy the city are calling themselves liberal.

Or maybe Denverites are just falling into the trap that makes me resent so many secs of religion and politics by proclaiming themselves whatever word they are convinced is the best thing to be, in this case "liberal" while not caring one bit how their actions define what's really going on to anyone with even the most tenuous grasp on reality.

(this isn't meant as a direct response to the post immediately preceding mine btw)

[SirLucasTheGreat]

I understand that you say your comment is not responsive to the preceding post but for whatever it is worth, I'm all for replacing ugly, under-dense, poorly planned, or underused buildings or lots. I did not intend my prior comments to at all suggest otherwise. Communication failure on my end perhaps.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

One example of the dichotomy (not a perfect analogue, but I happen to have just been reading this): https://www-washingtonpost-com.cdn.amppr...5-bffc3a39f6d3_story.html?outputType=amp

Give me more Northern Virginia and less Maryland. Both are blue places. (Whether they are "liberal" as you see it, I am not sure.)

LOL ho boy. Here is what I said about that article on Twitter:

It's very worth noting that VA HOT lane plans arose from widenings being defeated, and only became politically possible when the tolls were *required* to pay for transit service. VA is not remotely as simple as "highways yay."

What is fair though is that VA accomplishes more than MD. VA's institutions are set up to weather changes in the governor's mansion and still get things done. MD's... aren't.

If you'd like to talk about the specific institutional differences in MD and VA that result in this, I know a lot about them both. It's less about NIMBYism and more about government structure and how money flows. Both of them give NIMBYs far less power than anywhere in Colorado.

[TakeFive]

Speaking as a disgruntled Boomer...

For the longest time Colorado was more red than blue; I was a happy liberal. The good news is that while the statehouse was red the voters more typically elected a Dem Governor. It made for sound compromises. I always believed the state benefited from its purple hue.

Historically, Colorado has reflected a healthy 'rugged individualism' but on the whole was a practical place even as it became decidedly purple. Denver, itself while politically liberal also reflected a western pragmatism.

Lots of Republicans feel their party has moved away from where they STILL are. The same could be said for Democrats. Many long-time Dems feel the party is moving waay too fast and too far to the left. It's why there are now as many 'unaffiliated' voters in Colorado as Dems or Republicans.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/el...nged-their-party-affiliations-since-2014

Since 2014, nearly 240,000 voters have chosen to switch their party affiliations. Many of those who decided to switch left one of the two main political parties to become unaffiliated voters.

“You’ve got more than a half-million new voters and most of those are 40 or under, and most of those are registering as unaffiliated,” Fish said.

They may vote primarily Dem today but I'd consider that tenuous.

Both Polis and Hancock (in their own way) are progressive but both have long-time Colorado roots which includes a good bit of pragmatism.

Originally Posted by Cirrus

LOL ho boy. Here is what I said about that article on Twitter:

I remember well the construction of the Silver Line to Tyson's Corner.

Just an observation

Team Biden isn't going to be able to pass their large infrastructure bill. They don't have the votes, not even for reconciliation.

[TakeFive]

The count is in and Colorado wins

States that voted for Biden lose 3 net House seats after Census count
April 26, 2021 - Axios

Axios has an easy to visualize map of changes. Unsurprisingly the Rust Belt lost seats.

By the numbers: California — the nation's most populous state — is losing a seat for the first time in history.

• Other states losing one: Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
• The shifting — but still very red — state of Texas will pick up two of the reapportioned seats. Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina and Oregon will also gain one seat each.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Yeah, maybe don't make straw man arguments, please.

Also, you can't only preserve the tower. The two story concrete structure to the north with no windows, articulation, or any kind of feature not resembling a cardboard box was built at the same time and would be preserved, as well. Never mind the fact that the interior is virtually unusable for anything other than a 1970s TV studio, something that 7 News no longer wants. At the end of the day, your taste versus everyone else's tastes doesn't matter because you have no business telling someone else what to do with their property. If youwant to save it, then get together with the other 3 people and buy it. I would support that.

Who is saying it's all or nothing (besides you)? That's insane.

And you want to talk about straw man arguments... anyway, back to the discussion about how Denver can become more like Dallas...

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

you want to talk about straw man arguments... anyway, back to the discussion about how Denver can become more like Dallas...

I assume this is satire and we're being trolled.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by gopokes21

And you want to talk about straw man arguments... anyway, back to the discussion about how Denver can become more like Dallas...

Step one: Import more Texans and there over-inflated sense of superiority.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I assume this is satire and we're being trolled.

