[docroc]

from Denver Post - editorial 12/7/06

(apologies for posting as new thread - I had trouble finding the previous thread!)

Bloom of ideas good sign for Civic Center
Successful revitalization of the neglected area will require lots of ideas and wide public involvement. The city's other needs must be weighed as well.

Fresh ideas for rejuvenating Denver's Civic Center are popping up like springtime dandelions, a healthy sign for the city's central public space.

City officials commissioned a master plan for the area in 2004, but the problems and potential of Civic Center didn't get much public attention until this August, when the Civic Center Conservancy trotted out a conceptual plan done by architect Daniel Libeskind, designer of the just-opened Hamilton wing of the Denver Art Museum.

Everyone seems to agree that the 16-acre park between the state Capitol and the City and County Building needs a makeover. But the Libeskind vision, with a large water plaza, a tower and a flyover bridge, sparked criticism. The influential Downtown Denver Partnership last month called for a design competition and extensive public involvement in Civic Center's future.

There are plenty of other ideas out there. Eight local architects and urban planners have drawn up ideas to make the site more vibrant and attractive. Those concepts were showcased at a Wednesday night public hearing, the last of several held recently.

One proposal involves converting the McNichols Building at the northwest corner of the park into a restaurant. Tavern on the Green in New York's Central Park comes to mind. Such a feature could draw people into the park from downtown or from the art museum and library.

Other suggestions include fountains, new artwork, moving the state museum to the park and even a bridge connecting the Capitol to the park.

Attracting more people to the park on a regular basis is a widely held wish. Big events like Taste of Colorado, Cinco de Mayo and Martin Luther King Day observances attract big crowds a few times each year, but on most days Civic Center is left to vagrants (a constant annoyance to city officials and business leaders) and pedestrians quickly crossing from one side to the other. The conservancy organized a farmers' market last summer.

What happens next?

There's no timetable yet for fixing up Civic Center - and no money to pay for it. The city's parks and recreation advisory board will hear a report about the public hearings on Jan. 11.

After that, the city deserves a lively and fully open process to shape a plan for Civic Center's future. And the conservancy, which has a mandate to raise private funds for improvements, deserves the community's support.

Denver already has two major projects on its plate, the Justice Center and the Union Station redevelopment, plus longstanding needs at the Botanic Gardens, the National Western Stock Show and in basic infrastructure. All must be balanced thoughtfully as the city looks to the future.

[docroc]

Having been down in civic center a couple of times the past few weeks - I think Libeskind's substantial "water features" are a no-go . . . the shallow ponds in his proposal would likely have to be drained and sit empty for 6 or more months a year. They would be a kind of no-man's land . . . and - worst case scenario - gathering tumbleweeds and trash during the winter months.
They would also sacrifice people gathering space. I say: "more piazza, less puddles and ponds."
(Moreover, I say no ponds in the park until we fix the lion fountains at the Colfax end of the Esplanade gateways! They're just sad . . . )

[denverryan]

I personally think the problem is 20% the state of park itself, and 80% the fact that nobody has a good reason to be in that area, except for to go to court or the art museum. The Webb Building's lack of ground floor restaurant/retail, the same at the DNA building (?), and the new awful parking garage on lincoln certainly don't help that situation. I think if the remaining undeveloped land around the park were developed into more dense restaurant/retail spaces, the problem would be eased greatly.

[wong21fr]

You do realize the DNA has ground floor retail?

[DenverTrans]

You do realize the DNA has ground floor retail?

The retail program in DNA was originally listed at 16,000 square feet. Is that still accurate? If so, that is only as much retail as a typical Walgreens.

[5280]

I was trying to watch the Civic Center Conservancy ideas session from 12/6/06 that was on channel 8, but the Broncos game was on at the same time. Did anyone go to this?

I noticed that some of the ideas included burying the various streets around the Park, or bridges.

I don't know if Colfax is such a problem that it needs to get buried, b/c I've never had a problem getting across that, but Lincoln and Broadway are awful.

One of the proposals included bridges from the State Capital to the park. The capital is raised, so the bridge could start there, cross Lincoln, come to a structure built in the median b/t Lincoln and Broadway, cross Broadway and terminate in the park. The eastern edge of the park could be raised, making a terraced, grassy area with steps that drops into the park.

Anyways, I really like this idea. The bridges would be wide (40-60 ft) with seating along the edges. And the structure b/t Lincoln and Broadway would allow people to go down stairs to ground level, and a bridge across to the bus station, which is also above ground. Lincoln and Broadway would be sunk a little to make all this possible.

I know there's no money, but I like the ideas.

[bcp]

i'm not sure i love any of these bridge-ing ideas...is it really THAT hard to wait for the light to change and then cross? despite the cost of doing bridges and / or burying streets in this area, the other major problem is that it removes what little pedestrian traffic we already have in the area...which would have a large negative impact on the retail businesses in the area (DNA, upper end of 16th St, and at MArket St. Station)....so what really necessisitates all this expense and are the unintended consequences worth it?

