Denver Development Etceteras Thread #5

[bunt_q]

So I plopped the proposed-for-2012 multifamily project renderings from Ken's 2011 retrospective into a single document (a couple doubles). I wanted to see them side-by-side, look at the architectural patterns... this is what 21st Century multifamily Colotecture looks like:

[pregersthehobo]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Yeah, but TakeFive sort of excluded the out-of-city attractions from consideration in his post. I don't think anybody is questioning Colorado's draw for tourists. This was more Denver-specific, and let's be honest, to say that Denver (city-only) is in the same tier as some of those other cities for tourism is... a bit of a stretch. If you come to Denver for a week, and don't leave the city, you really haven't done your vacation justice. I would have no problem going to San Fran, NYC, etc. for a week and never leaving the city.

Don't forget the big 2 draws that are specific to Denver this year, DAM is one of the few museums in the world hosting the traveling Van Gogh exhibit and the DCPA is launching the national tour of Book of Mormon. Those are strong enough on their own to constitute a trip to Denver for lots of folks.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

So I plopped the proposed-for-2012 multifamily project renderings from Ken's 2011 retrospective into a single document (a couple doubles). I wanted to see them side-by-side, look at the architectural patterns... this is what 21st Century multifamily Colotecture looks like:

Hell, most cities have their particular vernacular when it comes to architectural styles, and I see nothing wrong with Denver emphasizing what we've all grown accustomed to referring as "colotecture". Actually, I tend to quite like the look of most of those proposals, with perhaps a few minor quibbles. Best one by far is the 4th down on the right, the proposal for 19th/Logan. Absolutely gorgeous both in terms of form and function!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[TakeFive]

Cadence Apartments™ at Union Station

Did we know this had a Name? It do.
I'm partial to 2020 Lawrence.

[The Dirt]

Meh... I don't go to SF, DC, or NYC to see a specific art exhibit or specific show. Regardless of when I go, there will always be something to see and do. Until we have a landmark as well engrained in the city's national and international image as the Golden Gate Bridge is to San Francisco, the White House is to DC, or Central Park is to New York, we'll never be in the same league. I love Denver, but as far as I'm concerned we're full of Tier 3 destinations at best.

I would define tier 1 as something that's an international landmark, tier 2 would at least be nationally well-known, while tier 3 would be a regional attraction (i.e. Mountain-West, Great Plains). Here's what we have going for us:

Tier 3 but, somewhat approaching Tier 2 (only 1 is downtown):
- DIA tent
- 16th St. Mall
- Red Rocks Ampitheater

Solid Tier 3:
- City Park (+ museum & Denver Zoo)
- DAM
- Civic Center Park (State Capitol building & C&C building are included)
- downtown Denver
- Stadiums (Mile High, Coors Field, Pepsi Center)

Dubiusly tier 3:
- DUS & CPV
- Millenium bridge (+ Platte river bridge and Highland bridge)
- historic neighborhoods (Capitol Hill, Five Points, Lower Highland)
- Stapleton (thanks to HGTV hype)
- Botanic Gardens

That's not bad but if we're going to have a good discussion about what Denver is doing right or wrong in terms of tourist recognizeability, we need to compare ourself to peer cities, such as like St. Luis, Portland, and Seattle.

[bunt_q]

You could argue that we have some solid "Tier 2" attractions... but none of them are in the city. Aspen. Vail. Dare I say it, even Pikes Peak itself is a higher attraction than any of those things you listed in Denver proper, at least within the U.S.

Not sure if anybody else noticed, but Lonely Planet came out with a Colorado-specific guide for the first time this year. That's nice, not many other states have that yet. Their top attractions are more what you'd expect some random European to know about. The ones I mentioned, plus Mesa Verde, for example. Even Boulder (thanks in no small part to CU) might be more known globally than Denver, although that's changing, I think.

[TakeFive]

Pretty quick on the draw to come up with your very good list. It all sounds about right, too.

I'm sure the Denver Zoo's new exhibits help raise its stature but it would be hard to put it on a par with Forrest Park or the San Diego Zoo.
Soo much work, improvements were done at City Park with the Better Denver Bond program, it's hard to imagine that City Park (including zoo and museum) isn't a Solid Tier 3.

Let's do one quibble.
From PRNewswire: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...111662379.html

And during a time when maneuvering through airports is bemoaned by many, Denver International Airport was named the "Best Airport in North America" for the sixth year running,
delicately balancing passenger safety with providing an enjoyable experience.

And from DBJ: http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/ne.../dia-best.html

"DIA is honored to be the only airport ever to receive this award six consecutive years," Denver Aviation Manager Kim Day said in a statement Wednesday.

