The ceremony on December 14 involved not so much the breaking of ground, but more the breaking of old walls. Located on the museum site were a couple of small buildings that were ceremoniously wrecked while fireworks went off to launch the museum’s construction phase. I was unable to attend the event, but I finally had a chance to swing by the site the other day. The old buildings are totally gone and the site awaits excavation.

The buildings that were demolished are the ones closest to the corner of 13th and Bannock in the bird’s eye photo (left) of the site from Bing maps. On the right is a picture of the site I took a few days ago:

For a short video clip of the ceremony, check out this website.

The new 30,000 square foot building will be complete in 2011. Renderings of the new museum structure are available here.  Finally, here’s an informative press release from the museum that discusses the building’s exterior and interior design. Brad Cloepfil of Allied Works Architecture is the designer.

Having another new museum in the Civic Center/Golden Triangle area is absolutely exciting. But our museum-packed cultural district is still surrounded by ugly surface parking lots that have defied development for several decades, despite their artsy neighbors. As I’ve explained before in a previous post, part of the problem with the ubiquitous parking lots around there is that most of the lots are actually comprised of numerous small parcels owned by different property owners, which makes land assemblage in the area virtually impossible. I’ve heard reports that there is a mid-rise apartment project being planned for around 12th and Cherokee, which is good news, but really… when are we going to do something to break the parking lot log-jam in the Golden Triangle? Something to think about while we celebrate the start of construction for yet another new museum in Downtown Denver.

In response, a view plane ordinance was proposed that would have originated at a point in Section 222 Club Level of Coors Field, limiting new buildings within the view to a height of 72 feet. The problem with a 72-foot height limit was that, with the elevated I-25 HOV lanes soaring 40 feet above ground past the property, not enough of a 72-foot tall building would rise above the flyover to make the project profitable. Also, there was some debate as to the degree to which a 140-foot tall building at the site would really block mountain views anyway. Here’s a rendering, prepared by Buchanan Yonushewski Group (which represented the Leakes at the time) of the view from Section 222 Club Level with a 140-foot building at 21st and Delgany, as well as the Commons (Central Platte Valley) approved bulk plane behind it:

For more background on the issue, here’s a Rocky Mountain News article and editorial from 2007. Anyway, the view plane issue was put on hold so that it wouldn’t detract from the Rockies’ historic World Series run at the time, and since then there’s been no news on the matter… until now.

Jared Jacang Maher has the latest at Westword: The Denver Metropolitan Major League Baseball Stadium District bought the property from the Leakes for about $2.4 million. You may conclude that this is a win-win for everybody: the Leakes get the value out of their property and Coors Field gets to protect its view. I’m not so sure.

The Stadium District plans to turn the 21st and Delgany site into a surface parking lot after they lose some of their surface parking along upper Blake Street to RTD for a FasTracks transit line. Even that may seem reasonable. But what bothers me is the Stadium District’s viewpoint, as expressed by District director Ray Baker: “There’s just not enough [parking] currently with what we have and what will be taken.”

That’s right, there isn’t enough parking around Coors Field, and that’s a damn good thing. The point of placing Coors Field in a Downtown location without nearly the number of parking spaces that it normally would have if it were in a suburban location, was to force people to either a.) take transit, or b.) park throughout the Downtown area and walk/mall shuttle to the stadium, thereby filling the sidewalks with pedestrians and making Downtown a better, more urban place. A place will never become more urban by making it easier to get there by automobile. Let me repeat that: A place will never become more urban by making it easier to get there by automobile! Until we learn that lesson in Denver, we’ll never have the Downtown we strive to have.

“We can’t simultaneously promote walking and bicycling while continuing to facilitate driving.” – Albert Einstein

And, need I remind the Stadium District that Coors Field is located two blocks from what will be the largest multi-modal transit hub in the entire region?! Why does the District feel that they will need to replace the parking spaces they lose to RTD for transit construction, when those very same transit lines will put millions of people throughout the Denver region within a few miles of a transit line that will conveniently drop them off two blocks away from Coors Field?! Did the Stadium District ever consider that when all the FasTrack lines are up and running that fewer people might, you know, drive to the stadium?

The Stadium District should be working hand in hand with the City and the Downtown Denver Partnership to steadily, strategically, replace the surface parking lots around Coors Field with dense, mixed-use development and, if we must, structured parking. The more Coors Field is surrounded by an intensity of shops, restaurants, housing, hotels, offices, and sidewalks teeming with people, the more exciting it will be to go to a game. We want Coors Field to be in the center of it all, immersed in a pedestrian-scaled urban domain, not surrounded by a sea of asphalt like the Pepsi Center is.