[5280]

I normally feel the same as you bcp, but in these proposals, the bridges are an extension of the park and symbolic/actual connectors b/t the city and state buildings. I don't really see how they would affect pedestrian traffic around those areas you mentioned.

[bcp]

well it's going to take people off of the sidewalks....so then sidewalk use would only be for 'special' trips when folks want to swing by Subway, Starbucks etc....so i just don't see the benefit of yanking people away from the sidewalk life.

[Denver Bear]

and what would become of the space underneath the bridges? we don't need more havens for homeless and crime. Moving them out of the park and under the bridges wouldn't do.

[DenverTrans]

The bridges idea has been around in some circles for many years.

I think there are many reasons not to do it.

1. If we have that kind of money for infrastructure, far better to spend it on streetcars and pedestrian improvements, which will end up increasing use of the area.

2. We must finally realize that the car must behave in the city. If our major arterials are not walkable, then they need to be redesigned, not buried. If you redesign the curb lines, striping, intersections, and signals with the pedestrian in mind, it *will* work out.

The traffic volumes around Civic Center are not really high by world standards. The issue is really speed and walkability.

Perhaps people could post ideas in a thread that illustrate situations they feel would be relevant to Civic Center.

[DenverInfill]

Well, I have a suggestion that would make a huge difference.

Right now, southbound Broadway traffic can turn left onto Colfax whenever the light is green. That's also when the Peds have their time to cross. Consequently, left-turners are running down Peds or, at a minimum, pressuring them to cross so they can turn left.

Likewise, northbound Lincoln traffic can turn left onto Colfax whenever the light is green. The same problem here occurs. Why can't we provide a "Left on Green Arrow Only" solution to each intersection, so that the Ped has a chance to cross the road without worrying about getting smacked by impatient left-turners who think in a car vs. ped situation, they have the right of way!?!!?

[twellsie]

I'm really surprised there hasn't been more talk of simple solutions like these for pedestrians. With mounting casualties in the downtown area from drivers running down pedestrians (through red lights and on sidewalks) you'd think there would be more concern. I was expecting sobriety checkpoints out of the LoDo area after the family was run down. I haven't seen squat since then. I guess when you have role models like Pete Coors rolling out of the Hyatt Convention Center tanked what can you really expect from the rest of the citizenry? The automobile certainly does need to behave itself in the city. Perhaps the Mayor needs to engage in a downtown-wide program to improve all pedestrian crossings. It won't address the drinking and driving issue, but maybe it will cause more awareness by drivers. That reminds me of people who drive 40mph through crowded mall parking lots on the weekends. wtf? All it takes is one little kid running out in front of you... enjoy your next 20 years in prison. I guess it'll take quite a few more families getting run down before we'll see any improvement.
:hell:

[wong21fr]

Well, I have a suggestion that would make a huge difference.

Right now, southbound Broadway traffic can turn left onto Colfax whenever the light is green. That's also when the Peds have their time to cross. Consequently, left-turners are running down Peds or, at a minimum, pressuring them to cross so they can turn left.

Likewise, northbound Lincoln traffic can turn left onto Colfax whenever the light is green. The same problem here occurs. Why can't we provide a "Left on Green Arrow Only" solution to each intersection, so that the Ped has a chance to cross the road without worrying about getting smacked by impatient left-turners who think in a car vs. ped situation, they have the right of way!?!!?

Is it an issue of blocking managing the traffic flow? Would a left-turn on arrow-only result in a traffic nightmare for the area (or more so than it already is)?

As long as we are airing beefs, where do bicyclists fall in all of this? Of guilty parties resulting in accidents I have think that cyclists that possess the mindset that the "auto-centric" worlds rules don't apply to them as they cut through traffic, take turns wherever and whenever they please, and generally think their sh#$ don't stink.

[DenverInfill]

Is it an issue of blocking managing the traffic flow? Would a left-turn on arrow-only result in a traffic nightmare for the area (or more so than it already is)?

As long as we are airing beefs, where do bicyclists fall in all of this? Of guilty parties resulting in accidents I have think that cyclists that possess the mindset that the "auto-centric" worlds rules don't apply to them as they cut through traffic, take turns wherever and whenever they please, and generally think their sh#$ don't stink.

I don't know if it would result in a traffic nightmare or not, but I would suggest it doesn't matter. At that location, we should give the pedestrian the priority...or at least a fighting chance. Despite how progressive Denver is in many things, our Public Works department is still dominated by traffic engineers.

[glowrock]

As long as we are airing beefs, where do bicyclists fall in all of this? Of guilty parties resulting in accidents I have think that cyclists that possess the mindset that the "auto-centric" worlds rules don't apply to them as they cut through traffic, take turns wherever and whenever they please, and generally think their sh#$ don't stink.

