Citation
Convention center planning

Material Information

Title:
Convention center planning with Denver, Colorado as case in point
Creator:
Schmidt, Kimball Andrew
Language:
English
Physical Description:
121 leaves in various foliations : illustrations, maps, plans (some folded, in pockets) ; 29 cm

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( Master of Urban and Regional Planning)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
College of Architecture and Planning, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Urban and Regional Planning

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Convention facilities -- Designs and plans -- Colorado -- Denver ( lcsh )
Convention facilities ( fast )
Colorado -- Denver ( fast )
Genre:
Architectural drawings. ( fast )
Academic theses. ( lcgft )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
Architectural drawings ( fast )
Academic theses ( lcgft )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Urban and Regional Planning, School of Architecture and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
Kimball Andrew Schmidt.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
17699622 ( OCLC )
ocm17699622
Classification:
LD1190.A78 1987 .S3844 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
CONVENTION CENTER PLANNING: With
Denver,Colorado as Case In Point
THESIS: "In the City of Denver's ten-year quest to establish
the "best" physical site location for proposed new (or expanded) connection facilities, it is my contention that I can present a feasible and workable conceptual site proposal that would generally be superior to proposals previously under consideration."
Kimball Andrew Schmidt Candidate for Master Degree
in Urban and Regional Planning/ Community Development (MURP/CD) University of Colorado at Denver College of Architecture and Planning Dr. David Hill, Advisor December, 1987


CONVENTION CENTER PLANNING:
With Denver, Colorado as Case In Point
TABLE_____Q_F____CONTENTS
THESIS
Chapter Title Page
I. Introduction 1-1
I. Problem Statement
II. Thesis Proposal
III. Methodology/Organization
IV. Scope
II.
Convention Center Background and Context II-l
I. Introduction
II. Brief History (to 1960's)
III. Existing State of Affairs (from I960' s)
IV. Potential Benefits From a Convention Center
V. To Build, or Not to Build • • •
VI. If the Decision Is To Build . . .
VII. Conclusions
III.
Convention Centers From Elsewhere
I. Background
II. Examples
Las Vegas
Dallas
Atlanta
New York City
Others
III. Conclusion
III-l
IV.
Physical Site Location Criteria For
Convention Center IV-1
I. Introduction
II. Twelve Criteria
1. Central Business District (CBD) Reinforcements and Connections
2. Access
3. Parking
4. Traffic
5. Land
6. Hotels
7. Relationship to Urban Amenities
8. Building Design and Function
9. Impacts on/from Residential Neighborhoods
10. Availability of Public Transit Connections
11. Technical and Environmental Considerations
12. Construction Requirements/Impacts
III. Conclusions
i


V.
V-l
Case In Point: Denver, Colorado
I. Background and History
II. Denver As Convention City
III. Does Denver Really Need New Convention Facilities?
IV. Denver Convention Center Twenty-Year Chronology (1968-1987)
V. Existing State of Affairs/Related Land-Use Issues
VI. Conclusions
VI. Analysis of Four Primary Convention Center
Site Proposals In Denver VI-1
I. Introduction II. Silver Triangle
III. Golden Triangle
IV. Colorado Gateway
V. Union Station
VI. Conclusions
VII.
Thesis VII-1
I. Introduction
II. Extenuating Circumstances and Land-Use Issues Pertinent To My Thesis Proposal
III. Major Tenets in Thesis Proposal
IV. Conclusion
ATTACHMENTS
Chapter
Subject Matter
Pocket
I. None
II. None
III.
IV.
Las Vegas Dallas Atlanta New York San Diego Seattle
List of Other Convention Centers None
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
V.
Auditorium Arena/1908 Convention 5-1 Hotel Configuration in Denver 5-2 Map of Denver Showing Four Sites 5-3 Cartoons of Convention Center Controversy 5-4


VI. Silver Triangle 6-1
Daniel Crow 6-2
Chaparral 6-3
French 6-4
Relationship to Urban Amenities 6-5
Golden Triangle 6-6
Colorado Gateway 6-7
Union Station (general) 6-8
Union Station (#1 SOCMA) 6-9
Union Station (#2 Davis - 1st and 2nd design) 6-10
VII. Light-Rail Network 7-1
16th Street Mall 7-2
Lower Downtown 7-3
Central Platte Valley 7-4
Thesis Proposal 7-5
iii


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
I.
II.
III.
Problem Statement Thesis Proposal Methodology/Organization
IV. Scope


Problem Statement
It is this student's contention that the City of Denver, in seeking the idea^l site location on which to construct new convention center facilities, has not undertaken this task with long-term benefit maximization for the City as the primary intent. I believe that the major site proposals studied, including that which was recently 'finalized' as the selected location, to be:
1. ) Short-sighted, and too much a factor of meeting short-
term needs and goals in the City. Although I acknowledge the need for updated facilities in Denver, and the economic losses the City is experiencing due to this need, I feel that the process has been too much influenced by the compelling need to "get it built" as soon as possible — however and wherever possible. The idea is to avoid another Currigan Exhibition Hall (Denver's existing convention facility) — which, since its opening in 1969, has provided limited benefits to the people of Denver, and was considered obsolete in less than eight years.
2. ) Not adequately cognizant of the advancing concept of
interrelated planning. Due to the expense and the immense magnitude of most modern convention centers nationwide, they necessarily are a product of governmental interaction and cooperation. In reality, a convention center is a 'public works' project, and an important component of a given city's infrastructure— such as are roads, sewers, and public transit networks. A convention center should, thus, be located and designed to most effectively interact as a "cog" in the urban "machine" mechanism or fabric. I contend that Denver has inadequately addressed this concept.
3. ) Too much a factor of private sector and profit-motivated rationale. All of the major site suggestions have been "proposal specific," that is, more a function of private real estate/developer desires, rather than being comprised of the 'best' sites selected from city-wide possibilities. Convincing arguments have been made by developers as to the superiority of their respective sites, but many of these claims may be considered self-serving and not inherently concerned with the City as a whole. Instead of approaching the problem by having private interests make proposals from which the final site is chosen, the City of Denver should have
(1-2)


independently analyzed specific needs, vis-a-vis all options available city-wide and only then sought private development input relative to the preferred site chosen. Even if the City's primary choice proved infeasible or unworkable due to unforseen circumstances, any alternate possibilities would still be preferable to having a situation where the only choice were those sites dictated to the City's selection process.
What is more important — pacifying the national convention market and local business interests, or planning for a convention center that will provide the most benefits, with the least negative impacts, for the city in which it is built? I think the
latter. In Denver' s case, the continued loss of convention-
generated income for an additional six months , or even a year (the
time required to choose the 'optimal' site and finalize
negotiations), would be far preferable to the many years of
potential negative impacts that would be fostered by mis-locating such an integral facility. It is my belief that, over the (30+ year) life of a center, national marketability would be much better for well-conceived facilities, and therefore, would more than financially compensate for the losses initially 'experienced' by any delay in construction.
Thesis Proposal
In the City of Denver's ten-year quest to establish the
"best" physical site location for proposed new (or expanded)
I
convention facilities, it is my contention that I can present a feasible and workable conceptual site proposal that would generally be superior to proposals previously under consideration. This theory is premised upon:
(1-3)


1. ) In depth research into the business of conventions,
including how Denver might learn from the success and mistakes of other cities as well as national trends,
2. ) A set of physical site location criteria, that can be
broadly applied to planning convention facilities nationwide, including Denver, and
3. ) A series of local extenuating circumstances and land-use
issues that are concurrent to, and not totally independent of, Denver's convention center siting issue.
When viewed together these factors serve to support my claim that: the superior site for the new "Colorado Convention Center" facility is at an extended 16th Street Mall/Central Platte Valley location.
Directly related to the above premises, I aim to prove that my proposed plan is superior on two grounds, in that it:
1. ) Better addresses the aforementioned criteria, as a
package, than has the other proposed sites, and
2. ) Takes the most advantage of, and best integrates with,
the other land-use and circumstantial issues peculiar to Denver as of this writing.
My site location proposal will be compared and contrasted to the four major Denver proposals heretofore under consideration:
1. ) The "Silver Triangle," the site most recently finalized
as the location for new facilities, and adjacent to Currigan Exhibition Hall;
2. ) The "Golden Triangle"/Civic Center site plan; and
3. ) The "Colorado Gateway" site plan.
4. ) The "Union Station" railroad terminal site plan(s); Although each of these four major proposals to be analyzed have both strengths and weaknesses, I intend to make a strong case for my proposal, as well as why Denver needs new convention facilities
(1-4)


at all. A large aspect of my research is an attempt to show that the ultimate siting of a new convention center must not be arbitrary, or subject to pressure from special interest groups, for its long-term viability and benefits for the City as a whole.
My thesis concept is not unlike the last "Union Station" plan proposal that was defeated at referendum in October of 1985. The major difference with my site justification relates to a better conceived and more realistic transportation link to the Union Station site, additionally aided by recent policy developments. I am in basic agreement with the conceptual arguments that were the foundation of the Union Station proposal, and in all honesty, would have preferred to see this measure passed in October, 1985.
Methodology/Organization
It was my intent, upon the selection of this subject matter, to do a thorough job of background research — to corroborate my thesis as well as in providing a base from which to learn. I believe that I have accomplished both goals in this regard. In the course of my research, I reviewed over 1,000 individual pieces of information from a variety of media, but primarily newspaper and trade magazines. I found no books expressly on the subject of planning convention centers, excepting for several architectural specification books detailing engineering-related standards and requirements, which is out of the scope of my research.
The quantity and quality of information obtained through personal interview was disappointing. I partially attribute this to the timeliness of my research vis-a-vis the sensitive nature of
(1-5)


by various
the convention center siting issue. Information developers, as to their respective site proposals was also found to be difficult to acquire. Due to the financial and political stakes involved, as well as potential legal ramifications, real estate developers are very possessive about their information and tend to limit its public dissemination until the appropriate moment — which may never arrive. As the media is usually supplied with whatever information is to be made public, what I could not get directly I felt I was able to obtain indirectly, through the press. Denver's convention center site-selection saga found new strength and direction during the course of my research, which was both challenging and fascinating. This continuously unfolding story was, in a sense, a fluid body of information, that was especially interesting to follow in my given context.
The organization of this study has been well contemplated and, hopefully, done in such a manner as to promote clarity, readability, and efficiency. Eventhough the content of my thesis proposal relates to Denver, Colorado, specifically, I felt it necessary to undertake a background analysis of convention centers in general and various examples from around the country. These areas comprise Chapters II an III. It soon proved infeasible, if not impossible, to research convention centers from elsewhere to the extent that I had with proposals in Denver. Therefore, I reserved the specifics, or criteria, for Chapter IV as a method of narrowing the focus of the research and in leading to the case of Denver. Chapter V covers conventioneering in Denver from 1907 through the most recent developments, and the specifics of its
(1-6)


four major site proposals are analyzed in Chapter VI. I preferred an organizational plan that expounded my thesis near the end of the study Chapter VII, because I felt the previous information through Chapter VI, was imperative in providing context and lending support to my theories.
For the sake of convenience, the oft-use term "convention center" will hereupon be denoted in this study as "CC," and the term "Central Business District" will be substituted by "CBD."
Scope
Perhaps over-ambitious at first, I have since focused my research to stay within more defined bounds, and, thus, provide a more cohesive an organized final product. In the course of my research, I have reviewed many separate components which could themselves qualify for thesis-level research. As a student, with limited professional expertise and resources, I cannot and do not presume to compete with the experiential and financial resources of the private sector proposals. Although my thesis may appear brash or bold, especially because this issue has received so much attention in Denver, it is a personal theory and an academic exercise only. I do not purport that my theory is 'right', when everyone else is 'wrong', nor to be more knowledgeable than various convention center study panels (including City Council and the Urban Land Institute) that have been the decision-making bodies of the past. Nevertheless, I do feel that my proposals are realistic and preferable to actual plans offered. The scope of my research:
(1-7)


is limited to providing a strong foundation and argument for my thesis proposal.
is primarily physical-site planning oriented but does acknowledge the related importance of non-physical factors, such as financing.
has little concern for interior design, other than for how it integrates with the exterior location and placement. I am operating under the premise that if the best possible location is chosen, it will be able to support most any design created for it.
is concerned with information that is not developed to the highest levels of detail and/or based on mathematical quotients, etc. This higher level of detail is usually developed by consultants and at a later, more serious, stage in the planning process.
does not address engineering-related requirements or architectural specifics beyond a topical approach.
(1-8)


CHAPTER 2
CONVENTION CENTER BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
I. Introduction
II. Brief History (to 1960's)
III. Existing State of Affairs (from 1960's)
IV. Potential Benefits From a Convention Center
V. To Build, Or Not to Build . . .
VI. If the Decision Is To Build . . .
VII. Conclusions
I
(II-l)


CHAPTER 2
I. Introduction
To properly consider my thesis proposals, I strongly believe it necessary to provide a contextual framework as a base. This is most effectively done using a historical background analysis of the CC phenomenon in this country. There is much to be learned from the experiences had by many different cities in this regard, whether good or bad. Due to the enormous scale and cost of a new CC project, a municipality is well advised to pay close attention to the (reasons for the) successes and failures of its potential competition. Considering the costs, it also pays for the public/taxpayer to be a scrutineer.
CC's have been built in many cities, both large and small, in the last decade. The 'allure' of a new CC, for reasons that will be discussed, has led to the investing of tens, or even hundreds of millions of dollars by municipalities seeking to capitalize on these potential benefits. What is often not adequately considered or provided for, is if the new CC does not meet expectations— which could mean financial chaos for an already strained city. The "success" of any given CC is dependent on three main factors:
. Marketability
. Management
Financing
(II-2)


This study, being physical site-planning directed, will fall primarily in the 'marketability' category, although management and financing are also interrelated and will be briefly addressed.
Marketability must be foremost on a city's consciousness from the very outset of planning for a new CC. Due to competition, any given city must aggressively market itself and its center to successfully schedule conventions, trade shows, and other events. Cities throughout the nation, including Denver, have been obligating an increasing amount of funds for self-promotional agencies such as Convention and Visitors Bureaus and Chambers of Commerce. They are attempting to attract the individual tourist
I
and small business, but moreover, aim their efforts at the Meeting and Convention planners who do the actual scheduling and booking finalizations for often huge events. These agencies must effectively address the following broad questions:
- What is important to Meeting Planners (and the particular industries they represent?) What are they looking for in facilities and a city?
- What is important to the individual conventioneer? What is he/she looking for in facilities, and a city? What type of experiences are sought?
In this regard, surveys were conducted by consultants Laventhol and Horwath of meeting and events planners, as to their reasoning in the selection of a meeting site. The resulting factors, in order of perceived importance, are as follows:
(II-3)


1. 2. 3. 4 .
5.
6. 7 . 8. 9.
10.
11.
Hotel rooms within walking distance of the center 21.8%
Total room commitment in headquarters hotel 19.6%
Accessibility 18.7%
Delegate living costs 9.3%
City image 6.2%
Membership density 5.8%
Local transportation 5.3%
Promotion efforts by Con./Vis. Bureau and city 4.9%
Number and guality of area restaurants 4.0%
Pre/Post convention activity
(ie., recreation, night life, restaurants) 2.2%
Auxiliary functions/activities for spouses 2.2%
100.0% 1
How we
11 these preferences are advised by a given CC project will
have a substantial effect on the positive marketability of that center. These factors will also play a role in a city's determining its actual need for new facilities, as well as in translating into physical site-location criteria, as will be shown.
II. Brief History (To 1960's)
Webster's Dictionary defines "convention " as "an assembly of
persons met for a common purpose."2 Conventions, of one sort or
another, are close to being "American as apple pie." For various
reasons, perhaps partially attributable to the direct and
participatory democratic forums held since before this country was
even a country, America has a long history of holding conventions.
(II-4)


Two hundred years ago, our country's constitution was forged at a convention (Philadelphia, 1787). Over time, national election processes have greatly expanded into lavish productions that have attracted more attention, and attendees, every few years. Political conventions might be considered directly attributable for the continuing rise to prominence of the 'convention' in this country.
Prior to the 1960's, only a scattering of major CC complexes existed. The Coliseum in New York and the original McCormick Place in Chicago were the two most noteworthy facilities of the time. Most cities were only able to provide improvised and disjointed facilities, often out of doors, to an increasingly sophisticated number of conventions and trade shows. Only the largest cities already had the necessary infrastructure and amenities required to handle larger conventions, that medium and smaller cities simply could not offer. Post-war conventioneering was generally boosted by the advent of expanding airline services, increasing auto per capita rates, and overall economic prosperity.
Ill. Existing State of Affairs (From 1960'S)
The mid-1960's represented the 'turning' point in the development of the large CC. As conventions sought more space, and increasingly had particular (if not peculiar) needs, cities were economically inspired to directly accommodate this need. Despite construction of over 250 convention and public assembly facilities since 1975, at a cost of more than $10 billion, the
(H-5)


(estimated twelve million square feet of) added space is still not keeping pace with the use of such facilities, according to Robert Black, publisher of 'Tradeshow Week'3 The scope and complexity of the CC has correspondingly increased, and construction advances have allowed for massive and architecturally awesome (ie. column-free) structures to be built. Many more are now in the process of being constructed, and still more, including Denver's, are in the planning stages.
This gives rise to the concern of CC over building. At the
present pace, every city of any magnitude will soon have modern
facilities. "There are few, if any, cities that cannot offer
decent convention facilities either at present or in the very near
future. There has to be a saturation point."4 says Earl Flora,
president of the Columbus, Ohio, Convention and Visitors Bureau.
The ensuing competition between cities could be devastating to
those unfortunate places that are rarely selected. Yet, at
present it does seem as though the amount of conventions grow to
meet the production of new facilities built for them. Bill Mee of
the convention industry group, the 'Trade Show Bureau,' attributes
this growth in the sheer number of conventions to two factors,
termed "regionalization" and "verticalization."5
"Regionalization" means that once-enormous single trade shows, such as the National Consumer Electronics show, are now held several times per year in different areas of the country, instead of only once at a single location. Each show may be somewhat smaller, but the overall effect is a net gain in required space.
"Verticalization" increases space needs due to the increasing specialization within a given field. For example, the American Medical Association (AMA) formerly conducted one huge "horizontal" annual meeting for all of its members. Today this annual event is supple-
(II-6)


merited, if not almost supplanted, by 42 separate conventions of medical specializations within the AMA. A few of these now have a larger attendance than the AMA convention itself.
Growth in space can also be attributed to positive economics, and general industry maturation and evolution. A major reason for the construction of larger centers is not only in the capacity of capturing large single-event conventions and trade shows. More importantly, modern large facilities must be large enough to stage several events simultaneously, without adversely affecting the public, or "set-up" and "tear-down" of the other events. This enables a CC to maximize its share of the market.
The future nationwide need for convention space is an issue often put to debate. Can the trends in "regionalization" and "verticalization" alone continue to increase the need for more space? This issue is especially acute in the increasingly unstable and weakening economy as of this writing. In that private industry is very susceptible to economic swings out of their control, it follows that so too are conventions. Conventions are often considered a perquisite in good times, and something that can be scaled down or eliminated during bad times.
As communication advances change business and everyday life, the need for physical assemblage of industry professionals may become less mandatory. Yet it can be argued that precisely due to this technology-imposed isolation of professionals, there will always be a need for occasional gatherings. Technology cannot duplicate the professional and personal bonds created by physical contact. Additionally, a group assemblage allows an industry to more cost effectively display its wares, than would be the case
(II—7)


with individual sales calls. "In the not-to-distant future, people will be able to sit in their homes and watch as well as participate in conventions . . . but to my way of thinking, electronics will never replace the face-to-face meeting or the experience of traveling," states Leo Bonardi, Hilton Hotels regional director of sales.6 Yet, the field of teleconferencing is booming, and CC operators "are concerned . . . and trying to find out where it is going to go," says Richard Kinville, executive director of the International Association of Auditorium Managers7
As eluded to earlier, when new CC's come "on-line," the already fierce municipal competition for business continues to worsen. If the continuing need for convention space stabilizes or grows at a slower pace than new space being offered, this would result in a decreased potential market share for everyone. A nationwide overabundance of space could result in a buyers market, which might instigate a "space wars" between cities. Although this scenario may be good for the event organizer, it is bad for the CC operator, and for the City in trying to meet its financial obligations. San Francisco's Moscone Center, for example, lost $2.5 million in 1985 attempting to be overly competitive. In one case, managers rented space at only 16 cents per square foot per day (which is far below their calculated 'break even' point of 28 cents per square foot) to the Western Electronics Show and convention (WESCON). WESCON in turn, charged the manufacturers' representatives $20.00 per day for that same square foot to display their wares.8
(H-8)


Competition for convention business directly parallels the increasing emphasis placed on attracting tourism, and economic development in general, by most cities in the past decade. Selfpromotion and serious marketing efforts do make a difference in attracting commerce. Tourism is now high on everyone's agenda, as it is a clean (non-smokestack) and desireable method of deriving revenue with few adverse effects. If a city's positive image can be conveyed to millions nationally through various medium (ie., including sports franchises), and through those conventioneers that have actually visited, a "chain reaction" of positive events may ensue. 'Quality of life' and 'positive business climate' are the two themes most commonly conveyed by various economic development boards in attracting both temporary and permanent business.
IV. Potential Benefits From a Convention Center
The supposed benefits from the construction and operation of a CC must surely exist, or why else would so many municipalities embark on such a project? Many observers might ask themselves this question, as economic benefits to a community from a CC can often be nebulous, or unquantifiable at best. There are five major direct and indirect benefits generated by a CC, which I have isolated: direct spending; taxes; employment; commercial "spin-
offs"; and other intangibles.
1. Direct Spending: The fact remains that conventioneers
do spend money, and that it trickles down into virtually every corner of a city's economy in some manner. Impact
(II-9)


of this "new money" is calculated using a 'multiplier' effect in how many times each dollar is thought to be respent, on average usually four to twelve times.9
2. Taxes: New spending consequently generates new tax
revenues. This can include state and local sales taxes; special taxes directly aimed at the conventioneer; income taxes created from new CC-related employment; and increased commercial property taxes from those parcels that have increased in value due directly to the CC.
3. New Employment: This constitutes a major tangible
benefit from a CC. "Estimates hold that 1,100 to 1,900 jobs in a variety of industries are supported by each 100,000 convention visitors."10 The majority of these jobs are semi-skilled or unskilled, and are in the hotel, restaurant, transportation and service industries. Especially when located in the Central Business District (CBD), "convention centers afford significant benefits by developing those employment opportunities most needed in inner cities.n11
4. Commercial "Spin-Offs": CC-generated "spin-offs" to a
community are an indirect form of economic benefit, though somewhat intangible. Such development can manifest itself through new construction, new business openings, and the expansion of existing businesses. This usually occurs in services that cater to the individual conventioneer, such as a cleaners or restaurant, as well as services for the convention industry, such as audio-visual and exhibit design firms* New or expanded business, of course, generates new sales, new taxes and new employment. "Spin-offs" are often considered unquantifiable because their creation is due to private sector decisions, in which there are few guarantees. Such business, rushing to fill a certain void, represents true entrepreneurship however, and in the end analysis must be considered an integral cog in the success of a CC, and the personal happiness of the conventioneer.
A more complete list of beneficiaries from convention-related spending includes; restaurants, retail, printers electricians, florists, carpenters, bakeries, security services, utility/telephone companies, advertising/PR firms, audio-visual equipment companies, automobile rental, limousine services, charter bus and sightseeing tours, commercial and industrial equipment leasing, costume rental and sales, uniform rentals, court reporters and stenographers, entertainment booking and productions, exhibit design, decorators, medical and first-aid services, models, hostesses, talent services, photographers, cleaners, and, of course, brothels. (Source: Time, 18 December 1978, 63)
(11-10)


