A few days ago we learned that the Colorado Historical Society board voted against locating the new Colorado History Museum inside Denver’s Civic Center Park. In case you missed the announcement, here’s an article by the Rocky‘s Mary Voelz Chandler about the issue: No Museum for Civic Center.
The idea to relocate the museum inside the park had been floating around since last spring, and debate on the issue appeared to crescendo around the holidays. For as many people excited by the idea of locating the museum inside the park itself, there seemed to be just as many people opposed to the idea for a variety of reasons. Personally, I had mixed feelings about the proposal. Initially, I preferred the Permit Center site at the southwest corner of Bannock and 14th, but over time I gradually warmed to the idea of placing it inside the park itself, and said so in November. Now that the Civic Center Park idea is dead, the question remains: where should the museum relocate to?
One thing about this issue that I do not have mixed feelings about: the Colorado History Museum must stay in Downtown Denver. I’m troubled by what I read near the end of the article: “After the vote, board member Frank Kugeler suggested that the committee studying sites for the historical society ‘expand the area of investigation’ to include locations such as Union Station, the Gates redevelopment and Stapleton.” Bad idea, Frank.
Downtown Denver is where the Colorado History Museum belongs. A Downtown Denver setting exposes the museum to the greatest concentration of people found anywhere in the state on any given day. It provides the museum a setting among the greatest concentration of historic buildings and resources found anywhere in the state. It allows patrons to access the museum via the widest-ranging transportation options available anywhere in the state. A Downtown location puts the museum within proximity of the greatest concentration of synergetic governmental, educational, cultural, and entertainment facilities found anywhere in the state. It’s a no-brainer: the Colorado History Museum should stay in Downtown Denver.
But where in Downtown is another matter. A location in the Civic Center area is the most obvious, and all of the sites originally considered were located in the Civic Center/Golden Triangle area. Click here to download (750 kb) a PDF containing selected pages from a larger document the CHM once had on their website about their site selection and evaluation process. Some of those Civic Center/Golden Triangle sites should probably be reconsidered; and, given the ubiquity of surface parking lots in that part of Downtown, I’m sure we could come up with a few more. But perhaps we should consider other locations in Downtown where the CHM could go.
One of the locations suggested by Mr. Kugeler was near Union Station. Anywhere around Union Station in Lower Downtown or the Central Platte Valley would be an attractive option for the museum from a number of perspectives. But given the amount of land the museum needs, I suspect they couldn’t afford it. Land around Union Station is arguably some of the most expensive in the entire city. For a project that needs to maximize its budget, a less costly Downtown site would be advisable.
So, here’s my suggestion: How about on the Auraria campus? More specifically, on the Auraria campus at the corner of Speer and Larimer? As many of you probably know, the State recently completed a major update to the Auraria Campus master plan, and one of the plan’s key features is adding public/private mixed-use urban development in the northwest corner of the campus, between the historic Tivoli and Speer Boulevard and between Auraria Parkway and Larimer Street, as shown in red in this future-buildout illustration from the plan:
There are two main reasons for putting higher density urban development at that corner of the campus. One is to strengthen Auraria’s relationship with the central business district and integrate the campus in with the rest of Downtown. The other is to improve the pedestrian connection between Auraria and Downtown and psychologically shorten the crossing of Speer by placing new buildings on campus right up to the street, reconfiguring and narrowing Speer to create additional development parcels along its edge, and creating visual interest, activity, and destinations along the way. The new Downtown Area Plan also makes these same recommendations. A new Colorado History Museum at Speer and Larimer would advance both plans’ goals as well as the museum’s. Here’s another future-buildout illustration from the new campus master plan that I took the liberty of annotating:
Let’s take a look at some of the advantages of this location:
- The site is highly visible and offers great pedestrian and vehicular access.
- Parking could be accommodated underground or as part of a shared parking facility with adjacent private development. Several campus parking garages and the underutilized Pepsi Center parking lots are close by.
- The Downtown Area Plan calls for a streetcar line along Larimer, so the site has the potential to be right at a future transit stop.
- The educational uses on campus and the cultural/entertainment uses in LoDo and the Central Platte Valley are natural complements to a museum.
- The site is only a block away from a historic landmark (the Tivoli) and a block away from Larimer Square, one of the most historically significant places in Denver and the state.
- The museum would be a visual attractor and destination that stimulates pedestrian activity and interest and becomes the psychological “bridge” for crossing Speer.