I think this needs to be repeated, wong! Everyone keeps blaming CARS for most of the problems downtown, and yes, don't get me wrong, of COURSE cars are a serious problem for pedestrians. However, bicyclists with no care in the world as to traffic laws might even be a more important issue in this respect. I've been nearly run over by more assholes on bicycles than cars, far more... Of course, being hit by a bike won't do the damage like a car will, but still...

When it comes to bicyclists, I've been known to knock a few of them off their bikes if they're going right through a red light as I have the walk sign in a crosswalk. Last year, some schmuck was going right through the light, paying no attention to me, when I stuck out my leg, causing him to swerve out of control, thus crashing his bike. He was okay, his bike wasn't, he started cussing me out, threatening to kick my ass. Too bad for him, a cop saw the whole thing, and told him to get the hell out of his sight before he ticketed him for running a red light... ;)

Aaron (Glowrock)

[bunt_q]

our Public Works department is still dominated by traffic engineers.

What else would you expect? Of course, Denver doesn't exactly have the strongest advocate they could in its bike/ped planner... I;d steamroll him too.

I wouldn't say it would cause I nightmare, but it'd certainly mess things up (think about it, part of the reason Broadway/Lincoln is timed so well is that there really are no arrows and such)... Arrows are a suburban solution to traffic. They add 30 seconds to every light cycle and make timing tougher if not impossible... all around, not a great thing (unless you have them everywhere).

That said, I still say put them in. *Or*... if you're going to waste 45 seconds adding a movement, why not add a pedestrian only movement there? Maybe the streets are just too wide, I'd have to calc it out... but if we're going to cause a delay, why not do it 100% for the ped instead of halfway?

[twellsie]

I think this needs to be repeated, wong! Everyone keeps blaming CARS for most of the problems downtown, and yes, don't get me wrong,...

Don't you mean: don't get me wong?

har har.

[bcp]

beer tents...striping...lower speed limit...a building to opposite the old library...some private uses...mounted police...the city runs the risk of WAY overcomplicating this....

[mojiferous]

I think the anti-bicycle sentiment here is a little short sighted... I mean we are talking about a form of transportation that is much more efficient and much less polluting than cars, and much faster than walking... I ride my bike everywhere I go (thankfully Denver's climate lets me do it year-round also.)
anyway... here's my rant:
1) The fault of most of your accidents for which cyclists are being faulted here is more than likely still the drivers- many people have no idea how to drive with cyclists on the road (and the same applies to motorcycles, by the way)- I ride like a crazed person through traffic because I learned early on that a) drivers will not acknowledge the legal right of way of bicycles, so I have to be in a lane that will not result in my getting hit by a driver that decides to speed up and cut me off to make a turn, or who doesn't even see me in my lane and decides to merge into it b) I ride between lanes because it is (amazingly enough) less dangerous than having a two-ton SUV riding my rear (because some people think it's safer to slowly ride behind than to pass me), and c) I avoid the far right (my given legal lane) because of people coming out of their cars- the last thing I want is to get doored.
2) I run red lights all the time because I am more than able to navigate through an intersection without hitting pedestrians, and because if I get hit by a car, it's me that's getting injured, not the car. If the intersection is especially busy? I won't go through. But if I couldn't even make it through an intersection without avoiding crossing pedestrians, I wouldn't be riding on city streets. There is no need to try to toss a cyclist off his bike and gloat about it when, unless he was drunk or blind, he probably wouldn't have hit you anyway.

Let me put it this way- I ride a bike, many of my friends are bike messengers who ride downtown all day long, all week, every week of the year- I have never heard or known of anyone causing an accident (I just made a few phone calls- one friend had a lady in a mini van riding his tail, honking, who impatiently changed lanes into a bus right beside him. Does that count?) I have never hit a pedestrian, but I have known people who have (both cases involved people jaywalking from behind large trucks- both times the cyclist was injured and the pedestrian was not.) I have been hit by cars, and everyone I know has been hit at least once. Hit by drunks, by people who "didn't see" them, sideswiped by people changing lanes, hit by people turning in front of them, hit from behind...

So really... I guess I have taken personal offense at this anti-cyclist idea- here we are living in a cyclist-friendly city and yet motorists complain endlessly. Here's a few thoughts- a) drive normally. Panic at the bike next to you or in front of you doesn't help. b) If motorists actually treated cyclists as another driver, most of this wouldn't happen (would you ride the ass of another car or merge right into their lane right beside them?) c) While it's true that cutting through intersections against lights is illegal, I take a few things into consideration- namely that I won't cut in front of traffic (I have seen a few very dumb souls do this), I have more than enough control to avoid hitting pedestrians, if I do hit something I don't have the force or mass of a vehicle and will probably end up injuring myself worse than anything else involved in the accident, and finally, much like stopping at a stop sign, I have the reasoning ability to decide when I should go and when I shouldn't.

[wong21fr]

So, because you think you are so skilled at riding a bike you don't have to follow the rules? Rather asinine if you ask me.