5
Other Intangibles: Gaining positive city and state
exposure can help foster community pride, and motivate conventioneers to want to return. The idea is for the city to put on a good face for the conventioneer, and the location, design, and operation, of the CC will be integral in making for a positive and memorable experience.
Potential deleterious effects from a new CC, come mainly in the area of unmarketabilitv. This may be due to faulty market assumptions, poor physical planning, poor management, an unfavorable financial arrangement, or a combination of all four. Avoiding such pitfalls is discussed next.
V. To Build or Not To Build
The underlying rationale and justification for a municipality to build new, or even expanded, convention facilities must be sound, in order for them to be a financial 'success' in terms of marketability and overall long-term viability. Building and operating a CC can be a volatile and risky undertaking for a city, even in a strong economy. "But a city doesn't base its decision to build a convention center on financial logic alone. It also wants to erect something because all the other cities on the block have one - it's penis envy on a municipal scale."12 This seeming "edifice complex" by many cities may indicate that, all too often, the 'need' to have a CC is more a matter of civic pride, than of meeting any real demand. There is a primal fear of being 'left out', and for some cities this fear may be justified. For other cities, being 'left out' may prove to be a blessing.
If city leaders have a serious notion about getting into the
(11-11)


convention business, it is virtually essential for them to commission an impartial feasibility analysis to determine their chances for success. There are private planning and accounting consulting firms that have specialized in this very type of analysis during this facilities boom. Internal or staff studies are usually discouraged because they may appear too self-serving and would not have enough clout when needed.
It is this scholar's opinion, however, that, not unlike marketing feasibility analyses created to convince financiers of private real estate ventures, the conclusions of the majority of these studies tell people what they want to hear. . . that building is feasible. Negative aspects can be distorted or downplayed, if not outright eliminated, as any study can be developed to best support a particular position. When a community politically justifies tens of thousands of dollars for an outside analysis, it might be argued that it does so only with the expectations of hearing positive news. This cycle is perpetuated by the consulting firms concerns about their credibility and with future and recurring business. Rarely are consultants legally liable should the premise on which to build proves to be faulty. Judging by the expansion of CC facilities in the past ten to fifteen years, it must be assumed that few studies were actually done, and those that were completed almost universally advocated feasibility.
There may be considered four primary criteria as analyzed in such feasibility studies, in determining if, and in what manner, a city can support new CC facilities: city size/capability vis-a-vis
(11-12)


potential market segment/share; city long-term commitment in time
and financial capability; city's national perception/image and
tourism appeal; and city accessibility. I necessarily assembled
this information from a plethora of sources, none of which was
concise or consolidated. These factors are as follows:
1. City size and capability vis-a-vis potential market segment/share.Unlessunusualcircumstancesexist,* the scale of a CC project that any city undertakes must be roughly proportionate (or less ambitious) to the 'magnitude' of the city as a whole. As there is no standardized formula for determining CC feasibility or ideal scale, an ambitious city must first analyze the competition, and then determine the appropriate market segment or niche (national, regional, or municipal) most feasible, and the market share (or percentile thereof) desired. The goal is to accurately "read" what convention market is best for your city, and how much of that particular market to seek. Over-estimation of market segment or share can be disastrous for a small or medium sized city intent on becoming a big one. Should the premise on which these plans were based prove to be flawed, this 'overextension' could:
cause a city to spend far more on initial construction costs than really necessary;
subsequently cause the city to be obligated to a larger debt service than would have been needed, ("financing over-ambitiousness," as such); and,
make the CC prone to unanticipated taxpayer subsidization, required to meet the debt service, due to less-than-anticipated booking levels and revenues generated.
To 'undercalculate' and thus 'underbuild' is probably a much better fate than the other extreme, but it has its own set of issues and problems:
For example, Las Vegas, Nevada, has a 1.1 million square foot CC, with a permanent population of under 200.000 persons. This dichotomy would normally dissuade this type of situation from occurring, but since Las Vegas is an international destination resort, with legalized gambling (and prostitution), a CC of this scale may be justified. (Source: Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Bureau)
(11-13)


Lost potential revenues due to having inadequate CC facilities for a larger market interest;
A CC resulting that may be too small or inadequate for large/national events, but too large for lesser events or municipal uses; and
A facility that will have far less positive impact on a community than was possible, and that will soon beg for expansion.
These factors have a bearing in the present situation in Denver. Lastly, the ramifications of not building at all, are in lost revenues and opportunities that may have been, as well as squelched image and pride.
2. City long-term commitment in time and financial
capability. As the lifespan of an average CC is projected at 25 or 30 years (such as it is usually financed also), and as economic cycles are more routine than that, a municipality must be committed to its operation through good and bad economic times. Is the city capable of such a long term and extensive commitment? Although conventions are routinely booked three or four years in advance (and sometime up to ten), there is nothing to prevent meeting planners from cancelling a convention should economic difficulties severely impact a given industry. The city should
acknowledge the probability that the CC will require
taxpayer subsidization periodically, if not consistently, and will thus need to weigh the benefits against these potential losses before committing. Many cities in the U.S. (and Canada) have apparently
rationalized just such an expense and commitment.
3. Citys' national perception/image and tourism appeal. As
competition between cities for tourism and conventions intensifies, and as more convention facilities are being constructed from which to choose, there is added
pressure on meeting planners to select one city over another. Millions of potential convention dollars are riding on this decision, and this is where effective convention and tourism bureaus can really make the difference. Is the city perceived positively, at least by the intended market? The name recognition of a city, its location, and natural environs, are equal to, if not more important, than the facilities themselves in booking future conventions. Meeting planners intentionally book yearly conventions in alternating cities as to give the (often time same) conventioneer a new experience. National perceptions of a given city or region are usually only stereotypes that are historically based and reinforced contemporaneously by the medias. As a city it is, obviously, beneficial to
(11-14)


be nationally perceived in a positive sense, and not as favorable to be viewed negatively. In trying to attract conventions, however, it is still far worse to be unknown. A desire to increase tourism or dispel negative perceptions has compelled some cities to develop convention facilities as a panacea. But embarking on a new CC alone is not a guarantee of greater tourism or improved image. Says Larry Ledebur of the Urban Institute, "Cities that normally aren't tourist attractions are going to find it much more difficult."13
4.
City accessibility. This factor, related to overall tourist appeal, looms very important to meeting planners when contemplating ease of travel arrangements for conventioneers — who may all be travelling from one basic vicinity, from throughout the country, or even from foreign destinations. As the vast majority of national and regional delegates arrive at their location by air, it is virtually mandatory that a city has adequate airport facilities nearby. In today's fast paced business environment, lack of air facilities would preclude conventions of any size. As critical as the availability of an airport itself, is the level of service then provided on a scheduled basis. A smaller city is placed at a disadvantage due to having fewer scheduled flights and connection possibilities. The ideal situation for a convention city is to be an airline "hub," having one or more airlines base their operations from there. This indicates that the city is on a well-travelled route, and will have a substantial number of flights and thus, connections. Ground transportation by rail or transcontinental bus services is very impractical for large numbers, and will account for only a small portion of all conventioneers. The private automobile is the second choice to air travel, but can also prove infeasible if distances are too great. A city's direct linkages to major/interstate highway systems are very important. The lack of
adequate, straightforward, and rapid road networks, in this day and age, lends an air of inefficiency and inaccessibility to a city — which is a definite negative in successful marketing.
VI. If The Decision Is To Build . . .
0
themse
nee city political leaders have adequately convinced Ives that their city can and should support a CC, only then
does the 'real' work begin. Whereas there may have been political
(11-15)


unity in studying the feasibility of new facilities in town, factioning will now start to occur over how to go about doing so. Additionally, at this point the public becomes more involved as do private interest groups/speculators. From general information, I have compiled seven major procedures that must be followed on the path to constructing a new CC. Those are as follows:
1. The justifiable market niche/share sought should have already been determined within the decision to build at all.
2. These market objectives (national/regional/local) are subsequently interpreted into approximate building size and scale recommendations.
3. It must then be determined if expansion of existing facilities, if any, is feasible and desireable, or if a new structure is in order.
4. Final site location of the new facilities must be chosen, a process which many cities, including Denver, have taken years in deciding. This "micro" level of site planning (within a city) will account for the bulk of this study as of Chapter 4.
5. Design (internal/external, aesthetic/function) must be considered and also directed towards the market intended. Shape, internal layout and facilities, and integration into the city — are all functions directly relating to the square footage involved, and who this is being built for. Sometimes, the design is part of the overall final site location package.
6. Financing options must be analyzed very carefully before
committing the city to long-term debt service. Even if the site location and design chosen are excellent and well-interpret the market need, a CC will never make a profit (or stay even) if the basic financing is flawed or unreasonable. Due to strong competition nationwide, centers will necessarily be required to keep their space rates low. This is a contributing factor in the differences of opinions as to whether CC's are able to be self-supporting let alone profit-generating. "Most major convention and exposition facilities are not," says Robert Imperata of the Pittsburgh Convention and Visitors Bureau. "In a sense they are designed to be
loss leaders."14 If this is true, a city's decision
must be heavily dependent upon the supposed economic benefits generated, as listed earlier. Like physical
(11-16)


7.
site planning, financing is a critical element in the success or failure of a CC complex, and deserves to come under severe public scrutiny prior to any finalization.
Operations and management strategy should be formulated even before construction commences. Marketing needs to occur early so that the center can book conventions they may have otherwise lost, and insure full utilization from day one. The daily operations are extremely important, and it must be decided whether a public or private entity should be given the task.
VII. Conclusion
Despite extreme competition and formidable odds against operating a CC at a profit, construction continues. The overall marketability of a center will be more important than ever if demand for space stabilizes or decreases. The best success will happen only when marketability, management, and financing act harmoniously, and with professionalism.
(11-17)


CHAPTER 2
BIBIOGRAPHY
1. "Analysis of Developer Proposal For Convention Center Development - Denver, Colorado," Laventhol and Horwath, CPA, 1982, p. VIII.
2. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. G & C Merriam Co., 1965.
3. Howard La Franchi, "Houston Convention Center Opens on Time and Under Budget," Christian Science Monitor. 25 September 1987, 5.
4. Judith Segal, "Convention Centers Mushroom Everywhere," Meetings and Conventions. November 1987, 69.
5. Jacob Weisberg, "Battle of the Barns," New Republic. 28 April 1986, 63.
6. "The Convening of America," Time, 18 December 1978, 63.
7. Michael Doan, "Convention Centers: Urban White Elephants," U.S. News and World Report. 30 April 1982, 62.
8. Steve Huntley, "Convention Centers Spark Civic Wars," U.S. News and World Report. 10 February 1986, 62.
9. Lois Barr, "Denver's New Convention Center: Out of the Doldrums," Colorado Business Magazines. March 1987, 23.
10. Dan Graveline, "Convention Centers," Urban Land. Urban Land Institute (Washington, D.C.) July 1984, 2.
11. Ibid.
12. Weisberg, "Battle of the Barns," 63.
13. Mirelle Grangenois, "Cities Vie for Convention Business," USA Today. 16 November 1982, p. B-l.
14. Segal, "Convention Centers Mushroom Everywhere," 70.
(11-18)


CHAPTER III
I.
II.
III.
CONVENTION CENTERS FROM ELSEWHERE
Background
Examples:
Las Vegas
Dallas
Atlanta
New York City
Others
Conclusion
(III-l)


CHAPTER III
I. Background
There are hundreds of meeting facilities distributed throughout the United States, both large and small, and they all exist for the same basic reason — as a designated locale for people to congregate. Competition for the privilege of sponsoring such gatherings has led to a high level of sophistication in construction and design techniques, as well as in management procedures. "As a result of these changes, where you hold your next convention or trade show may not depend on the city as much as the facility," notes one industry observer.1 Indeed, due to technological and architectural advances, modern convention centers are very removed from their coliseum-cousins of yesteryear. Yet, location will be shown to remain very important.
Prior to reviewing several convention facilities in greater detail, there are a number of industry-related trends (which may have a bearing on the Denver proposals) that can be analyzed for an indication of what the future may entail, as follows:
1.) Size - Is bigger better? As previously discussed, it is highly recommended that a City well contemplate the market share it is capable of capturing before size is determined. Yet, there is no denying that a large size is important to many contemporary users. "For a large trade show, you first look at the halls' capacity," says Will Little, Chairman of the Major American Trade Show
(IH-2)


Organizers Association.2 Need for space is the bottom line requirement for this group, which is comprised of 34 show organizers that annually use at least 200,000 square feet a piece. This perceived need for additional space has also manifested itself in the form of expansions. Dallas, Atlanta, Atlantic City, Cleveland, Chicago, Miami, Detroit, and San Jose, are among examples where expansion was felt justified by city leaders. McKinsey and Co., an industry analyst, predicts that San Francisco, for example, will experience a drop in convention market share from the present 15 percent to 12.5 percent if the City cannot get 310,000 square feet of expansion space approved for Moscone CC.3
Design - This is an area which has been given much more attention in the last decade. Greater attention to interior and exterior design in terms of functionality is afforded now than previously. Flexibility by a CC, in terms of internal layout, such as compartment-alization, is most important in being able to adjust to
the particular needs that every group has .
Additionally, good flexibility allows for the smooth
operation of simultaneous events, which has direct
implications as to the profitability of a center.
Modern design trends are also revealing themselves in a growing preference towards open exhibit space, as compared to convention-related space (ie., meeting
(HI-3)


rooms, auditoriums, etc.)* David Peterson, principal with Laventhol and Horwath, states that, "The largest cities, although they call their sites 'convention centers' are increasingly aware that those facilities function as exhibit halls and do little or no conventions. So rather than build to serve the needs of conventioneers, the new expansions are pure exhibit space." As examples of this trend, he cites the opening of New York's 720,000 square foot Jacob Javits CC, and the 500,000 square foot expansion to Chicago's McCormick Place as being "primarily exhibit space with a modest amount of meeting space."4
Architectural distinction is to be encouraged, but within reason, as costs can skyrocket, if only out of a cosmetic rationale. As will be shown in greater detail, the actual structural integrity of New York's Jacob Javits Center was threatened by design-related factors, that ultimately delayed its opening. Modern trends are in giving the CC a more inviting appearance, however, both in design and furnishings. The Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta, and the George R. Brown Center in Houston, are both examples where extra effort was taken in both exterior and interior design. "While function is still paramount, there is a tendency for centers to have more architectural expression," says Walter Ernst of Perez Architects, which helped design the New Orleans CC and the preliminary work for past
(III-4)


It is fortunate to note that a
Denver proposals.5 leading trend sees CC architects directly consulting with meeting planners, show managers, exhibitors, and service contractors. Andrew McLean, of Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback, and Associates, believes that "functionality is reaching the state-of-the-art," and credits this situation to the "maturation of an industry," where "users understand what they want, and architects communicate with them. We don't do anything until we talk to convention managers."6
3. ) Financing - As the cost of building new or expanded
convention facilities has escalated into the hundreds of millions of dollars, more projects are seeking a combination of city, state, and private sector financing. State governments, in particular, are increasingly supportive of taking a more active role in getting a CC built, as the benefits of conventioneerspending statewide are recognized. The states of Massachusetts, Georgia, Louisiana, Washington, and now Colorado, have all had a role in funding their capital city's CC.
4. ) Management - The daily operations management of a CC is
usually provided through a quasi-governmental agency, sometimes in conjunction with a private management firm. "A few cities have elected to cease considering the management of their centers to be a function of government, and to enter instead into management
(HI-5)


contracts with private enterprise. Such arrangements are still the exception rather than the rule, and they are basically admissions that the inherent plodding and sluggishness, the built-in red tape, and the unwieldy mechanisms of government are often obstructive in a situation requiring profitability."' Convention facilities had often been managed by civil servants or political appointees, as property management skills were not considered necessary. The convention industry of the 1980's, however, is much more complex and competitive, and is increasingly pressured to become fiscally self-sufficient. This situation does justify professional management, which may or may not be done within the public sphere.
II. Examples
In further pursuing the issue of CC's, I feel it worthwhile in briefly examining several examples from around the country. As stated previously, much can be learned from the experiences others have had in this regard. It is impossible to analyze all the CC's, and the particular circumstances relating to their development, however, I will look at several examples which have proven to be especially interesting. Please see the attachments mentioned for greater detail.
(III—6)


Las Vegas
Las Vegas is one of the nation's top convention and meeting destinations. More than 1.5 million attendees gathered in Las Vegas in 1986, which reflects an average of 12% annual growth in business over the past several years. This growth can be attributed to two major factors: Las Vegas' international
notoriety for entertainment and legalized gambling, and the 1.1 million square foot Las Vegas Convention Complex complemented by separate resort meeting facilities. The Las Vegas CC (see
attachment 3-1) is incredibly large given the small permanent population of the City (only 190,000), but remains very viable due to the resort-destination image fostered here. Not only does the City have the meeting space, but the accommodation space to support it. Presently, Las Vegas has over 56,000 hotel and motel rooms, with an anticipated total of 67,000 by 1990. The availability and accessibility of accommodations, the ease of using renovated McCarran International Airport (only 3.5 miles from the CC), and the all-around compactness of City amenities and entertainment — all serve to make Las Vegas an international convention destination.8
Dallas
The Dallas CC was originally constructed in 1957 and has been expanded twice to reach today's magnitude of over 600,000 square feet. This includes a 9,000 seat arena, a 1,770 seat theatre, two ballrooms and 76 meeting rooms. (See Attachment 3-2.) Yet
expansion of at least 250,000 square feet is now in the planning stages, felt necessary by the recent loss of twelve conventions due to lack of facilities. In 1986, Center Manager, Frank Poe, estimated that 224,000 convention attendees came to Dallas and left an economic impact of more than $282 million. He attributes the success of Dallas as a convention city to four major factors: good air access; a flexible and functional CC; a mild climate during the peak convention months; and a good labor pool.9 Apparently these positive factors supercede the following negative factors to keep the Dallas CC viable:
. Scarcity of hotel rooms close to the CC. The closest hotel is over on half mile away, and the majority of the downtown hotels are on the opposite side of the CBD from the center. "We honestly need a couple of major hotels within a few blocks of the convention center," states Charles Bass, Director of the Dallas Convention and Visitors Bureau. "We cannot do it now because the hotel market here is too soft."10
. Transportation. Due to this distance from the CC to the hotels and shopping areas, shuttle bus services are mandatory, the cost of which is usually borne by the particular meeting. "If the housing is scattered, it can be overcome, but it does cost the client. It makes it hard to market any city. But there isn't any city
(HI—7)


that can escape shuttle busing on major conventions because of the numbers of rooms they require," continues Bass. 11
. Interior Decoration. The Dallas CC is a long, low concrete building inside and out, built to be functional and versatile. Convention organizers often bring their own carpet and decorations. With fears of losing market share to newer CC's such as Houston, Atlanta, and New Orleans — all having colorful and festive interiors— Dallas anticipates spending more on decorations and amenities in order to stay competitive.
In regards to competing with Denver, Bass adds, "Denver is a gorgeous city. It used to do a good business. What I should be telling you is 'don't build,' because Denver would be a direct, serious competitor for us."1^
source:13
Atlanta
The Georgia World Congress Center is one of the nation's most modern and highly respected convention facilities, and is now the number three convention site in the country, behind only New York and Chicago. (See Attachment 3-3.) This is despite once being the subject of a political battle in which one lawmaker held a funding bill hostage in his committee as part of an urban/rural split. A 1985 expansion doubled the centers size to over 640,000 square feet of exhibit space, with a 2,000 seat auditorium, a
33,000 square foot ballroom, and 70 meeting rooms. It is located in the heart of Atlanta, near several major hotels. Throughout the metro area, there are 32,000 hotel rooms, with over 12,000 of these rooms within an eight-block radius of the center. Like Dallas, officials consider the reasons for success to be: good air/travel services; inexpensive and reliable labor force; good climate; and, the flexibility and functionality of the center itself. Hartsfield International Airport is one of the busiest airports and connecting hubs in the world, with the world's largest passenger terminal. Atlanta's rapid transit system, MARTA, connects the airport with points throughout the metro area. 1986 saw the center self-supporting, although by a small margin, and the nearly 600,000 out-of-town visitors spent more than $412 million — before the 'multiplier effect' was applied for a total economic impact of $684 million.
The 'spin off' effects of the Center have been dramatic for the City of Atlanta. Dan Sweat, director of 'Central Atlanta Progress', a downtown business organization, traces the construction of new hotels, the extensive Peachtree Center, and a decision by Macy's to restore and open a new department store downtown, to the success of the Center.14 Convention and tourism officials estimate that in the previous fiscal year, the business
(HI—8)


generated by the Center was responsible for a hefty 12,472 jobs in the community. The successful expansion has also created a few problems, however. First, more distant hotels were required for the additional conventioneers, necessitating expanded shuttle services. Secondly, parking has become a problem at times, as the Center has control of only 250 spaces out of the 5,000 located within a four block radius. Funding has been appropriated for a
1,000 car parking structure. Center Director, Dan Graveline, states that "What we lack is parking we control. If we had my ideal, we would have 2,000. Parking is a very deceptive thing. It is hard to tell what you need for any show, I don't really know what the correct number is."15
General source: 16
New York City
Capitalizing on its prominence in the areas of business, education, communications, manufacturing, literature, fashion, and the arts, among others, the "big apple" has traditionally had it all as far as conventioneering is concerned. Yet, feeling threatened by and, indeed, los ing business to Chicago, New York felt compelled to construct new facilities — the Jacob K. Javits CC. With 640,000 square feet of usable floor space, it is three times the size of its predecessor, the Coliseum, which opened in 1956. The Coliseum, in turn, tripled the size of the 1913 Grand Central Palace, which it replaced. "If convention space continues to increase at the same exponential rate, all of Manhattan will be an enclosed exhibition hall by 2035."17
The recent opening of the $478 million glass-faced center has finally ended 14 years of political infighting, corruption, construction foul-ups and delays, and cost overruns. The center, with a gross square footage of 1.8 million, can accommodate up to
85,000 people daily, and feed up to 25,000 people simultaneously. (See Attachment 3-4.) Despite having a cost overrun in excess of $100 million, and a nickname of 'beached whale on the Hudson' (the center sits on 22 acres along the Hudson River, bounded by 11th and 12th Avenues, and 34th and 39th Streets) , the City fully accepts this gargantuan as a new focal point. The project is an architectural showpiece, and constructed using a latticework "space frame" of exposed rods, tubes, and nodes — all of which fit together to form a structural tetrahedron. This system, combined with much glass and many skylights creates a stunning effect, especially in the 150 foot high/ 60,000 square foot 'Crystal Palace Lobby.' It is this system, however, that also caused much of the cost overruns and time delays. Some of the nodes were found to be structurally unsound, which ultimately required Japanese assistance to properly forge. Additionally, the complexities of constructing this system was almost more than some contractors could handle. "I'm not sure that government agencies can make architectural breakthroughs without cost overruns and delays. There are tremendous pressures that don't exist in
(HI-9)


private construction. There are political pressures. There is the bidding process, the fact that you pretty much have to go with the low bidder on every contract," said New York State Urban Development Corporation (U.D.C.) Chief, Bill Stern.18 "Fast-tracking," in this case, where construction started before the final design was completed, ultimately led to additional time and cost overruns due to many change orders that couldn't be anticipated in such a complicated structure. "Ostensibly, to get into the ground quickly and save the costs of construction inflating, explicit choices on design alternatives were never developed," said Stern.19
The close-knit streetscape and land use patterns in the vicinity also had to be dealt with, and the City deliberately made no provisions for parking or special transportation arrangements. Competition for limited on-street parking has already intensified, and the City Planning Department is now forced to study where a garage can be located nearby. Despite all the problems encountered with constructing the Javits Center, it is already more than meeting expectations in terms of business, and as an addition to the community.
General Source: 20
Other Centers
New convention facilities are presently under construction in San Diego and Seattle, both of which were characterized by long political battles. The San Diego site, (see Attachment 3-5) on the harbor, is uniquely designed like a sailing ship, and is also very close to downtown and the harbor. The Washington State CC, in Seattle, (see Attachment 3-6) is unique in that the battle over various site proposals resulted in an interesting choice — the Center will be built over an interstate highway. Eventhough the cost of construction may even double using this approach, the site is the closest to hotels and the CBD.
For a more complete listing of convention facilities in the U.S. and Canada, please refer to table Attachment 3-7.
Ill. Conclusions
Although it is difficult to arrive at standardized methodology for the intricasies of planning for CC's, from the preceding information I believe some general points can be highlighted:
(III-10)


Match scope of project with real need.
Be persistent on seeking a new CC, it is worth the efforts.
Be careful when 'fast-tracking7 construction.
Avoid excessive design-related costs.
Close relation to hotels and transit is important, but perhaps not mandatory.
(III-ll)


CAHPTER III
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Debra Zauzmer, "Convention Center Update," Meetings and Conventions. August, 1987, 93.
2. Darrell Leo and Christine Levite, "Choosing a Convention Center," Meetings and Conventions. November 1986, 58.
3. Ibid., 58.
4. Zauzmer, "Convention Center Update," 93.
5. Ibid. 97.
6. Harvey Chipkin, "The Values of Design and Function," Meetings and Conventions. November 1986, 76.
7. Dan Graveline, "Convention Centers," Urban Land. July 1984, 4.
8. Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, general source.
9. Pam Maples, "Dallas Wants Even Bigger Chunk," Rocky Mountain News, 3 May 1987, pp. 7, 55.
10. Ibid. 55.
11. Ibid. 55.
12. Pam Maples, "Expedite New Facility, Denver is Urged," Rocky Mountain News. 3 May 1987, p. 7.
13. Dallas Convention and Visitors Bureau, general source.
14. Pam Maples, "Center Helps Business Boom in Atlanta," Rocky Mountain News. 3 May 1987, 54.
15. Ibid.
16. Georgia World Congress Center Information Bureau, general source.
17. Jacob Weisberg, "Battle of the Barns," The New Republic. 28 April 1986, 12
18. Joe Klein, "Beached Whale on the Hudson," New York Magazine. 7 November 1983, 27.
19. "Fast-Tracking Blamed For Delays," Engineering News and Recorder. 28 July 1983, 10.
(III —12)


20. The Jacob K. Javits Convention Center of New York Information Bureau, general source.
(III-13)


CHAPTER 4
PHYSICAL SITE LOCATION CRITERIA FOR CONVENTION CENTERS
I. Introduction
II. Twelve Criteria
1. Central Business District (CBD)
Reinforcements and Connections
2. Access
3. Parking
4. Traffic
5. Land
6. Hotels
7. Relationship to Urban Amenities
8. Building Design and Function
9. Impacts on/from Residential Neighborhoods
10. Availability of Public Transit Connections
11. Technical and Environmental Considerations
12. Construction Requirements/Impacts
III. Conclusions
(IV-l)