- The museum would create tremendous added value to the private mixed-use development planned for the land around it, and vice versa.
All of those are positive advantages for locating the CHM at Speer and Larimer on the Auraria campus. But one of the biggest advantages is… the State already owns the land! And it’s not just the State that owns the land, but specifically the Colorado Department of Higher Education, which oversees the Colorado Historical Society and the Colorado History Museum!
During the debate over the various Civic Center sites, it was noted that land acquisition costs could be as high as $10 – $15 million, which made the site inside Civic Center Park so attractive. With the State not having to pay a dime for the Auraria site, the money saved can be put into making the new museum bigger and better.
The only downside to the Auraria site is that it is not adjacent to the Capitol and the other State government and cultural resources in the Civic Center area. But since the Colorado Historical Society board is already considering looking beyond Civic Center anyway, then moving the museum down Speer Boulevard a few blocks shouldn’t be a big deal. Auraria is still a lot closer to Civic Center than Stapleton!
Rather than relying on the Colorado History Museum to help activate and revitalize Civic Center Park, instead, let’s use the museum to help solve the Auraria / Downtown connection problem, while still providing the museum a fantastic location in the middle of everything–with no land acquisition costs!
What do you think?
Thanks for getting a well thought out plan into the discussion. I hope people look seriously at this option because, as you said, it would be a travesty to locate the museum outside of the downtown area.
All of your points are incredibly well thought out and logical. I had no idea that Auraria had a build-out plan such as this…it will really change the feel of that part of downtown. I think that it's key that the museum stays in downtown as well, but I find it quite appealing that it won't be in the Civic Center area. While it is an important part of Denver, I think that it's good that large public interest projects are starting to seep into other areas of downtown. Our identity as a city is much more complex than just the Civic Center park area.
I was with you all the way up to the narrowing Spear part. Are you talking about getting rid of lanes, or minimizing the median?
Speer is a vital traffic artery.
Great idea, Ken. I live just outside the new Museum of Contemporary Art, and that has been a most welcome addition to our neighborhood (Riverfront/CPV/Union Station)
I think this museum needs to stay downtown. Many cities don't have an urban center as clean and safe as ours, we should take advantage of it. (example – I grew up outside of Detroit)
Where is stapleton, anyways? Is that near Greeley? (jk)
Todd, I believe the idea is to realign Speer and narrow the median to better utilize the land along its edges for development.
Brilliance! The CHM wouldn't have to bargain themselves into a reduced square footage, the "friends of civic center" won't have to worry about ruining their peaceful views of hobos and drug deals, and no one will have to try to find a surface lot owner who is willing to sell their precious "gold-mine".
Fantastic idea!
Ken, I live in the area and love your idea. More crains, more developement, more people, go go go!
this is a great idea- plus it would be next too the new auraria hotel.
I am totally for your proposal. One site in the Civic Center area that I desperately want to see developed is the parking lot at 13th and Bannock. I thought this site would be good for the history museum because it is diagonally across from the Byers-Evans house and still in the Civic Center area. I hate seeing that huge parking lot from the balcony of the DAM! But, the price for this property is probably exorbitant and the visibility isn't as good as along Speer or closer to Civic Center Park. I hope we don't have to wait too long until the parking lots around the art museum are redeveloped. Maybe I am being anal, but I would really like to see the symmetry of Civic Center Park completed. I think a large attractive pavilion/children's play area of some sort should be built at the rejected history museum site. This would help to activate the park by giving visitors and families something to do in the park. Also, there is no playground in the entire golden triangle, lower Capitol Hill area. We need to take Civic Center Park back from the drug dealers and vagrants.
Shap, actually Stapleton's near Kansas, not Greeley.
And your option, Ken, seems too easy for a government to live with. There must be more complications else it will never come to fruition.
Interesting idea. Good to hear some fresh thought.
I'm a huge proponent of the Civic Center site for innumerable reasons (and let me say how disappointed I am that one or two heady people were able to nullify that whole design effort simply to keep the city's civic center the same dead space for another thirty years. Better to not damage their perception of memories than to advance an entire city's urban space.) It makes me sick that Civic Center will retain it's porta-potties, drug-dealers, and parking lots for another generation.
That being said, I still think the museum belongs in a more ped-friendly site than Speer and Auraria. To reinforce this, the State Museum should at least be near the State Capitol or within a walkable distance.