Just because it is a more efficient form of transportation in some regards does not mean it is above reproach nor should it mean that you can feel as if the rules should not apply to you.

[mojiferous]

So, because you think you are so skilled at riding a bike you don't have to follow the rules? Rather asinine if you ask me.

Just because it is a more efficient form of transportation in some regards does not mean it is above reproach nor should it mean that you can feel as if the rules should not apply to you.

No no no... I was just saying that drivers are much more of a threat to pedestrian and cyclist's safety than vice versa, and that I think there is an anti-cyclist sentiment that "we need to follow the rules!" yet when I'm cut off by some impatient person, I can't complain because I'm a cyclist. What I was trying to illustrate was the foremost issue of the cyclist- "where do I go?"- we can't legally ride on the sidewalk, yet the streets are dangerous, and when we ride aggressively to keep from being hit, we're not riding legally. The police will not ticket someone who walks against traffic, even if they hold up traffic flow, and if they're hit, it's always the motorist's fault- yet if I ride through an intersection that his red lights on all sides and no waves of pedestrians, I'm suddenly the bad guy?

Furthermore, I was trying (rather unsuccessfully) to point out that some rules can be asinine- The laws for cyclists are incredibly outdated and rather unhelpful- but that's an argument for somewhere different.

My comment on the progressive nature of cycling was also included because I believe that it should be encouraged by the city, much like walking- not as reasoning to break traffic laws. That's why I started my rant after it.

[mojiferous]

Which actually brings me to a point that is more topical to this thread- everyone has an equal right to access the streets and likes to complain when they don't... while the pedestrian element that uses the area around civic center would rejoice about easier access, motorists would complain about traffic etc. etc. ... I think a temporary solution to all of this would be to add an all-walk cycle to the lights at colfax and broadway & colfax and lincoln- much like many other intersections downtown. You wouldn't have to run for your life to cross over to the park. I think burying the streets would be an overly-expensive option that would require remapping huge parts of these two very busy intersections.
All the bridges, Liebskind's and otherwise, would also just end up being expensive, underutilized projects.
I don't think civic center will be "revitalized" without more residents nearby (which is part of the problem now- the park is only being used by the nearby "residents" e.g. the homeless.) We can put as many landmarks and museums around it as possible, but without a strong nearby residential base, it'll continue to be empty most of the time- I think a good example is Cheeseman, which despite not having anything other than trees to attract people is still used much more as a park and less as a drug spot or home/bathroom.

[bunt_q]

I don't know if that's necessarily true... there is room in any city for one "destination" park... and it's only logical that, if done right, civic center could be our de facto "town square"... residents always help, but done right, we shouldn't need them to give life to the place. There's gotta be a way to infuse it... and frankly, I'm with Bryan. beer tents, buildings, restaurants... private users of some sort. No more museums, no more government (or at least, not at the expense of other, more lively uses)... and I also think the bridges are a waste. They'll look good on post cards, but is getting across the street really our biggest problem? No, definitely not. Christ, do architects have that hard of a time looking at how a place works in addition to how it looks? Making the park into a pretty painting is not going to make it a place to chille on a Saturday afternoon - we already have that. It's gorgeous already. We need more than cosmetic treatment... we need to add some guts to the place.

[wong21fr]

Than we definitely don't need a "signature" architect to work on it, let's jus dust off the old Civic Center plans and finally complete them; the additional building, private uses, a dedicated police presence, I'd like a water piece as well.

I'd say the biggest problem with Civic Center is that you've got two of the major traffic corridors for entering/exiting downtown bordering the park. Traffic is always going to be a major barrier until a way is found too eliminate/redirect it so I'd say that a long-term solution would be placing a portion of Colfax below-grade providing a link to the CBD.

[DenverTrans]

Funny clip about the rights of bikers to ride as they please:

http://www.fossilfool.com/bike-rapper/bike-rapper.php?PHPSESSID=c428696f4c6fb75935c5cff5db7da29b

Long live the Bike Rapper!

Okay, lots of people attacking bikes. I'm not going to get in the middle of that, but I think, again, there are solutions based on other cities. As the Mayor of Bogota has said, (paraphrase), "If an eight year old kid can't use the bikeway then it isn't really a bikeway."

Our streets are still laid out for cars/trucks rather than shared space.

[bunt_q]

I was thinking about how to do Colfax below grade there... it'd be tough because of the grade between Lincoln and Sherman... you'd have to have a pretty nasty trench to make the transition there (right next to the State Capitol too)... I imagine it would look a lot like that San Fran picture that Steve posted... I like the idea of depressing/tunneling *just* Colfax and *just* right there, but I am not sure how to do it and get it back out before you head up the hill. It might not be pretty... (to say nothing of getting on and off of Colfax from 15th, broadway, or Lincoln, which would be impossible) I am not sure it's worth it, honestly. It'd be easier to do a single, big, nice, policed, well lit, retailed pedestrian underpass (I like that better than the bridge)

[DenverInfill]

I agree that burying Colfax or Broadway or Lincoln or whatever is overkill and a big waste of taxpayer money for a problem that could be mostly solved with simple changes such as maybe some bulb-outs, a pedestrian-only phase to the light cycle, some different crosswalk striping/materials to the street, better signage, and making the intersections look less dingy and more appealing. For maybe $1 million, let's try those things and see how they work before we go barrelling into a $50 million multi-year tunneling/trenching project.