CHAPTER 4
I. Introduction
Once a city has decided to undertake the construction of a CC, many decisions must then be collectively made that are peculiar to the city. It is a premise of this study that one of the most important of these decisions is the actual physical site location within the city proper. Financial viability and marketability of a CC, for example, is dependent upon site-related issues as well as management.
The difficulties encountered when planning for a CC are often numerous. Every city considering such a project is unique, with a different set of circumstances, restraints, obstacles, and opportunities afforded them. Consequently, a public works project in the scale and importance of a CC is always custom-made, and has theoretically made the most out of their given situation. In as much as cities are different however, they are also much alike— in terms of land use patterns, growth trends, bureaucracy, and increasing citizen involvement. As many CC facilities have been developed in recent years, it is thus possible to 'learn' from other cities experiences in locational and logistical matters.
It has been possible to ascertain a series of recurring issues that seem consistent from one project to another, despite inherent uniqueness. I have assembled twelve physical site
(IV—2)


'criteria7 that seems to most uniformly apply to CC planning in general.* These are 'soft' criteria, at least in the initial stages, and are not based on mathematical or statistical formulas. The individual character of each project has led to a distinct lack of hard data that might be applied to other projects. However, these criteria can be transferred in a general or theoretical sense between municipalities, who must then address them in the context of their own given situation.
II. Twelve Criteria
The twelve CC site location criteria are as follows, and not particularly in order of importance:
1. Central Business District (CBD) Reinforcements and
Connections
2. Access
3. Parking
4. Traffic
5. Land
6. Hotels
7. Relationship to Urban Amenities
8. Building Design and Function
9. Impacts on/from Residential Neighborhoods
10. Availability of Public Transit Connections
11. Technical and Environmental Considerations
12. Construction Requirements/Impacts
* The twelve criteria for this study have been extracted primarily from the State of Colorado's "Procedure and Criteria for the Comparison of Proposals for the Construction of the Colorado Convention Center," June, 1987. This was established for use as the guidelines and framework that any CC development proposal would be subject to, when being evaluated by the impartial Urban Land Institute in August, 1987, vis-a-vis the Denver CC siting issue. I augmented and enhanced these criteria through a multitude of sources, used in researching this thesis, all of which proved unfeasible to list.
(IV—3)


Each of these criteria has several sub-issues within the larger issue that will be reviewed. It is important to note that although each city may have particular criteria that merit special attention for their situation, the overall success and marketability of any new CC is dependent on satisfying all of the criteria as a 'package'. All twelve (12) criteria are
interdependent on each other to a great extent, so the goal should be to best meet all the criteria as a group, rather than excelling in some areas, and being exceptionally deficient in others.
1. Central Business District (CBD) Reinforcement and Connections
This is, in a sense, the intermediate step between the City's decision for a CC, and at which particular intersection to locate it. This criteria addresses the particular district within a city that should be chosen, before the site-specific criteria can have a role. Therefore, I have designated this issue as being primary. A site within the CBD (versus suburban locations) is usually selected by cities because:
The predominance of existing hotel space is usually in the CBD.
Amenities and attractions that conventioneers utilize most frequently are in the CBD. User spending patterns can be maximized here.
Existing transit networks are in place within the CBD.
Labor force requirements generated by a CC can often be best obtained from, with most benefits for, economically-depressed, low-income residential neighborhoods near the CBD.
CBD reinforcements and connections can be argued as being the most important criteria because of its urban design implications. The immense physical and economic scale of a large CC project will definitely impact a city. To assure that such long-term impacts are of a positive nature, a CC should be planned from the outset as an integral cog in the city 'machine. ' Unlike some public works projects with lesser external impacts, a CC can help to reinforce the urban core by the very nature of the business it creates. A city has the opportunity to develop strong bonds with a CC, in terms of infrastructure, transportation, redevelopment plans, etc. Roy Kenzie, executive director of the Miami Downtown Development Authority, believes that since CC's may not be money-
(IV-4)


makers in themselves — "although they do generate hotel room usage, food and beverage consumption and other revenue" — they should be regarded as part of a city's infrastructure, "the same way that roads and other services which benefit the community are looked at."1
Within the decision-making process, there may be competing factors as to the desirability of directing economic benefits towards a particular area of the CBD versus another area of the CBD. The very question of, "which direction do we want our city to take?", comes to mind — which is at the very heart of urban planning. Inaction, or poor-decision making processes, could result in a CC placed as to negatively impact the city for the life of the center. Alternatively, a CC that has been well conceived and cognizant of comprehensive planning efforts, could well integrate into the city.
Future growth patterns are, unfortunately, not controlled by idealistic young planners, but are rather economically and politically motivated. These interests battle over specific sites, which subsequently takes on the larger dimension of preferred growth and land use patterns. It can conceivably be argued that the most effective of these factions ultimately dictates the urban design of a city. The question then is, "Does the city as a whole derive maximum benefits from such privately-generated development?" Therefore, planning for a CC should be concerned with long-range benefit maximization for the most people, and not with a project scope that is mainly self-serving to private development interests.
2. Access
In general terms, any CC to be marketable must have good accessibility for everyone concerned. A CC with inadequate or confusing access would not only be an obstacle for the individual conventioneer, but also in the daily operations, and the profitability of the center as well. In a report on CC access requirements prepared by DeLeuw, Cather, and Co., it was stated that "there are no generally-accepted, detailed standards for such facilities. Each city and each center presents unique circumstances"2 Access is determined by city, proposed plan designs, and by what type of events are planned, in the following areas:
Pedestrians: conventioneers and the local general
public must be given direct and uninhibited access to the CC facility. Most conventioneers go to a city expressly to walk around and tour the sites. As they are unfamiliar with the city, obvious and straightforward access, with defined connections, is highly desireable.
Private automobiles: will come primarily as rental cars and from the local public, but there will also be some
(IV-5)


long-distance drivers. As our society is very automobile-bound, vehicular access to parking facilities (see no. 3) , and to a central drop-off/pick-up area, must be adequately provided for. Conventioneers are unfamiliar with the host city, so the highway and surface street networks should facilitate ease of driving to the CC/CBD, to and from the airport, and from major highway interchanges. Direct routes, with good signage, is highly desireable.
- Convention service vehicles: use the same roadways to
reach the CC as do private autos, but have special needs. Many such vehicles are large semi-trailer trucks (40-50 feet in length), so the design and weight capability of all connecting roads must be suitable. Due to inherent incompatibility between service and private vehicles (and pedestrians), there must be access-separation planned for on-site. Service vehicles must be given the additional access to truck staging/marshalling areas and to the loading bays. Availability of direct rail servicing for both passengers and freight would help marketability, and would thus be considered desireable.
Safety/security: are two very important factors to
consider when several thousand people are regularly gathered en masse. In an emergency, fire, ambulance, and police vehicles must be unimpeded in their ability to quickly respond to any given situation. Fire code regulations vary with jurisdiction, but almost universally have requirements for access, safety easements, turning radius for fire fighting vehicles, etc. Special access should also be offered security vehicles, in monitoring the CC and safe delivery of
dignitaries.
3. Parking
Once the CC complex and/or the CBD has been accessed, adequate and nearby parking is required for both the conventioneer and all service vehicles as follows:
Private automobiles: There is debate within development and planning fields over precisely how much parking to provide a CC. It is generally thought that a CC does not need as much parking as a structure of another
public use (ie. theaters, sports facilities), because visiting conventioneers do not generate as many cars as do these other users. In local terms, Roger Smith,
President of the Denver Metro Convention and Visitors
Bureau (DMCVB), states that "parking is a bogus issue— 92% of the convention delegates come to Denver by air and do not have cars. A recent study indicated the new convention center would generate only 524 more vehicles
(IV-6)


per convention.1,3 However, as a CC has a long life expectancy and will host many different types of events, I believe a maximum scenario should be planned for. If future expansion is anticipated, land for additional parking will also need to be reserved. Obviously, parking that is adjacent, or within a short walking distance to the CC is most desireable. Depending on the center's relation to the CBD and hotels, parking may become a larger issue — one that encompasses all of a downtown (ie. including private lots and on-site parking). Also, to be examined are the relative advantages and disadvantages of surface-grade lots versus multi-story parking garages, and any possibilities for shared parking.
Bus and service vehicles: Bus parking should be near the CC but segregated slightly from automobile parking for safety. Service vehicles however, some of which will remain parked for the duration of the convention, provide more of an eyesore potential and should thus be completely isolated at another area of the CC complex and 'hidden' from view as much as possible. An effective truck marshalling and holding area will assure smooth transitions in the assembling and disassembling of simultaneous events.
4. Traffic
Vehicle circulation in many cities nearly reaches a state of 'gridlock' at times. Problems can and do occur when there is higher vehicular volume than the streets and highways were planned/constructed to handle. This is most acutely evident during the 'rush hour' peaks, but can be generally heavy during any working day. Traffic problems are minimal between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.. When analyzing the issue of traffic vis-a-vis building a CC, it will be necessary to:
Analyze the extent of existing traffic patterns in the vicinity of the proposed CC site, and identify any potential problem areas.
Have CC traffic-generated scenarios developed, and extrapolate potential impacts of convention-generated traffic to the proposed site vicinity, and the CBD as a whole.
Analysis of projected truck traffic, in particular, as generated by the CC, is critical in planning for a smooth integration of the CC into the city. One scenario estimates one large (40-50 foot) semi-trailer truck is reguired per 2,000 square feet of convention space to move a convention in or out. The number of trucks needed can be extrapolated and then divided by the number of days it takes to set up or tear down. Shows of 100,0000 to 200,000 square feet can take four or five days to set up and three or four days
(IV-7)


to take down.4 For example, a 300,000 square foot show could take four days to set up and three days to take down. At one truck per 2,000 square feet, there would be 150 truck loads/trips moved to and then away from the center. Set up over four days would average 37.5 trucks per day, and take down over three days would average 50 truck trips per day. Appropriate parking for some of these trucks would, thus, also need to be provided.
Scenarios and methodological approaches can very widely, but it is strongly recommended that any CC proposals should heavily analyze impacts from autos and truck traffic, as conducted by competent transportation planning firms.
5. Land
This is a broad category, but primary in the development of a CC. Two major sub-issues exist — physical and acquisition:
Physical: Does the proposed site have the necessary
area, including parking requirements? If expansion is desired at a later date, would there be land available to provide for contiguous construction and additional parking? Is the property regular in shape, slope,
'developability, ' and are there any unusual physical characteristics? Other physical considerations are discussed in category no. 11.
Acquisition: This category deals with actually
obtaining property rights for future use, which usually involves the legal •'assemblage" of many smaller properties into one large parcel. It is at this stage that emotions can run high, as ownership changes hands with or without the consent of both parties. It is advantageous to have a site proposal where minimal assemblage is necessary, in that opposition would be reduced, as would the amount of time, energy, and costs needed to negotiate the change of property ownership. Encumbrances, appraisals, title searches, and condemnation proceedings, if necessary, all take additional time and expense to negotiate. When displacements occur, voluntarily or not, the city and/or the CC developer is becoming increasingly responsible for both commercial and residential relocation assistance — which can be substantial, as well as reasonable settlements for the "takings."
6. Hotels
By almost all accounts, the availability and close proximity of existing (and proposed) committable hotel space, is one of the most important factors in the marketability of a CC site. It is desireable to have most hotels within a few minutes walking, or driving, time of the CC, although committable space often times must also be arranged out of the CBD. Modern CC facilities
(IV-8)


usually have a direct or indirect connection with a large 'headquarters' hotel of 750-1000 rooms. This mega-hotel houses the largest contingent of conventioneers, and is large and well-equipped enough to compliment the facilities of the CC with those of its own (ie. ballrooms, banquet facilities). A headquarters hotel can either be designated from existing hotel stock, or constructed new in conjunction with the CC project. Due to the huge financial risks in undertaking any hotel venture, let alone a headquarters hotel, hoteliers commonly contractually arrange to delay construction by a year or two to gauge the need for rooms beyond existing stock. Therefore, the availability of existing hotels, and potential sites for new hotel(s) near the CC, are both desireable features.
Hotels can derive the most gain financially from convention spending, as occupancy rates often skyrocket overnight with the opening of a center. A flurry of hotel construction may accompany a new center, depending on location. If a CC is well-managed and booked with simultaneous conventions, hotels should be prone to little 'down time' — periods where no conventions whatsoever are in progress. To help smooth out any such low periods, the location and marketing efforts of the hotel should be designed to capture the general, as well as the convention trade. In the end analysis, hotels often build to meet a convention-generated need which can unrealistically reflect local/normal needs. One opinion states, "Convention Centers act, in effect, as a government subsidy for the overproduction of hotel rooms."5
7. Relationship to Urban Amenities
There are many other features to a city, besides hotels, that the conventioneer utilizes. These include various personal services (ie. dry cleaners, shoe repair, etc.), entertainment, restaurants, retail, and other assorted attractions (ie. sporting events, amusement parks, aquariums, zoos, etc.). As it has been mentioned that CC's should have near proximity to extensive hotel space, the ideal situation would have many of said amenities in the same vicinity of them both — in fact, areas between the hotels and the CC would be the perfect location. This situation could manifest itself in the form of a semi-autonomous 'district', or in simply blending in with the city as a whole. A direct physical relationship between CC and such amenities is a strong marketing point, as it helps to uncomplicate the life of a conventioneer, which is the goal of the meeting manager. Lastly, a potential site should be analyzed for potential 'spin-off' opportunities (convention-generated new business and construction) for these types of amenities within the vicinity.
8. Building Design and Function
The intricacies of facility design, both internal and external, is out of the scope of my research. I believe that site is at least as, if not more, important than design. Most any
(IV-9)


design can be, theoretically, manipulated to put on any site. However, the CC design and planned method of operation, in a general sense, is very important in marketability.
First, the specifications must be appropriate for the site, meet state and national building and safety codes (ie. ICBO regulations).
Will the design allow for maximum safety precaution, in terms of evacuation, and state-of-the-art fire/police/security monitoring equipment?
Physically, the external design should be as pleasing and 'welcoming' as is possible for a huge 'box' to be. The enhancement of urban aesthetic qualities in the near vicinity of the CC is desirable, as the full integration of the CC into the community is sought. This may be difficult as a centers' immense scale and often windowless exterior design may be anything but aesthetically pleasing. The overall appearance of quality and utility will help assure local acceptance of the structure.
Has the design utilized the site most advantageously?
Is the density/scale of the project compatible with the environs?
Does the building design best incorporate future plans for expansion, if any, into its present plans?
Has separation of incompatible functions been well planned for?
These are all external design questions that need to be reviewed. Internally, the developer and architects should design according to user preferences — recommendations proposed by meeting planners and interior/space designers. Most importantly perhaps is that the facility design should promote efficiency in staging simultaneous events. It is this lone ability that may determine if a new CC is a success or failure economically. Lastly, it should have become apparent early if the design and site utilization is too much a function of constraints. It would be deleterious for the city to embark on a new CC that is beset with an inordinate number of physical obstacles to overcome, out of a desire to locate at one site versus another.
9. CC Impact on Residential Neighborhoods (and Vice Versa)
As mentioned in no. 1, a CC can give needy innercity neighborhoods substantial economic benefits, including employment. Conversely, the close proximity of a CC could also help to destroy the neighborhood. Analysis of the following questions is needed in determining impacts:
(IV-10)


- Have undesirable adjacent zoning regulations been instituted to allow for a new CC?
- Will the construction of the CC itself displace residents and business owners? If so, what level of opposition exists, and what form of restitution and assistance will be available to compensate them?
- Will the scale and mass of the CC simply overwhelm the remainder of the neighborhood?
- Will access requirements, parking and traffic impacts have a destablizing effect on the neighborhood?
- Can community identity and cohesiveness survive the displacements and disruptions caused by the CC?
From the conventioneer and meeting planners' perspective, a CC
located in too residential a context, or one lacking an impression of hospitality, cleanliness, and safety, would not be marketable.
10. Availability of Public Transit Connections
Very much related to "Access" (no. 2), efficient local public transit of all forms (rail, buses, taxis) is desireable for the conventioneer. Anyone unfamiliar with a city's spatial configuration must inordinately rely upon those who are familiar-- effectively, public transit. To the luggage-toting conventioneer, the most important example is that first connection between the airport and the CBD. The following are questions that need to be addressed.
Are transit networks provided reliable, efficient, quick, and reasonably priced?
Once in the CBD, are connections easily made for the CC and various hotels?
Is public transit a feasible option for conventioneers in touring other areas of the city?
Do public transit options exist for out-of-city travel to other statewide/regional attractions?
If a new CC is successfully marketed and booked, many more people, if only temporary visitors, will be in need of public transit— obliging the city to respond. The ultimate scenario is in having the airport. CC, and hotels well-linked through a public transit network. The site location of a new CC would substantially benefit from direct proximity to existing and proposed transit networks.
(IV-11)


11. Technical and Environmental Considerations
Modern planning, zoning, and engineering regulations require that many physical elements be satisfactorily addressed and designed for, before actual construction can proceed. All environmental impacts and potential hazards must be studied and anticipated for. These include, but are not limited to:
Water runoff: A huge impervious area has been created
by the CC and its parking, so various forms of water diversion must be provided for. This can translate into substantial on-site and off-site infrastructure expenditures by the city and/or the developer.
Floodplain: Is the proposed CC site within a floodplain
or located over a high water table? If so, proposed designs must provide for methods of eliminating potential water danger. For example, to avoid flooding, a CC could be constructed on an elevated base. However, water that would have normally flooded such a site is, theoretically, forced upon adjacent non-elevated land instead. As this increased flood danger is highly detrimental to neighboring land owners, most planning or code regulations nationwide would require that they be compensated and/or their property also be made free from the danger of flooding (which would also be a significant additional expense for the city and/or developer).
Hazardous material: Is the proposed site contaminated
by hazardous materials, or in any other manner impacted by them? When thousands of conventioneers are congregated in one place, the prospect for a man-made catastrophe is even less appealing than a natural calamity such as a flood. How could a proposed site be made safe from such dangers? Is this a very localized concern, or a city-wide concern?
Soil conditions: Are soil conditions stable, and
compatible with the scale of the structure? If not, what measures might be taken to remedy the situation? Is the CC locale subject to heavy earthquake activity? What engineering techniques can be employed in the design and construction of the CC to minimize such risks?
12. Construction Requirements and Impacts
Pre-construction requirements are varied, and are usually initiated by municipal regulations. Adherence to planning and zoning codes is mandatory, and any proposal should additionally show interrelations with a citv/s 'Master' or 'Comprehensive' Plan. Some CC sites will, circumstantially, be more prone to regulatory issues (ie. proposal that requires zone changes) than
(IV-12)


other sites. Such extensive bureaucratic delays in seeking the desired clearances, could act unfavorably in a case of competing sites. Neighborhood opposition may play a role here.
An average CC reguires two to three years to build, during which the city is impacted in many different ways. Primarily, there is heavy disruption and interference with existing activities caused by construction-related activities, commencing with demolition trucks. Pre-construction preparation of a site includes demolition and debris removal, which can vary enormously by project, followed by excavation or infill. On-site and offsite infrastructure improvements are done next followed by casings, foundations, etc. A project of this scale will have many subcontractors, which will generate a large number of vehicle trips, impacting existing traffic patterns. Street closures and excavation for utility installation will also serve as impediments. If expansion is planned, the entire process may necessarily be repeated, and disruption could be greater than the original construction due to the contiguous relationship to the new facilities presently in use. A superior CC location would generate minimal construction-related impacts on the city.
III. Conclusion
The most important factor to recognize when planning for CC facilities are the interrelationships with the city (and region) that are fostered. Analysis, through using such criteria, can greatly aid in approaching this task in a comprehensive manner. As stated earlier, any CC proposal will be subject to strengths and weaknesses by using such criteria, and final decisions should be premised upon how well they are addressed as a whole.
The preceding twelve (12) site location criteria will subsequently be broadly used in analyzing various site proposals of Denver, Colorado, including my thesis proposal. As the physical planning for a new CC is enormously complicated, other factors inherent to a given situation may arise, which cannot be anticipated for at this point.
(IV-13)


CHAPTER 4
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Dina Eliash Robinson, "Convention Centers: Essential Meetings; Industry Fixtures; Revitalize Cities," Meetings and Conventions. November 1984, 58.
2. DeLeuw, Cather, and Co., "Convention Center Access Requirements," (prepared for City and County of Denver, Colorado) May 1987, 1.
3. Roger A.Smith, "Site Ought To Match Purpose of Convention Center", Rocky Mountain News. 24 May 1987, 79.
4. DeLeuw, Cather, "Convention Center Access Requirements, 15.
5. Jacob Weisberg, "Battle of the Barns", New Republic. 28 April 1986, 13.
(IV-14)


CHAPTER 5
CASE IN POINT; DENVER. COLORADO
I. Background and History II. Denver As Convention City
III. Does Denver Really Need New Convention Facilities?
IV. Denver Convention Center Twenty-Year Chronology (1968-1987)
V. Existing State of Affairs/Related Land-Use Issues
VI. Conclusions
(V-l)


CHAPTER 5
I. Background and History
Denver,Colorado was founded in the 1860's at the confluence of the South Platte River and Cherry Creek. The City is situated on the high plains at the eastern edge of the Rocky Mountains, and is well-known for being one mile high (5,280 feet) in elevation. The Colorado territory, which gained statehood in 1876, posed many obstacles to the thousands of settlers that marched westward. In fact, the primary overland routes, including the Oregon and Santa Fe trails, intentionally bypassed the state to the north and south, as to avoid the many unknown dangers that our mountains presented. Once the 'gold rush' found its way to Colorado, however, more people began to settle here to seek their fortunes. Mining and supply settlements were founded throughout the back country, and Denver soon became recognized for its strategic value in supporting regional growth. Eventually, railroads came to the City, and engineering advances helped to make the once inaccessible Rocky Mountains to the west accessible, via the train.
This advent of comparatively easy travelling enabled people from all walks of life to come to Colorado without the hardships of past. The scenic beauty of the state became less intimidating and could now be appreciated by many — Colorado's tourist industry was born. Colorado's economy, to this day based on mining, tourism, agriculture, and service industries (with little manufacturing), has been especially prone to economic cycles.
(V-2)


This 'boom and bust7 phenomenon has greatly influenced development patterns in Denver and throughout the State. Millions of dollars were made, and lost, in the mining industry, and many imposing buildings were constructed during the good times. Denver was once even known as the "City of Mansions."
II. Denver as Convention City
As Denver continued to grow, bolstered more by tourism and location than by mineral wealth, it became more of an entity unto itself. The tradition of grand structures exhibited itself with the 1907 completion of the Denver Auditorium Arena — the region's first convention center. Civic pride and a desire to put Denver on the map (remember these two rationale for later) provided the impetus for City leaders to justify the $700,000 expense for the structure. Helping to justify the 'need' for the Arena, in December, 1907, a delegation led by the lieutenant governor went to Washington, D.C. and successfully bid for the 1908 Democratic Convention. (See Attachment 5-1.) Not only did the delegation boast of a new auditorium, but of an abundance of hotel space, a soothing climate, a host of tourism possibilities, and a solid guarantee of $100,000 as an added enticement.* "Good for you, old boy, you did bully," proclaimed the Denver Post. "The benefit is
* The "Convention League of Denver" had been planning to attract a national political convention for several years. The City and several counties, large department stores, brewers, and the tramway company jointly raised the funds needed to lure the event. The hotel space proved to be inadequate for that week, however, and makeshift accommodations were required to house many of the 15,000 people attending the convention.
(V-3)


altogether incalculable. A couple of million dollars will be spent here that week . . . why, the Tammany Hall bunch from New
York is reportedly bringing $100,000 just for entertainment, another $175,000 for cigars, and another $38,000 for beer and champagne."1 Unfortunately for the Democrats, their candidate, William Jennings Bryan, was overwhelmingly defeated in the presidential election later that year. The subsidization (and frivolity) of national political conventions continues to this day, but in larger proportions, as the city of San Francisco spent more than $10 million in attracting the 1984 Democratic Convention. Nevertheless, their candidate, Walter Mondale, was also defeated.
The Auditorium Arena served as Denver's sole convention facility until the late 1960's when the 140,000 square foot Currigan Exhibition Hall was constructed. For reasons that will be discussed in greater detail, Currigan is now also felt to be inadequate for Denver's present needs. "Denver has lost its ability to host a national political convention," states the modern-day Denver Post, "but that would all change after a new convention hall is built."2 As large political gatherings are actually few in number, private industrial and business needs represent the bulk of the lucrative convention industry of today. Denver's self-perceived inability to effectively appeal to public or private conventions has initiated a twenty year political and economic battle over a course of action, as will be reviewed shortly. First, however, the question of feasibility must be analyzed.
(V-4)


III. Does Denver Really Need New Convention Facilities?
Yes! Denver can justify the construction of new CC facilities. In spite of tremendous competition nationwide for convention and trade show business, I believe the underlying premise on which Denver is planning new facilities to be sound. As new CC's open around the country, the theoretical market share potential decreases for everyone. Meeting planners have unwillingly bypassed the City due to inadequate facilities, and it is my contention that at least since 1977 (when the first study of Currigan expansion was undertaken), Denver conventioneering has operated at below market capability. I further believe that with the construction of new, well-conceived convention facilities in Denver, the City will not only reach its market potential, but actually surpass it — thereby deriving an unproportionately high market share. "My observation about Colorado is that you have one of the most desireable convention destinations in the world, and one of the least prepared facilities to deal with it," states Marion Kershner, founder of Meeting Planners International. "It seems a real shame to me that, with all of your areas natural attractions, you haven't planned for more and better meeting accommodations. Either your state does not want the revenue and responsibilities connected with it, or you are so new at it that you really don't know what you need. I prefer to think the latter."3
(V-5)


