DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

There has been discussions on “remodeling” Speer Boulevard and rerouting a part of Cherry Creek through downtown. It’s been noted that parallel thouroughfares along a below ground bike path/creek does not entice a walkable environment. And as the city grows with new additions in Auraria campus, Kroenke properties, and River Mile, some proposals are being put out there to remove one line of traffic along Speer and turn it into an extended promenade styled after European parks with trees, walking trails, plenty of tree canopy, and accessible access to the creek. Not sure how far this promenade would go (possibly to Cherry Creek itself), but it could become Denver’s version of a lengthy Central Park, where people can play, eat, and mingle outside of the growing city. People would complain about slower commute times along Speer, but I think it would be a great asset for the city in the long run. Thoughts?

It has my vote. To me, this is the role of government. If you look at where Denver has generally had broad success, it's less in services and moreso in the built environment. 16th St Mall - huge success. South Broadway infrastructure - huge success. RiNo infrastructure - huge success. FasTracks - huge success. Convention center and 4th St streetscape - huge success. Union Station cleanup and infrastructure - huge success. Platte Valley parks, connections, infrastructure - huge success.

These are some of the more recent efforts but the City has MANY successes going back to it's founding. I really wish government concentrated more on building grand things that markedly increase the opportunity for enjoyment for many than the entrenched service model serving a relatively tiny portion of the population it has been geared toward since the 1960's. Some may say that's an entitled point of view (it is) but those things last forever and anyone can enjoy them so long as they are equitably dispersed throughout a City (which historically they haven't been).

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I agree it would be a great park amenity paralleling what is the city’s current preeminent urban spine.

Unless this comes along with a light rail expansion in-city (both Speer and W. Colfax are better corridors for light rail than any among those served by the current system), I don’t see how the transportation system (inc. roads) can handle that loss of total capacity.

And if that can’t be done, it isn’t as if Denver is hurting for massive amounts of parkspace, some of the best of which is in this corridor or near it.

Loss of capacity - not necessarily. The same capacity could move in 2 lanes each way, it would just take twice as long. For a major City, to be able to travel at 50+ MPH through a City center is ridiculous. Denver can absolutely afford to lose lanes on Speer to vehicles.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

...Unless this comes along with a light rail expansion in-city (both Speer and W. Colfax are better corridors for light rail than any among those served by the current system), I don’t see how the transportation system (inc. roads) can handle that loss of total capacity...

^Specifically with regard to this comment, I am convinced that City leaders do not want a convenient Cherry Creek to Downtown connection of any kind because Cherry Creek is and always has been a downtown retail killer. Even at the height of activity in say 2019, downtown retail was still completely overshadowed by Cherry Creek. If an easy connection is made between Downtown and Cherry Creek, it will completely gut downtown of foot traffic, tourism, etc and kill any hopes that downtown has of offering meaningfully enjoyable retail - unless we build 50,000 homes in the core. In most ways, I agree with City leaders (supposing that is their viewpoint).

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Loss of capacity - not necessarily. The same capacity could move in 2 lanes each way, it would just take twice as long. For a major City, to be able to travel at 50+ MPH through a City center is ridiculous. Denver can absolutely afford to lose lanes on Speer to vehicles.

If it takes twice as long, then by definition there has been a loss of capacity. Words have meaning, and that’s what it means: if the supply of line-miles is reduced and cannot meet the demand in an equivalent manner as before, the road has lost capacity. Where, how, and by what method are we going to offset this?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by laniroj

^Specifically with regard to this comment, I am convinced that City leaders do not want a convenient Cherry Creek to Downtown connection of any kind because Cherry Creek is and always has been a downtown retail killer. Even at the height of activity in say 2019, downtown retail was still completely overshadowed by Cherry Creek. If an easy connection is made between Downtown and Cherry Creek, it will completely gut downtown of foot traffic, tourism, etc and kill any hopes that downtown has of offering meaningfully enjoyable retail - unless we build 50,000 homes in the core. In most ways, I agree with City leaders (supposing that is their viewpoint).

This is pretty bad logic. By the same logic, the Domain should have already killed Downtown Austin with the rail connection between the two.

Further, if Downtown Denver is that vulnerable to collapse, then it isn’t on sound economic footing and deserves to collapse and be replaced by something better.

Edited to Add: if Cherry Creek were gonna kill DT, it would have done it with or without rail. It isn’t, so I doubt it ever could.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

If it takes twice as long, then by definition there has been a loss of capacity. Words have meaning, and that’s what it means: if the supply of line-miles is reduced and cannot meet the demand in an equivalent manner as before, the road has lost capacity. Where, how, and by what method are we going to offset this?