[1Post2]

anything to slow traffic down a bit on broadway would be beneficial to not only the park, but businesses further south as well (although methods to do so, such as reducing the number of lanes, would likely receive opposition from business owners as well as commuters). how about a well-marked, (painted), elongated, gentle 'speed hump' spanning broadway along the axis of the center promenade running through the park? whatever ends up being done, it needs to be something designed to give more awareness to drivers and pedestrians alike that the area is a shared space.

other than that, I agree with what everyone is saying. the park just needs more activities to do. things like a bridge from civic center station would only be helpful if it could be a psychological extension of the 16th st mall, which would be really hard to do. however, renovating or rebuilding civic center station to include some kind of major retail component would work wonders connecting the mall to the park, especially if it was designed to lead pedestrians to a broad, new crosswalk across colfax.

(anyone know if there are any fastracks related plans concerning the station?)

[bcp]

^ now that's a really good point...it would be OH so nice to cap the broadway front door for the shuttle with a bulding. Also, the station should be brought to the corner of colfax to define that important intersection - right now we have bums, trash and evergreen bushes.


also, can you imagine going west on colfax, tunneling under Broadway and then coming UP the curve next to the new DNA building? Wth the increased speeds that would occur due to the tunneling we'd have Bo and Luke Duke flying out of that tunnel into the Webb buliding every week.


"I'm with Bryan"
i just put that on my wall

[pablosan]

How about building a round-about, similar to what you see in Europe and Latin America? You put some type of monument in the middle of the round-about. It would slow down traffic to some extent. It may even enhance the park to some degree.

[bcp]

great idea...PW will probably kill it immediately citing "reduced traffic flow"
(which is the point...isn't it?)

[SnyderBock]

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n6/warrengfunk7/UnionStation_CivicCenter_Plan2.jpg

[InfillJunkie]

They really should stick with the original plan. A smaller water feature where one was originally planned. Build another building across from McNichol. Turn McNichol into public space, replace the grand stair case that was once there. Grrr anyway...I am repeating myself.

[bcp]

hey that's a nice map!!....copule things:
- you've moved the LRT station out to Platte ST...
- that routing of the 36 BRT would cause anxiety with the twists and turns..

[SnyderBock]

Thanks,

I was confused a little bit by the base map I used to make this map. It didn't seem to match up to what I was looking at on Google Earth. I did not intend for the light rail station to be out at Platte Street. It should still be a Chestnut. Maybe we can imagine that area is blown up larger, zoomed in a little bit? lol

I used the winning bid as my model, as well as a base map for the possible BRT roots (in yellow). Would the solid yellow BRT root work better then the dashed line route?

Since Wawetta and Chestnut are below grade when crossing 17th street, this open up the possibility of a covered promenade.

The streetcar line would use the existing LRT line from Union Station, by the Millennium Bridge, so money would be saved there. That's why there is a S-curve when it crosses what is intended to be Chestnut and the C-line at the millennium bridge.

The Orange Streetcar line to Coors field, the bus station and the Civic Center, would also start off using the existing LRT line coming out of Union Station. I see the existing track goes past Union Station a block or two.

Does this make more since now?

[1Post2]

another thing, correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't market street station being replaced by the union station terminal?

[bcp]

^ yes...and the mexico buses on park are supposed to go to DUS as well

[bunt_q]

Maybe some of them, yes... but I seriously doubt the biggest one of the bunch - the Americanos (?) buses - are going anywhere. They just bought and fixed up that building across from the Mercury for their terminal, and it's pretty damn nice... Unless it's free to them, I cannot conceive of why they would move. They're better off for their customers right where thy are... but yeah, I've been wondering about that since they moved.

[5280]

A NEW CIVIC CENTER: Plans to rejuvenate the beloved park have sparked an emotional debate

By Kyle MacMillan
Denver Post Fine Arts Critic
DenverPost.com
Article Last Updated:12/23/2006 04:46:10 PM MST

Sometimes the most visible things are the hardest ones to see, especially if they have been around for nearly 90 years and long ago taken for granted.

That, in brief, is what has happened to the Civic Center, perhaps the most important green space in Denver - 16 acres that link the City & County Building and state Capitol and tie the cultural complex to downtown.

Efforts are underway to refurbish, rethink and rejuvenate the aging park, boosting its profile and transforming it into a more desirable destination by improving accessibility and security and giving residents and tourists more reasons to visit.