Denver must pursue the national convention market to be
successful, as the City is comparatively isolated, with a relatively small and dispersed population base. New facilities would not be economically feasible if largely dependent on the fewer number of regional and local shows and the limited attendees drawn from the same basic areas. Additionally, Denver would have to compete for the market with Tulsa, Omaha, El Paso, Albuquergue, and Salt Lake City — all of which have larger convention facilities than does Denver presently.
For the reasons explained forthwith, Denver should feel confident in its decision to build a new CC:
ll Inadequate Existing Facilities The present CC, Currigan Exhibition Hall, opened in 1969, has become inadequate for the needs of many, if not most, national conventions and trade shows, due to:
- Being too small in overall size (140,000 square feet) and in main display floor (100,800 square feet). For example, when the 11,600 member American Hospital Association (AHA) met in Denver in August of 1984, they required 140,000 square feet for exhibits. As Currigan has only 100,800 square feet of open space, some of the exhibits had to be displayed outside. This drew many complaints, as did the lack of quality hotel space. By 1991, the AHA will require 240,000 square feet for displays, and Denver could not possibly accommodate this group again until new CC facilities are opened, according to Denver Metro Convention and Visitor Bureau (DMCVB) chief, Roger Smith.4
- Inefficient interior design, not providing for back to back/simultaneous booking and compartmentalization requirements.
- Small, inefficient kitchen and banquet facilities.
Poor audio/video capabilities. Richard Grant, public relations manager for the DMCVB compares the situation to "someone carrying in and setting up a movie screen."5
(V-6)


2
Pent-Up Demand As of March, 1987, the DMCVB had 283 organizations on file that wanted to come to Denver but concluded that the facilities were inadequate.6 There are very likely many more events that would come to Denver should the facilities be upgraded. Meeting planners often work on a rotational basis when
scheduling events from year to year, and Denver further gains from being on the border between a central and western zone boundary. It is, therefore, more likely to be selected when meeting planning is done in this fashion, and has the effect of creating a greater
backlog of organizations wanting to come here.
3. Existing Hotel Space Would Be Adequate Barely.
Presently, Denver has approximately 12,000 rooms citywide of all types, with 4,000 convention-quality and committable rooms within the CBD. For most medium and large events, the City's existing stock would suffice, under strain, until more hotel space could be
constructed if warranted. Perhaps a new headquarters hotel would be feasible. Denver may never want to plan for a 30,000 delegate mega-event, such as a national political convention — that would require 20,000 rooms!7 (See Attachment 5-2.)
4. Denver and Colorado Are Historically Tourist Destinations
Due to impressive and abundant natural scenery, as well as many man-made attractions, the entire state has traditionally derived a large portion of its income from tourism-related commerce. When asked where they would like to spend a vacation, respondents to a 1986 national survey placed Colorado as number three on the list— only behind Hawaii and the Caribbean.8 There is a certain mystique about Colorado, and both the City and the State have a generally favorable national image, as reinforced by the media, sports franchises, etc. Denver's air pollution problem, vying with Los angeles for worst top honors, receives unfavorable national media attention, however.
The DMCVB is one of the few such entities nationwide that jointly markets a city and state— which is cost-effective and marketing-positive. Unlike many states and specific cities, Colorado has a year-round appeal, with both summer and winter attractions. The state is well-known internationally for its skiing, and yet winter tourism only accounts for approximately 25 percent of total visitors, with 75 percent coming in the summer.9 Colorado has an excellent climate, with over 300 days of sunshine per year, although Denver is sometime wrongly perceived as being buried in snow most of the year amidst its 'mountain' location. Due to
(V—7)


touting its "mile high" status, many people believe that Denver is in, rather than adjacent to, the mountains. Conventioneering here offers a wide variety of pre- and post-convention activities, and unlike the majority of convention cities, has much more to offer than just the city proper. Of the 25.9% of convention delegates who take pre- or post-convention vacations:
33% go to the mountain resorts for 3.3 days average;
26% go to Colorado Springs for 1.4 days;
29% stay in Denver for 1.7 days; and
24% go somewhere else in Colorado for 3 days.10
Especially beneficial is the fact that the low periods in State tourism, parallels the high periods in national convention occupancy rates - spring and fall. This will tend to move evenly distributed tourist volumes throughout the year, and facilitate making hotel reservations.
6. Lower Costs Due to many interrelated factors, the cost of staging a large event in Denver may be less than in most areas of the country. Air transportation costs will prove to be less as Denver is a well-connected hub city and prone to the benefits of airline deregulation. Ground transportation costs for private automobiles and the large exhibit-carrying semi-trailer trucks will also be lower, again due to the City's geographic location, but also due to generally lower fuel costs in this part of the country.* Partially inherent, and partially due to slow economic times, hotel costs and labor costs are also lower in Denver than most places. "When you compare our hotel room costs with those of the major cities, we're far lower. The average rate in all those cities is close to $100 or over $100. In Denver, we're still between $75 and $80 in average rates for the convention hotels," states Roger Smith. "That's why the American Hospital Association pulled out of San Francisco and came here in August of 1984."11
Denver is at the end of a petroleum pipeline and refining system, and directly benefits through lower fuel costs than much of the country experiences.
(V-8)


IV. Denver Convention Center Twenty Year Chronology (1968-1987)
As of this writing (December, 1987), the previous twenty years in Denver have been characterized by political infighting, high financial stakes, and vacillating commitments and alliances, in contemplating the need for convention facilities as well as where to locate them. Throughout this period, nearly a dozen different site proposals have been suggested, several having more than one development plan. There are four primary sites that may be considered realistic and feasible:
. "Silver Triangle" (includes existing Currigan convention facility)
. "Golden Triangle"
. "Colorado Gateway"
. "Union Station" (See Attachment 5-3.)
Each of these will be reviewed in greater detail in Chapter Six.
During the past twenty years, there has been an incredible amount of CC-related information generated, which for the sake of clarity and limited space must be encapsulated, as follows:*
. 3/1968 A year before Currigan Exhibition Hall opens, city consultants say it should be at least doubled in size to attract all the conventions that want to come to Denver.
. 5/1969 Currigan Exhibition Hall opens for business, at a cost of $13.1 million. This project itself had been fifteen years in the planning.
. 12/1977 Mayor McNichols commissions an initial study to examine the necessity and feasibility of expanding Currigan, perhaps into the adjacent areas known as the "Silver Triangle."
Although aided by a short time-line of Denver CC planning (Denver Post. 14 September 1983, p. 4A), I assembled the vast majority of the twenty year (1968-1987) chronology myself, based on literally hundreds of local newspaper and magazine articles I researched during this time period.
(V-9)


6/1980
6/1981
8/1981
9/1982
Consultant Harris, Kerr, Forster and Co., recommends that exhibition space at Currigan be tripled to enable Denver to capture a larger share of the national convention market.
Mayor McNichols appoints a new CC development task force, at the urging of the Denver Partnership, the Denver Chamber of Commerce, and the Denver Convention and Visitors Bureau. Their findings largely agree with those suggested by consultants one year earlier, but make first mention of alternative site proposals.
Five railroad companies that jointly own the Denver Union Railroad Terminal ("Union Station"), independently solicit redevelopment proposals for this location on the periphery of the CBD, and would utilize abandoned rail yards.
Denver Union Terminal owners (railroads) select the partnership of the Argentine holding company SOCMA and New York-based BA Capital Corp., in conjunction with Denver-based Realities, Inc., to redevelop Union Station and adjacent properties into a CC. The proposal calls for the City to lease the new CC, and sell Currigan to them for transformation into a retail and commercial complex, all at no cost to the City.
11/1982 Prompted by the Union Station proposal, three other developers submit their own CC proposals to the task force. They are: Daniel Crow; Brady Corp./Sheraton
Corp. co-venture; and William Seman/U.S. Caribe Realty/Bank of China. All of these proposals involve the redevelopment and/or expansion of Currigan, and/or the adjacent property termed the "Silver Triangle."
1/1983 The appointed City task force recommends the SOCMA Union Station CC/Currigan redevelopment plan, with an overall estimated cost of $1 billion.
2/1983 The Denver City Council embarks on six months of exclusive, secret negotiations with the Denver Union Terminal/SOCMA team.
6/1983 Mayor-elect Federico Pena inherits the Union Station CC plan from the previous administration. He was elected on a platform of "Imagine a Great City," that strongly supported the redevelopment of Denver's increasingly unused rail yards adjacent to downtown (the Central Platte Valley), including the Union Station CC plan, both of which were touted as a stimulant for the stagnating Lower Downtown area.
(V-10)


9/1983 SOCMA Corp. announces it is withdrawing from
negotiations, citing a difference of opinion with the City as to the value of Currigan (Denver wanted $80-90 million and SOCMA would only pay $60 million), and from an unwillingness to post a large assurance bond that the City required.
11/1983 Angered by the collapse of the SOCMA negotiations,
City officials decided to re-open the bidding process, and would review a total of seven sites including past and new proposals (including a second Union Station plan).
3/1984 Mayor Pena names a new task force (including himself
and City Council members) in lieu of the SOCMA
withdrawal, to determine the best CC site proposal. Panel determines that a much larger facility than Currigan expansion proposals have suggested would be justified.
10/1984 After reviewing differing site proposals, panel-
commissioned consultant, Thompson Ventulett, Stainback and Assoc, of Atlanta, determines that a site in an area just south of the Civic Center/City Hall known as the "Golden Triangle" would be the preferable location.
12/1984 Mayor Pena's task force votes 4-2 in favor of Currigan expansion, and states that any plans to build a new center should be overruled. Pena, being one of the dissenters, says the task force recommendation is "unacceptable," due largely to excessive costs and logistical problems in expanding Currigan. He directs the various developers to submit less expensive proposals, which they do.
1/1985 Despite growing dissention between the Mayor and City Council/task force members on the CC issue, Pena scores a political victory as City Council votes 7-5 (with one abstention) to build the center per the latest Union Station proposal. This proposal is from 'Mile High Land Associates', a partnership between developers Marvin Davis and Myron "Mickey" Miller, and the Glacier Park Co., the development arm of Burlington Northern RR.
10/1985 Voters overwhelmingly reject the Union Station CC proposal 2-1, in an unusually heavy turnout for a special election. There was a total of approximately $750,000 spent by pro- and opposition forces on convincing the public relative to their stance. It is generally believed that this defeat was as much due to financing methodology proposed, than a mandate against the site itself — which the Mayor successfully
(V-ll)


espoused in his election platform. This kind of
internal dissention is "not unusual in western cities that are still sorting out their urban identities between ideas of progress and ideas of tradition." stated the New York Times.12 "The bottom line is the friction of change," said Pena's chief aide, Tom Nussbaum of the opposition.13 This was a major political defeat for the Mayor, giving more power, effectively, to dissenting City council members and alternative site locations.
4/1986 Capitalizing on consultant analysis in favor of the "Golden Triangle" site two years previous, partial landowner/developer Al Cohen, in partnership with Bechtel Corp., proposes CC site at this location. After re-grouping and re-acknowledging the actual need for new facilities, and sensing Mayoral vulnerability after the vote, City Council plays a strong role in the consideration of this plan. As popular support grew for this location, Mayor Pena was also obliged to lend his support.
6/1986 City Council voted to begin contract negotiations with Cohen for a new CC at the "Golden Triangle." Cohen's project partner, the Bechtel Corp., drops out stating too many risks and contractual problems as the cause.
7/1986 As contractual proceedings continue, the method of financing is again at issue. Whereas Union Station was defeated due to financing tied to the general fund, methods are sought for separation from public support. City Council votes for an increase in the lodgers tax from 5% to 8%, and car rental taxes from 3.5% to 4.5%. This is expected to increase revenues by $5 million per year to help pay debt service on an estimated $75 million in bonds required. Many financing needs and questions persist.
12/1986 Initial Colorado State Legislature proposal calling for State financial involvement, in buying the land for a new CC. Much debate ensues. Politicking for the upcoming mayoral election starts to intensify.
4/1987 A development team of Philip Anschutz and Rio Grande Railroad present a last-minute proposal of their own, just days before the City was to undertake final negotiations with Al Cohen for the "Golden Triangle" site. This proposal, known as "Colorado Gateway" is located on property deep in the Central Platte Valley, adjacent to the new Walnut Street Viaduct, the South Platte River, and Interstate 25. Pena called the proposal "too little, too late," but six other mayoral candidates favored studying the plan and it became an election issue. The nature and timing of this
(V-12)


proposal offended many people, and it re-opened the locational debate as well as brought Central Platte Valley redevelopment plans back into the forefront.
5/1987 Mayor Pena re-elected to office, by a narrow margin.
Like the previous election, the CC was an issue, although this round Pena's position was diametrically opposed to his original stance. Politically and legally he had to remain committed to the $110 million Cohen/"Golden Triangle" proposal, as an estimated $1 million had already bee invested in the project, and legal proceedings would most likely follow should the City back out now.
6/1987 Although site location was now put to debate again, State financing involvement was finalized after six months of political infighting — manifesting itself in an urban/rural split. Governor Roy Romer signs House Bill 1382 into law, requiring the State to contribute a total of $36 million from its capital construction fund (in $6 million increments over 6 years), to secure land for the site. "It really is an investment. It's not just building some monument in Denver. It's an investment on the part of the City, it's an investment on the part of the State, it's an economic benefit for all of us," said Fred Timmerman, City Council staff director.14 "We have a ways to go to get the CC built, but his is clearly a very big step in the right direction to get people back to work and to move our city and our state forward into the 90's", added the Mayor.15 Politically, this bill would: appease rural lawmakers as to the ultimate
benefits a CC would have statewide; and, leave the actual site location decisions to the City, but only if an independent analysis of all potential sites be undertaken, on which to base the final locational decision. At one point, State lawmakers had proposed they also do the site planning. "The City should select the land . . . it's one of the biggest land-use decisions we'll have to make in the next forty years. I'm not going to give that over to the State!," proclaimed Concilwoman Cathy Reynolds.16
7/1987 Per the requirements of HB 1382, the City had to conduct yet another study as to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of various CC site proposals. As the 'eleventh hour' "Colorado Gateway" proposal reopened the debate, the City was consequently obliged to allow other proposals to also join the race. Three additional sites were offered for review for a total of five. As this study needed to be independent in its entirety, the City commissioned the assistance of an impartial panel from the Urban Land Institute (ULI)
(V-13)


to propose the overall best option. Yet, the ULI final report acknowledges that "we were faced with the very real possibility that the optimal convention center site might not be among the predetermined set of proposals."1' Eventhough the study was made under state mandate, the City was not bound legally by its decision.
. 8/1987 After review of all proposals, two were eliminated due to inadequate or infeasible concepts, leaving three major contenders: "Golden Triangle," "Colorado Gateway," and a new "Silver Triangle" proposal by developer David French. Another Union Station proposal was not offered for review. For reason that will be revised in greater detail next chapter, the dark horse candidate, "Silver Triangle," was chosen, to the surprise of most everyone and dismay of City officials and A1 Cohen. This decision negated over a million dollar in development planning costs by the two front-runners, as well as months of negotiations and review done by the City. Additionally, the selection of this ground adjacent to the existing facilities reopens an option that most had thought was put to rest years ago. Because the City is not absolutely bound by the ULI decision, however, the next step was for the City officials to more critically scrutinize the proposal as to applied feasibility. As of this writing, French and Team have successfully survived several major tests imposed by the City, and received City Council final approval in late November, 1987. Despite apparent serious
questions about certain aspects of the design, it appears as though the new "Colorado Convention Center" will be constructed adjacent to existing Currigan Exhibition Hall, with possible connections. Meanwhile, an anxious Al Cohen and Philip Anschutz are waiting in the wings to see what transpires.
Keeping abreast of the rapidly evolving events, in researching for
this thesis, was fascinating, but proved to be a challenge. Only
time will tell the final outcome of this 'unconventional'
controversy. (See Attachment 5-4.)
(V-14)


V.
Existing State of Affairs and Related Land-Use Issues
To fully assess the City of Denver vis-a-vis the CC physical siting issue, this study must briefly review a number of important elements inherent to the City. virtually all of these factors will have a role in corroborating and substantiating the premises of my thesis. Most of the contemporary planning issues facing the City are directly, or indirectly, related to transportation, as follows:
Air pollution in Denver is a major health and image concern, and will eventually mandate physical remedies. The City was once known for its clean air, and was a destination for many with respiratory problems. "Metro Denver is losing new business because of our air," stated Governor Roy Romer, and "we have to make some very tough decisions on air pollution," added Mayor Pena.-*-8 The automobile per capita rate is very high in Denver, and has greatly shaped the spatial configuration of growth. Volunteer methods, such as "no-drive days" have been having only a marginal effect. Fixed-guideway networks have been proposed to help remedy this situation.
New airport facilities are widely felt to be needed in both political and economic circles. "The airport is absolutely critical to our economy," proclaimed the Mayor,19 Thousands of jobs in the City and State are directly and indirectly related to having an airport. Stapleton International, the existing facilities, have become too small and inefficient in handling the enormous amount of flights and passengers. Denver's geographic centrality has seen the city chosen as a 'hub' for several different airlines, which has put national (and some international) pressures on a facility that was built for a regional volume. A new airport, like the CC issue, has been in the planning stages for years, but has become more of a priority with the importance placed by the new governor on economic development. A new airport will, most likely, be located farther east of the existing facility on 1-70. The present option of taking surface streets between the Airport and the CBD will no longer be available with this scenario, leaving only the highway as the transportation link. Eventual connection by a fixed-guideway system is proposed.
(V—15)


House Bill 1249. is the most recent and realistic attempt at providing at least the initial segments of a fixed-guideway system for the City. More of a debate than either the CC or the airport have been, incredibly, "light rail" has been proposed for many years and has lost in referendum several times. The Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) has repeatedly denied the City's appeal for Federal funds for such a system, due mainly to Denver's low population density, and relative "need" as compared to other cities. HB 1249, signed by Governor Romer in May, 1987, gives official sanction to this cause, and creates a "Transit Construction Authority" that is mandated to build the first segment. This locally funded project, devoid of UMTA assistance at this stage, proposes to build the first section between the CBD and the fourteen miles south to the Denver Technological Center. The downtown routing and terminal location have yet to be decided. "If we cannot get our collective act together and make our transportation system work," warns Don Butt, special assistant for economic development with U.S. West, Inc., "we will find it difficult, if not impossible, to attract people, business, and investors to Colorado."20
16th Street Mall was justified, and largely funded, by UMTA to assist Denver in better organizing its local and regional bus services. Presently, the Regional Transportation District (RTD), which constructed and manages the Mall, operates a bus terminal at both ends of continuous shuttle services connecting the two. The Mall has been a tremendous success by most accounts, despite "weak" portions. The City of Denver "Comprehensive Plan" and the Denver Partnerships' "Downtown Area Plan" both recommend extending the Mall to the Central Platte Valley, a minimum distance of approximately three blocks.
"Lower Downtown" is a 22-square block area of the CBD that contains the best remaining vestiges of historic Denver. The City once had the best examples of
mercantile architecture between St. Louis and San Francisco. (See Attachment 5-7.) It is the most depressed area within the CBD, and has great potential for historic preservation and redevelopment. Presently, there is a demolition ban within this historic district, as an attempt to secure its future. During the oil boom years of the early 1980's, many investors bought Lower Downtown properties in anticipation of continued Denver growth (which did not occur), and a CC at Union Station. Now that property values have fallen city-wide, owners of property in Lower Downtown want the right to develop these
(V-16)


properties as they see fit — which does not correspond to attempts by the City and the Denver Partnership to preserve its identity. This area, dominated by small floor plate, Victorian, low-rise structures, lends itself to small scale business, entertainment, and service-related concerns. Larimer Square, a successful restored two-block section within Lower Downtown, gives a hint of this greater potential.
Central Platte Valley is a 500 acre area adjacent to Lower Downtown. Formerly, rail switching yards in its entirety, the majority of the tracks have now been removed and consolidated — opening the possibilities for redevelopment. The Central Platte Valley, located between the CBD and residential neighborhoods to the west, has a great deal of development potential despite problems due to partially being in a floodplain and never having been developed before. Presently, aging viaducts carry automobiles between I-25 and the CBD through the Central Platte Valley into Lower Downtown. 1982 bond money will help finance a host of road improvements in this area. "The shortening of the 15th Street Viaduct, removal of the 16th street viaduct, consolidation of 19th and 20th Streets and an interchange at those streets to 1-25 must be completed by 1989 under a city contract with railroads in the Platte Valley."21 The Walnut Street Viaduct and Auraria Parkway, with connections to Lower Downtown, are the first manifestations of a number of improvements to be made. "That'll open up the whole valley to traffic at ground level," said Denver Planning Director, Bill Lamont.22
II. Conclusion
Denver has excellent possibilities for being a very successful convention center. Even though the City has struggled with the CC issue, as has other cities, it is my contention that this is a healthy process — that will, hopefully, result in the creation of well-conceived facilities. The fact that the CC issue
(V—17)


is presently only one of many land-use issues, Denver has the opportunity to "link" development stratifies — if done with foresight. My thesis is directly related to the interrelationships that exist between the above-mentioned issues.

(V-18)


CHAPTER V
BIOGRAPHY
1. Patrick Yack, "1908: Convention Fever Amok," Denver Post. 16 July 1984, pp. IF, 10F.
2. Gary Delsohn, "Denver Couldn't Host a Convention Today," Denver Post. 16 July 1984, p. 10F.
3. John H. Simms, "Colorado Convention Industry: Not Ready for
the Big Leagues," Denver Business. October 1983, 36.
4. Lois Barr, "Denver's New Convention Center: Out of The Doldrums," Colorado Business Magazine. March 1987, 23.
5. Ibid.
6. Denver Metro Convention and Visitors Bureau Statistics (extracted from #4).
7. Ibid.
8. U.S. Travel Data Center, Colorado Business. March 1986, 12.
9. Ibid.
10. Denver Metro Convention and Visitors Bureau Statistics .
11. Warren Smith, "The Tourist Game: A Serious Business," Colorado Business. March 1986, 10.
12. Iver Peterson, "Dispute in Denver Pits Pinstripes Against Jeans," New York Times. 15 October 1985, p. A-18.
13. Ibid.
14. Denver Post, (article name unknown) 21 August 1986, p. 10B.
15. Denver Post, (article name unknown), 26 June 1987, P. 2B.
16. M. Kowalski, "Rep. Gillis Ready to Re-Open Con. Centr. Discussion," Denver Post. 17 May 1987, p. 10A.
17. ULI Panel Advisory Service Report, "An Evaluation of Proposals and Site Selection for the Colorado Convention Center," (Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C.) 23-28 August 1987, 2.
18. KRMA Channel 6, "State of Colorado," 30 October 1987.
19. Ibid.
(V—19)


20. Susan Bavaria and Linda P.Smith, "Public/Private Bond Makes People Moving Possible," Corporate Connections. Vol.2, No. 1 Spring 1987, Squire Publications, Inc., (Englewood, Colorado), 6.
21. Prior:
22 . News.
Joni H. Blackman, "Platte Valley Remains ity," Denver Post. 29 January 1986, p. 3B.
Development
Kevin Flynn, "Platte Valley Buildup Looms," Rocky Mountain 20 April 1987, 7.