Thanks for the fresh idea Ken, its very provocative and considering how far the museum is being pushed from Civic Center, this may be a workable site in the end. Let's all hope the Museum ends up staying in Colorado instead of moving to Stapleton.
This sounds like a great idea. How much SF' does the new museum require? As far as visibility – you won't find a location better than this corner with regard to traffic. In fact, I'm sure the idea to visit the museum will occasionally pop into the head of all the suburbanites – som who only venture into the city to attend an event at the Pepsi Center. If they see a shiney, new building erected across the street from where the Avs are playing – then dad just might take Junior before the game. Meanwhile, mom and sis could just as easily shop on Larimer Street.. and so on..
Auraria would be a more realistic, more affordable, and more visible location for the museum compared to the ones mentioned by the CHS board member. It is sad, though, that the Auraria and downtown master plans are focused on intensifying uses along Speer rather than using it to create a visual edge in front of downtown and an academic green for Auraria.
The BEST location for the new museum would be the Evans School site. Keeping it in the prime musuem district by renovating a beautiful landmark and adding a modern structure would be best for the museum and for access by the public. It's unbelievable that the owners would sit and let the existing building continue to rot rather than pursue an opportunity like this.
OMG, I love this idea Ken!
I love the idea, and I love the location. The only thing I would add is a pedestrian bridge. The bridge would start just off of 14th St. crossing over Cherry creek and Speer running along the north side of Larimer St. This bridge could look like the Highlands bridge over I-25.
Anon 1:07 has it right: something needs to be built in Civic Center, to match the footprint of the old library (currently the McNichols Building) and to activate the park beyond those tiresome, generic festivals in the summertime. I was very disappointed to hear of the site's rejection, and think that the site would be perfect for a museum to honor Denver's (as opposed to Colorado's) history.
As for Ken's Auraria proposal, it's perfect in almost every way, although should it be built there the campus will have to come up with some way to handle all those school buses that will be there on every weekday during the school year. As a graduate of CU Denver's history program, having the CHS so close to the North Classroom would have been a great timesaver for me.
Excellent idea. It's unfortunate that the city didn't think about this whole concept carefully and create a museum campus similar to that in Chicago where all of the museums and cultural institutions could have been linked together by green parks. But, then again, we are the same city that allowed a jewel of a cultural institution in that of Colorado's Ocean Journey turned into a Landry's Steakhouse, so obviously ideas like yours are on the newer side of things.
An equally attractive alternative to your proposal would be for the state to swap land with the City to locate the CHM in the Union Station area in the event there was a feeling that the direct-access Speer land was too valuable to put what is not going to be a very large building on.
Anyway, your logic is impeccable when it comes to the location and the added value the institution would bring to the higher learning campuses. It also is worth noting the Auraria campus is undergoing a huge building project with new science building and center for innovation.
I love the Auraria campus idea, but just to play devil's advocate, what about the north side of downtown near the African American History museum (25th & Welton). The light rail runs along California & Welton, so the area would be easy to access via car or train. The north side of downtown could really benefit from a vibrant project such as the CO History museum and there are tons of big empty lots to choose from.
I think I missed something. Why do they need a new spot anyways? There's that huge area where all the tables and chairs are on the south side of the museum, why not just build a tower expansion right there? Or is that plaza parcel owned by someone else?
Auraria's not a bad idea at all. I do prefer a civic center location – then golden triangle near civic center. Next I would lean toward a platte location near children's museum, the aquarium – near the historic birthplace of the city at the confluence. Auraria would be totally preferable to Gates or Stapleton for Pete's sake!
saint, the proposed Colorado Justice Center would occupy the entire block where the museum now sits.
That's what I was missing! I didn't connect the two in my head.
Er, they're not going to tear down the triangle building to expand the CJC are they? That'd be a shame.
This proposal is so good it's hard to believe! Ken, Get this to the newspapers so the powers that be will see it. I found it hard to believe they would actually consider moving it out of the downtown area. I also think that the Evans school would be ideal. The CHS says there isn't enough room there but the place is surrounded with parking lots. I think I like the Auraria idea even more though.
Bob Hayes
This is an interesting idea. I recall hearing that the College of Architecture and Planning is also pursuing that location for a new building as well. There are a number of reasons that the latter would make a great deal of sense as well. Since acquiring money for architecture buildings must be a lot harder than business schools, maybe there is a way for CAP and CHM to exist in this together?