by Dave Walstrom
No spelling typo in this title. The subject is “Imaging a Great City.”
A few years ago when we were trying to get people to think about what East Colfax Avenue could look like if infill opportunities were, uh, filled in, we Colfax ninjas thought the adage a “picture is worth a thousand words” apropos. So we commissioned Urban Advantage to render the images below of Colfax looking east from Pearl Street as it was then and how it might look if morphed into something of a higher and better use and construct. Denver’s Community & Planning Department liked the treatment well enough to incorporate it into its East Colfax Small Area Plan. Given the wealth of talent gathered under the new DenverUrbanism.com banner, I’m sure you all could have a ball creating similar sequences for your pet blight in town. As we imagine a great city, maybe we could image it.
~~~
Dave Walstrom is a longtime Colfax Avenue revitalization operative and community activist, having served 15 years as executive director of the Colfax Business Improvement District and Colfax on the Hill, Inc. and currently is President of the Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods, Inc. Board of Delegates (CHUN). He is a DU graduate; a Denver streetcar advocate; and a density ninja who is thrilled that the urban flight of a few decades ago turned out to have been on a round-trip ticket.
Not sure that each successive image is an “improvement”.
Where do the billboards go? I love billboards.
Why did the Checks Cashed awning disappear. Where will I cash my check?
No streetcar or trolley going down the middle of Colfax?
The check cashing place is gone I think that’s where the new Colorado Coalition for the Homeless building is which will have first floor retail so it very well could have a cafe like in the last picture.
Like the wider sidewalks, the trees, the elimination of the surface parking lot’s but why did you have to tear down Tom’s Diner? I actually like that place it has character which the last yuppie picture seems to be lacking.
Yeah, the retail actually has portions of the old facade…..
+1
Although the California-based artist of these images was not aware of two additional realities:
1. A cafe like this will not exist when there are 100 units of homeless beggars / mentally unstable people living in the floors above you and loitering the city blocks. Sorry – inconvenient but true, no one without coersion would choose to eat in that patio’s environment
2. Also, where is the traffic on Colfax? Sure maybe there are less cars in the future but there are still a few hundred thousand people who use it as a main street from downtown to Anschutz. There will be bikes, buses, Priuses, jetpacks or whatever else to move the masses and it will never be a quiet two lane street. This is maybe 17th/Pearl but not a Colfax streetscape
The ‘future’ images show exactly the same number of moving cars on Colfax as in the ‘current’ image.
I can’t believe people are complaining about fictionally rmoving bilboards and check cashing places – maybe I’m just not sensing the sarcasm in the posts. And really, though Tom’s Diner serves a purpose, it’s not like another greasy spoon can’t take it’s place. It’s not THAT cool.
I am not sure what the other posters where getting at but what I was getting at is the removal of those things in the last image represents a complete gentrification of the neighborhood.
It is possible to improve a neighborhood without altering it’s identity to the point where it has no aspect of it’s former self. That last image represents such an alteration and seems to be what they are advocating.
50 years ago this neighborhood looked nothing like it does now. For one, this was a thriving commercial corridor that wasn’t littered with poorly maintained parking lots. The first picture shows exactly what’s wrong with the neighborhood – an auto-oriented intersection with 0 pedestrian activity. I’m not sure how you could even call this a neighborhood, when it’s just being treated as a through street. Why don’t you just imagine that last rendering without the middle-aged white people in cardigan sweaters and business suits, because improving the street-scape and constructing building on vacant lots does not equal gentrification.
I am well aware of Colfax’s history but a problem we have when we try to turn around a neighborhood whether it’s now or the 50’s or 60’s is throwing everything out and starting from scratch. I also agree that the auto centric changes made to that neighborhood hurt it but I completely disagree that you couldn’t call it a neighborhood now. To diminish it to that extent is saying theirs nothing good about that area now and that is not the case.
Also their is pedestrian activity in that corridor now I know that because I walk that corridor frequently and see plenty of other people doing the same thing. Not sure when that photo was taken but judging by the very light automotive traffic as well as absence of pedestrian traffic I am guessing it was not a peak time. Could the pedestrian experience be improved with wider sidewalks and more storefronts in place of parking lots? Absolutely and if they did that it would likely increase the pedestrian traffic but to say that it’s zero now is an exaggeration.
If I imagine away the middle aged white people in suits away I would also have to imagine that they did not take out the check cashing place that caters to low-income people and the greasy spoon that caters to drunk and/or low income customers. To me all of those things combined indicate an intention to gentrify the neighborhood. And to me the Capitol Hill neighborhoods have more character than the Highlands, LODO, and Washington Park combined to kill that through gentrification would be a tragedy of epic proportions.
Improve the street-scape eliminate vacant lots but please do not try to change the economic diversity of Capitol Hill. We have enough yuppie urban suburbs in Denver as it is and do not need any more.
@Aaron,
I agree with your sentiment.
Part of the URBAN experience is that everything is not perfect.
You want perfect: travel south to Highlands Ranch.
Perfect until the day that the entire Ranch turns into a slum. cf. Northglenn.
I’m curious how you folks go about rendering something like this…
Mike,
You can go to Urban Advantage website http://www.urbanadvantage.com, which will also link you to other urbanism sites and rendering toolboxes.
You may also want to contact Urban Advantage creator Steve Price
Steve Price
Urban Advantage
15 Shatluck Square, Suite 208
Berkelly, CA 94704
510.486.0427
Dave Walstrom
303.503.0408
I really like the Tom’s Diner building. I’d hate to see it go.
Seriously? It looks just like an old pizza hut. Besides, the issue with this corner is not the diner but the parking lot surrounding it.
It reminds me of L.A. And if you want infill (hence the name of the blog), that’s not a very good thing.
However, I do link Denver Diner & think that fits better in it’s location, so maybe I’m just a hypocrite. 🙂
Dave Walstrom here…
I really like Tom’s Diner, too, and go there all the time.
I was not very communicative in my blog about “Imaging a Great City.” I was only suggesting that the “imaging” technique, and they are only images, as being one way to “Imagine a Great City.” The East Colfax and Pearl example wasn’t intended to specify what should or shouldn’t go there; it was only a technique for playing around with a higher-density, mixed-use scenario.
Sorry I didn’t express that better.
Thanks for commenting.
Dave
I have to agree that Tom’s is awesome. I’m guess that isn’t the point of drawing but show what will likely occur under the current zoning. I have to say the buildings built with the influence of the zoning change are a big improvement. The most striking example is comparing the new and old versions of Mcdonalds and Argonaut. Hey, good or bad both businesses are still on the East Colfax and now aren’t a curb cut nightmare for pedestrians.
The corner in the final image is fantastic, but why are the cyclists in the crosswalks?! I know, I know: everyone’s a critic. I would gladly trade empty parking lots for ignorant cyclists, but why not dream of perfection?
The images remind me of Brookline, MA.
Sorry, I wasn’t more communicative in my blog about “Imaging a Great City.” I was only suggesting that the “imaging” technique, and they are only images, as being one way to “Imagine a Great City.” The East Colfax and Pearl example wasn’t intended to specify what should or shouldn’t go there; it was only a technique for playing around with a higher-density, mixed-use scenario.
Thanks for commenting.
Dave