Denver Development Etceteras Thread #5

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

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.

LOL... Give me a break. It's not MY mentality. That was merely a statement of capitulation/frustration, not my mentality. If you've bothered... I'm the one impressed by what Denver has done.
I seem to be in a distinct minority in liking the Zoo and being impressed with their efforts. It's OK, I can deal with it.

I would suggest that the all or nothing was coming from other places not from me. Perhaps reading one statement lacking the previous context was misleading for you. Totally awesome... ya kinda on a subjective level of course.

If you think I'm classifying "everyone" as either mindless or..... guess I'll have to consider that my communication skills are lacking a bit.
It could be that some of my sarcasm/tongue in cheeks comments aren't always so obvious as well.

[glowrock]

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 (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?

Wow, obviously you never went into the main exhibits at the Natural History Museum in that case, seventwenty. Terrible? I've been to many, MANY natural history museums across the country (L.A., Chicago, Smithsonian, Carnegie in Pittsburgh, Houston, just to name some of them), and Denver's is very, very high on the list. Prehistoric Journey is one of the best museum exhibits I've ever seen, and that includes the Field in Chicago and the Smithsonian!

As for the zoo, while it's not enormous in size, the exhibits have been updated nicely, and with the new Asian Tropics either open or about to open, I'd say well over 50% of the zoo has been completely rebuilt in the last 10+ years. San Diego Zoo quality? Of course not. But certainly in the upper tier of urban zoos? Yep.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by takefive

If you've bothered... I'm the one impressed by what Denver has done.

LOL at misrepresenting mine and many other's position.

Originally Posted by glowrock

Wow, obviously you never went into the main exhibits at the Natural History Museum in that case, seventwenty. Terrible? I've been to many, MANY natural history museums across the country (L.A., Chicago, Smithsonian, Carnegie in Pittsburgh, Houston, just to name some of them), and Denver's is very, very high on the list. Prehistoric Journey is one of the best museum exhibits I've ever seen, and that includes the Field in Chicago and the Smithsonian!

As for the zoo, while it's not enormous in size, the exhibits have been updated nicely, and with the new Asian Tropics either open or about to open, I'd say well over 50% of the zoo has been completely rebuilt in the last 10+ years. San Diego Zoo quality? Of course not. But certainly in the upper tier of urban zoos? Yep.

Aaron (Glowrock)

OK, maybe terrible was a bit strong, but my point is more that there's a room for improvement. Looking back, nothing in my mind stands out about either the museum or the zoo. I'll give them a second look when I'm back in March.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

LOL at misrepresenting mine and many other's position.




OK, maybe terrible was a bit strong, but my point is more that there's a room for improvement. Looking back, nothing in my mind stands out about either the museum or the zoo. I'll give them a second look when I'm back in March.

Honestly, it just depends on what you're personally interested in. I've come to the conclusion that, no matter how good or bad one perceives a museum or zoo, others will have the completely opposite opinion of the place in question, and will have equally good reasons for their opinions as well.

In other words, different strokes for different folks.

As for the size of the Natural History Museum (DMNS, whatever it's called!), it is the fourth or fifth-largest facility of its kind in the country, only smaller than the Field Museum in Chicago, American Museum of Natural History in NYC, the Smithsonian (of course), and MAYBE the L.A. Country Museum of Natural History (though frankly, the last time I visited that place I wasn't terribly impressed by it...) Houston has a very fine natural history museum as well, but it's quite small and cramped, thankfully with excellent exhibits. They're currently undergoing a major expansion right now, so I'll wait until it I visit it again once it's all finished before I give my thoughts about that place again.

Aaron (Glowrock)

PS: For the record, the space exhibit at DMNS is definitely pathetic. Aimed for the age 4-8 crowd, and that's about it. They really, really need to add some different exhibits in there, and really need to show off their world-class meteorite collection, which is pretty much sitting in boxes in some storage room.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Honestly, it just depends on what you're personally interested in. I've come to the conclusion that, no matter how good or bad one perceives a museum or zoo, others will have the completely opposite opinion of the place in question, and will have equally good reasons for their opinions as well.

In other words, different strokes for different folks.

As for the size of the Natural History Museum (DMNS, whatever it's called!), it is the fourth or fifth-largest facility of its kind in the country, only smaller than the Field Museum in Chicago, American Museum of Natural History in NYC, the Smithsonian (of course), and MAYBE the L.A. Country Museum of Natural History (though frankly, the last time I visited that place I wasn't terribly impressed by it...) Houston has a very fine natural history museum as well, but it's quite small and cramped, thankfully with excellent exhibits. They're currently undergoing a major expansion right now, so I'll wait until it I visit it again once it's all finished before I give my thoughts about that place again.