In 2005, the Denver Parks & Recreation Department created a master plan for Civic Center. It established guidelines for any improvements and listed $41.4 million in needed improvements, ranging from $870,000 for restoration of historic balustrades and columns to $2.5 million for a central gathering area.

The plan is endorsed by most interested parties, but the question of how it should be carried out has generated enormous, often emotional debate.

"This is a very beloved place," said Kathleen Brooker, president of the preservation group Historic Denver. "I've been doing this since 1992, and in terms of preservation issues, this has probably generated the most intense and persistent public involvement."

Off to a rocky start

Fueling the controversy has been the Civic Center Conservancy's August unveiling of a conceptual design for the park's overhaul by Daniel Libeskind, who oversaw the unorthodox addition to the Denver Art Museum that juts commandingly toward the park.

While leaders of the nonprofit conservancy, established two years ago to help maintain and upgrade the park, insist it just wanted to generate discussion with Libeskind's ideas, others were not so sure.

Many were concerned with what they saw as secrecy and a sense of fait accompli surrounding the design. They worried it would be endorsed by Parks & Recreation with only lip service to public participation in the decision-making.

Kim Bailey, manager of Parks & Recreation, acknowledges the implementation of the master plan got off to a "rocky start." Tepid public involvement in the master plan left organizers unprepared for the huge outcry that greeted Libeskind's design, she said.

"When it did erupt, for lack of a better word," she said, "it took us all by surprise, and (it) was by no means ever the intent to give a perception of secrecy or that things were going to be approved behind closed doors. We would never get away with that."

Libeskind's design

Then there was the concept itself, which took a high-tech, ultra-contemporary approach that seem incongruous with the park's historic, neo-classical character. Mayor John Hickenlooper suggested it could cost more than $100 million, though no price tag was affixed.

Libeskind's ideas and the way his design was conceived raised the alarm of many organizations, such as Historic Denver. Ad-hoc watchdog groups were launched, including the Civic Center Friends, which has created a blog and sent a protest petition to Hickenlooper.

Patricia O'Leary, a founder of the Friends, said she is somewhat reassured by the public meetings that have occurred since the design's release.

"I definitely feel more comfortable from the days when we embarked on this," she said. "We and a whole bunch of people in the city made it their point that they're not enamored of this plan."

But Brooker said her suspicions of the process have not been totally allayed. She remains unconvinced that Libeskind's much-maligned design has been put aside.

"I'm still waiting for Kim Bailey to say that and I'm not hearing that," she said. "I'm really anxious for them to come forward with some sort of clear statement that they're not going to go that way."

On Jan. 11, Parks & Recreation is scheduled to present a report to its advisory board summarizing what has occurred since the release of Libeskind's concept and laying out public priorities.

What will happen after that? No one really knows. Dennis Humphries, an architect who serves as vice-president of the conservancy, said projects in the park will probably happen one at a time, with architects chosen for each as money becomes available from public and private sources.

He thinks it might be possible to fund the renovation of the McNichols Civic Center Building (something nearly everyone agrees on) as part of a citywide bond issue under consideration. Ideas for the former Carnegie library include a terrace restaurant, visitors center or some kind of museum.

Quiet space, or "active"?

As the discussion moves forward, here are some thoughts on some key aspects of Civic Center's facelift:

What should a renewed Civic Center be like? There has been much talk of diminishing drug dealing and vagrancy by "activating" the park, but it is not clear what that means exactly. Before any improvements can be undertaken, it seems obvious that a precise definition is essential.

Two extremes seem to have emerged. Some people want to turn the park into a kind of bustling space teeming with people at all hours - an approach that has been derided by skeptics as "circuslike." Others want it to stay largely as it is now, a quiet space with only scattered visitors much of the time.

The appropriate amout of activity is probably somewhere in the middle. Civic Center is a dignified and, in many ways, formal space, and should not be another Washington Park, where hundreds of people can be seen running and walking dogs on any Saturday in the summer.

At the same time, the Denver needs to rethink the use of Civic Center as a site for virtually every summer festival, closing streets around it and significantly damaging area businesses cut off from their customers.

While Civic Center is the obvious site for a visit by a president or as the termination point of the city's annual Martin Luther King Day parade, many of the other festivals should be shifted to other, more suitable locations in the city, such as Commons Park or perhaps the Six Flags Elitch Gardens site if it ceases to be an amusement park.

What is the relationship of Civic Center to Commons Park? Too often, Civic Center is considered in terms of its immediate surroundings and not in the downtown context as a whole. While it has a unique position in the cityscape, the space is not the only large, high-visibility downtown park.

As a kind of bookend on the other end of the 16th Street Mall in the Central Platte Valley is Commons Park, a new kind of civic center. The 19-acre space sits alongside probably the fastest-growing part of downtown, and its importance as a focal point will only grow as the area booms.