In the Rocky article, Mr. Baker is quoted as saying: “We have an obligation to protect the ambience of the experience of going to Coors Field and protecting that view. I think it would be detrimental to taxpayers not to do so.” You want to protect—enhance—the ambience of the experience of going to Coors Field? Make the experience more urban, more walkable, more engaging. You want to benefit the taxpayers? Make the Coors Field experience more sustainable by discouraging driving to the stadium and by invigorating the streets of Downtown with economy-stimulating pedestrians. Seems to work just fine for Yankee Stadium, Wrigley Field, and Fenway Park.

“If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places.” – Fred Kent

So, the Leakes get their money but Downtown gets a new surface parking lot. I’m happy for the Leakes, but I’m disappointed in the Stadium District’s parochial perspective. I expect more enlighted, progressive thinking from the owners of our Downtown ballpark. But, I’ll make the Stadium District a deal: Develop Block C into a dense, mixed-use project, and I’ll support your parking lot at 21st and Delgany.

As I’ve said many times before, think about the cities that people choose to travel to solely for the urban experience (museums, shopping, culture, history, architecture, etc.): New York, San Francisco, Paris, London, etc.—no surface parking lots! There seems to be a direct correlation between the appeal of a place as an urban destination and the lack of surface parking lots at that place. As a tourist destination, Downtown Denver is doing pretty well considering the number of surface lots we still have. Over the past twenty years, as surface lots have been replaced by shops, hotels, offices, and condos, we’ve seen Downtown Denver’s appeal as a destination in its own right improve commensurately. To reach true urban excellence, we must eliminate all surface parking lots in Downtown Denver.

Unlike some of the other items on the Top 10 list, the city alone cannot accomplish this goal of surface parking lot eradication. Demand for the uses that would occupy new buildings built in place of surface lots must first exist, and the private sector must then respond to that demand by implementing the appropriate supply of vertical development. Consequently, since we’re at the mercy of the free market, it’s going to take a while—many decades—before we get rid of all of our surface lots in Downtown. But one thing that the city can do that it currently isn’t, is proactively readying parking lot sites for eventual development through land assemblage. One of the biggest barriers we have in Downtown to replacing parking lots with new buildings is the fractured ownership of so many parking lot sites. The problem is particularly prevalent in the Arapahoe Square and Civic Center districts. Take, for example, Blocks 045-E and 046-E in Civic Center:

On Block 046-E, the only building on the block that’s new is the 1200 Delaware townhome project, visible in the aerial under construction at the corner of 12th and Delaware. Everything else on the block could be scraped. So, excluding 1200 Delaware, on the west half of the block, there are 10 parcels owned by 8 different owners. On the east half of the block, there are 8 parcels owned by 4 different owners, with only one owner common to both halves. That means that to assemble all of Block 046-E except for the 1200 Delaware project, one would have to negotiate the purchase of land from 11 different owners.

On Block 045-E, the only building on the block that’s not expendable is the relatively new Balustrade Condos at the corner of 12th and Cherokee. Everything else on the block could go. Excluding the Balustrade then, on the west half of the block, there are 7 parcels owned by 6 different owners, and on the east half of the block, there are 8 parcels owned by 5 different owners; once again, only one of those owners common to both halves. For this block, you’d have to negotiate with 10 different owners.

So, here we have two blocks in a prime location, just steps from the Art Museum and the Civic Center’s other cultural amenities, that should be developed into a nice mix of mid-rise housing projects featuring ground-floor retail and restaurant spaces. But what developer in his or her right mind would want to tackle assembling even a portion of these blocks? Several of the parcels are owned by “family trusts” or by families known for their recalcitrance, and once the word got out that developers were trying to assemble the block, everyone would double or triple their asking price, rendering the effort unfeasible. It’s unlikely we’ll see anything of appropriate density built on either of these blocks any time soon unless the city gets serious about land assemblages in the Downtown area.