If the standard is travelling through a City center at 50 MPH, then yes we have lost capacity. That is an absurd threshold which I propose lowering. If one can get through a City center at 30 MPH, I'd say that's good enough and an acceptable "capacity" because IMO parks and pedestrian/bicycle enjoyment takes priority over moving vehicles at high speeds where those speeds should be much lower.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

This is pretty bad logic. By the same logic, the Domain should have already killed Downtown Austin with the rail connection between the two.

Further, if Downtown Denver is that vulnerable to collapse, then it isn’t on sound economic footing and deserves to collapse and be replaced by something better.

Edited to Add: if Cherry Creek were gonna kill DT, it would have done it with or without rail. It isn’t, so I doubt it ever could.

It's not bad logic, this exact dynamic has been playing out for 40 years. It's an existing condition, it's not theoretical. Maybe Bunt has sales tax analysis of some sort comparing the two destinations? Otherwise, anecdotal info is more than enough. Look at all of the retail failures in the past 20 years alone. Going back 40 years, it's an even more devastating analysis.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by laniroj

It's not bad logic, this exact dynamic has been playing out for 40 years. It's an existing condition, it's not theoretical. Maybe Bunt has sales tax analysis of some sort comparing the two destinations? Otherwise, anecdotal info is more than enough. Look at all of the retail failures in the past 20 years alone. Going back 40 years, it's an even more devastating analysis.

You missed my key point:

If it can’t compete, then it shouldn’t exist in its current form. All you are doing is perpetuating bad businesses, sucking up human talent whose time could be better spent elsewhere, all on the premise that our public transportation network should protect downtown businesses rather than move people around effeciently to the places where they work and want to shop. If a business owner isn’t supplying a quality destination, that is their fault (not the city’s).

Sounds like transportation infrastructure policy here is picking winners and losers among businesses rather than providing a neutral public service. Sounds about right for Denver’s liberal elite.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by laniroj

If the standard is travelling through a City center at 50 MPH, then yes we have lost capacity. That is an absurd threshold which I propose lowering. If one can get through a City center at 30 MPH, I'd say that's good enough and an acceptable "capacity" because IMO parks and pedestrian/bicycle enjoyment takes priority over moving vehicles at high speeds where those speeds should be much lower.

I don’t disagree with the speed limit argument here, but that’s an entirely different argument and NOT APPROPRIATE OR RELEVANT HERE. The speed limit on Speer is 35, not 50. If you want people to follow a speed limit, engage in traffic calming measures that don’t reduce lane-miles and have better enforcement of those speed limits by the police. You don’t solve problems by reducing capacity, you just create new ones.

By the way: reducing speed limits is also a capacity reducer. Capacity simply means a road’s ability to move a certain number of people a certain distance in a certain time period. Reducing lanes and/or speed limit reduces the ability of the road to accomplish moving those people the same distance in the same time. That’s lower capacity. Period. Again, words have meaning.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

You missed my key point:

If it can’t compete, then it shouldn’t exist in its current form. All you are doing is perpetuating bad businesses, sucking up human talent whose time could be better spent elsewhere, all on the premise that our public transportation network should protect downtown businesses rather than move people around effeciently to the places where they work and want to shop. If a business owner isn’t supplying a quality destination, that is their fault (not the city’s).

Sounds like transportation infrastructure policy here is picking winners and losers among businesses rather than providing a neutral public service. Sounds about right for Denver’s liberal elite.

^not disagreeing with you here, but I am pointing out the politics. One slight modification to your statement, the City disproportionately protects Cherry Creek because it's a MASSIVE FUNDING source for the City. Downtown does not get an equivalent investment from the City and it shows so it's not quite just about what a business owner supplies or doesn't - some things are out of the control of business owners (many things actually).

Not sure what you're getting at with transportation policy, but that has literally dictated winners and losers for centuries so not sure why it would change now. Greek shipping corridors, roman road system, wagon routes, rail stops, interstate routes, etc.

[TakeFive]

I've always been a huge fan of infrastructure

Originally Posted by laniroj

It has my vote. To me, this is the role of government. If you look at where Denver has generally had broad success, it's less in services and moreso in the built environment. 16th St Mall - huge success. South Broadway infrastructure - huge success. RiNo infrastructure - huge success. FasTracks - huge success. Convention center and 4th St streetscape - huge success. Union Station cleanup and infrastructure - huge success. Platte Valley parks, connections, infrastructure - huge success.