Aaron (Glowrock)

PS: For the record, the space exhibit at DMNS is definitely pathetic. Aimed for the age 4-8 crowd, and that's about it. They really, really need to add some different exhibits in there, and really need to show off their world-class meteorite collection, which is pretty much sitting in boxes in some storage room.

You just like rocks. Rocks that glow. Any museum with a fancy rock exhibit is going to impress you. Rocks at the botanic gardens. Rocks at the aquarium. More rocks!

[Cirrus]

oh nevermind

[mojiferous]

Just FYI: The DMNS is actually one of the top museums in the country/world for paleontological studies. (Someone outside of Denver Google paleontology please — I was about to make a point about DMNS being a top hit, but one can never tell anymore if they're using your location or not.) Which is why the Dinosaur exhibit is so great, but everything else is lacking… Denver is sitting on and surrounded by huge fossil beds, not stolen egyptian mummies, and it was not home to a huge airplane industry (aeronautics, yes, but most was heavily classified), nor were we that big in the 19th century during the heyday of museum "acquisitions". So instead we have "dinosaurs".

[wong21fr]

I had a pretty decent post going last night on the quality of Denver's cultural exhibits but someone decided to shut the goddamn site down for maintenance.

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.

The only "real" museum space would be the second temporary exhibition hall to compliment the Phipps Hall, which will allow the museum to host two traveling exhibits at once. The storage facility is also "real" museum space both in the immediate and for the future. By consolidating these facilities they museum will be opening up additional space in the existing building for additional permanent exhibits in the future. What they might be, I don't know, but I'm willing to bet it focuses on earth sciences as the museum is (unfortunately) going away from the history aspect.

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.

Since when is a 500,000 sq ft museum considered small? With the new addition, we are talking about a facility that has over 600,000 sq ft of space. Size wise, it's doesn't have a problem, but the layout needs some serious renovation. The area that used to be the space exhibit (before it was dumbed down when Space Odyssey opened) is a terrible waste of space and needs to be worked on.

I don't think it's top tier, but I really don't see where it could be. Barring a large gift of artifacts by a foundation of wealth individual the museum doesn't have the specimens to make it really world-renowned "special". We're also pretty removed from the days when we could have simply sent over some archeological exhibits and plundered the historical treasures to our heart's content to obtain those items. (I'm all for plundering Europe when it falls and continuing the cycle of raping once-great civilizations of their treasures).

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.

Hey, the Denver Zoo is one the top 10 zoos in the nation for attendance and the Asian Tropics area will really provide a boost along with getting the next phase rolling. The Cheyenne Mountain Zoo has a nice view, but it's kind of hard to take seriously when the acolytes down there Colorado Somalia keep on insisting on turning it into Noah's Ark (didn't you ever wonder why they put it up on the side of the hill?).

[wong21fr]

I do wish that we could get a Museum of Science and Technology going. Wings over the Rockies is okay, but there's so much more that could be focused on. Colorado is now the home to the US space launch industry, and a good chunk of the orbital spacecraft being built, after the shuttle retired and we have no facility that celebrates this. Add in the tremendous amount of research that is done for renewable energy aerospace, oil and gas, mining, physics, etc and it would be really nice to have a place that does recognize it.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I do wish that we could get a Museum of Science and Technology going. Wings over the Rockies is okay, but there's so much more that could be focused on. Colorado is now the home to the US space launch industry, and a good chunk of the orbital spacecraft being built, after the shuttle retired and we have no facility that celebrates this. Add in the tremendous amount of research that is done for renewable energy aerospace, oil and gas, mining, physics, etc and it would be really nice to have a place that does recognize it.

We can steal Alabama's rockets. Huntsville doesn't need them!

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

LOL at misrepresenting mine and many other's position.

Ya... I got it, mea culpa. Interestingly, those comments were more intended to be playful digs of sarcasm and with bunt_q, his shoulders are broad enough to not be much bothered by anything I'd say
but he's always happy to assert his view which he's very good at.

So "in the moment" of reaction to Cirrus, my mind went to the collective substance of my comments more than any specific comment. My ill-chosen gamesmanship wasn't front of mind at all.
In fact, by then I'd forgotten the closing ditty I'd done in response to you.

Had to take a breath and ask "Whoa, where'd that come from?" Guess it advises not to assume how others may receive the message. To think that what I considered trivial likely negated any of the real substance....
assuming of course, there was substance of merit.

And if that doesn't add up, then it may just be that I was having a passive/aggressive day. Two things: As I recall I did forget to kick the dog when I got up that day. More importantly I had done some political blogging over MLK.
I do come from the state that was last to acknowledge or certify the holiday and only did so because the NFL nixed holding Super Bowls in Phoenix. Sadly, there are still way too many that still regret/resent the holiday.