In considering Civic Center's future, it seems imperative to consider its future connection to this obvious counterpart. How will the two evolve and change? What activities are best suited to each? What kind of amenities make sense for each?

What should Civic Center look like? It is critical to preserve the historic, neo-classical character of the park and even restore, as the master plan prescribes, some of the original aspects of Edward Bennett's 1918 design that have been lost over time.

At the same time, preservation should not mean freezing the park in the past. New construction of kiosks or other architectural elements should not employ some faux-classical style but should speak to the 21st century just as Bennett's design spoke to his time.

That does not mean imposing the new onto the old, as many people rightly saw Libeskind's vision doing, but creating sensitive contemporary designs that respect and acknowledge the park's history while also refreshing and updating it.

What should happen next? If the next step has not yet been decided, it is clear that the process must be transparent. This is a public park, after all, and the public needs to be involved every step of the way.

That doesn't mean paying lip service to the notion of openness by holding public hearings and then carrying out whatever a handful of insiders want to do. It means listening and being willing to compromise - the two essential elements of democracy.

Fine arts critic Kyle MacMillan can be reached at 303-954-1675 or kmacmillan@denverpost.com.

[Paulopolis]

Please join Civic Center Conservancy at this important meeting and forward this email to your contacts who may be interested in Civic Center Park.


Thank you to everyone who has participated in the Civic Center dialog over the past 6 months. Your participation has helped us gain a much better perspective on the priorities, design issues and preferences for Civic Center .

We will be presenting the findings from the surveys and the public forums
at the

Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
on January 11, 2007
6:00 – 8:00 PM (please note the change in time)
at the Colorado Historical Society, 1300 Broadway

the public is welcome to attend

Helen Kuykendall

Denver Parks and Recreation
201 West Colfax, Dept 613 Denver, Colorado

Tel: 720-913-0630 FAX: 720-913-0784

[1Post2]

by the way...to answer my own question from earlier... the civic center district plan recommends master planning for the station as an "enhanced multimodal access point", making it the second transit hub downtown behind DUS.

anyway, would be great if they took the opportunity to extend retail to to the park. let's hope they're considering that and they run with it.

[InfillJunkie]

SO, INSTEAD OF MAKING A NEW ONE, I WILL JUST USE THIS ONE...

The new downtown plan
DENVER, CIRCA 2027
By Margaret Jackson
Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 04/28/2007 06:04:13 PM MDT

About 40 architects, developers, financiers, lawyers, neighborhood activists, business owners and city officials have compiled the best of those ideas into a document called the Downtown Area Plan. On Thursday, they will unveil it in a public meeting. It will then be sent to the City Council.

"We wanted to define and capture a vision folks can get excited about," said Peter Park, Denver's planning director and member of the plan's steering committee. "But it also has to be grounded in the reality of, is it implementable?

"There are some very strong opinion leaders on the committee, and if they're convinced, it will help convince others. That's how things will get done."

Once it is approved by the city, the document will provide a map to private developers as they consider projects throughout downtown. It will also spur the city to improve streets, lighting and landscaping and make zoning changes.

"We're responsible for having a good framework and infrastructure, and then getting out of the way and letting the private sector do what it does," Park said. "If the city follows up and creates regulations that support the plan, it will help developers not waste time."

The new plan builds on one that was created in 1986, which focused on making 16th Street the spine that connects Lower Downtown with Civic Center.

It includes some suggestions that will strengthen the spine, including one that calls for a public market somewhere near the center of the 16th Street Mall, plus dozens of others that bolster surrounding areas.

"The next level of enriching the 16th Street experience is connecting the side streets," Park said.

Side streets need attention

While the 16th Street Mall will remain the commercial spine, the

The image above shows Curtis Street, as seen from the 16th Street Mall, looking toward 14th Street. (Downtown Denver Area Plan steering committee)plan identifies four key areas that will become economic engines, and suggests ways to connect them with transit and on strong feeder streets:
Union Station, which will be redeveloped as the hub of Denver's mass-transit network.

Civic Center, which will remain a government center surrounding downtown's signature park.

Auraria campus, which will add retail, classrooms and offices.

Arapahoe Square, which could become a high-density neighborhood as well as a home to small businesses.

"The symmetry all works around those areas," said Jim Basey, co-chairman of the plan's steering committee. "Then you have various overlays. You have the transit piece and an overlay that really goes more to connecting the neighborhoods.

"Part of it is turning our focus to the pedestrian. The connections will really need to have an emphasis on the pedestrian."

Union Station

The redevelopment of Union Station will help put the the spotlight on the pedestrian.

Denver's historic train station will be redeveloped to greet transit riders from throughout the region. Another 19.5 acres around the station will be filled with offices, retail space and residential units.

Civic Center

At the other end of downtown, Civic Center is in need of revitalization. Now a haven for vagrants and a barrier between downtown and the emerging Golden Triangle, the 88-year-old park will become a more pedestrian-friendly conduit between the two neighborhoods.