CHAPTER VI
ANALYSIS OF FOUR PRIMARY CC SITE PROPOSALS IN DENVER
I. Introduction
ii. : Silver Triangle
hi. ( Colden Triangle
IV. i Colorado Gateway
V. 1 LJnion Station
VI. ( Conclusions
(VI-1)


CHAPTER VI
I. Introduction
As discussed in Chapter Five, the City of Denver has historically developed four primary site locations, for which new or expanded CC facilities have been proposed. These are, again, as follows:
"Silver Triangle" (includes existing Currigan Exhibition Hall facilities)
"Golden Triangle"
"Colorado Gateway"
"Union Station"
Each of these site-location proposals have had their "day in the
sun," as such, and have alternately been scrutinized by public
officials and private interests. Even though my thesis proposals
recommend that the decision-making process should remain open, any
observer must empathize with the frustration levels experienced by
officials in the inability to settle this matter until very
recently. This inability can largely be attributed to:
. Opposing economic and political factions.
The reality that all four of the proposed sites could, conceivably, offer a feasible location for new facilities. In fact, it has been noted that, "many cities in the United States would be pleased to accept any of the . . . proposals."1 Acknowledging this, the
decision becomes more an issue as to preferences in urban design for Denver.
(VI-2)


II. Silver Triangle
The "Silver Triangle" (ST)site is property within the Denver CBD that is roughly bounded by Champa Street, Fourteenth Street, Speer Boulevard, and Colfax Avenue (see Attachment 6-1). Although this area is roughly triangular, the associated term "Silver" has no real historical connotation or relation to anything geologic. Four separate development proposals, submitted at various times for a CC within these confines, will be discussed. All of the proposals have been limited to only a basic six square block area within the ST however, which also encompasses the existing Currigan Exhibition Hall facilities between Champa and Stout, 14th and 12th Streets.
I am opening this review of the four major sites with the ST because it was this area first considered for expansion of Currigan ten years ago, and despite periods of disfavor, has recently gone full-circle and emerged again as the site-apparent for new facilities. Acknowledging the inadequacies of Currigan Exhibition Hall, resulting in Denver's inability to attract larger, more income-producing events, I will briefly describe the various alternatives that have been offered for this site. This will then be followed by a site-specific analysis (not proposal-specific) , using the twelve criteria established in Chapter Four as a guide. I must operate under the assumption that, despite inherent architectural and conceptual differences of each proposal, they are all in the same basic location and can thus be treated as a single entity, vis-a-vis the twelve criteria.
(VI-3)


The Four Major ST Site Proposals are:*
1. ) Daniel Crow Interests
2. ) Currigan Redevelopment Ventures (Brady Enterprises
and Sheraton Corp. joint-venture)
3. ) Denver Chaparral Joint Venture (William Seman, U.S.
Caribe Corp., Bank of China)
4. ) David French and Co., (and Hensel Phelps
Construction Co.
1. ) Daniel Crow Interests, (see Attachment 6-2) envisioned the
modification and expansion of Currigan to California Street, between 12th and 14th Streets. This would involve acquisition of land under private ownership (some of which is Crow-owned), as well as city-owned property known as 'North Bank Park', which also contains the heliport. This scheme would have required closing Currigan during the construction period, and utilization of air rights over Stout, 12th and 14th Streets to almost completely cover four city blocks. The development concept proposed a 320,000 square foot expansion of the Hall, an adjacent 1,000 room hotel and merchandise mart, and underground parking for 4,000 cars. Four office towers would form the site's corners. The scale, phasing, and financing of this project was considered very complicated, to the point of being infeasible, and was eliminated from the competition by the Denver Union Terminal plan in 1983.
2. ) Currigan Redevelopment Ventures proposal, a joint venture
composed of Brady Enterprises and the Sheraton Corporation, also envisioned an expansion and modification at Currigan Exhibition Hall. This plan, however, would have done so on land completely owned by the City, which is either dedicated park land or land leased to the adjacent Denver Center for the Performing Arts (DCPA). The redevelopment area would be bounded by Speer Boulevard, Stout Street, and a varied line which would have encircled the DCPA (including the existing Auditorium Arena and Boettcher Concert Hall). This scheme envisioned expansion of Currigan to the North and West, over Champa Street, and would have necessitated demolition of the DCPA office building (formerly Denver Police HQ). This $215 million plan would have tripled convention space, added a
Major sources of information on proposals 1-3 derived from "Analysis of Developer Proposals For Convention Center Development, Denver, Colorado" (prepared for "Joint Convention Center Taskforce") by Laventhol and Horwath, CPA, and Zuchelli, Hunter, and Assoc., Inc., January 1983. General information on the French proposal are obtained from the "Colorado Convention Center Briefing Book," (French/Hensel Phelps), 22 October 1987; and the ULI panel final report, "An Evaluation of Proposals and Site Selection for The Colorado Convention Center," Urban Land Institute, (Washington, D.C.), August 1987.
(VI-4)


1,000 room Sheraton HQ hotel, a 3,000 car garage, and the modification of the Auditorium Arena into a 40,000 square foot ballroom. This plan was also eliminated from the competition in 1983.
3. ) Denver Chaparral Joint Venture (see Attachment 6-3), like the
Daniel Crow plan, also envisioned expanding and modifying Currigan onto privately held properties to the south. This $634 million proposal would have added 200,000 square feet of additional convention space to Currigan, using an architecturally unusual plan calling for a 60-story office building at one end and a 44 story hotel at the other end. The expanded hall would have been supported from above by "Brooklyn Bridge-like" suspension cables attached to the two end structures. The expansion was to have bridged Stout Street in connecting to Currigan, with an underground parking garage for 6,000 cars, and landscaped open spaces on the roof. Like in two previous proposals, this plan was found inferior to a Denver Union Terminal plan in 1983, very possibly due to high construction costs, structural problems, and operational impacts that would have been encountered.
4. ) French and Co./Hensel Phelps Construction Co. (see Attachment
6-4) , is the site-apparent for new convention facilities in Denver as of this writing. This proposal was selected by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) over proposals that incorporated other sites, as will be shown. Not dissimilar to the other ST sites listed, the French plan would utilize primarily private lands to the south of Currigan, between Stout and Welton Streets, 14th and 12th Streets. This initial proposal called for constructing over California, and possibly Stout Streets. Even though design and conceptual problems were apparent in this proposal, the ULI selected this site over the "Golden Triangle" and "Colorado Gateway" proposals due primarily to its central location within the CBD, and close relation to existing convention facilities and hotel/retail concentrations. Although all design considerations have not yet been finalized, it appears as though California, 13th, and 12th Streets will be entirely closed to traffic to accommodate this structure at grade. Initial plans called for the Center to be built over the road which would have created design problems and increased the cost. Stout Street may be left open, if primarily for service access, and will probably be spanned by walkways connecting the new 'Colorado Convention Center' to Currigan Exhibition Hall.
Analysis of the Silver Triangle convention site, utilizing
the twelve criteria developed, is as follows:
1.) CBD Reinforcements and Connections: may be considered one of the main determinants in the ULI selection of this site. "The Silver Triangle lies within the downtown core, and by this virtue, a convention center located in this area offers
(VI-5)


the best opportunities for reinforcing the CBD," so states ULI.2 The ST is the most central, and established, of the sites they analyzed in its near proximity to the 16th Street Mall and existing convention facilities. Perceived weakness in the middle of the Mall will be, theoretically, bolstered by the selection of this site.
2. ) Access: is provided mainly from Speer Boulevard, Colfax, and
14th Street. Most conventioneers, unfamiliar with the City, will most likely utilize 1-25 in accessing the CBD. Interchanges at Speer, Lawrence (soon to be the Auraria Parkway), and Colfax, are approximately two miles from the site. Although traffic volumes become excessive at times on the connecting streets, the additional volume produced by convention-generated automobiles should not overwhelm their capacity. Service trucks, however, the volume of which will vary by event and, thus, cannot be totally anticipated for, may have a tendency to inhibit normal traffic patterns— especially on Speer and 14th Street. This fact may be alleviated if on-site truck holding areas are well-conceived. The ST site is impacted by hourly restrictions that presently govern the times tractor/semi-trailers can make deliveries. A permit from the Public Works Department is reguired between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. within the central downtown core, of which the ST is considered a part, "and has, on occasion, limited trucks arriving in peak traffic hours."3
3. ) Parking: is satisfactorily provided for with all ST
proposals, but land cost and availability constraints allow for little leeway. The French plan allows for only 258 onsite parking spaces, but is augmented by shared parking facilities with the 1,700 space DCPA garage, and on-street possibilities, as follows:
public parking spaces: 5 minute walk - 5,000 spaces public parking spaces: 10 minute walk - 8,900 spaces public parking spaces: total available-21,000 spaces4
Parking will not be in abundance, but should prove to be adequate for the near term.
4.) Traffic: impact is very difficult to anticipate accurately due to the extreme variances generated by different types and sizes of events. The ST location does adequately meet levels determined necessary, as follows:
weekend peak hour traffic: 1,500 cars per hour weekday peak hour traffic: 500 cars per hours5
Ultimately, traffic impacts and future patterns will be determined by final design and what streets will be closed or redirected.
(VI-6)


5. ) Land; The most recent ST project, as envisioned, requires
the acquisition of 62 parcels, 22 improved and 40 unimproved, with a total area of 25.4 acres. Of this, 11.2 privately-owned acres are to be acquired, 7.8 acres are in public rights-of-way, and 6.4 acres are occupied by existing
Currigan Hall facilities. Seven separate owners control over 76 percent of the private parcels. This area had extremely high property values during the oil boom of the early 1980's, and, "land assembly costs for a new convention center during this period would have been prohibitive.1,6 Indeed, only four years ago, the ST property would have cost up to $210 per square foot, for a total cost as much as $90 million.7 In today's depressed local economy, land values have fallen substantially, and the area in question is considered
negotiable in the $61.00 to $72.00 per square foot region, for a total cost of $31 to 35 million.
6. ) Hotels: mentioned earlier as a primary factor in the success
of any convention center shows the ST site as preferable to all other sites in this regard. The majority of existing hotels are within a few minutes walking time of the ST site. Additionally, this location would be "the least dependent
upon the simultaneous opening of a headquarters hotel, because of the existing available supply of rooms within reasonable walking distance. In the meanwhile, the new
convention center at Silver Triangle would be generating business for the existing downtown hotels, allowing development of a headquarters hotel when the market need has been established."8 * Poor market conditions in Denver account for the low (approximately fifty percent) occupancy rates in downtown hotels a.t present, which makes it difficult to justify new hotel construction until found to be warranted by the new CC.
7. ) Relationship to Urban Amenities: other than hotels, amenities
most likely to be utilized by conventioneers are services, restaurants, entertainment, and retail shops. (See Attachment 6-5.) Services and shops are found throughout the CBD, but are concentrated in greater abundance on the 16th Street Mall, and areas within reasonable distance of the ST site. Additionally, the ST site has the true benefit of being adjacent to existing convention facilities, and the DCPA (Boettcher Concert Hall, Theatre Complex, and Auditorium Theatre) which will be utilized by conventioneers. The
centrality of this site makes it convenient in utilizing many facilities throughout the CBD. (See Attachment 6-5.)
8. ) Building Design and Function: although out of the scope of my
research in a detailed form, the ST site can be aesthetically and functionally pleasing if well-conceived. A primary constraint to virtually all of the proposed designs for this site, are present road configurations. The initial French plan entailed building over the roads on-site which would considerably raise the costs, make for awkward pedestrian
(VI-7)


access,and create potential safety concerns. "The Center is so cramped by its tight downtown site that it may not be the flexible 'world class' hall officials say they want. The fact you enter the building through a tunnel . . . it's not the modicum of hospitality you look for in a project like this."9 The Center, once constructed, may be very visually appealing from the rear and/or Speer Boulevard, but not particularly from the main entrance on 14 th Street (ie., Denver Post loading facilities, although now largely unused, are directly across the street).
9. ) Impacts on Residential Neighborhoods: are minimal here, in
the classical sense, but it must be acknowledged that the greatest share of low-income residents in the CBD live within the confines of the ST site, and will consequently be displaced. "The proposed ST site which appears to contain only vacant lots and low-density blighted buildings disrupts no neighborhood, but actually may offer an opportunity for the creation of a new one in town . . . the few residents to
be displaced offers Denver, in fact, the opportunity to provide something better for those citizens, perhaps in a new SRO (single room occupancy) project modeled on successful projects in Seattle or Los Angeles."10 I feel this belief diminishes the importance of displacing these residents, in that no such relocation plans have reached any level of certainty. "The people who live in those (Silver Triangle transient) hotels have no political clout. They're the weak link in the chain, and they always give," comments Bernie Jones, Associate Professor of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Colorado at Denver.11
10. ) Availability of Public Transit Connections: are few, as
presently exists. Existing Regional Transportation District (RTD) bus routes serve the ST site, but by itself will prove inadequate in meeting the transit needs of the many thousands of the conventioneers anticipated. The 16th Street Mall Shuttle, two blocks away, will most likely act as the primary transit source within the CBD — for any of the proposed sites. Fixed-rail transit, only in the planning stages in Denver, has included plans to directly service the ST site, but difficulties in doing so are evident. Plans calling for a California Street routing for rail transit are virtually eliminated by recent decisions on the French plan to build the structure at grade. Additionally, accessing this area of the CBD from existing historic rail corridors, as obtained by the RTD, may be very intrusive to adjacent neighborhoods and logistically and financially unfeasible. I disagree with the contention that, "rail transit plans . . . would, even if
built, not become a major means of access to any of the proposed sites."12 Connections from the airport, existing or
(VI-8)


proposed, will be inadequate if dependant only upon local bus, taxi and/or car rental services. Obviously, if public transit services are inadequate between the airport and the CBD, car rentals will have to increase, putting greater pressure than anticipated on parking needs — which will already be limited.
11. ) Technical and Environmental Considerations; do not play a
major role in the ST site. Water runoff and flooding potential are minimized by past protective measures taken on Cherry Creek. Soil characteristics for this site, not unlike that which supports nearby skyscrapers, seems to be adequate and without any major problems. Hazardous materials are not directly an issue.
12. ) Construction Requirements and Impacts: may have the most
negative implications for the ST site. Due to:
- large demolition requirements on site;
the central location of the site, in relation to other CBD activities; and
- distance from highway,
ST site can be expected to be a substantial impact on traffic, and daily operations of business concerns in the near vicinity. Expansion, at a later date, may prove even worse. Yet, the ULI decision favoring this site notes that, "these impacts (street closing, excavation, traffic, and noise) are in the panel's view typical for any major downtown construction and will last for a relatively short time," and "are not considered determents in the selection process."13
Ill. Golden Triangle
The "Golden Triangle" (GT) convention site is bounded by Broadway and Cherokee Streets, 13th and 11th Avenues. Like the "Silver Triangle," this property lies within a larger, triangularshaped neighborhood, and has no connections with anything geologic. This site has close proximity to many government buildings and is very near the "Civic Center" area of Denver (see Attachment 6-6). Al Cohen Construction Company developed the sole proposal for this site, and was within days of signing final
(VI-9)


negotiations with the City when the "last-minute” Colorado Gateway proposal was submitted for study. This act, subsequently, reopened the competition, which ultimately led to the Urban Land Institute's choice of yet a third site, the "Silver Triangle," as the preferred area. The GT site was given much credence, in 1984, when analyzed as the premier CC location by consultants, Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback, and Assoc, of Atlanta, but was persistently dogged by doubts from many different concerns at the local level. The urban design implications, by locating on one of Denver's major thoroughfares, Broadway, and on a peripheral edge to the CBD instead of in the center, both fostered controversy as to "how we want the City to develop."
Analysis of the Golden Triangle convention site, utilizing the twelve criteria developed, is as follows:
1. Central Business District (CBD) Reinforcements and
Connections: the proponents of this site touted its location on the Broadway corridor, and being near many public buildings, as being excellent in reinforcing downtown. "The construction of a convention center in that spot would bring Broadway back to the prominence it once had in Denver . . .
and the revitalization of a major road in Denver would creep south," stated columnist Woody Paige.14 In actuality, being several blocks to the side of one end of the 16th Street Mall, and on one of Denver's largest thoroughfares (which happens to be one-way, leading away from the CBD), combine to make this site anything but reinforcing, in this student's estimation. The required walking distance between the CBD and a Golden Triangle CC may not be as direct or pleasurable as suggested, and conventioneers would be more inclined to spend their "free" time away from the CBD. 2
2. ) Access: the GT site would be adjacent to, or very near, three
of Denver's major transportation corridors (Broadway, Colfax, Speer), and vehicular access to this site from I-25/Stapleton airport can be considered relatively "direct." Not being on the 45 degree angle that the majority of the CBD is on may prove to be a positive feature for the newly-arrived conventioneer. Although truck deliveries are not in need of permit here, as with the Silver Triangle, the narrow width of the surrounding avenues may have a negative impact on their
(VI-10)


ease of access to loading bays. Pedestrian access is
reasonable, but subject to safety concerns posed by the heavy traffic volumes of surrounding streets. This fact is especially acute considering the heavy emphasis placed on this "pedestrian connection" to the CBD.
3. ) Parking: is a major point of contention with the GT site.
Presently, the undeveloped site serves as parking area for the adjacent City and County building (courts), Police headquarters/jail, the main library, and the art museum. The entire vicinity is known for its limited parking availability during business hours. Conversely, non-business hours and weekends show this area as being semi-deserted. The
placement of a mega-structure on this site would:
eliminate existing parking badly needed by the other uses,
generate its own parking needs, thereby intensifying the need, and
force parking areas to be farther away, with greater impacts on surrounding areas.
A1 Cohen produced a parking analysis of the area, conducted by consultants Felsburg, Holt, and Ullevig, finding a need of only 1,560 spaces on the busiest weekday, with a total of 2,045 spaces available within a five-minute walk from the site.Discrepancies soon appeared as to these numbers, as it was discovered the study counted spaces that would not actually be available for CC use. As the City was not planning to construct a parking garage for this site, the impact on surrounding streets, especially residential, may be very negative.
4. ) Traffic: has direct and indirect connections to "access" and
"parking" at this site. Most access will probably come from 1-25 via Colfax Avenue, both of which should be capable of accommodating the increased traffic. In the near vicinity of the GT site, however, traffic problems could be considerable. Fleet Maintenance Consultants, Inc. considered the nations premier consultants on designing buildings for smooth (truck) traffic flow, studied the GT proposal and noted the following problem areas:
"northbound trucks on Cherokee Street will have to swing into southbound traffic in order to negotiate a right turn into the service entrance."
"trucks exiting the service area and heading northbound on Cherokee will have to swing into southbound traffic in order to negotiate a right turn."
"columns located in the turn-around area will make 360 degree turns very difficult, if not impossible."
(VI-11)


congestion which will be created by the current design will increase exhibit set-up and knock-down time and negatively affect the income generating potential of the convention center.7 * * * 11 * * * * (emphasis added)1€>
Additionally, the intersection(s) of Broadway/Lincoln/Speer/ 6th Avenue, close to the GT site, all converge together and can become 'gridlocked' during the rush hours. This junction is considered the 'worst7 in the City, and to make matters still worse, will soon undergo a series of construction projects to replace bridges there. Governor Romer showed concern stating, "there's no way we should put a convention center where we would cripple the traffic flow in this city. You show me, can you expand Broadway, Lincoln, Speer? I don't believe so."1'
5. ) Land: The GT project will reguire the acquisition of 76
parcels for a total of 25.8 acres — 19.3 privately held
acres, and 6.5 acres in the public right-of-way. A1 Cohen has control of 22 of the 76 parcels, representing 61 percent of the privately held land. Total acquisition costs of the private land is estimated at $35 million, or approximately $41.75 per square foot.18 The private land that is not controlled by Cohen is owned by more than forty businesses, partnerships, and individuals. "Obviously, it is more time consuming and more complicated," said City attorney, Steve Kaplan, speaking at the negotiation process.19 Additionally, there was a wide discrepancy in what different parties feel the land is actually worth. "Land owners there feel, on the one hand, city assessments are set high to derive the most tax benefit, while on the other hand, the City's land office is using extremely devalued appraisals to get the best bargain on the convention center land."20
6. ) Hotels: are located within a few minutes walking time of the
GT site. The Radisson, Colorado's largest hotel, and very possibly the designated headquarters hotel for wherever the CC is located, is closest to the GT of all proposed sites. Cohen has also proposed the construction of a new hotel within the Triangle, probably farther south on Broadway. It might be noted that A1 Cohen has a financial interest in the Radisson Hotel.
7. ) Relationship to Urban Amenities: is somewhat more distant
from the GT than was the case with the ST. As the most types
of amenities conventioneers would use are located in the
proximity of the Mall, a GT CC would make accessing said
amenities more difficult. Broadway has retail and service-
related businesses, of course, but they are not in as
abundance as within the urban core. There is no doubt that a
CC at this location would spur growth on Broadway, and this
would, in effect, draw business away from the CBD.
(VI-12)


8. ) Building Design and function: is difficult for this student
to analyze, as the specification book for the GT site was not disseminated to the public. I can say that when the proposal was close to entering final negotiations with the City, it had reached the highest design level that any CC proposal has since Currigan was built. In fact, when the Urban Land Institute designated the ST as the optimal spot, it was suggested to an interested City Council that the use of the Cohen design could be transferred to the new site. Councilman Bob Crider commented, "You'd have the best site and the best convention center you could build ... it would really speed up the process."2^ The French team has since adequately proven to City Council that they should be able to present their own design. The Cohen plan was a 300,000 square foot exhibit area, with a 35,000 square foot ballroom, and 65,000 square feet of meeting rooms and other ancillary space — large enough to accommodate up to 25,000 people. It would cover three city blocks, bounded by Broadway, Cherokee, 13th and 12th Avenues, and that is just Phase One. Phase Two envisioned an expansion to 11th Avenue.
9. ) Impacts on Residential neighborhoods; would be the greatest
here of all CC sites proposed. The GT site, at present, is dominated by small businesses, parking lots and a few residents. These uses would, obviously, be displaced with the location of a CC here, but would also impact other areas within the GT with a more residential character. It would, to a degree, affect some of the same hispanic community that had been earlier driven from Auraria. The businesses have operated in a very tentative fashion for several years, due to the uncertainties of if, and when, they might have to move. Business owner Dick Winegar stated, "There's no reason to get mad. But it's going to be rough. We've had a good
business going and now we have to move. It's going to be
just like starting over."22 Possibly the most tragic result of a CC in the GT would be the eventual demolition of the Evans School, a vacant building on the National Register of Historic Places at the corner of 11th and Acoma. Under plans by Cohen, the school land would not be used for the 'Phase One' of the project, but would probably be cleared later for parking and/or 'Phase Two' construction.23 Despite character fragmentation of the GT area, the Denver Partnerships "Downtown Area Plan" envisions 2,000-3,000 housing units there eventually, acknowledging its historical residential character.24 Where impacts on residential neighborhoods would be greatest is east of Broadway, a still-thriving residential community.
(VI-13)


10. ) Availability of Public Transit; would be possible due to its
Broadway frontage, but existing bus services here would lead away from the CBD. Enhanced connections to scheduled services could, of course, be developed, as could shuttle services to the Mall and hotels. A fixed-guideway routing has been proposed for Broadway, but does not appear immediately probable in lieu of other corridors.
11. ) Technical and Environmental Considerations; are of minimal
concern here, as no problems with soils, flooding, or hazardous materials are apparent. Water runoff from westward-sloping residential neighborhoods east of Broadway, would not pose significant problems in providing for storm drainage.
12. ) Construction Requirements and Impacts: would be moderate for
the GT site, as much of the land is already cleared. Of course, displaced businesses and homeowners would suffer the strongest impacts, as would the demolition of Evans School. Demolition trucks, although a definite impact on surrounding areas and roadways, will have less of a job, with more route options, than will those for the ST site.
IV. Colorado Gateway;
The Colorado Gateway (CG) CC proposal, a late-entry plan which subsequently re-opened the site analysis process in Denver, was offered by Philip Anschutz and the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. (D&RGW). (See Attachment 6-7.) The CG site is located slightly away from the CBD, in the Central Platte Valley, and is between the South Platte River and the new Auraria Parkway (Walnut Street Viaduct). The site has both strengths and weaknesses, as will be discussed, but undeniably offers an alternative concept to other proposed downtown sites. Submitted just days before final contract negotiations were to be signed between A1 Cohen and the City, the proposal generated enough interest within official circles to halt the on-going proceedings. Claims that Anschutz used his status as being the richest man in Colorado and most powerful Republican, to get his proposal
(VI-14)


officially recognized at a late date, are probably valid — but unsubstantiated and inconsequential. "Unfortunately, the need to carefully structure a complicated proposal and the responsibility to thoroughly analyze it are necessary private sector constraints which cannot always be conformed to the timing of public sector processes," rationalizes the CG camp.25
The analysis using the twelve criteria developed, offers the opportunity to examine the alternative concepts this plan entails, as follows:
1. ) CBD Reinforcements and Connections: are in question due to
the location of approximately one mile from the CBD. One Anschutz aide calls the proposal "a master development plan, not just a convention center."26 Proponents stress the
notion that, more than being a separate entity into itself, their proposal would spur growth in the Central Platte Valley, and would reinforce the CBD in a superior fashion to the other sites. Connections, by means of proposed walkways and shuttle services, would be greatly enhanced compared to the barren property that exists there presently. A pedestrian parkway, connecting the site to Larimer Square via the Tivoli and the Auraria Campus, was planned. Although the plans of greater reinforcements and connections are noble, it is this students' contention that this lack of direct proximity to the CBD combined with too many ancillary requirements necessary to make it work, convinced the ULI panel that this was not the best site. However, had this particular concept for a CC been approved, I further believe that the resources and the integrity of the Anschutz team would have been committed to its success. They pledged $40 million in additional "spinoff" improvements for the Central Platte Valley.27
2. ) Access: is the best for this site of all proposals. The new
Auraria Parkway and Walnut Street Viaduct, adjacent to the CG site, gives direct and immediate outbound access to Interstate 25. Inbound access is presently easily afforded by Lawrence Street from 1-25, and will eventually be well-serviced by the new Speer Viaduct connection, that will soon be constructed. Additionally, this site has direct proximity to proposed rail and bus corridors that run through the Central Platte Valley. "The Gateway site's access has not been questioned because there is little to question; access there is excellent," said Bob Leigh, Anschutz's traffic consultant.28
(VI-15)