Other than that though, I cede Nothing.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

oh nevermind

Should I say..... Thanks.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by glowrock

In other words, different strokes for different folks.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I had a pretty decent post going last night on the quality of Denver's cultural exhibits but someone decided to shut the goddamn site down for maintenance.

Both good comments and of course with Wong I saved the part that makes me laugh and no one brings me more humor relief than Wong.

My opinions wouldn't reflect any valid scientific views or any profession critiquing ability. Rather they've been formed by listening to others..... like Glowrock and Wong.

My experiential expertise (most) always came with kids in tow, either/or mine and others depending who I was "engaging." With kids, it's really important to dial down to their level so they enjoy the day
and if you're lucky they actually learn something along the way.

[TakeFive]

Architect Santiago Calatrava can still be seen in modified plans for DIA
Posted: 01/18/2012 01:00:00 AM MST
Updated: 01/18/2012 03:36:37 AM MST
By Ray Mark Rinaldi, The Denver Post
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_19763379

The modified plan, left, of Santiago Calatrava's design, right, utilizes clear glass instead of white steel, which is Calatrava's trademark. Gone are Calatrava's boney structural support elements that made the transit station and hotel lobby look much like the inside of a giant dinosaur skeleton.Webs of steel replace that aspect of the design. (Special to The Denver Post)

If times had been easier it wold have been cool to have the Calatrava version... especially that dang bridge.

When I get a chance I'll come back by as I'm curious what others think?

[glowrock]

Honestly, I think the new renderings look pretty freaking nice. While I would have loved to see a full Calatrava design implemented, I'm not exactly disappointed at seeing the changes, either. In fact, I'd say that the glass as opposed to the white steel actually makes it less "jarring" as seen as an addition to the current DIA structures.

Overall, it gets my , at least from that rendering.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[bunt_q]

Read the description in the article. That rendering is very obviously made to look "lighter" and less imposing than the actual building will be.

I'm scared now. There was a reason for white - so as not to overwhelm/conflict with the tent. I get that white is Calatrava's color, but agreeing to avoid it in the settlement was unwise. This thing... I am afraid for the integrity of the tent now.

A part of me thinks we need to go back to square one, and find another way to do the hotel. I was okay with the massive structure that would arguably overwhelm the original terminal because it was graceful. This is less graceful. It's sort of like slapping the convention center on to DIA.

The new design is more of a box than the bird Calatrava envisioned. Gone are the rounded, white-tipped wings that made the original concept delicate and graceful. In their place: muscular 14-story walls of glass that thrust upward and, on each side, outward at about a 45-degree angle.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Read the description in the article. That rendering is very obviously made to look "lighter" and less imposing than the actual building will be.

I'm scared now. There was a reason for white - so as not to overwhelm/conflict with the tent. I get that white is Calatrava's color, but agreeing to avoid it in the settlement was unwise. This thing... I am afraid for the integrity of the tent now.

A part of me thinks we need to go back to square one, and find another way to do the hotel. I was okay with the massive structure that would arguably overwhelm the original terminal because it was graceful. This is less graceful. It's sort of like slapping the convention center on to DIA.

The new design is more of a box than the bird Calatrava envisioned. Gone are the rounded, white-tipped wings that made the original concept delicate and graceful. In their place: muscular 14-story walls of glass that thrust upward and, on each side, outward at about a 45-degree angle.

I don't necessarily think that making something white makes it less imposing, Brent. I guess I'll need to see a full rendering of the entire proposal before going too far, but I see nothing wrong with having a good bit of glass present. After all, DIA's terminal has a LOT of glass as well, except for the roof tents, of course!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[bunt_q]

White just made it match.

It was the skeletal design that made it graceful. The words "box" and "muscular" sitting next to the tent scares me. I'm a big fan of glass boxes, but that is not the place for one.

If we're going to do that, there's no need for the "wings" directly in front of the terminal. That made sense when it was a slick Calatrava design. If we're just doing a box, why not go back to the hotel placement that was proposed back in the Mayor Webb days; one that was much less imposing? We don't need 14 stories immediately in front of the terminal to accommodate the RTD station and some new check-in/security counters - we could push that off to the side some.

EDIT: This one, remember this from back in the day? Not the building necessarily, which is not great, but the less-conflicting location. If we're going to do a bland box, maybe best to save the part of the airport that isn't bland - the tent - and push the hotel aside. Just a thought... I know it's too late now for this.

[wong21fr]

The color of the glass and it's reflectivity are now of paramount importance for this project to make up for the loss of the white-coated steel in not overwhelming the terminal. However, the terminal station actually looks better in the redesign.

[bunt_q]

If they could paint the new station white it would match Union Station nicely. I sure hope DIA isn't forever banned from using white. It's kind of become a theme around here.