I asked who is saying it's all or nothing? Are you capable of substantive conversation, or do you just go into attack mode when people in other cities want to preserve their mid-century modern stuff?

By the way, just for the record, our Landmarks Commission voted overwhelmingly last week to preserve the corner tower and City Council is very likely to agree. You shouldn't troll/attack/gaslight those who are actually in the majority on an issue.

This YIMBY dogma is getting to be too much.

[The Dirt]

Since the north and south sides of the building were built together, they are considered one structure. Landmark preservation would preserve either the entire structure or not. Any side deals where the hostile historic designation is retracted could preserve just the tower, however. Not my preference, but better than trying to save the whole monstrosity.

Do you truly think that you're in the majority? You're really out of touch if you think that the majority of people want to preserve that dog turd of a building. The fact that you're resorting to personal attacks means that you've already resigned to having lost the substantive argument about the merits of the building's architecture and would rather take low shots at everyone who disagrees with you (and that's pretty much everyone here, at least).

As I've said before, none of our tastes in architecture really matter, though. What you're saying is that you'd like Channel 7 to bear the brunt of your aesthetic needs and desires despite you having zero financial stake in the building. Maybe try practicing some empathy and realizing that your crying and whining has real work consequences on other people.

[gopokes21]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Since the north and south sides of the building were built together, they are considered one structure. Landmark preservation would preserve either the entire structure or not. Any side deals where the hostile historic designation is retracted could preserve just the tower, however. Not my preference, but better than trying to save the whole monstrosity.

Do you truly think that you're in the majority? You're really out of touch if you think that the majority of people want to preserve that dog turd of a building. The fact that you're resorting to personal attacks means that you've already resigned to having lost the substantive argument about the merits of the building's architecture and would rather take low shots at everyone who disagrees with you (and that's pretty much everyone here, at least).

As I've said before, none of our tastes in architecture really matter, though. What you're saying is that you'd like Channel 7 to bear the brunt of your aesthetic needs and desires despite you having zero financial stake in the building. Maybe try practicing some empathy and realizing that your crying and whining has real work consequences on other people.

1. What low shot did I take? It's true that YIMBY wants to turn this city into Dallas, and that's all I've said - FWIW I'm glad you still view that as an insult, but do a little retrospection.

2. It's not about Channel 7 or any other applicant. It's about the process and conforming to uniform standards and guidelines that produce the city's desired outcomes.

You've made this all very personal when it just isn't. That said, I too am optimistic that a compromise could preserve the (limited) architectural significance while also maximizing density. In fact, for like the 20th time, such a compromise is the only way this site is going above 12 stories as-currently zoned. You wanted density, right?

[TakeFive]

Back to the substantive...

Private property rights are near and dear to my heart

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

If Ch7 owner wants to sell, they don't deserve to have it designated historical and have their ownership potential hamstrung by 3 random 🞵🞵🞵 "neighbors".

Originally Posted by The Dirt

At the end of the day, your taste versus everyone else's tastes doesn't matter because you have no business telling someone else what to do with their property.

Just because a property can check a few boxes and arbitrarily qualify for consideration doesn't mean it's a GOOD candidate for preservation. With respect to private property rights there should be a very high bar to win approval against the owners objection.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/...ing-landmark-property-markets-group.html

In November, Scripps applied for a Certificate of Demolition Eligibility from the City, which essentially would clear the way for demolition of the buildings within the following five years. The vast majority of demolition-related applications are approved by city planners within a matter of days, but a select number of buildings each year — about 5% in 2019 — are determined by city staff to have the potential for landmark designation, and a notice is posted on the site that gives local residents the chance to file a landmark-designation application.

So how often do such applications for historical designation succeed

In the past, several City Council members have voiced their reluctance to make a ruling in cases in which the owner of the property opposes a landmark designation. District 7 councilman Jolon Clark has called such decisions "heartbreaking."

Owner-opposed landmark-designation applications are in fact a rarity. Denver City Council has approved just one such application, for the former Beth Eden Baptist Church building at 3241 Lowell Blvd.

So a grand total of one has been approved.

Of all the parties interested in buying the property, not one was interested in preserving it. It's an ugly duckling unfit for adaptive reuse.

[twister244]

I'm all for preserving historic urbanism where it exists in Denver (Molly Brown house for example), but the Channel 7 building is just plain awful. Further, it doesn't have historical significance..... It's a TV studio.

I don't get it.... Denver seems to have this warped sense of what's historic urbanism, or worth preserving. Seeing people protesting right now to save Casa Bonita makes me want to vomit. Maybe some of these people haven't been to cities where you really see true historic urbanism worth preserving.