3. ) Parking: capability is also in greater abundance here than in
either the ST or GT sites. There is more vacant land available than would actually be utilized for the CC, much of which Anschutz already owns. The possibilities for shared parking are also the best at this site, being adjacent to large Auraria and Tivoli lots, but primarily through being directly across 1-25 from expansive lots surrounding Mile High Stadium and McNichols Arena. There presently exists a pedestrian bridge that affords this connection.
4. ) Traffic: would impact the CBD the least at the CG site. Both
automobile and truck traffic would be kept away from the urban core, where traffic is a problem and would thus pose less safety concerns for conventioneers. The ease of access to the CG site, with straightforward vehicular connections, would allow both private and service vehicles to reach their respective destinations on-site with comparative ease.
5. ) Land: availability in the Central Platte Valley is without
question. The issue of cost however, vis-a-vis the assessed value of the land, and alleged claims of profiteering, became a negative factor for the CG proposal. The project would require the assemblage of 13 parcels of land, seven of which are controlled by Anschutz — representing 73 percent of the total land needed. The total area comprises 32.33 acres, 26.54 acres being privately held, with 5.79 acres being in the public rights-of-way.2sr Although Anschutz has specified the land costs to be the equivalent of $19.32 per square foot, opponents pointed out that he had paid as little as $7.26 a square foot for much of the same property not long before. Keep in mind, the $19.32 figure is less than one-half the GT land costs, and less than one-third of the ST land costs.
6. ) Hotels: of the CBD are from one and one-half miles to almost
two miles from the CG site, and due to their importance in meeting planning, were found to be a major drawback to this proposal. As a counter-measure, $5 million of the proposed $40 million in additional improvements pledged by Anschutz, was to go to funding the construction of a new headquarters hotel on adjacent properties. The comparatively limited access to the other hotel space available, in the CBD, would still be an issue, and certainly pointed out by these existing hotel interests. "Hotel development is demand driven. Therefore Gateway has much greater potential because of many 'people generators like 1-25, sports complex, and nearby shopping and entertainment centers," rationalizes the proponents.30
7. ) Relationship To Urban Amenities: at the CG site is more
proposed than existing. The distance from the CBD's concentration of most often utilized amenities would be difficult to overcome for the CG site. Theorizing that many conventioneers will be staying at hotels within the CBD, this
(VI-16)


issue is partly resolved. The promised $40 million in additional improvements was largely introduced to satisfy this criteria, through developing the Central Platte Valley into a "people place," including enticing Elitch's Amusement Park to the Valley. Presently in the midst of residential northwest Denver, Elitch's is looking to relocate and has voiced interest in the possibilities of doing so in the CPV. "The Vision," CG's conceptual plan, states, "In the future, Gateway will act as a catalyst, helping create a new entertainment and amusement complex, an unprecedented transportation corridor, and even more retail stores, restaurants, hotels and commercial business, all in the center of historic Denver."31
8. ) Building Design and Function: never reached the level of
detail that had been attained by the GT site. The proposed design, by renowned I.M. Pei and Associates, was a semi-triangular, or "crystalline," floorplan. The awkwardness of several triangular exhibit halls, as designed, was proclaimed by opponents. Proponents, however, felt that "I.M.Pei's concept for [this] convention center provides Denver with a simple but powerful building that reflects the grandeur of the Rockies and the boldness of this City on the Plains. It is timeless design; its geometry and its symmetry give it strength and lend it beauty. It is a design worthy of its location at the 'gateway' to Colorado."32
9. ) Impacts on/from Residential Neighborhoods: would not have a
major bearing for this site. The nearest residential neighborhood is to the west of the 'Sports Complex'. These areas are severely impacted by traffic from sporting events, but would feel little, if any, impact of any type from a CC located at this site. No displacements would occur.
10. ) Availability of Public Transit: is limited at this outlying
site at the present, but represents a major tenent in the Anschutz "master plan" of which the CC is the catalyst. Being adjacent to rail corridors, which Anschutz controls through his ownership of the D&RGW railroad, his overall proposal include plans for direct servicing of the CC, and environs, by a fixed-guideway system that he would expedite. Additionally the CG conceptual plan "links" the CC with the sports complex to the west, and the Mall to the east, via a monorail. Unfortunately, the cost and logistics of creating a comprehensive transit network as envisioned, is even beyond the financial and political abilities of Philip Anschutz. More likely would be the necessity of establishing an extensive shuttle bus service, to provide these links into the indefinite future.
11. ) Technical and Environmental Considerations; are many with
this site, but not particularly insurmountable. The primary negative factor, as touted by opponents, is the adjacency of the site to the Platte River. The site sits in the flood
(VI-17)


plain, which poses complicated legal and bureaucratic obstacles before construction could proceed. Downtown Denver was extremely prone to flooding prior to flood control measures instituted on both Cherry Creek and the South Platte River. The risks are greatly reduced now, partly due to actions taken after the extensive June, 1965, flood. However, City codes still require 'floodproofing', which Anschutz has proposed doing by locating the center on six feet of fill dirt. This measure would force water onto adjacent properties though, which would be unacceptable if not planned for. This sole factor could necessarily require an extensive review process, to analyze the flooding potential, and the development of a comprehensive plan for the subsequent development of the remainder of the Valley. Additional obstacles to overcome in this criteria may be in special foundation precautions necessary when building on alluvial soils; the fact that the Platte Valley has the worst air pollution in the City; and lastly, in that hazardous materials are transported through Denver daily, on the very lines adjacent to this site.
12.) Construction Requirements and Impacts: would be few, as compared to either the ST or GT sites. However, if six feet of fill dirt would be the only means of constructing on this site, many truck-trips would be generated. Otherwise there is little demolition necessary, and construction-related vehicles would be able to enter and exit the site easily from 1-25, without impacting the CBD whatsoever.
C. Union Station
The "Union Station" (US) CC site proposal (see Attachment 6-8) has had a tumultuous history and was, unfortunately, not among the recent proposals analyzed by the Urban Land Institute. I am not suggesting that the site would have been analyzed as preferable to the others, but it would have been interesting to see how the ULI would have judged it. As noted in my 'thesis proposal' (Chapter One), I believe that the last design proposed for this site would have been an excellent choice, but the proposal was defeated at referendum in October 1985. My thesis proposal, advocating a Union Station-vicinity site,
(VI-18)
entails


improving upon the original concept. Analyzing this site against the twelve criteria, as will be done shortly, is intended to also justify my thesis contention, as well as review past actual proposals. The US site has had two separate proposals suggested, as will be briefly described:
1. ) The first, a plan by the consortium of SOCMA/BA Capital
Corp./ Realities, Inc. envisioned a CC directly contiguous to the Union Station terminal, presently still used by Amtrak. (See Attachment 6-9.) This scheme would:
- retain the existing Union Station as the historic lobby entrance for both the new CC and a new hotel. Wings of the station would become retail and office space,
- build a stair-stepped 1,000 room hotel behind the US,
- construct the CC above the existing railroad tracks
behind the hotel, extending a full three blocks
- provide parking for 3,000 cars, and
- reserve rail platforms for future commuter rail service33
This location may have become reality if negotiations had not broken down in September of 1983.
2. ) The second proposal, by Mile High Land Associates/Glacier
Park/Miller, Davis, Klutznik, Gray, was passed by City Council in early 1985 on a split decision. (See Attachment 6-10.) The initial proposal entailed:
- construction of a CC to the immediate west of US, in
Central Platte Valley,
- an extended 16th Street Mall, which would be below a raised 16th Street concourse that would run for three blocks west of Wynkoop, and
- a HQ hotel where Postal Department Terminal Annex
facilities are at present, and connected, to the CC via the raised concourse.34
A second design, to better facilitate the extension of the 16th Street Mall, moved the convention center north of the Mall, (with the main entrance fronting on the Mall) maintaining the same distance between the CC and US terminal.
(VI-19)


It is this design that most closely resembles mv thesis proposal. Despite the simplification and improvement in the
design, opponents forced this site to referendum in October of 1985 — and it was defeated.
The following is an analysis of this basic site proposal,
using the twelve criteria developed:
1. ) CBD Reinforcements and Connections: has been hotly debated
for this site. Some feel the site is too far removed from the CBD, and yet, in reality, this area was the CBD in Denver through the 1950's. Union Station was a beehive of activity during the heyday of train transportation. My contention is that this site is still connected to the CBD, as it is only three city blocks from the west end of the 16th Street Mall. The distance is simply not that great, and connections could be re-established relatively easily. As the Central Platte Valley, behind Union Station, has only been cleared for development within the last decade or so, the issue of redeveloping this area is also comparatively recent. "It's a sleeping asset of the town that had been more or less overlooked," said landowner Jack Weil.35
2. ) Access: to the US/CPV site, as presently exists, is poor.
This may partially account for the ignorance of many people as to what development actually exists there. This is
largely due to the viaducts that span the Valley from the west, and do not enter the downtown core for several more blocks to the east. Lower downtown, the historic area
between Larimer and Wynkoop, is somewhat inaccessible, but the Central Platte Valley behind US is very difficult to
reach — due to existing land uses, including viaduct
placement. Most people are only familiar with this area when looking down on it when driving over the viaducts.
3. ) Parking: due to an abundance of vacant land that once was
occupied by railroad switching yards, necessary provisions for adjacent at-grade parking could be easily achieved.
4. ) Traffic: would not be an impact for other areas of the
downtown core, in that the site offers relatively close proximity to highway access, and would be subject to improvement when road revisions are accomplished.
5. ) Land: cost is one of the most beneficial aspect to any site
proposal in this locale. The proposal that was defeated at referendum had land costs of only $9.00 per square foot, and at the time would have represented a $15 million savings in acquisition over the $45.00 per square foot GT site, and still more of a savings on a ST site.36 Today, the estimated cost of the land would probably be in the $15 to $20 per square foot range. This is still substantially less than
land costs of the other sites.
(VI-20)


6.)
Hotels: are only available in small amounts close to the site. Most notable is the restored, 80 room, Oxford Hotel. The apparent need for hotel construction near a US site has always been a problem area. Yet, extension of the Mall to the US site would enable conventioneers direct shuttle service between the CC and hotels throughout the CBD. Available land in the CPV would also enable construction of new hotel facilities.
7. ) Relationships to Urban Amenities: are few presently, but
would be strongly bolstered by the extension of the 16th Street Mall. Lower downtown, a depressed 22-block district of historic buildings, has the capability of becoming an area that would be well suited for the types of amenities reguired by conventioneers. Additionally, as the CPV continued to be developed, amenities could be developed there (ie., amusement park, etc.) that would serve the visitors.
8. ) Building Design and Function: I believe was best approached
by the second design submitted by the Davis team. A CC fronting on the Mall, with Mall shuttle service, is the ideal approach in this students’ estimation. It avoids many potential negatives that may have been experienced with earlier, more complicated, designs. Simplicity with functionality are the key components to modern CC success.
9. ) Impacts on/from Residential Neighborhoods: would have a
minimal impact here as this land has only been historically used as railyards. The nearest residential neighborhoods, the Highlands, are across the viaducts to the west. They have voiced concern over potential traffic problems that may be generated by CPV redevelopment, but with proper planning, most impacts, including traffic, could be directed the other direction — towards the CBD.
10. ) Availability of Public Transit: would be excellent with the
extension of the Mall and corresponding shuttle service. Additionally, the site is adjacent to Amtrak rail lines, and could be connected to eventual fixed guideway service — the corridors of which meet in this locale. Bus service throughout the CBD can easily be integrated into this site.
11. ) Technical and Environmental Considerations: are a factor in
the redevelopment of the CPV. The US site is on the edge of the Platte River floodplain, but by most accounts would not be unduly affected as would the CG site. The site does have a relatively high water table, any ill-effects of which could be negated by appropriate engineering techniques. Opponents of the US proposal used the issue of hazardous materials passing through the CPV on trains, as a major tenent in their successful campaign in defeating the proposal. I do see this as a problem, considering the Centers close proximity to the rail lines. However, I view this as a City-wide problem that must be dealt with, and not a problem localized to this site.
(VI-21)


12.) Construction Requirements and Impacts: would be minimal, considering the peripheral nature of the site, and close proximity to highway access points.
III. Conclusion
It should be apparent, by the preceding section, that each of the sites have positive and negative aspects. By virtue of analysis using twelve criteria, there is doubtfully any situation, nationwide, that would be perfectly cognizant of all issues. I originally tried to assign a value/point system when comparing the sites. This soon proved infeasible due to being prone to judgmental assigning of values. My thesis contention, soon to be addressed in Chapter Seven, I believe to be most cognizant of the many issues and opportunities that exist in Denver, however.
In brief summation, the manor strengths and weaknesses of Denver's four major site proposals are as follows:
1.) Silver Triangle:
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
location in the heart of the CBD
adjacency to existing CC facilities/shared
parking
close proximity to existing hotels
close proximity to other properties that are
considered for urban renewal
closest to majority of urban existing amenities of all sites
access constraints, which may entail future
traffic problems
limited expansionability
"cramped" location
displacement of residents
considerable construction impacts
(VI-22)


2.) Golden Triangle:
Strengths:
advanced stage in design/planning comparatively good access reasonable land costs minimal environmental concerns
Weaknesses: - poor reinforcement and connection to CBD
potential severe parking, traffic problems moderate relationship to urban amenities impacts on neighborhoods
3.) Colorado Gateway:
Strengths: - access
parking
traffic
land availability, cost little impact on neighborhoods potential public transit connections minimal construction impacts
Weaknesses: - CBD reinforcements and connections
lack of proximity to nearby hotels
removed from majority of urban existing
amenities
location in flood plain
being part of a larger issue -- the development of the Central Platte Valley
4.) Union Station:
Strengths: - potential CBD reinforcements, connections,
"spin-off" generation parking capability traffic
land availability, cost
potential relationship to urban amenities building design, function possibilities few neighborhood impacts public transit connection possibilities few construction impacts
Weaknesses: - existing CBD reinforcements, connections
lack of proximity to existing hotels existing relationship to urban amenities technical and environmental considerations
(VI-23)


Full Text

PAGE 1

THESIS: CONVENTION CENTER PLANNING: With Denver,Colorado as Case In Point "In the City of Denver's ten-year quest to establish the "best" physical site location for proposed new (or expanded) connection facilities, it is my contention that I can present a feasible and workable conceptual site proposal that would generally be superior to proposals previously under consideration." Kimball Andrew Schmidt Candidate for Master Degree in Urban and Regional Planning/ Community Development (MURP/CD) University of Colorado at Denver College of Architecture and Planning Dr. David Hill, Advisor December, 1987

PAGE 2

Chapte I. II. III. IV. CONVENTION CENTER PLANNING: With Denver, Colorado as Case In Point TABLE 0 F THESIS Title I Introduction I. Problem Statement II. Thesis Proposal CONTENTS III. Methodology/Organization IV. Scope Convention Center Background and Context I. Introduction II. Brief History (to 1960's) III. Existing State of Affairs (from 1960's) I 1 II-1 IV. Potential Benefits From a Convention Center V. To Build, or Not to Build .. . VI. If the Decision Is To Build .. . VII. Conclusions Convention Centers From Elsewhere I. Background II. Examples Las Vegas Dallas Atlanta New York City Others III. Conclusion Physical Site Location Criteria For Convention Center I. Introduction II. Twelve Criteria 1. Central Business District (CBD) Reinforcements and Connections 2. Access 3. Parking 4. Traffic 5. Land 6. Hotels 7. Relationship to Urban Amenities 8. Building Design and Function III-1 IV-1 9. Impacts on/from Residential Neighborhoods 10. Availability of Public Transit Connections 11. Technical and Environmental Considerations 12. Construction Requirements/Impacts III. Conclusions i

PAGE 3

v. VI. VII. Case I. II. III. IV. v. VI. In Point: Denver, Colorado Background and History Denver As Convention City Does Denver Really Need New Convention Facilities? Denver Convention Center Twenty-Year Chronology (1968-1987) Existing State of Affairs/Related Land-Use Issues Conclusions Analysis of Four Primary Convention Center Site Proposals In Denver I. Introduction II. Silver Triangle III. Golden Triangle IV. Colorado Gateway V. Union Station VI. Conclusions hesis I. II. III. IV. Introduction Extenuating Circumstances and Land-Use Pertinent To My Thesis Proposal Major Tenets in Thesis Proposal Conclusion ATTACHMENTS Cha ten Subject Matter I. II. III. IV. v. None None Las Vegas Dallas Atlanta New York San Diego Seattle List of Other Convention Centers None Auditorium Arena/1908 Convention Hotel Configuration in Denver Map of Denver Showing Four Sites Cartoons of Convention Center Controversy ii V-1 VI-1 VII-1 Issues Pocket 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4

PAGE 4

VI. VII. Silver Triangle Daniel Crow Chaparral French Relationship to Urban Amenities Golden Triangle Colorado Gateway Union Station (general) Union Station (#1 SOCMA) Union Station (#2 Davis -1st and 2nd design) Light-Rail Network 16th Street Mall Lower Downtown Central Platte Valley Thesis Proposal iii 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5 6-6 6-7 6-8 6-9 6-10 7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4 7-5

PAGE 5

I I. II. III. IV. roblem Statement CHAPI'ER I INTRODUCTION hesis Proposal ethodologyjOrganization Scope (I-1)

PAGE 6

Problem Statement I is this student's contention that the City of Denver, in seekinJ the site location on which to construct new conventtion center facilities, has not undertaken this task with long-term benefit maximization for the City as the primary intent. I that the major site proposals studied, including that which as recently 'finalized' as the selected location, to be: 1 Short-sighted, and too much a factor of meeting shortterm needs and goals in the City. Although I acknowledge the need for updated facilities in Denver, and the economic losses the City is experiencing due to this need, I feel that the process has been too much influenced by the compelling need to "get it built" as soon as possible --however and wherever possible. The idea is to avoid another Currigan Exhibition Hall (Denver's existing convention facility) --which, since its opening in 1969, has provided limited benefits to the people of Denver, and was considered obsolete in less than eight years. 2 • ) 3 • ) Not adequately cognizant of the advancing concept of interrelated ' planning. Due to the expense and the immense magnitude of most modern convention centers nationwide, they necessarily are a product of governmental interaction and cooperation. In reality, a convention center is a 'public works' project, and an important component of a given city's infrastructure-such as are roads, sewers, and public transit networks. A convention center should, thus, be located and designed to most effectively interact as a "cog" in the urban "machine" mechanism or fabric. I contend that Denver has inadequately addressed this concept. Too much a factor of private sector and profit-motivated rationale. All of the major site suggestions have been "proposal specific," that is, more a function of private real estate/developer desires, rather than being comprised of the 'best' sites selected from city-wide possibilities. Convincing arguments have been made by developers as to the superiority of their respective sites, but many of these claims may be considered selfserving and not inherently concerned with the City as a whole. Instead of approaching the problem by having private interests make proposals from which the final site is chosen, the City of Denver should have (I-2)

PAGE 7

independently analyzed specific needs, vis-a-vis all options available city-wide and only then sought private development input relative to the preferred site chosen. Even if the City's primary choice proved infeasible or unworkable due to unforseen circumstances, any alternate possibilities would still be preferable to having a situation where the only choice were those sites dictated to the City's selection process. is more important --pacifying the national convention market and local business interests, or planning for a convention center that will provide the most benefits, with the least negati e impacts, for the city in which it is built? I think the latter. In Denver's case, the continued loss of conventiongenera led income for an additional six months, or even a year (the . I . . . . . t1me requ1red to choose the 'optlmal' Slte and f1nal1ze negotijtions), would be far preferable to the many years of potent al negative impacts that would be fostered by mis-locating such a integral facility. It is my belief that, over the (30+ year) life of a center, national marketability would be much better for well-conceived facilities, and therefore, would more than f'nancially compensate for the losses initially 'experienced' by any delay in construction. Thesis Proposal I the City of Denver's ten-year quest to establish the "best" physical site location for proposed new (or expanded) conven ion facilities, it is my contention that I can present a and workable conceptual site proposal that would generally be superior to proposals previously under consideration. h . t l . . d T 1s eory 1s prem1se upon: (I-3)

PAGE 8

I I I 1 ) In depth research into the business of conventions, including how Denver might learn from the success and mistakes of other cities as well as national trends, 2 ) A set of physical site location criteria, broadly applied to planning convention nationwide, including Denver, and that can be facilities 3.) A series of local extenuating circumstances and land-use issues that are concurrent to, and not totally independent of, Denver's convention center siting issue. When v'ewed together these factors serve to support my claim that: the s erior site for the new "Colorado Convention Center" facilitw is at an extended 16th Street Mall/Central Platte Valley location. Dilectly related to the above premises, I aim to prove that my plan is superior on two grounds, in that it: 1. Better addresses the aforementioned criteria, as a package, than has the other proposed sites, and 2. Takes the most advantage of, and best integrates with, the other land-use and circumstantial issues peculiar to Denver as of this writing. My site location proposal will be compared and contrasted to the fou major Denver proposals heretofore under consideration: 1. The "Silver Triangle," the site most recently finalized as the location for new facilities, and adjacent to Currigan Exhibition Hall; 2.) The "Golden Triangle"jCivic Center site plan; and 3.) The "Colorado Gateway" site plan. 4.) The "Union Station" railroad terminal site plan(s); Althoug each of these four major proposals to be analyzed have ,engths and weaknesses, I intend to make a strong case for my proposal, as well as why Denver needs new convention facilities (I-4)

PAGE 9

at all. A large aspect of my research is an attempt to show that the u timate siting of a new convention center must not be arbi triry, or subject to pressure from special interest groups, for itr long-term viability and benefits for the city as a whole. My thesis concept is not unlike the last "Union Station" plan proposh l that was defeated at referendum in October of 1985. The rna 'or !difference with m site 'ustification relates to a better concei ed and more realistic trans ortation link to the site, additionally aided by recent policy developments. I am in basic agreement with the conceptual arguments that were the of the Union Station proposal, and in all honesty, would have preferred to see this measure passed in October, 1985. Methodology/Organization I was my intent, upon the selection of this subject matter, to do a thorough job of background research --to corroborate my thesis as well as in providing a base from which to learn. I believF that I have accomplished both goals in this regard. In the corrse of my research, I reviewed over 1,000 individual pieces of in:fiormation from a variety of media, but primarily newspaper and trlde magazines. I found no books expressly on the subject of plannil g convention centers, excepting for several architectural specification books detailing engineering-related standards and requirements, which is out of the scope of my research. T b e quantity and quality of information obtained through person,al interview was disappointing. I partially attribute this to thel timeliness of my research vis-a-vis the sensitive nature of (I-5)

PAGE 10

the c rnvention center siting issue. Information by various developers, as to their respective site proposals was also found to be difficult to acquire. Due to the financial and political stakes involved, as well as potential legal ramifications, real estate developers are very possessive about their information and tend to limit its public dissemination until the appropriate :::::: L--wi ::i::at::r .is t:s ::, u::::l: could not get directly I felt I was able to obtain indirectly, through the press. Denver's convention center site-selection saga found [ I ew strength and direction during the course of my research, which was both challenging and fascinating. This continuously unfold'ng story was, in a sense, a fluid body of information, that was esbecially interesting to follow in my given context. I . . . The organ1zat1on of th1s study has been well contemplated I and, hopefully, done in such a manner as to promote clarity, readab'lity, and efficiency. Eventhough the content of my thesis Propos! 1 relates 1't 1 to Denver, Colorado, specifically, I felt necess ry to undertake a background analysis of convention centers in ge eral and various examples from around the country. These areas fornprise Chapters II an III. It soon proved infeasible, if not impossible, to research convention centers from elsewhere to the e 1tent that I had with proposals in Denver. Therefore, I reservbd the specifics, or criteria, for Chapter IV as a method of ng the focus of the research and in leading to the case of Chapter V covers conventioneering in Denver from 1907 througr the most recent developments, and the specifics of its (I-6)

PAGE 11

four m jor site proposals are analyzed in Chapter VI. I preferred an or+nizational plan that expounded my thesis near the end of the s ,udy Chapter VII, because I felt the previous information througr Chapter VI, was imperative in providing context and lending support to my theories. + r the sake of convenience, the oft-use term "convention center! ' will hereupon be denoted in this study as "CC," and the term "Central Business District" will be substituted by "CBD." Scope P Lrhaps over-ambitious at first, I have since focused my to stay within more defined bounds, and, thus, provide a more dohesive an organized final product. In the course of my resea+h, I have reviewed many separate components which could qualify for thesis-level research. As a student, with limited professional expertise and resources, I cannot and do not presumb to compete with the experiential and financial resources of thj private sector proposals. Although my thesis may appear brash or bold, especially because this issue has received so much at tent on in Denver, it is a personal theory and an academic exercir e only. I do not purport that my theory is 'right', when everyor e else is 'wrong', nor to be more knowledgeable than varioui. convention center study panels (including City Council and the U fban Land Institute) that have been the decision-making bodies of the past. Nevertheless, I do feel that my proposals are ic and preferable to actual plans offered. The scope of my (I-7)

PAGE 12

is limited to providing a strong foundation and argument for my thesis proposal. is primarily physical-site planning oriented but does acknowledge the related importance of non-physical factors, such as financing. has little concern for interior design, other than for how it integrates with the exterior location and placement. I am operating under the premise that if the best possible location is chosen, it will be able to support most any design created for it. is concerned with information that is not developed to the highest levels of detail andjor based on mathematical quotients, etc. This higher level of detail is usually developed by consultants and at a later, more serious, stage in the planning process. does not address engineering-related requirements or architectural specifics beyond a topical approach. (I-8)

PAGE 13

CHAPTER 2 CONVENTION CENTER BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT I. I troduction III. isting State of Affairs (from 1960's) IV. VI. P ftential Benefits From a convention center V. T l Build, Or Not to Build . If the Decision Is To Build . c lnclusions VII. (II-1}

