DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

Someone should start a kickstarter to get him enough money to retire IF he closes and boards up the building immediately. Let the "historic" building live with plywood windows and dark signs. Or will some millennial feel entitled to force him to keep it open (good thing there isn't a commission in Denver to force that - or is there?) and work til he dies so they can (literally) twist their handlebar mustaches while enjoying someone else's life's work at breakfast.

Wow this is absurd. Meanwhile nobody has two cares when actual neighborhoods are wrecked.

Id be tempted to have an accidental devastating flood or something were this my property.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

Someone should start a kickstarter to get him enough money to retire IF he closes and boards up the building immediately.

No, an attorney should volunteer to represent Tom who should go after all of the applicants on the hostile designation personally, the public body of the landmark preservation commission, and each commissioner personally through the courts. This is so messed up. I 100% support preemptive historic designations, but not once a development plan is made/proposed - that truly is infringing on constitutional rights IMO. Once a designation is made, any lost density from a building being designated should be transferable ANYWHERE, allowing the property owner to recoup some of the "public value" they lost.

As someone who has also done historic tax credits, preserved historic buildings by choice, and who owns historic buildings currently, it's BS that it's too much work to do a preemptive designation (as some critics might suggest). Any building that actually contributed meaningfully (ie not just some no-name dead person's house) typically has a TON of information readily available through print or photo. In our tech age, it's so easy to pull up the info. If we can't remove the hostile designation BS, we should make applicants submit a full Part 1, completed and without error, if they are to have any chance of obtaining a hostile designation. Complete garbage how easy it is today.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

What a bad decision. This discredits the whole notion of historical preservation. I hope the City Council rejects the recommendation.

I kinda thought that ship had sailed in Denver years ago. My first reaction to any historic preservation in Denver is an eyeroll. I'm well aware that there are deserving buildings, somewhere. But way too often buildings there become "historic" to some random person as soon as they are sold to be developed.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by laniroj

No, an attorney should volunteer to represent Tom who should go after all of the applicants on the hostile designation personally, the public body of the landmark preservation commission, and each commissioner personally through the courts. This is so messed up. I 100% support preemptive historic designations, but not once a development plan is made/proposed - that truly is infringing on constitutional rights IMO. Once a designation is made, any lost density from a building being designated should be transferable ANYWHERE, allowing the property owner to recoup some of the "public value" they lost.

As someone who has also done historic tax credits, preserved historic buildings by choice, and who owns historic buildings currently, it's BS that it's too much work to do a preemptive designation (as some critics might suggest). Any building that actually contributed meaningfully (ie not just some no-name dead person's house) typically has a TON of information readily available through print or photo. In our tech age, it's so easy to pull up the info. If we can't remove the hostile designation BS, we should make applicants submit a full Part 1, completed and without error, if they are to have any chance of obtaining a hostile designation. Complete garbage how easy it is today.

That's a better idea.. but it misses the needless and unfair bitter cynicism that I feel toward Denver residents now that my husband has vetoed ever owning property or living there again because of "the type of people who are moving there now". (I had a place all picked out and money saved for it too .. feels bad man)

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

I kinda thought that ship had sailed in Denver years ago. My first reaction to any historic preservation in Denver is an eyeroll. I'm well aware that there are deserving buildings, somewhere. But way too often buildings there become "historic" to some random person as soon as they are sold to be developed.

This goes to my concern, by designating a dumpy "diner" as historical, you discredit the entire notion of historical designation. That's too bad - Denver has lots of truly historical buildings that deserve preservation.

This isn't one of them. I really hope the City Council hears from residents that think this is nuts, though I'm sure some of the Nimbys are happy to keep a dumpy diner if the alternative is "density."

[mhays]

Originally Posted by laniroj

No, an attorney should volunteer to represent Tom who should go after all of the applicants on the hostile designation personally, the public body of the landmark preservation commission, and each commissioner personally through the courts. This is so messed up. I 100% support preemptive historic designations, but not once a development plan is made/proposed - that truly is infringing on constitutional rights IMO. Once a designation is made, any lost density from a building being designated should be transferable ANYWHERE, allowing the property owner to recoup some of the "public value" they lost.