Denver has some pockets of this (LoDo, parts of Cap Hill), but overall, Denver just doesn't have vast swaths of the city worth saving. It's not a knack on Denver as it was a city that took a very different path compared to Northern/Easter cities, but it's worth taking note of that.

[jhwk]

Originally Posted by twister244

I'm all for preserving historic urbanism where it exists in Denver (Molly Brown house for example), but the Channel 7 building is just plain awful. Further, it doesn't have historical significance..... It's a TV studio.

I don't get it.... Denver seems to have this warped sense of what's historic urbanism, or worth preserving. Seeing people protesting right now to save Casa Bonita makes me want to vomit. Maybe some of these people haven't been to cities where you really see true historic urbanism worth preserving.

Denver has some pockets of this (LoDo, parts of Cap Hill), but overall, Denver just doesn't have vast swaths of the city worth saving. It's not a knack on Denver as it was a city that took a very different path compared to Northern/Easter cities, but it's worth taking note of that.

It’s half BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) like the group preserving Denver 7 and half people being upset that a business they like is closing and assuming it’s the building’s fault like Tom’s.

[gopokes21]

I agree that the entire site is a dump in its current state, but just the corner tower by itself is a diamond in the rough. There's a lot of visible deferred maintenance, windows need replaced, the smooth corner needs a vertical element (mural, lights, clock, anything), and the street-level plaza has to be gutted and opened-up.

I'm all for density and infill nearly everywhere, but we should also preserve landmark opportunities. I think we can maximize high-density infill while still preserving historic jewels which include quirky mid-century landmarks. People who side with developers often like to minimize historic architecture to just Victorian or whatever stereotype fits their narrative, so these arguments aren't surprising.

Originally Posted by twister244

Denver has some pockets of this (LoDo, parts of Cap Hill), but overall, Denver just doesn't have vast swaths of the city worth saving. It's not a knack on Denver as it was a city that took a very different path compared to Northern/Easter cities, but it's worth taking note of that.

I just can't imagine living in Denver and having that much antipathy for it. It's kind of an expensive place to live if you hate it. I would also argue that "different path compared to Northern/Eastern cities" means tearing down most of our historic dense building stock, and here we are again.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

This is the weirdest post I have read here in a long time. I have to ask, how old are you? The “infill practically happens on autopilot in Denver” comment makes me think you’re not yet 30.

This comment here is also a gem. Not that there is anything wrong with being under Denver's median age (or "30" lol), but you have to be not yet 30 if you fail to realize developers want to be here regardless of any rezoning difficulty. Denver has clearly risen as a top market for big money to safe harbor their capital in the form of as many development deals as possible. I can't even keep count how many active deals Greystone alone has. I don't worry about Denver getting dozens of shiny new Texas donuts each year. I do worry about preserving gems, even diamonds in the rough, that may be in their way.

The only way to maintain a City's historic fabric is to extend HP protections to diamonds in the rough. Otherwise demolition by neglect is the way out, just look at East Colfax right now. I would strongly advocate clearly defining potentially eligible historic resources and non-eligible sites so that developers can better focus on the type of opportunity they want instead of arguing every site.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by twister244

Seeing people protesting right now to save Casa Bonita makes me want to vomit. Maybe some of these people haven't been to cities where you really see true historic urbanism worth preserving.

It helps if you know what your talking about.


n case you're new to town, this is Casa Bonita/Evan Semón

With respect to Casa Bonita, those aren't protestors for historic property preservation; it's all about the business and its long-standing tradition.

The push to save Casa Bonita is rooted in broader fears that the pandemic is changing Denver
April 25. 2021 By Kevin Beaty - Denverite

Rick Griffith yelled the battle cry, surrounded by two guys in monkey suits. It was a small rally for Casa Bonita, the famed Lakewood restaurant that’s really more of an experience. There weren’t a lot of people beside him on West Colfax Avenue, but it was clear the message resonated. Endless honks poured from the street as drivers passed by.

What's the story here?

After 47 years in business, Casa Bonita’s owners filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection earlier this month. It doesn’t mean the immersive eatery will necessarily disappear – it’s an opportunity for it to restructure its finances – but the move prompted a lot of nostalgia and concern from metro residents. If you grew up in the area, you probably have a very soft spot in your heart for Casa Bonita’s weirdness, a memory of childhood wonder rooted in its tropical mists, pirate’s cave and, yes, cliff diving.

I'm not necessarily a Fanboy of Casa Bonita but has been beloved by lots of people - especially children - over the decades.