PAGE 14

CHAPI'ER 2 I. Introduction properly consider my thesis proposals, I strongly believe it ssary to provide a contextual framework as a base. This is most ffectively done using a historical background analysi s of the CC phenomenon in this country. There is much to be learned from the experiences had by many different cities in this regard, whethet good or bad. Due to the enormous scale and cost of a new CC pror lect, a municipality is well advised to pay close attention to the (reasons for the) successes and failures of its potential compet1tion. Considering the costs, it also pays for the public taxpayer to be a scrutineer. C 's have been built in many cities, both large and small, in the last decade. The 'allure' of a new CC, for reasons that will be disbussed, has led to the investing of tens, or even hundreds of millions of dollars by municipalities seeking to capitalize on these ! lotential benefits. What is often not adequately considered or prol ided for, is if the new CC does not meet expectations-which could mean financial chaos for an already strained c ity. The "s ccess" of any given CC is dependent on three main factors: Marketability Management Financing (II-2)

PAGE 15

This tudy, being physical site-planning directed, will fall in the 'marketability' category, although management and are also interrelated and will be briefly addressed. must be foremost on a city's consciousness from the ver y outset of planning for a new CC. Due to competition, any given I city must aggressively market itself and its center to succesrfully schedule conventions, trade shows, and other events. CitieJ throughout the nation, including Denver, have been obligafing an increasing amount of funds for self-promotional agencies such as Convention and Visitors Bureaus and Chambers of Commer e. They are attempting to attract the individual tourist • and sm rll but moreover, aim their efforts at the Meeting and Convention planners who do the actual scheduling and booking finalilations for often huge events. These agencies must effectlvely address the following broad questions: • • I • I What 1s 1mportant to Meet1ng Planners (and particular industries they represent?) What are looking for in facilities and a city? What is important to the individual conventioneer? is hejshe looking for in facilities, and a city? type of experiences are sought? the they What What In this regard, surveys were conducted by consultants Laventtol and Horwath of meeting and events planners, as to their reasonl.ng in the selection of a meeting site. The resulting factorl , in order of perceived importance, are as follows: (II-3)

PAGE 16

1. Hotel rooms within walking distance of the center 21.8% 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Total room commitment in headquarters hotel Accessibility Delegate living costs City image Membership density Local transportation Promotion efforts by Con.jVis. Bureau and city Number and quality of area restaurants 10. Pre/Post convention activity (ie., recreation, night life, restaurants) 11. Auxiliary functionsjactivities for spouses 19.6% 18.7% 9.3% 6.2% 5.8% 5.3% 4.9% 4.0% 2.2% 2.2% 100.0% 1 How w 11 these preferences are advised by a given cc project will have substantial effect on the positive marketability of that These factors will also play a role in a city's its actual need for new facilities, as well as in into physical site-location criteria, as will be shown. II. Brief History (To 1960's) Webster's Dictionary defines "convention " as "an assembly of met for a common purpose. n2 Conventions, of one sort or , are close to being "American as apple pie." For various perhaps partially attributable to the direct and partic'patory democratic forums held since before this country was even a country, America has a long history of holding conventions. (II-4)

PAGE 17

Two hfdred years ago, our country's constitution was forged at a conve ion (Philadelphia, 17 8 7) . Over time, national election proce,ses have greatly expanded into lavish productions that have attra1ted more attention, and attendees, every few years. conventions might be considered directly attributable for t 9 e continuing rise to prominence of the 'convention' in this to the 1960's, only a scattering of major CC complexes exist+ . The Coliseum in New York and the original McCormick Place in Chicago were the two most noteworthy facilities of the time. Most cities were only able to provide improvised and disjo+ted facilities, often out of doors, to an increasingly sophislicated number of conventions and trade shows. Only the largesf cities already had the infrastructure and required to handle larger conventions, that medium and I . . . . . smaller c1t1es s1mply could not offer. Post-war convent1oneer1ng was geterally boosted by the advent of expanding airline services, increa ing auto per capita rates, and overall economic prosperity. I III. Existing State of Affairs (From 1960'S) I . . . . T e mld-1960's represented the 'turn1ng' po1nt 1n the develo ment of the large cc. As conventions sought more space, (if not peculiar) needs, cities were conomically inspired to directly accommodate this need. Despite construction of over 250 convention and public assembly since 1975, at a cost of more than $10 billion, the (II-5)

PAGE 18

I (estimlted twelve million square feet of) added space is still not keepinr l pace with the use of such facilities, according to Robert Black, publisher of 'Tradeshow Week'3 The scope and complexity of the ca has correspondingly increased, and construction advances have a lowed for massive and architecturally awesome (ie. column! . . free) structures to be bu1lt. Many more are now 1n the process of being fonstructed, and still more, including Denver's, are in the stages. T 1s gives rise to the concern of CC over building. At the presen pace, every city of any magnitude will soon have modern facilities. "There are few, if any, cities that cannot offer decent convention facilities either at present or in the very near future There has to be a saturation point. n4 says Earl Flora, presidlnt of the Columbus, Ohio, Convention and Visitors Bureau. The e suing competition between cities could be devastating to those unfortunate places that are rarely selected. Yet, at presen it does seem as though the amount of conventions grow to meet t l e production of new facilities built for them. Bill Mee of the co vention industry group, the 'Trade Show Bureau,' attributes this g owth in the sheer number of conventions to two factors, termed "regionalization" and "verticalization."5 "Reqionalization" means that once-enormous single trade shows, such as the National Consumer Electronics show, are now held several times per year in different areas of the country, instead of only once at a single location. Each show may be somewhat smaller, but the overall effect is a net gain in required space. "Verticalization" increases space needs due to the increasing specialization within a given field. For example, the American Medical Association (AMA) formerly conducted one huge "horizontal" annual meeting for all of its members. Today this annual event is supple-(II-6)

PAGE 19

mented, if not almost supplanted, by 42 separate conventions of medical specializations within the AMA. A few of these now have a larger attendance than the AMA convention itself. in space can also be attributed to positive economics, and industry maturation and evolution. A major reason for the construction of larger centers is not only in the capacity of captur ng large single-event conventions and trade shows. More importrntly, modern large facilities must be large enough to stage severa events simultaneously, without adversely affecting the public, or "set-up" and "tear-down" of the other events. This enabler a cc to maximize its share of the market. T1 e future nationwide need for convention space is an issue often put to debate. Can the trends in "regionalization" and "vertiialization" alone space? This issue is unstab e and weakening continue to increase the need for more especially acute in the increasingly economy as of this writing. In that privat \ industry is very susceptible to economic swings out of their control, it follows that so too are conventions. Conven,ions are often considered a perquisite in good times, and something that can be scaled down or eliminated during bad times. A l communication advances change business and everyday life, the nel d for physical assemblage of industry professionals may become less mandatory. Yet it can be argued that precisely due to this echnology-imposed isolation of professionals, there will always be a need for occasional gatherings. Technology cannot duplicate the professional and personal bonds created by physical I contact Additionally, a group assemblage allows an industry to I . more effectively display its wares, than would be the case (II-7)

PAGE 20

with 'ndividual sales calls. "In the future, peopl will be able to sit in their homes and watch as well as parti in conventions but to my way of thinking, elect will never replace the face-to-face meeting or the experience of traveling," states Leo Bonardi, Hilton Hotels regio1al director of sales. 6 Yet, the field of teleconferencing operators "are concerned and trying to is bo1ming, and cc . . find ut where it is going to go, II says Richard Kinville, executive director of the International Association of Auditorium eluded to ear 1 i er, when new CC' s come "on -1 ine, " the alrea fierce municipal competition for business continues to worse . If the continuing need for convention space stabilizes or grows at a slower pace than new space being offered, this would result in a decreased potential market share for everyone. A . , natioiide overabundance of space could result 1n a buyers market, which might instigate a "space wars" between cities. Although this Jcenario may be good for the event organizer, it is bad for the c l operator, and for the City in trying to meet its financial obligarions. san Francisco's Moscone center, for example, lost $2.5 lillion in 1985 attempting to be overly competitive. In one case, managers rented space at only 16 cents per square foot per day (which is far below their calculated 'break even' point of 28 cents per square foot) to the Western Electronics Show and (WESCON) . repres ntatives $20.00 displa their wares.8 WESCON in turn, per day for (II-8) charged the manufacturers' that same square foot to

PAGE 21

ompeti tion for convention business directly parallels the increasing emphasis placed on attracting tourism, and economic development in general, by most cities in the past decade. Self promotlion and serious marketing efforts do make a difference in commerce. Tourism is now high on everyone's agenda, as it is I a clean (non-smokestack) and desireable method of deriving revenur with few adverse effects. If a city's positive image can be conveyed to millions nationally through various medium ( ie., includlng sports franchises), and through those conventioneers that actually visited, a "chain reaction" of positive events may 'Quality of life' and 'positive business climate' are the t r o themes most development boards in b . I us1ness. commonly conveyed by various economic attracting both temporary and permanent IV. Potential Benefits From a Convention Center T l e supposed benefits from the construction and operation of a CC surely exist, or why else would so many municipalities embark I on such a project? Many observers might ask themselves this as economic benefits to a community from a CC can often lbe nebulous, or unquantifiable at best. There are five major and indirect benefits generated by a CC, which I have isolated: direct spending; taxes; employment; commercial "spin-offs"; and other intangibles. 1. Direct Soendinq: The fact remains that conventioneers do spend money, and that it trickles down into virtually every corner of a city's economy in some manner. Impact (II-9)

PAGE 22

of this "new money" is calculated using a 'multiplier' effect in how many times each dollar is thought to be respent, on average usually four to twelve times.9 Taxes: New spending consequently generates new tax revenues. This can include state and local sales taxes; special taxes directly aimed at the conventioneer; income taxes created from new CC-related employment; and increased commercial property taxes from those parcels that have increased in value due directly to the CC. 3. New Employment: This constitutes a major tangible benefit from a cc. "Estimates hold that 1, 100 to 1, 900 jobs in a variety of industries are supported by each 100, 000 convention visitors. n10 The majority of these jobs are semi-skilled or unskilled, and are in the hotel, restaurant, transportation and service industries. Especially when located in the Central Business District (CBD), "convention centers afford significant benefits by developing those employment opportunities most needed in inner cities.n11 4. Commercial "Spin-Offs": CC-generated "spin-offs" to a community are an indirect form of economic benefit, though somewhat intangible. Such development can manifest itself through new construction, new business openings, and the expansion of existing businesses. This usually occurs in services that cater to the individual conventioneer, such as a cleaners or restaurant, as well as services for the convention industry, such as audio-visual and exhibit design firms* New or expanded business, of course, generates new sales, new taxes and new employment. "Spin-offs" are often considered unquantifiable because their creation is due to private sector decisions, in which there are few guarantees. Such business, rushing to fill a certain void, represents true entrepreneurship however, and in the end analysis must be considered an integral cog in the success of a CC, and the personal happiness of the conventioneer. * I A more complete list of beneficiaries from convention relatid spending includes: restaurants, retail, printers electr'cians, florists, carpenters, bakeries, security services, utilit ;telephone companies, advertising/PR firms, audio-visual companies, automobile rental, limousine services, chartef bus and sightseeing tours, commercial and industrial leasing, costume rental and sales, uniform rentals, court reporters and stenographers, entertainment booking and produc ions, exhibit design, decorators, medical and first-aid servicrs, models, hostesses, talent services, photographers, cleaners, and, of course, brothels. (Source: Time, 18 December 1978, 3) (II-10)

PAGE 23

5. Other Intanqibles: Gaining positive city and state exposure can help foster community pride, and motivate conventioneers to want to return. The idea is for the city to put on a good face for the conventioneer, and the location, design, and operation, of the cc will be integral in making for a positive and memorable experience. Botential deleterious effects from a new cc, come mainly in the a lea of unmarketability. This may be due to faulty market lt. h . 1 1 . t assuror lOns, poor p yslca p annlng, poor managemen I an unfavJrable financial arrangement, or a combination of all four. Avoiding such pitfalls is discussed next. V. To Build or Not To Build he underlying rationale and justification for a municipality to build new, or even expanded, convention facilities must be sound,l in order for them to be a financial 'success' in terms of markeJability and overall long-term viability. Building and operaJing a cc can be a volatile and risky undertaking for a city, even 1 n a strong economy. "But a city doesn't base its decision to build a convention center on financial logic alone. It also wants to erect something because all the other cities on the block have ne -it's penis envy on a municipal scale.n12 This seeming "edifice complex" by many cities may indicate that, all too often, the ' 1eed' to have a cc is more a matter of civic pride, than of any real demand. There is a primal fear of being 'left out', and for some cities this fear may be justified. For other citie , being 'left out' may prove to be a blessing. If city leaders have a serious notion about getting into the (II-11)

PAGE 24

conve ion business, it is virtually essential for them to an impartial feasibility analysis to determine their Ther e are private planning and accounting consu firms that have specialized in this very type of analy,is during this facilities boom. Internal or staff studies are u Jually discouraged because they may appear too self-serving and w uld not have enough clout when needed. is this scholar's opinion, however, that, not unlike marke ing feasibility analyses created to convince financiers of priva e real estate ventures, the conclusions of the majority of these studies tell people what they want to hear. that build'ng is feasible. Negative aspects can be distorted or down-playe , if not outright eliminated, as any study can be developed to st support a particular position. When a community polit'cally justifies tens of thousands of dollars for an outside analy it might be argued that it does so only with the expec ations of hearing positive news. This cycle is perpetuated by thj consulting firms concerns about their credibility and with future and recurring business. Rarely are consultants legally liabl should the premise on which to build proves to be faulty. Judgi fifte done, feasi such by the expansion of CC facilities in the past ten to years, it must be assumed that few studies were actually and those that were completed almost universally advocated lility. may be considered four primary criteria as analyzed in studies, in determining if, and in what manner, a city dan support new CC facilities: city size/capability vis-a-vis (II-12)

PAGE 25

poten ial market segment/share; city long-term commitment in time and capability; city's national perception/image and touri m appeal; and city accessibility. I necessarily assembled this lnformation from a plethora of sources, none of which was conci e or consolidated. These factors are as follows: City size and capability vis-a-vis potential market segment/share. Unless unusual circumstances exist,* the scale of a cc project that any city undertakes must be roughly proportionate (or less ambitious) to the 'magnitude' of the city as a whole. As there is no standardized formula for determining cc feasibility or ideal scale, an ambitious city must first analyze the competition, and then determine the appropriate market segment or niche (national, regional, or municipal) most feasible, and the market share (or percentile thereof) desired. The goal is to accurately "read" what convention market is best for your city, and how much of that particular market to seek. Over-estimation of market segment or share can be disastrous for a small or medium sized city intent on becoming a big one. Should the premise on which these plans were based prove to be flawed, this 'overextension' could: cause a city to spend far more on initial construction costs than really necessary; subsequently cause the city to be obligated to a larger debt service than would have been needed. ("financing over-ambitiousness," as such); and, make the CC prone to unanticipated taxpayer subsidization, required to meet the debt service, due to less-than-anticipated booking levels and revenues generated. To 'undercalculate' and thus 'underbuild' is probably a uch better fate than the other extreme, but it has its own et of issues and problems: I * For example, Las Vegas, Nevada, has a 1.1 million square foot CC, with a permanent population of under 200,000 persons. This would normally dissuade this type of situation from occur ing, but since Las Vegas is an international destination resor, with legalized gambling (and prostitution), a cc of this scale may be justified. (Source: Las Vegas Convention and Visit rs Bureau) (II-13)

PAGE 26

Lost potential revenues due to having inadequate cc facilities for a larger market interest; A cc resulting that may be too small or inadequate for largejnational events, but too large for lesser events or municipal uses; and A facility that will have far less positive impact on a community than was possible, and that will soon beg for expansion. These factors have a bearing in the present situation in Denver. Lastly, the ramifications of not building at all, are in lost revenues and opportunities that may have been, as well as squelched image and pride. City long-term commitment in time and financial capability. As the lifespan of an average CC is ) projected at 25 or 30 years (such as it is usually financed also), and as economic cycles are more than that, a municipality must be committed to its operation through good and bad economic times. Is the city capable of such a long term and extensive commitment? Although conventions are routinely booked three or four years in advance (and sometime up to ten), there is nothing to prevent meeting planners from cancelling a convention should economic difficulties severely impact a given industry. The city should acknowledge the probability that the CC will require taxpayer subsidization periodically, if not consistently, and will thus need to weigh the benefits against these potential losses before committing. Many cities in the U.S. (and Canada) have apparently rationalized just such an expense and commitment. Citys' national pefBeption/image and tourism appeal. As competition between cities for tourism and conventions intensifies, and as more convention facilities are being constructed from which to choose, there is added pressure on meeting planners to select one city over another. Millions of potential convention dollars are riding on this decision, and this is where effective convention and tourism bureaus can really make the difference. Is the city perceived positively, at least by the intended market? The name recognition of a city, its location, and natural environs, are equal to, if not more important, than the facilities themselves in booking future conventions. Meeting planners intentionally book yearly conventions in alternating cities as to give the (often time same) conventioneer a new experience. National perceptions of a given city or region are usually only stereotypes that are historically based and reinforced contemporaneously by the medias. As a city it is, obviously, beneficial to (II-14)

PAGE 27

be nationally perceived in a positive sense, and not as favorable to be viewed negatively. In trying to attract conventions, however, it is still far worse to be unknown. A desire to increase tourism or dispel negative perceptions has compelled some cities to develop convention facilities as a panacea. But embarking on a new cc alone is not a guarantee of greater tourism or improved image. Says Larry Ledebur of the Urban Institute, "Cities that normally aren't tourist attractions are going to find it much more difficult."13 City accessibility. This factor, related to overall tourist appeal, looms very important to meeting planners when contemplating ease of travel arrangements for conventioneers --who may all be travelling from one basic vicinity, from throughout the country, or even from foreign destinations. As the vast majority of national and regional delegates arrive at their location by air, it is virtually mandatory that a city has adequate airport facilities nearby. In today's fast paced business environment, lack of air facilities would preclude conventions of any size. As critical as the availability of an airport itself, is the level of service then provided on a scheduled basis. A smaller city is placed at a disadvantage due to having fewer scheduled flights and connection possibilities. The ideal situation for a convention city is to be an airline "hub," having one or more airlines base their operations from there. This indicates that the city is on a well-travelled route, and will have a substantial number of flights and thus, connections. Ground transportation by rail or transcontinental bus services is very impractical for large numbers, and will account for only a small portion of all conventioneers. The private automobile is the second choice to air travel, but can also prove infeasible if distances are too great. A city's direct linkages to major/interstate highway systems are very important. The lack of adequate, straightforward, and rapid road networks, in this day and age, lends an air of inefficiency and inaccessibility to a city which is a definite negative in successful marketing. VI. If The Decision Is To Build .•• nee city political themsJlves that their city doestJ e 'real' work begin. leaders have adequately convinced can and should support a cc, only then Whereas there may have been political (II-15)

PAGE 28

unity in studying the feasibility of new facilities in town, facti ning will now start to occur over how to go about doing so. Addit'onally, at this point the public becomes more involved as do priva e interest groups/speculators. From general information, I have ompiled seven major procedures that must be followed on the path o constructing a new cc. Those are as follows: l The justifiable market nichejshare sought should have already been determined within the decision to build at all. These market objectives (nationaljregionaljlocal) are subsequently interpreted into approximate building size and scale recommendations. It must then be determined if expansion of existing facilities, if any, is feasible and desireable, or if a new structure is in order. 4. Final site location of the new facilities must be chosen, a process which many cities, including Denver, have taken years in deciding. This "micro" level of site planning (within a city) will account for the bulk of this study as of Chapter 4. 5. Design ( internaljexternal, aesthetic/function) must be considered and also directed towards the market intended. Shape, internal layout and facilities, and integration into the city --are all functions directly relating to the square footage involved, and who this is being built for. Sometimes, the design is part of the overall final site location package. Financing options must be analyzed very carefully before committing the city to long-term debt service. Even if the*' e location and design chosen are excellent and the market need, a cc will never make a prdffit (or stay even) if the basic financing is flawed or unreasonable. Due to strong competition nationwide, centers will necessarily be required to keep their space rates low. This is a contributing factor in the differences of opinions as to whether CC's are able to be self-supporting let alone profit-generating. "Most major convention and exposition facilities are not," says Robert Imperata of the Pittsburgh Convention and Visitors Bureau. "In a sense they are designed to be loss leaders. "14 If this is true, a city's decision must be heavily dependent upon the supposed economic benefits generated, as listed earlier. Like physical (II-16)

PAGE 29

site planning, financing is a critical element in the success or failure of a CC complex, and deserves to come under severe public scrutiny prior to any finalization. Operations and management strategy should be formulated even before construction commences. Marketing needs to occur early so that the center can book conventions they may have otherwise lost, and insure full utilization from day one. The daily operations are extremely important, and it must be decided whether a public or private entity should be given the task. VII. Conclusion despite extreme competition and formidable operaJing a cc at a profit, construction continues. odds against The overall marke ability of a center will be more important than ever if deman for space stabilizes or decreases. The best success will happe only when marketability, management, and financing act harmoJiously, and with professionalism. (II-17)

PAGE 30

CHAPTER 2 BIBLOGRAPHY of Developer Proposal For Denver, Colorado," Laventhol Convention and Horwath, Center CPA, 1. " nalysis Development 1982, r . VIII. 2. We!bster' s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, G & C Merriam co., 1 1965. 3. La Franchi, "Houston Convention Center Opens on Time and unrer Budget," Christian science Monitor, 25 September 1987, 5. 4. Segal, "Convention Centers Mushroom Everywhere," Meetings and Conventions, November 1987, 69. 5. J cob Weisberg, "Battle of the Barns," New Republic, 28 April 1986, 63. 6. II e Convening of America," Time, 18 December 1978, 63. 7. M chael Do an, "Convention Centers: Urban White Elephants, " u.s. and World Report, 30 April 1982, 62. 8. Stjeve Huntley, "Convention Centers Spark Civic Wars," U.s. News World Report, 10 February 1986, 62. 9. Barr, "Denver's New Convention Center: Out of the Doldrrms," Colorado Business Magazines, March 1987, 23. 10. in Graveline, "Convention Centers," Urban Land, Urban Land Insti I te (Washington, D.C.) July 1984, 2. 11. I rid. 12. "Battle of the Barns," 63. 13. irelle Grangenois, "Cities Vie for Convention Business," USA Today, 16 November 1982, p. B-1. 14. S al, "Convention Centers Mushroom Everywhere," 70. (II-18)

PAGE 31

CHAPI'ER III CONVENTION CENTERS FROM ELSEWHERE I. Background II. Examples: Las Vegas Dallas Atlanta New York City Others III. onclusion (III-1)

PAGE 32

CHAPI'ER III I. Background are hundreds of meeting facilities distributed out the United States, both large and small, and they all exist the same basic reason --as a designated locale for peopl to congregate. Competition for the privilege of sponsoring such atherings has led to a high level of sophistication in constrrction and design techniques, as well as in management proce,'ures. "As a result of these changes, where you hold your next Jonvention or trade show may not depend on the city as much as the facility," notes one industry observer.l Indeed, due to ::::: j:og:::l v::: yesterrear. Yet, location will be shown to remain very important. P ior to reviewing several convention facilities in greater there are a number of industry-related trends (which may have bearing on the Denver proposals) that can be analyzed for an what the future may entail, as follows: 1.) Size -Is bigger better? As previously discussed, it is highly recommended that a City well contemplate the market share it is capable of capturing before size is determined. Yet, there is no denying that a large size is important to many contemporary users. "For a large trade show, you first look at the halls' capacity," says Will Little, Chairman of the Major American Trade Show (III-2)

PAGE 33

I Organizers Association.2 Need for space is the bottom line requirement for this group, which is comprised of 34 show organizers that annually use at least 200,000 square feet a piece. This perceived need for additional space has also manifested itself in the form of expansions. Dallas, Atlanta, Atlantic City, Cleveland, Chicago, Miami, Detroit, and San Jose, are among examples where expansion was felt justified by city leaders. McKinsey and Co., an industry analyst, predicts that San Francisco, for example, will experience a drop in convention market share from the present 15 percent to 12.5 percent if the City cannot get 310,000 square feet of expansion space approved for Moscone cc.3 Design -This is an area which has been given much more attention in the last decade. Greater attention to interior and exterior design in terms of functionality is afforded now than previously. Flexibility by a CC, in terms of internal layout, such as compartmentalization, is most important in being able to adjust to the particular needs that every group has. Additionally, good flexibility allows for the smooth operation of simultaneous events, which has direct implications as to the profitability of a center. Modern design trends are also revealing themselves in a growing preference towards open exhibit space, as compared to convention-related space (ie., meeting (III-3)

PAGE 34

rooms, auditoriums, etc.). with Laventhol and Horwath, cities, although they call David Peterson, principal states that, "The largest their sites 'convention centers' are increasingly aware that those facilities function as exhibit halls and do little or no conventions. So rather than build to serve the needs of conventioneers, the new expansions are pure exhibit space." As examples of this trend, he cites the opening of New York's 720,000 square foot Jacob Javits cc, and the 500,000 square foot expansion to Chicago's McCorm ick Place as being "primarily exhibit space with a modest amount of meeting space."4 Architectural distinction is to be encouraged, but within reason, as costs can skyrocket, if only out of a cosmetic rationale. As will be shown in greater detail, the actual structural integrity of New York's Jacob Javits Center was threatened by design-related factors, that ultimately delayed its opening. Modern trends are in giving the cc a more inviting appearance, however, both in design and furnishings. The Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta, and the George R. Brown Center in Houston, are both examples where extra effort was taken in both exterior and interior design. "While function is still paramount, there is a tendency for centers to have more architectural expression," says Walter Ernst of Perez Architects, which helped design the New Orleans CC and the preliminary work for past (III-4)