As someone who has also done historic tax credits, preserved historic buildings by choice, and who owns historic buildings currently, it's BS that it's too much work to do a preemptive designation (as some critics might suggest). Any building that actually contributed meaningfully (ie not just some no-name dead person's house) typically has a TON of information readily available through print or photo. In our tech age, it's so easy to pull up the info. If we can't remove the hostile designation BS, we should make applicants submit a full Part 1, completed and without error, if they are to have any chance of obtaining a hostile designation. Complete garbage how easy it is today.

Boards and their members are typically protected legally...decisions can be appealed, but nobody is liable. Same with citizens participating in public debates.

Your sentence after that is a great idea though. TDRs could make the whole thing way more fair.

This particular case is particularly problematic. With an urban building they could at least preserve the facade at the street edge while building within in. But this looks like it makes a major project impossible.

As for pre-emptive nominations by developers, they're standard here in Seattle. They're typically done before the land changes hands.

PS, agreed Cherry Creek, this case does discredit the preservation movement.

[mr1138]

Completely agree with everything being said here. I think it's worth noting though that we do have one recent example of this being done "the right way" (in my opinion).

The River Drive Historic District is a contiguous chunk of attractive historic homes, in a location where their preservation actually will preserve the "character" of the street. It was done preemptively (as far as I can tell) and is discrete enough to not significantly affect the growing density of the Jefferson Park neighborhood. It reminds me a bit of the Clements Park Historic District across the street from Benedict Fountain Park. Hopefully Council is astute enough to discern the difference between these two situations (or the "historic" mortuary in Berkeley for that matter - which is also clearly just an attempt to stop density).

[Robert.hampton]

Ostensibly if you are any building on Colfax, Historic Denver will fight to preserve you. So far they’ve stopped new mixed use developments at the old smileys, the old bourbon grill and vape shop (Colfax and high?) and now toms. The other buildings they ‘saved’ are abandoned and blighted....Toms will probably have a similar fate

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Ostensibly if you are any building on Colfax, Historic Denver will fight to preserve you. So far they’ve stopped new mixed use developments at the old smileys, the old bourbon grill and vape shop (Colfax and high?) and now toms. The other buildings they ‘saved’ are abandoned and blighted....Toms will probably have a similar fate

As others have speculated, the anti-development crowd may start using "historical" designations to stop density, regardless of the historical merits of the property. Just because shit is "old" doesn't mean its worth preserving, particularly as our historical thresholds start to reach construction from 1950s and 1960s.

[mhays]

A significant wing of the preservation movement actually likes mid-century buildings.

We had a similar restaurant debate in Seattle...an old Denny's with "googie" architecture in the Ballard district. Thankfully they lost. It was a mix of architectural historians/supporters and anti-growthers.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

What a bad decision. This discredits the whole notion of historical preservation. I hope the City Council rejects the recommendation.

Love how the ringleader praised Tom while fucking him so hard.

[CherryCreek]

The save our geese crowd may have lost the most recent battle, but now its all out war against Goose genocide.


https://denverite.com/2019/07/24/hum...rds-into-food/


In June I was thoroughly roasted by nearly hysterical goosers on Nextdoor who were trying to marshal folks for the pro-goose rally at Washington Park because I had the temerity to suggest that in area where the legal "harvesting" of geese with shotguns was permissible the humane culling of geese from our over-goosedshited parks was a good thing.
Clearly, the fight has only begun.

[fleury]

Originally Posted by mhays

A significant wing of the preservation movement actually likes mid-century buildings.

We had a similar restaurant debate in Seattle...an old Denny's with "googie" architecture in the Ballard district. Thankfully they lost. It was a mix of architectural historians/supporters and anti-growthers.