So I'll easily agree with you - generally. But it's also a simplistic view from ten thousand feet which means you're missing many important details.

Originally Posted by laniroj

Loss of capacity - not necessarily. The same capacity could move in 2 lanes each way, it would just take twice as long. For a major City, to be able to travel at 50+ MPH through a City center is ridiculous. Denver can absolutely afford to lose lanes on Speer to vehicles.

Props to wwmiv for understanding capacity as apposed to the silly 'induced demand' crap. But you both miss the most important part.

Talking arterial roads like Speer Blvd

You'll have to update me on Denver but 'down here' Rush Hours are seven hours a day: 3 hours in the morning and 4 hours in the afternoon which means traffic isn't cruising at 50 mph. It may be crawling along or at a slow steady pace but there's no racing during rush hours.

To a great extent arterial roads are built for peak capacity. I know urbanists like to point out the dearth of traffic to conclude space is being wasted at Three o'clock in the morning.

[TakeFive]

You're missing the Big Picture

Originally Posted by laniroj

^Specifically with regard to this comment, I am convinced that City leaders do not want a convenient Cherry Creek to Downtown connection of any kind because Cherry Creek is and always has been a downtown retail killer. Even at the height of activity in say 2019, downtown retail was still completely overshadowed by Cherry Creek. If an easy connection is made between Downtown and Cherry Creek, it will completely gut downtown of foot traffic, tourism, etc and kill any hopes that downtown has of offering meaningfully enjoyable retail - unless we build 50,000 homes in the core. In most ways, I agree with City leaders (supposing that is their viewpoint).

One thing that's interesting to point out is that Cherry Creek has NOT been a beneficiary of (public) infrastructure investments. Some road improvements over time that barely allow it to function.

What makes Cherry Creek is it's location among more affluent neighborhoods and is easily accessible by car.

Downtown is very different - obviously. For decades it was a robust employment center with few local residents. Now this is changing. But as much as we enjoy growth in RiNo ultimately their residents will shop in RiNo and not downtown. There will be some spillover impact to downtown of course.

[TakeFive]

There's Elephants in the Room

Denver like most cities west of the Mississippi has a largely car-dependent culture. This can change over time but so long as people can vote it will be very hard to do it by 'decree.'

The ongoing problem with transit is that it is still what people think everybody else should do but not them.

Our changing culture

Gritty doesn't bother me; it's always been there. But changes towards more addiction, more crime and more dangerous incidents impacts people's perception of security and risk. Women especially want to feel secure.

The growth and changes in societal ills is a threat to both transit and downtown.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Does anybody know if a hotel is currently being constructed at Belleview station? I know that there is an apartment tower being constructed. However, when I drove by recently, there was another skinny tower about equally as tall being constructed right beside it. That area is really starting to develop itself in an exciting way.

[TakeFive]

It's a Kimpton Hotel

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Does anybody know if a hotel is currently being constructed at Belleview station? I know that there is an apartment tower being constructed. However, when I drove by recently, there was another skinny tower about equally as tall being constructed right beside it. That area is really starting to develop itself in an exciting way.

Rendering of Kimpton Denver Tech Center, courtesy of KGD.

https://milehighcre.com/kimpton-denver-tech-center-set-to-open-in-2024/

Kimpton Hotels & Restaurants, part of IHG Hotels & Resorts’ Luxury & Lifestyle Collection, will open its third hotel property in the Denver metro area, this time in DTC, in early 2024. Kimpton Denver Tech Center will be the first boutique hotel in the area, serving the Belleview Station development and its surrounding businesses and local residents.

Their ducks were in a row before they announced this back in February.

Owned by DTC Hospitality Investors, LLC, and developed by Cypress 16, LLC in conjunction with McClurg Century Investments, LLC, the hotel will be a new-build boutique hotel featuring 190 beautifully appointed guestrooms, including 14 suites. KGD Architecture will serve as the property architect and KARAMANN will outfit the entirety of the hotel’s interiors. Harvey Cleary Builders will serve as the general contractor for the construction of the project.

When it opens in early 2024, Kimpton Denver Tech Center will join Kimpton Hotel Monaco in Downtown Denver and Kimpton Hotel Born in Union Station.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

You're missing the Big Picture

One thing that's interesting to point out is that Cherry Creek has NOT been a beneficiary of (public) infrastructure investments. Some road improvements over time that barely allow it to function.

What makes Cherry Creek is it's location among more affluent neighborhoods and is easily accessible by car.