Plus DIA has clearly had the #1 best Flash Mob Dance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P99p6l8v0FQ

I'm thinking The Tent would be Tier 2

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Yeah, but TakeFive sort of excluded the out-of-city attractions from consideration in his post. I don't think anybody is questioning Colorado's draw for tourists. This was more Denver-specific, and let's be honest, to say that Denver (city-only) is in the same tier as some of those other cities for tourism is... a bit of a stretch. If you come to Denver for a week, and don't leave the city, you really haven't done your vacation justice. I would have no problem going to San Fran, NYC, etc. for a week and never leaving the city.

Exactly. As a state, and as Bunt appears to have also written while I'm typing this response, Colorado has a lot going for it: Great skiing and resorts. Great historical sites such as Mesa Verde. Great off the beaten path attractions such as the Great Sand Dunes NP.

But what about Denver? The way most people see Denver is via the lens of Colorado. They see Denver as in the mountains, not adjacent to the mountains, and much of that is from the area selling itself as this mecca for outdoor activities, not as a standalone city. There's nothing wrong with such an approach, but it means Denver is undersold to many out of state tourists because those tourist want to come to Colorado.

The out of staters often see Denver as a bigger Vail and not as a city that functions, for all intents and purposes, "independently" of the mountains. Granted, much of our commerce is connected to the mountains, e.g. mining and oil, but how often do we all take a drive up I-70? Weekly? Few times a year? How often do you want to see an event downtown or around Denver? I'm betting much more frequently.

Originally Posted by The Dirt

That's not bad but if we're going to have a good discussion about what Denver is doing right or wrong in terms of tourist recognizeability, we need to compare ourself to peer cities, such as like St. Luis, Portland, and Seattle.

Two questions: 1. What is an example of a Tier 2 city attraction? Is it something like the St. Louis Arch? A great museum like the Met (yes, I know it's NYC, but just feeling out the parameters) that is overshadowed by even bigger attractions? Pike Place Market?

2. How do you see us stacking up against some of those cities? I think, in terms of livability, Denver's pretty solid: Great weather, affordable, good infill in more established areas. In terms of attractions, well, we're kinda cursed by living in Colorado, as, like I'm arguing above, the state overshadows the city.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

So I plopped the proposed-for-2012 multifamily project renderings from Ken's 2011 retrospective into a single document (a couple doubles). I wanted to see them side-by-side, look at the architectural patterns... this is what 21st Century multifamily Colotecture looks like:

Nice pairing.. though I can't recall what the 3rd one down on the right is..?

Is this part of the 19th and Logan conglomeration of buildings?

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Soo much work, improvements were done at City Park with the Better Denver Bond program, it's hard to imagine that City Park (including zoo and museum) isn't a Solid Tier 3.
. . . .
I'm thinking The Tent would be Tier 2

I haven't been to the zoo or the museum since 2008, and I thought both were terrible at the time, esp the museum. The museum looked dated, and the exhibits were boring. What's changed?

As for the tent, it's an airport. Yeah, it looks cool (though, acedotally, a lot of non-Coloradans hate the tent), but it's not an attraction. It's purpose is to move people in and out efficiently and put out a good 1st impression. Look at it this way, Fentress designed another great airport: Seoul Incheon. Does that great looking airport make you want to go to Seoul or South Korea? Once in Seoul, are you going to spend a lot of time looking at the ICN airport, or are you wanting to go explore places like Hongdae, Gangnam, Apujeong etc?

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

It's an airport. Yeah, it looks cool (though, acedotally, a lot of non-Coloradans hate the tent), but it's not an attraction.

Anectodally... I heard many people agree with you.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

Nice pairing.. though I can't recall what the 3rd one down on the right is..?

Is this part of the 19th and Logan conglomeration of buildings?

http://denverinfill.com/blog/2011/03...n-phase-2.html

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

Anectodally... I heard many people agree with you.

rimshot!

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

I haven't been to the zoo or the museum since 2008, and I thought both were terrible at the time, esp the museum. The museum looked dated, and the exhibits were boring. What's changed?

As for the tent, it's an airport. Yeah, it looks cool but it's not an attraction. It's purpose is to move people in and out efficiently and put out a good 1st impression.

LOL... I don't entirely disagree... but I think you miss the point a bit. First, I'll blame The Dirt cuz he's the one that listed The Tent.

But I'll also defend the choice. I think we all understand that people don't pick a day to go see DIA. Still the airport does get 51,000,000 visitors. It's the first impression that most people get of Denver.
Airports for better or worse are usually something people remember. Finally did you see the part about Best... for six consecutive years? So regardless of specific anecdotal reports I would say
that in comparison.... the jury is in ... six years running.