Auraria campus

Bridging the gulf between downtown and the Auraria campus is another critical need.

"If you stand at Larimer and 14th and look down toward the Tivoli, it's quite an expanse," said Dean Wolf, executive vice president for administration of the campus.

Students are forced to cross six lanes of Speer Boulevard traffic and walk past two block-long parking lots on their way to and from 16th Street. As Auraria officials develop their own master plan, they are brainstorming ways to encourage downtown visitors to cross that gauntlet.

"One of the things you look at is trying to get more density along Speer in that particular area," Wolf said. Another is creating a pleasant environment between the campus and downtown.

The Auraria master plan recommends building shops and housing on the northeast corner of Speer and Auraria Parkway and on the southwest corner of Speer and Colfax. The campus intends to partner with a private developer to bring the plan to fruition.

"It's ideal timing in that both (the Auraria and downtown) plans will have much the same vision," Wolf said.

Arapahoe Square

The area northeast of downtown, dubbed Arapahoe Square, has been identified as a district with tremendous opportunity for development.

It is bounded by Park Avenue West, 20th Street, Tremont Place and the alley between Larimer and Lawrence streets. It serves as a congregating point for the homeless population and is covered by parking lots and low-rise buildings.

"This is an opportunity to create a 21st century neighborhood where newer elements would dictate the character," said John Desmond, vice president of urban planning and environment for the Downtown Denver Partnership.

The area has potential for more dense, affordable housing or a center for small and newer businesses and an incubator.

"It's an area that has a lot of potential, more so than some of the other places downtown because it's so open," Basey said. "But we're all sensitive to private people who own those properties."

It comes down to how to deal with downtown parking lots. Enforcing existing ordinances that require certain levels of beautification is one solution.

"Maybe it's time to put a little bit more heat on parking lot owners," Basey said. "Is that what we want ringing our city, a vast wasteland of open parking lots? At some point you have to have a financial incentive for the private owner to take the next step."

14th Street

The plan can't be implemented until the City Council approves it in July, but two things can't wait until then - sprucing up 14th Street and revitalizing the city's core. The Democratic National Convention is the catalyst to accomplishing both of those short-term objectives.

With thousands of visitors pouring out of the Colorado Convention Center and wandering down 14th Street to Larimer Square and down California Street to the 16th Street Mall, spiffing up the seedy side streets has taken on new urgency.

And with private-development projects totaling $786 million along 14th Street in the works, the hope is that at least some of the plan's vision will be implemented as those projects are built.

"We're also talking about forming a special district that would have all the property owners along 14th Street participate in some fashion in financing that part of the plan," Desmond said. "It's a large street with both public and private structures."

A six-month study sponsored by the partnership and the Downtown Denver Business Improvement District, among others, determined the price tag for transforming 14th Street to be more than $10 million. The 14th Street project is in its second phase of detailed design and now is considered a city project.

California Street

Tidying California Street is another issue.

"Our first choice would be that someone step up and redevelop the Republic Hotel and the old bank, but even if that started today I doubt it would be done by the convention," Basey said.

The city, the BID and the partnership have already discussed improvements to the streetscape, he added. "We can probably get it funded a little easier because the money is less."

A task force was recently formed to address quality-of-life issues in the core city, among them safety concerns and vacant buildings. The group is considering condemnation as a way to handle some of the most problematic properties - the rundown Fontius building on the 16th Street Mall and the old Republic Hotel across from the Hyatt Regency Denver at Colorado Convention Center.

Staff writer Margaret Jackson can be reached at 303-954-1473 or mjackson@denverpost.com.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What's next for the downtown plan
Thursday, 2-4 p.m.: Steering committee receives draft of plan, Colorado History Museum, 1300 Broadway

Thursday, 5:30-8 p.m.: Community forum, Colorado History Museum, 1300 Broadway

June 6: Planning board holds public hearing, Webb Municipal Office Building, 201 W. Colfax Ave.

June 25: First reading at City Council, 1437 Bannock St.

July 9: Second reading at City Council, 1437 Bannock St.

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2007/0427/20070427__20070429_K1_BZ29DOWNTOWN~p1.JPG

http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2007/0427/20070427__20070429_K9_BZ29DOWNAFTER2~p1.JPG

[pablosan]

I stuck this in this Denver Construction page. Sorry Junkie.

[navyweaxguy]

I love all the billboards and lights!!! It looks so inviting.

[InfillJunkie]

I stuck this in this Denver Construction page. Sorry Junkie.

Oops sorry about that!

[enjo13]

I love all the billboards and lights!!! It looks so inviting.

That's actually something that could probably be done in a short time that WOULD really help the mall out. Denver is in DESPERATE need of some 'flash'.... maybe some billboards/lights/lcd's might go a long ways towards dressing things up.

[navyweaxguy]

Yes, it would. There are laws against it though aren't there? That would have to be changed by the city if so.