Downtown is very different - obviously. For decades it was a robust employment center with few local residents. Now this is changing. But as much as we enjoy growth in RiNo ultimately their residents will shop in RiNo and not downtown. There will be some spillover impact to downtown of course.

What also makes CC now is it's cleanliness, pedestrian friendly experience, slow streets, tree cover, and high quality retail (factors CC has always boasted).

To me, the big picture has nothing to do with traffic movements but everything to do with beautiful and abundant park systems accessible to more folks, not less - prioritizing people over vehicles. Given density growth in Cherry Creek, Golden Triangle, and areas south of Speer, it would seem a large park addition in this area would make sense. Our USA focus on traffic movement to the exclusion of all other possibilities is (IMO) why most of our cities don't come close to comparing to great European cities, S American cities, Japanese cities, even Australian ones.

Ultimately, all that matters is how a bond is marketed by it's promoters. I think folks are more inclined to vote for a giant new shiny park on Speer than turn it down because of concerns about it taking 15 minutes instead of 10 minutes to go from CC to I25. The average voter in Denver is generous and if it's a reasonable tax with a sunset, they typically say yay though not all the time.

What I'd challenge TakeFive and wwmiv to recognize is that it might be a good thing if we didn't NEED to rely on transportation so much and instead started building 15 minute communities. We're definitely not there, not even close, but we need to pursue the bones of that model if we want to see change and leave behind the last 75 years of post war planning methodologies.

[TakeFive]

Let's look at some of the different pieces

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

Great cities do fanciful things!

There will be plenty of time for planning but the intrigue fascinates.

The River Mile - is mostly waiting on Platter River improvements.

South Platte River and Tributaries Program
City of Denver

The South Platte River and Tributaries Project (Urban Waterways) will restore a 6.5-mile portion of the South Platte River between 6th and 58th Avenues and reduce flood risks along the Weir Gulch and East Harvard Gulch tributaries. The project will restore and reconnect important river habitats and provide flood protection for homes and structures near the waterways.

Project Goals

• Ecosystem restoration along the South Platte River (SPR)
• Flood risk mitigation (FRM) along the SPR
• FRM Plan along Weir Gulch
• FRM Plan along Harvard Gulch

The City and County of Denver, along with our partners at the Army Corps of Engineers, Mile High Flood District, and the Greenway Foundation are developing implementation plans for this work.

Denver received a $350 million grant from the Biden infrastructure bill for this.

• Video Link

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by laniroj

What also makes CC now is it's cleanliness, pedestrian friendly experience, slow streets, tree cover, and high quality retail (factors CC has always boasted).

People also like it's:

-Lack of the poors
-Plentiful and easy parking
-Hostility to the homeless

I would go out on a limb and say that Cherry Creek and the surrounding neighborhoods would actively work to sabotage any kind of transit improvements that would impact any of the above mentioned three. A limited shuttle to take convention goers to Cherry Creek is fine, but adding BRT or light rail along Speer would be fought tooth and nail in order to preserve the "character" of CC.

The kind of people that CC wants don't take transit, they drive-in. Preferably in some sort of luxury SUV or cross-over.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

People also like it's:

-Lack of the poors
-Plentiful and easy parking
-Hostility to the homeless

I would go out on a limb and say that Cherry Creek and the surrounding neighborhoods would actively work to sabotage any kind of transit improvements that would impact any of the above mentioned three. A limited shuttle to take convention goers to Cherry Creek is fine, but adding BRT or light rail along Speer would be fought tooth and nail in order to preserve the "character" of CC.

The kind of people that CC wants don't take transit, they drive-in. Preferably in some sort of luxury SUV or cross-over.

Sad, but true.

[TakeFive]

The Ball Arena land redevelopment

Interesting recent development with Kroenke.

Owners to OK Stan Kroenke $571M repayment to NFL
Oct 18, 2022 By Seth Wickersham ESPN Senior Writer

NFL team owners are expected to approve a resolution Tuesday that will have Rams owner Stan Kroenke reimbursing the league for the remaining $571 million paid to St. Louis over the team's relocation to Los Angeles, multiple owner and league executive sources told ESPN.

Whether this would impede Kroenke's ability to redevelopment that Ball Arena land, dunno? The Ball Arena is a different pot from SoFi Stadium so maybe not.

The Auraria Campus vision is interesting

I would have mixed feelings about their specific vision but certainly there's potential for additional interesting development.

With respect to Speer Blvd

Not an engineer but I'll assume that Speer Blvd could be put below grade.

While my vision may not be as grandiose as Fritzdude's, his idea is not without merit. Very intriguing indeed.