As for the Zoo, what other zoos have you been to since 2008 that you like better. More to the point, what did your kids think? Zoos are for kids, of course big kids too. It is the number one attraction.
So based on your judgment Denver must be pretty lousy?

Haven't myself been to the Museum since all of the Bond money was spent, with final phase still being built. I believe the Denver Museum of Nature & Science is the second biggest attraction. Guess you'd say Denver is really lousy?

Lordy, maybe Denver should just commit suicide.

[TakeFive]

seventwenty:
To your bigger view/point, maybe Denver can never get there from here. I do occasionally just surf YouTube videos of different cities. Denver will never be able to compete with West Coast Cities in California.
Portland and Seattle are no slouches either.

The Last Decade (or so) has seen lots of urban growth and enhancement. My God, even places like Salt Lake City and Oklahoma City have raised their stature. Look how Charlotte and Austin have so changed.
All the Texas cities. San Diego has added tons of excitement. Then there's the place that's literally in my back yard, the place where people with serious money come and spend it and can even play hard, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=RkZChxR23Ts

But given what Denver is and what it has to work with, what more could you ask for? It's getting better all the time.

[bunt_q]

There hasn't really been any bond money spent at the museum for a long time. There's construction just starting, but it's not going to expand much. It's mostly adding kid play rooms and storage, it seems. Not much "real" museum space.

I find our museum kind of dull. I keep my membership, and I go reasonably often, especially for some of the evening programs. The rock exhibit is top notch, the dinosaur exhibit is actually as comprehensive and informative as any I've seen (including Chicago's Field and the National Natural History Museum in DC), but that also makes it less impressive in a way - too wordy, too many fossilized snails. Expedition Health isn't so much my thing, but it's definitely a first class exhibit. But there's a lot of the rest that is definitely dated... the space exhibit is a joke. The dioramas are just old and tired. It's fine for what it is, but it's small, and nowhere near the top tier of museums.

Where do you get your tourist numbers? Last I checked, Cherry Creek and the 16th Street Mall were still far and away the top attractions. I doubt the museum even ranks.

The Zoo is pretty middle of the road, too. It's perfectly fine for a cramped, flat, in-a-city-park zoo, like so many others around the world. But it's also not top tier. Frankly, Colorado Springs' Cheyenne Mountain Zoo gives the Denver Zoo a solid run for its money. It's smaller, but the newer exhibits themselves are hands down nicer. I grew up on summer trips to the Brookfield Zoo in Chicago, so I'm a bit spoiled...we never wasted our time with Denver's. They do a good zoo lights. But it's the same from year to year, so it has to be a reasonably warm night to justify it.

[TakeFive]

Haha... you're the data finder guy. I'm just going from memory but if I find the right link....

They've spent a bunch of money on the Museum but a lot of it was maintenance so it might have improved the museum but not the exhibits. There is new Phipps Gallery that they spent $11 million on.
There used to be a page that listed projects and their cost but it's lost. There is this: http://www.denvergov.org/Projects/1G...9/Default.aspx

Dang, I guess we have to go all semantics. It depends on how you want to define visitor attractions. I was thinking more of specific place/attractions not like the 16th Street Mall, but certainly that's a big visitor destination.

The Zoo states over 1.6 million visitors.

Of course you can go the subjective route:
About.com ... http://denver.about.com/od/attractio...p10tourist.htm
Trip Adviser: ... http://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractio..._Colorado.html
DenverSmarts (?): ... http://www.denversmarts.com/thingsToDoDenver.php

I haven't suggested Denver's zoo is world class, in fact I specifically said.... but it depends again on how you want to define zoo experiences.
Parent's Magazine says Brookfield is #2 (never been there) Forrest Park is #3 (I've been there) #8 San Diego (I've been to). Denver isn't even rated.
I could have sworn I've seen in rated highly by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, but I can't find it now.

I guess you're right when it comes right down to it Denver sucks. Oh well. Guess they wasted a $100 million on the zoo (or whatever the specific amount is). Perhaps I was giving them too much credit.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

We're getting better. Compared to 10 years ago the massing is improved and a lot of EIFS has given way to brick.

I think we are very much in the adolescent years of Colotecture. It still isn't fully mature as a style, but it's progressed some from the early stages. "Just make it look warehousey" isn't good enough anymore; architects are clearly paying more attention to proportions and materials now. But it's also clear that we can still do better. We're still seeing some half-measures and awkwardness.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I guess you're right when it comes right down to it Denver sucks.

This all or nothing mentality of yours is just silly. Denver is neither totally awesome beyond belief, nor totally sucky. Notwithstanding your insistence on classifying everyone as either a mindless cheerleader or naysayer, reality is in between.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

There hasn't really been any bond money spent at the museum for a long time. There's construction just starting, but it's not going to expand much. It's mostly adding kid play rooms and storage, it seems. Not much "real" museum space.