Anyway, most new Downtown projects typically include structured or underground parking for themselves, and perhaps some parking for the general public. Public parking garages can pick up some of the slack, with transit hopefully serving as the main means of moving people in and out of Downtown. But as surface parking lots are removed, parking your car Downtown will become more difficult–and that’s just fine with me. Time for a few quotes:

Anyplace worth its salt has a “parking problem.” -James Castle, public policy consultant

The car is not the enemy, nor is the elimination of cars the solution. It is our societal bias toward cars that must be questioned. – Anne Vernez Moudon, University of Washington professor of urban design

Anything you do to make a city more friendly to cars makes it less friendly to people. – Enrique Penalosa, New York University urban scholar

And finally, this from Dan Malouff, the mastermind behind BeyondDC and a friend and urban planner who I respect:

Downtowns will never be able to out-suburb the suburbs. It will never be able to play the suburban game of drive-up-and-park better than actual suburbs. Since downtown will never be able to make parking as easy as the suburbs, “easy parking” will never be the reason people choose to go downtown. Instead, people will choose to go downtown based on something downtown has that the suburbs don’t. The one thing downtown has that the suburbs don’t is quality urbanism (i.e. “walkability”). Walkability, therefore, is downtown’s primary competitive advantage over the suburbs. Since walkability suffers when land is used for parking, it stands to reason that more parking would HARM downtown Denver, because more parking would dilute downtown’s walkability, and walkability is the only reason to go downtown instead of to the suburbs. Put simply, easier downtown parking would make downtown more like the suburbs, which would be counterproductive because the reason people go downtown in the first place is because it ISN’T like the suburbs.

Nobody likes to walk next to a surface parking lot. They’re ugly and boring and they diminish the pedestrian experience. Eliminating surface parking lots gives us two bangs for our buck: we remove something that is a deterrent to walkability, and we add something that (hopefully) makes the pedestrian experience engaging and memorable.

Anyway, that’s it, folks! I hope you enjoyed the Top 10 countdown, and thanks for all the great comments—keep them coming. Here’s to a better Downtown Denver!

but the public right-of-way along Market Street doesn’t even have curb and gutter or a sidewalk:

I’m not sure if that’s ultimately the fault of the city or the property owner (according to city maps, the property line runs right along where the yellow poles are), but the fact that appropriate urban infrastructure, along a key block in the center of our most popular Downtown district, has been conspicuously missing for decades is unacceptable. There is some kind of temporary curb that was installed on top of the asphalt edge a few years ago, but that is now breaking up into big chunks of loose concrete–a pleasant pedestrian enhancement, no?

There are two fundamental, mutually-exclusive problems with parking lots in Downtown Denver: their existence, and their condition. We’re making good progress in removing them from existence through all the urban infill projects that this website purposefully identifies and promotes. But the reality is that even under the most optimistic real estate market scenarios, it will be at least another decade or two before all surface parking lots have been eradicated from the Downtown core. I can live with that as long as we’re making steady progress in getting rid of them. But the woeful condition of the overwhelming majority of these Downtown lots is something we can rectify today, not decades from now. We don’t have to tolerate the deplorable physical state of these parking lots if we don’t want to. As a community, we can–and we must–institute reasonable standards for the phyical and aesthetic quality of existing surface parking lots in Downtown. We already require new parking lots to meet various design requirements, so why not the existing ones too?

We have invested billions of public and private dollars into making Downtown Denver a vibrant and attractive place, yet we allow our existing surface parking lots–which, unfortunately, still permeate all sectors of Downtown–to be maintained in the most egregious of conditions. It doesn’t make any sense. My mission via DenverInfill is to not only celebrate the positive enhancements in Downtown Denver, of which there are many, but also to shine a public light on those areas where we must do better, and to promote effective change. If you feel likewise, please let your voice be heard.

We may be stuck with parking lots for a while longer, but there’s no reason why they can’t be good parking lots–at least in Downtown, where, of all places in our city, we should strive to present our best face to the world.

The rules are pretty simple: Vote via a “comment” to this blog. Vote for just one of the five by indicating the Block Number. The polls will be open through the end of Sunday, July 8. (For easy access, I’ve added links to all the posts related to this contest on the sidebar to the left since I’ll be posting about other issues during the course of the week.)

Let the voting begin!

Here’s the aerial for Block 176:

Surface parking covers most of Block 176 except for Shelby’s Bar & Grill, an unpretentious local pub housed in a one-story 1,946 SF structure built in 1906 (formerly a mortuary), and the vacant shell of an old bank drive-thru facility. In other words, the entire block represents a massive underutilization of prime Downtown real estate. The new Downtown Area Plan identifies this block as an “Opportunity Site” that, upon redevelopment, could help catalyze additional investment in the area.