Meh I dunno. I see both sides of the argument. I'm pro growth, and love density...but we keep erasing the different historic eras of our city. We did it to the Victorian buildings, and now to the mid century buildings. There were some great old mid-century places downtown that are now long gone. Like the hyperbolic paraboloid downtown. Toms is kinda cool - and if someone had the vision to repurpose it we'd have a sweet little slice of palm springs right in our core. I'm honestly kind of happy about the designation. Last thing i'd like to see on Colfax is another piece of shit stucco development brought to us by some asshole named brad from texas. Tear down the mcdonalds down the street, or the strip malls. Leave the interesting things so our kids can see a little bit of history. How cool is Denver going to be in 20 more years when everything looks exactly the same - the perfect early 2000's stucco texas donut style wraps on every corner - with vinyl windows, brick veneer bases, and hardi panel siding. Sounds like paradise, eh?

I feel for the owner, that's the only part of this situation that is sad. Although I bet he makes bank on that place regardless if he bought it 20 years ago.

[corey]

Personally, I think it’s great that the Preservation Board gave Tom’s Diner historic landmark status. They can add a few stories to the apartment building and build in the lot around the diner. A little imagination from developers and architects would be refreshing for once. If necessary the diner can be used as public space for the apartment building. Is just another generic giant apartment box really preferable to the diner building? And I don’t see how a plain rectangle built up to the sidewalk really has any better “street presence.”

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by corey

Personally, I think it’s great that the Preservation Board gave Tom’s Diner historic landmark status. They can add a few stories to the apartment building and build in the lot around the diner. A little imagination from developers and architects would be refreshing for once. If necessary the diner can be used as public space for the apartment building. Is just another generic giant apartment box really preferable to the diner building? And I don’t see how a plain rectangle built up to the sidewalk really has any better “street presence.”

Ah right split a lot....thatll take a year or tow....then double the zoning height on the new half lot.....that'll take a year or two or get blocked by the same douchebags that blocked you from selling your restaurant because they remember eating green chili at it after an EDM show 7 years ago..... and then after your 4-5 year delay build a structure twice as high and go twice as deep for the parking....that'll pencil out nicely!

[scottt]

While I feel badly for the owner Tom, Alberta's development record tells me that what they were planning wasn't going to turn out well. Has anyone seen how poorly their project in Castle Rock turned out?

Regardless, I see both sides of the preservation vs. development side in this case. As an architect, I see the value in preserving it. A renovation would do it well.

[Sam Hill]

I personally think the diner is historic (how on earth is it not?), and my heart likes the idea of preservation. OTOH, in order for it to be worth keeping, it must house a business. And there are only two types of businesses it could house: a diner, or a not-a-diner that looks like a diner for no reason. How long can it remain a viable location for such a business? How much longer will such a business even be viable anywhere? Diners are rapidly dying across the country. There will soon be a day when operating a diner (or a not-a-diner that looks like a diner for no reason) will no longer be viable on this piece of land, and the owner will be stuck with a mid-century piece of history that no one's dumb enough to buy.

[The Dirt]

Rumor has the Diner is not profitable and selling it was Tom's only way out of a bad situation. Apparently, he's an emotional wreck.

[mhays]

Some buildings cost more to renovate than they could ever hope to be worth in rent. How are the foundation and structure? What about the handicapped? Does it need new plumbing, HVAC, or wiring?

Just guessing, but this sounds like the sort of location that would have that scenario...fancy but old and poorly-located building, retail at a time when retail leasing is falling apart, with no parking if a new building gets added alongside, and probably some prescriptive rules for preservation that would make the fixes more expensive....

Using it for resident amenities for the new building might make sense if they can get a big discount for the site. The developer would estimate the extra construction costs and risks and subtract those from their offer on the land...sucks if you're the seller of course.

[SnyderBock]

How about relocation of the historic diner, then the owner can sell the land to whomever he wants? Or for that matter, the developer can buy it, relocate the diner then develop the land.