That's a real shame. Is this bond money coming out of the Better Denver Bond Program? From looking at the BDBP's website, it appears the funding is coming from there.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I find our museum kind of dull. I keep my membership, and I go reasonably often, especially for some of the evening programs. The rock exhibit is top notch, the dinosaur exhibit is actually as comprehensive and informative as any I've seen (including Chicago's Field and the National Natural History Museum in DC), but that also makes it less impressive in a way - too wordy, too many fossilized snails. Expedition Health isn't so much my thing, but it's definitely a first class exhibit. But there's a lot of the rest that is definitely dated... the space exhibit is a joke. The dioramas are just old and tired. It's fine for what it is, but it's small, and nowhere near the top tier of museums.

Yeah, dinosaurs and biology aren't my thing. Space is, which probably explains why I have a bad memory of the museum. Oh well, we still have Wings Over the Rockies. That museum did have a renovation about a year or so ago. While it's not the Smithsonian/Udvar Hazy, WotR is charming in its dusty old hangar, and you get a helluva lot closer to the planes than at the Smithsonian. Or maybe you don't get closer to the planes, but the fact that the museum isn't as busy makes you think you're closer. Or maybe I'm just crazy. I am a bit saddened at the Adam Aircraft that used to be there is now only a museum piece, but such is aviation.

Here's a good report concerning Colorado tourism: http://www.colorado.com/ai/Colorado2...ineversion.pdf (warning, long). It's statewide, but it does show some interesting trends.

A Again in 2010, the proportion of overnight Colorado visitors who live instate continued to increase – now up to 42%. One of the continuing
issues Colorado faces with a relatively high instate base of travelers is the fact that residents tend to spend significantly less than out-of-state visitors
($186 compared to $386 per person in 2010). The number of day trips to and within the state rose by 9% in 2010 to 26.3 million trips. And there was a 14% improvement in overall spending on those trips – daytrippers spent a total of $1.3 billion in the state, up from $1.2 billion a year earlier, which more than erased 11% decline we measured between ‘08 and ‘09 pg 11

People coming on touring trips, for example, want variety, including both urban and rural
experiences. A surprising 3 in 10 visitors in 2010 said they came to the state specifically seeking out
history and historic sites, and 2 in 10 were looking for cultural experiences and attractions. An increasing number of visitors come to Colorado on city trips.. Yet in each of the foregoing instances, the recent marketing materials paid limited attention to these opportunities pg 14

Overnight trip table (will be hard to format on the forum) pg 19

After falling sharply from ‘08 to ‘09, city trips nationwide flattened out in ‘10. The good news for Colorado is that the state never lost ground in city trip volume; however there has also been no growth in this segment since ‘08. pg 20

California and Texas remained the top out-of-state markets for overnight
Colorado vacations, followed by: Arizona, Illinois, New Mexico, Florida, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, New York

The Pacific region accounted for about 1 in 10 Colorado overnight tourists in 2010, with somewhat fewer coming from the South and Midwest. Only 1 in 20 vacationers visited Colorado from the Northeast. In 2010, the top urban areas generating overnight tourists were: Denver, Colorado Springs – Pueblo, Los Angeles, Albuquerque – Santa Fe, Phoenix, New York City, Dallas – Ft. Worth, Chicago, Grand Junction - Montrose, Salt Lake City pgs 27-28

Colorado’s overnight leisure visitors in 2010 were demographically very
similar to vacationers nationwide in some respects: average age of 46, two-thirds are married, similar household size, 4 in 10 have kids/teens living at home, two-thirds have household income of $50K+, There were just a few slight skews – Colorado overnight vacationers in 2010 were: a fairly even split by gender vs. a slight female skew nationally, somewhat better educated, slightly more likely to be employed pg 30

Even though Colorado is primarily a regional destination in the sense of drawing tourists mainly from Western markets, our long-form surveys in other years have shown that the travel distances from major markets are fairly sizeable, with over half of visitors traveling 500 or more miles from home to get to Colorado. As a consequence of this distance to market and likely less familiarity with the state, Colorado leisure visitors tend to seek out more information in general than people visiting the typical destination, especially information on the internet. pg 32

[T]he average Colorado leisure trip was just under 5 nights away from home, about the same as in 2009, but well below the 7 nights average in 2000 pg 34

There were 3 people in the typical Colorado leisure travel party in 2010, which is about the same as the national norm. In 2010, the spring and summer seasons produced the most visitors, although substantial numbers did come to Colorado during the first and fourth quarter pg 35

And on and on for over 150 pgs

More reports: http://www.colorado.com/IndustryPart...rnational.aspx