The parking lot along the Welton half of the block is owned by C. Courtney and Lucy Patten, and the parking lot along the Glenarm half of the block is owned by the Antelope Company. According to the Colorado Secretary of State’s records, the Antelope Company is owned by members of Denver’s wealthy Anschutz family.

The parking lots are operated by Central Parking Systems. You may be familiar with this company from our review of Candidates #1 and #2. Here’s an overview of the quality of the parking lot on Block 176:

Once again we see a parking surface in such poor condition that loose chunks of pavement can be found, wooden poles with overhead wires scattered about, no landscaping (unless weeds growing through the cracks in the asphalt count), etc. It’s an embarrassing mess. At least Central Parking Systems is consistent!

One aspect of this parking lot which likely contributed to its frequent nomination is the fact that, not only does the lot cover almost the entire block (except for a small Avis car rental facility in the southwest corner that is itself half surface parking), but it is almost entirely surrounded by other parking lots. Consequently, this lot feels like ground zero of the ugly expanse of asphalt that dominates this part of Downtown. What’s even more frustrating is that diagonally across the Welton/Broadway intersection from this lot is 1999 Broadway, one of the city’s most unique and acclaimed skyscrapers. The good news is that one of those surrounding parking lots is now the construction site for One Lincoln Park, but that still leaves plenty of room for improvement.

This lot’s physical condition is appalling. Take a look (expand to view at full size):

It is quite clear that as little investment as possible has been put into this parking lot over the years. The entire block (including the land under the Avis facility) is owned by Allright Parking, a Central Parking Systems company. Central Parking Systems brags on their corporate website that they are the “world’s largest parking services provider.” So, both of our first two “worst parking lot” candidates are owned or managed by the Wal-Mart of parking lots!

Unfortunately, Downtown Denver has more than its share of surface parking lots. The good news is we’re making steady progress in replacing them with infill developments, but it will be decades before they’re all gone. And worse yet, Downtown Denver parking lots are UGLY. The vast majority have no landscaping whatsoever, overhead utility wires, cracked and broken asphalt or concrete, etc. As a community, we have failed to require existing Downtown surface parking lots to adhere to a high aesthetic standard, and the parking lot owners themselves have failed in their civic duty to make their parking lots relatively attractive and places that are not a source of embarrassment to our city.

So, to “honor” those parking lot owners who have taken so little pride in their property, DenverInfill is sponsoring a “Downtown Denver’s Worst Parking Lots” competition… and you get to participate!

Here’s how it works:

1. The geographic limits to this competition is the core Downtown area, as defined by the “red boundary” on my main Downtown Map, where each block is numbered and has its own page. If your parking lot is located outside of that area in one of the Center City neighborhoods, it doesn’t qualify.

2. Each person can nominate up to three parking lots. Please identify them by the block number and, if there is more than one parking lot on that block, by the name of the street or corner the parking lot faces. For example: “The parking lot at the corner of 21st and Lawrence on Block 063.”

3. Submit your nominations in a “comment” posted to this blog entry. Since many of you post anonymously, you’re on the honor system to only submit once.

4. The criteria for what makes for a bad Downtown parking lot should be a combination of aesthetics, condition, and location. How you measure those is up to you.

Nominations will be open until the end of the day Sunday, June 24. Later that week, I’ll post a new blog with the top ten nominated parking lots, including a map and photos of each. To that blog entry, you’ll get to cast your vote for the worst parking lot in Downtown Denver. The “winner” will receive a special blogging by DenverInfill.

Let the nominations begin!

Here are a few photos of the properties in question:

1635 Court Place (left) and 1645 Court Place (right):

1635 Court Place Detail:

1645 Court Place Detail:

It sure seems to me that these structures have sufficient architectural and historic characteristics that should have qualified them for inclusion in the Downtown Denver Historic District. I wonder why they were not included? Should these buildings be protected?

Other questions that come to mind regarding the proposed development of this 1,000-space parking garage … Is there really that much demand for additional parking in Downtown? Won’t the soon-to-open Southeast Light Rail line relieve some of the demand for parking in Downtown anyway? Given the infill developments proposed for the “sea of asphalt” around 20th & Welton, is Brookfield simply planning ahead for a future parking shortage caused by the removal of those surface lots? Brookfield owns the parking lot site behind the Pavilions at 15th and Tremont where, several years ago, it had proposed a new office tower. Could the construction of this new parking structure be related to the development of that site?

Things to think about in the ever-changing landscape of Downtown Denver.