PAGE 35

Denver proposals.5 leading trend sees It is fortunate to note that a cc architects directly consulting with meeting planners, show managers, exhibitors, and service contractors. Andrew McLean, of Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback, and Associates, believes that "functionality is reaching the state-of-the-art," and credits this situation to the "maturation of an industry, " where "users understand what they want, and architects communicate with them. We don't do anything until we talk to convention managers."6 3.) Financing As the cost of building new or expanded convention facilities has escalated into the hundreds of millions of combination dollars, of city, more projects state, and are seeking a private sector financing. State governments, in particular, are increasingly supportive of taking a more active role in getting a CC built, as the benefits of conventioneer-spending statewide are recognized. The states of Massachusetts, Georgia, Louisiana, Washington, and now Colorado, have all had a role in funding their capital city's CC. 4 ) Management -The daily operations management of a cc is usually provided through a quasi-governmental agency, sometimes in conjunction with a private management firm. "A .few cities have elected to cease considering the management of their centers to be a function of government, and to enter instead into management (III-5)

PAGE 36

contracts with private enterprise. Such arrangements are still the exception rather than the rule, and they are basically admissions that the inherent plodding and sluggishness, the built-in red tape, and the unwieldy mechanisms of government are often obstructive in a situation requiring profitability.117 Convention facilities had often been managed by civil servants or political appointees, as property management skills were not considered necessary. The convention industry of the 1980's, however, is much more complex and competitive, and is increasingly pressured to become fiscally self-sufficient. This situation does justify professional management, which may or may not be done within the public sphere. II. Examples further pursuing the issue of CC's, I feel it worthwhile in br'efly examining several examples from around the country. As state previously, much can be learned from the experiences others have this regard. It is impossible to analyze all the CC's, and the particular circumstances relating to their devel ment, however, I will look at several examples which have prove to be especially interesting. Please see the attachments menti ed for greater detail. (III-6)

PAGE 37

Las Vegas ,as Vegas is one of the nation's top convention and meeting desti More than 1. 5 million attendees gathered in Las Vegas 1n 1986, which reflects an average of 12% annual growth in businiss over the past several years. This growth can be attriquted to two major factors: Las Vegas' international for entertainment and legalized gambling, and the 1.1 rnillidn square foot Las Vegas Convention Complex complemented by separJte resort meeting facilities. The Las Vegas cc (see 3-1) is incredibly large given the small permanent population of the City (only 190,000), but remains very viable due to resort-destination image fostered here. Not only does the city !have the meeting space, but the accommodation space to suppol t it. Presently, Las Vegas has over 56,000 hotel and motel rooms, with an anticipated total of 67,000 by 1990. The avail bility and accessibility of accommodations, the ease of usingJ renovated McCarran International Airport (only 3. 5 miles from he CC), and the all-around compactness of City amenities and entertlainrnent --all serve to make Las Vegas an international conve1tion destination.B Dallas I . . . Dallas CC was or1g1nally constructed 1n 1957 and has been expanded twice to reach today's magnitude of over 600,000 square feet. I This includes a 9,000 seat arena, a 1,770 seat theatre, two ballrooms and 76 meeting rooms. (See Attachment 3-2.) Yet of at least 250,000 square feet is now in the planning felt necessary by the recent loss of twelve conventions due t f lack of facilities. In 1986, Center Manager, Frank Poe, estirn9-ted that 224,000 convention attendees carne to Dallas and left economic impact of more than $282 million. He attributes the success of Dallas as a convention city to four major factors: good p.ir access; a flexible and functional cc; a mild climate during the peak convention months; and a good labor pool.9 these positive factors supercede the following negative factoJ ! s to keep the Dallas CC viable: Scarcity of hotel rooms close to the cc. The closest hotel is over on half mile away, and the majority of the downtown hotels are on the opposite side of the CBD from the center. "We honestly need a couple of major hotels within a few blocks of the convention center," states Charles Bass, Director of the Dallas Convention and Visitors Bureau. "We cannot do it now because the hotel market here is too soft.n10 Transportation. Due to this distance from the cc to the hotels and shopping areas, shuttle bus services are mandatory, the cost of which is usually borne by the particular meeting. "If the housing is scattered, it can be overcome, but it does cost the client. It makes it hard to market any city. But there isn't any city (III-7)

PAGE 38

that can escape shuttle busing on major conventions because of the numbers of rooms they require," continues Bass.11 Interior Decoration. The Dallas CC is a long, low concrete building inside and out, built to be functional and versatile. Convention organizers often bring their own carpet and decorations. With fears of losing market share to newer CC's such as Houston, Atlanta, and New Orleans --all having colorful and festive interiors-Dallas anticipates spending more on decorations and amenities in order to stay competitive. In re ards to competing with Denver, Bass adds, "Denver is a gorgeo s city. It used to do a good business. What I should be tellin you is 'don't buildi' because Denver would be a direct, serious competitor for us."1 source:13 Georgia World Congress Center is one of the nation's most modern and highly respected convention facilities, and is now the number three convention site in the country, behind only New York and Chlicago. (See Attachment 3-3.) This is despite once being the s Jbj ect of a political battle in which one lawmaker held a funding bill hostage in his committee as part of an urbanjrural split. A 1985 expansion doubled the centers size to over 640,000 square feet of exhibit space, with a 2, 000 seat auditorium, a 33,000 square foot ballroom, and 70 meeting rooms. It is located in th heart of Atlanta, near several major hotels. Throughout the me ro area, there are 32,000 hotel rooms, with over 12,000 of these rooms within an eight-block radius of the center. Like Dallas officials consider the reasons for success to be: good services; inexpensive and reliable labor force; good and, the flexibility and functionality of the center Hartsfield International Airport is one of the busiest airporFs and connecting hubs in the world, with the world's largest passenger terminal. Atlanta's rapid transit system, MARTA, connects the airport with points throughout the metro area. 1986 s w the center self-supporting, although by a small margin, and thf nearly 600,000 out-of-town visitors spent more than $412 millio --before the 'multiplier effect' was applied for a total econom'c impact of $684 million. 'spin off' effects of the Center have been dramatic for the c.:i ty of Atlanta. Dan Sweat, director of 'Central Atlanta Progrl1ss', a downtown business organization, traces the constr ction of new hotels, the extensive Peachtree Center, and a decisi n by Macy' s to restore and open a new department store downtown, to the success of the Center.14 Convention and tourism officials estimate that in the previous fiscal year, the business (III-8)

PAGE 39

gener ted by the Center was responsible for a hefty 12,472 jobs in the ccbmmuni ty. The successful expansion has also created a few however. First, more distant hotels were required for the dditional conventioneers, necessitating expanded shuttle servi es. Secondly, parking has become a problem at times, as the Cente 1 has control of only 250 spaces out of the 5, 000 located withi a four block radius. Funding has been appropriated for a 1, o o o car parking structure. Center Director, Dan Graveline, state that "What we lack is parking we control. If we had my ideal, we would have 2,000. Parking is a very deceptive thing. It is hard to tell what you need for any show, I don't really know what he correct number is.n15 General source: 16 New York City Japitalizing on its prominence in the areas of business, educatlion, communications, manufacturing, literature, fashion, and the a its, among others, the "big apple" has traditionally had it all far as conventioneering is concerned. Yet, feeling threatiened by and, indeed, los ing business to Chicago, New York felt dompelled to construct new facilities --the Jacob K. Javits cc. rith 640,000 square feet of usable floor space, it is three times the size of its predecessor, the Coliseum, which opened in 1956. The Coliseum, in turn, tripled the size of the 1913 Grand Centr 1 Palace, which it replaced. "If convention space continues to in9rease at the same exponential rate, all of Manhattan will be an exhibition hall by 2035.1117 he recent opening of the $478 million glass-faced center has final y ended 14 years of political infighting, corruption, foul-ups and delays, and cost overruns. The center, with a gross square footage of 1.8 million, can accommodate up to people daily, and feed up to 25,000 people simultaneously. {See ttachment 3-4.) Despite having a cost overrun in excess of $100 illion, and a nickname of 'beached whale on the Hudson' {the sits on 22 acres along the Hudson River, bounded by 11th and 112th Avenues, and 34th and 39th Streets), the City fully this gargantuan as a new focal point. The project is an showpiece, and constructed using a latticework "spacj frame" of exposed rods, tubes, and nodes --all of which fit tpgether to form a structural tetrahedron. This system, with much glass and many skylights creates a stunning especially in the 150 foot high/ 60,000 square foot 'Crys al Palace Lobby. ' It is this system, however, that also cause much of the cost overruns and time delays. Some of the nodes were found to be structurally unsound, which ultimately requi ed Japanese assistance to properly forge. Additionally, the contr ctors could handle. "I'm not sure that government agencies can m ke architectural breakthroughs without cost overruns and delays. There are tremendous pressures that don't exist in {III-9)

PAGE 40

privat construction. There are political pressures. There is the bipding process, the fact that you pretty much have to go with the bidder on every contract," said New York State Urban Development Corporation (U. D. c.) Chief, Bill Stern.18 "Fasttracking, " in this case, where construction started before the final was completed, ultimately led to additional time and cost bverruns due to many change orders that couldn't be anticipated in such a complicated structure. "Ostensibly, to get into the ground quickly and save the costs of construction inflating, explicit choices on design alternatives were never said Stern.19 close-knit streetscape and land use patterns in the vicini y also had to be dealt with, and the City deliberately made no for parking or special transportation arrangements. Competition for limited on-street parking has already intensified, and City Planning Department is now forced to study where a garage can be located nearby. Despite all the problems encountered with constructing the Javi ts Center, it is already more -hhan meeting expectations in terms of business, and as an additibn to the community. General Source: 20 Other vention facilities are presently under construction in San Diego and Seattle, both of which were characterized by long politi al battles. The San Diego site, (see Attachment 3-5) on the ha bor, is uniquely designed like a sailing ship, and is also very c [ose to downtown and the harbor. The Washington State cc, in Seattle, (see Attachment 3-6) is unique in that the battle over site proposals resulted in an interesting choice --the will be built over an interstate highway. Eventhough the cost o construction may even double using this approach, the site is the closest to hotels and the CBD. For a more complete listing of convention facilities in the u.s. and Ca ada, please refer to table Attachment 3-7. III. Conclusions A fthough it is difficult to arrive at standardized method logy for the intricasies of planning for CC' s, from the preceding information I believe some general points can be highl i r l hted: (III-10)

PAGE 41

J Match scope of project with real need. Be persistent on seeking a new CC, it is worth the efforts. Be careful when 'fast-tracking' construction. Avoid excessive design-related costs. Close relation to hotels and transit is important, but perhaps not mandatory. (III-11)

PAGE 42

CAHPI'ER III BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. De ra zauzmer, "Convention Center Update," Meetings and Conventions, August, 1987, 93. 2. Leo and Christine Levite, "Choosing a Convention Center," Meetings and Conventions, November 1986, 58. 3 0 Ibd.d 0 I 58 0 4. zarzmer, "Convention center update," 93. 5. Ibid. 97. 6. Hapey Chipkin, "The Values of Design and Function," Meetings and Conventions, November 1986, 76. Danl 7. Graveline, "Convention Centers," Urban Land, July 1984, 4. s. Lar vegas convention and visitors Authority, general source. 9. Maples, "Dallas Wants Even Bigger Chunk," Rocky Mountain News, B May 1987, pp. 7, 55. 10. I bid. 55. ll. I tid. 55. 12. Maples, "Expedite New Facility, Denver is Urged," Rocky Mountain News, 3 May 1987, p. 7. 13. D rllas Convention and Visitors Bureau, general source. 14. Maples, "Center Helps Business Boom in Atlanta," Rocky Mounta1n News, 3 May 1987, 54. 15. r i id. 16. World Congress Center Information Bureau, general sourcel 17. J lcob Weisberg, April f986, 12 "Battle of the Barns," The New Republic, 28 Whale on the Hudson," New York Magazine, 19. "last-Tracking Blamed For Delays," Engineering News and RecordJr, 28 July 1983, 10. (III-12}

PAGE 43

20. he Jacob K. Javits Convention Center of New York Information Burea , general source. (III-13)

PAGE 44

I. II. CHAPTER 4 PHYSICAL SITE LOCATION CRITERIA FOR CONVENTION CENTERS ntroduction relve Criteria Central Business District (CBD) Reinforcements and Connections 2. Access 3. Parking 4. Traffic Land Hotels Relationship to Urban Amenities Building Design and Function Impacts on/from Residential Neighborhoods Availability of Public Transit Connections l l Technical and Environmental Considerations 1 l . Construction Requirements/Impacts III. Conclusions (IV-1}

PAGE 45

cc, CHAPI'ER 4 I. Introduction 9nce a city has decided to undertake the construction of a decisions must then be collectively made that are to the city. It is a premise of this study that one of important of these decisions is the actual physical site within the city proper. Financial viability and marke ability of a cc, for example, is dependent upon site relat, d issues as well as management. difficulties encountered when planning for a CC are often numerJus. Every city considering such a project is unique, with a different set of circumstances, restraints, obstacles, and opporJunities afforded them. Consequently, a public works project in thJ scale and importance of a CC is always custom-made, and has theor,tically made the most out of their given situation. In as much as cities are different however, they are also much alike-in teb s of land use patterns, growth trends, bureaucracy, and incre,sing citizen involvement. As many cc facilities have been in recent years, it is thus possible to 'learn' from other ltcities experiences in locational and logistical matters. has been possible to ascertain a series of recurring issueJ that seem consistent from one project to another, despite inherJnt uniqueness. I have assembled twelve physical site (IV-2)

PAGE 46

that seems to most uniformly apply to cc planning in These are 'soft' criteria, at least in the initial stages, and are not based on mathematical or statistical formulas. The i 1dividual character of each project has led to a distinct lack of hard data that might be applied to other projects. Howevel , these criteria can be transferred in a general or theorehical sense between municipalities, who must then address them i h the context of their own given situation. II. Twelve Criteria T i e twelve cc site location criteria are as follows, and not particularly in order of importance: 1 Central Business District (CBD) Reinforcements and Connections 2 Access 3. Parking 4. Traffic 5. Land 6. Hotels 7. Relationship to Urban Amenities 8. Building Design and Function 9. Impacts onjfrom Residential Neighborhoods 10. Availability of Public Transit Connections 11. Technical and Environmental Considerations 12. Construction Requirements/Impacts twelve criteria for this study have been extracted primari y from the State of Colorado's "Procedure and Criteria for the Co parison of Proposals for the Construction of the Colorado Convent'on Center," June, 1987. This was established for use as the guidelines and framework that any CC development proposal would subject to, when being evaluated by the impartial Urban Land Institute in August, 1987, vis-a-vis the Denver CC siting issue. j I augmented and enhanced these criteria through a multitutle of sources, used in researching this thesis, all of which unfeasible to list. (IV-3)

PAGE 47

Each J f these criteria has several sub-issues within the larger issue that will be reviewed. It is important to note that altho gh each city may have particular criteria that merit the overall success and speci, l attention for their situation, of any new cc is dependent . t I . I k I on satisfying all of the cr1 er1a as a pac age . All twelve (12) criteria are inter ependent on each other to a great extent, so the goal should be to best meet all the criteria as a group, rather than excelling in so e areas, and being exceptionally deficient in others. 1. Central Business District (CBD) Reinforcement and Connections is, in a sense, the intermediate step between the City's for a cc, and at which particular intersection to locate it. criteria addresses the particular district within a city that Jhould be chosen, before the site-specific criteria can have a Therefore, I have designated this issue as being primary. A sit within the CBD (versus suburban locations) is usually selec,ed by cities because: -The predominance of existing hotel space is usually in the CBD. Amenities and attractions that most frequently are in the CBD. can be maximized here. conventioneers utilize User spending patterns Existing transit networks are in place within the CBD. Labor force requirements generated by a cc can often be best obtained from, with most benefits for, economically-depressed, low-income residential neighborhoods near the CBD. !D reinforcements and connections can be argued as being the most mportant criteria because of its urban design implications. The i ense physical and economic scale of a large cc project will defini ely impact a city. To assure that such long-term impacts are o a positive nature, a CC should be planned from the outset inte ral co in the cit 'machine.' Unlike some public works projects with lesser external impacts, a CC can help to reinfo ce the urban core by the very nature of the business it createb . A city has the opportunity to develop strong bonds with a CC, in terms of infrastructure, transportation, redevelopment plans, etc. Roy Kenzie, executive director of the Miami Downtown Development Authority, believes that since CC's may not be money-(IV-4)

PAGE 48

maker in themselves "although they do generate hotel room usage, food and beverage consumption and other revenue" --they should be regarded as part of a city's infrastructure, "the same wav-ttiat roads and other services which benefit the community are at."1 _jithin the decision-making process, there may be competing as to the desirability of directing economic benefits a particular area of the CBD versus another area of the CBD. The very question of, "which direction do we want our city to ta e?", comes to mind --which is at the very heart of urban planning. Inaction, or poor-decision making processes, could result! in a cc placed as to negatively impact the city for the life p f the center. Alternatively, a cc that has been well and cognizant of comprehensive planning efforts, could well lntegrate into the city. growth patterns are, unfortunately, not controlled by young planners, but are rather economically and motivated. These interests battle over specific sites,l which subsequently takes on the larger dimension of prefei:Jred growth and land use patterns. It can conceivably be argue9 that the most effective of these factions ultimately the urban design of a city. The question then is, "Does the as a whole derive maximum benefits from such privatelygenerated development?" Therefore, planning for a CC should be with long-range benefit maximization for the most people, and not with a project scope that is mainly self-serving to development interests. 2. general terms, any CC to be marketable must have good acces ibility for everyone concerned. A cc with inadequate or confu 1ing access would not only be an obstacle for the individual conve,tioneer, but also in the daily operations, and the of the center as well. In a report on cc access requinements prepared by DeLeuw, Cather, and Co., it was stated that 'there are no generally-accepted, detailed standards for such facilfties. Each city and each center presents unique circumstances"2 Access is determined by city, proposed plan desi g s, and by what type of events are planned, in the following areas: Pedestrians: conventioneers and the local general public must be given direct and uninhibited access to the CC facility. Most conventioneers go to a city expressly to walk around and tour the sites. As they are unfamiliar with the city, obvious and straightforward access, with defined connections, is highly desireable. Private automobiles: will come primarily as rental cars and from the local public, but there will also be some (IV-5)

PAGE 49

long-distance drivers. As our society is very automobile-bound, vehicular access to parking facilities (see no. 3) , and to a central drop-off/pick-up area, must be adequately provided for. Conventioneers are unfamiliar with the host city, so the highway and surface street networks should facilitate ease of driving to the CC/CBD, to and from the airport, and f rom major highway interchanges. Direct routes, with good signage, is highly desireable. Convention service vehicles: use the same roadways to reach the CC as do private autos, but have special needs. Many such vehicles are large semi-trailer trucks (40-50 feet in length), so the design and weight capability of all connecting roads must be suitable. Due to inherent incompatibility between service and private vehicles (and pedestrians), there must be access-separation planned for on-site. Service vehicles must be given the additional access to truck staging/marshalling areas and to the loading bays. Availability of direct rail servicing for both passengers and freight would help marketability, and would thus be considered desireable. Safety/security: are two very important factors to consider when several thousand people are regularly gathered en masse. In an emergency, fire, ambulance, and police vehicles must be unimpeded in their ability to quickly respond to any given situation. Fire code regulations vary with jurisdiction, but almost universally have requirements for access, safety easements, turning radius for fire fighting vehicles, etc. Special access should also be offered security vehicles, in monitoring the CC and safe deliver y of dignitaries. 3. Parking orce the CC complex andjor the CBD has been accessed, adequate and nearby parking is required for both the conventioneer and al service vehicles as follows: Private automobiles: There is debate within development and planning fields over precisely how much parking to provide a CC. It is generally thought that a cc does not need as much parking as a structure of another public use (ie. theaters, sports facilities), because visiting conventioneers do not generate as many cars as do these other users. In local terms, Roger Smith, President of the Denver Metro Convention and Visitors Bureau (DMCVB), states that "parking is a bogus issue--92% of the convention delegates come to Denver by air and do not have cars. A recent study indicated the new convention center would generate only 524 more vehicles (IV-6)

PAGE 50

per convention. n3 However, as a cc has a long life expectancy and will host many different types of events, I believe a maximum scenario should be planned for. If future expansion is anticipated, land for additional parking will also need to be reserved. Obviously, parking that is adjacent, or within a short walking distance to the cc is most desireable. Depending on the center's relation to the CBD and hotels, parking may become a larger issue --one that encompasses all of a downtown (ie. including private lots and on-site parking). Also, to be examined are the relative advantages and disadvantages of surface-grade lots versus multi-story parking garages, and any possibilities for shared parking. Bus and service vehicles: Bus parking should be near the CC but segregated slightly from automobile parking for safety. Service vehicles however, some of which will remain parked for the duration of the convention, provide more of an eyesore potential and should thus be completely isolated at another area of the CC complex and 'hidden' from view as much as possible. An effective truck marshalling and holding area will assure smooth transitions in the assembling and disassembling of simultaneous events. 4. raffic v11ehicle circulation in many cities nearly reaches a state of 'grid]ock' at times. Problems can and do occur when there is vehicular volume than the streets and highways were plann;d/constructed to handle. This is most acutely evident durinl the 'rush hour' peaks, but can be generally heavy during any w rking day. Traffic problems are minimal between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m . When analyzing the issue of traffic vis-a-vis building a cc, i will be necessary to: l Analyze the extent of existinq traffic patterns in the vicinity of the proposed CC site, and identify any potential problem areas. Have CC traffic-generated scenarios developed, and extrapolate potential impacts of convention-generated traffic to the proposed site vicinity, and the CBD as a whole. Analy is of projected truck traffic, in particular, as generated by CC, is critical in planning for a smooth integration of the CC into the city. One scenario estimates one large (40-50 foot) semi-brailer truck is required per 2,000 square feet of convention space Jto move a convention in or out. The number of trucks needed can be extrapolated and then divided by the number of days it takes to set up or tear down. Shows of 100,0000 to 200,000 square feet aan take four or five days to set up and three or four days (IV-7)

PAGE 51

to ta e down.4 For example, a 300,000 square foot show could take four to set up and three days to take down. At one truck per 2,000 square feet, there would be 150 truck loads/trips moved to and t en away from the center. Set up over four days would averay1e 37.5 trucks per day, and take down over three days would average 50 truck trips per day. Appropriate parking for some of these trucks would, thus, also need to be provided. cenarios and methodological approaches can very widely, but it is strongly recommended that any CC proposals should heavily analy e impacts from autos and truck traffic, as conducted by compe ent transportation planning firms. 5. cc. Uand is a broad category, but primary in the development of a 1wo major sub-issues exist --physical and acquisition: -Physical: Does the proposed site have the necessary [ area, including parking requirements? If expansion is desired at a later date, would there be land available to provide for contiguous construction and addi tiona! parking? Is the property regular in shape, slope, 'developability,' and are there any unusual physical characteristics? Other physical considerations are discussed in category no. 11. Acquisition: This category deals w ith actually obtaining property rights for future use, which usually involves the legal "assemblage" of many smaller properties into one large parcel. It is at this stage that emotions can run high, as ownership changes hands with or without the consent of both parties. I t is advantageous to have a site proposal where minimal assemblage is necessary, in that opposition would be reduced, as would the amount of time, energy, and costs needed to negotiate the change of property ownership. Encumbrances, appraisals, title searches, and condemnation proceedings, if necessary, all take additional time and expense to negotiate. When displacements occur, voluntarily or not, the city andjor the cc developer is becoming increasingly responsible for both commercial and residential relocation assistance which can be substantial, as well as reasonable settlements for the "takings." 6. otels J y almost all accounts, the availability and close proximity of ex]sting (and proposed) committable hotel space, is one of the most 'mportant factors in the marketability of a cc s ite. It is desir able to have most hotels within a few minutes walking, or time of the cc, although committable space often t i mes must also be arranged out of the CBD. Modern CC facilities (IV-8)

PAGE 52

have a direct or indirect connection with a large 'headEarters' hotel of 750-1000 rooms. This mega-hotel houses the l .rgest contingent of conventioneers, and is large and well equiped enough to compliment the facilities of the cc with those of itf1 own (ie. ballrooms, banquet facilities). A headquarters hotel can either be designated from existing hotel stock, or const ucted new in conjunction with the CC project. Due to the huge inancial risks in undertaking any hotel venture, let alone a headqlfarters hotel, hoteliers commonly contractually arrange to delay1construction by a year or two to gauge the need for rooms beyond existing stock. Therefore, the avaliability of existing and potential sites for new hotel(s) near the CC, are both desiriable features. Hotels can derive the most gain financially from convention as occupancy rates often skyrocket overnight with the openi g of a center. A flurry of hotel construction may accompany a new center, depending on location. If a cc is well-managed and booke with simultaneous conventions, hotels should be prone to littl 'down time' --periods where no conventions whatsoever are in p ogress. To help smooth out any such low periods, the locatj'on and marketing efforts of the hotel should be designed to captu e the general, as well as the convention trade. In the end analy is, hotels often build to meet a convention-generated need which can unrealistically reflect localjnormal needs. One opinion state , "Convention Centers act, in effect, as a government subsi1 y for the overproduction of hotel rooms."S 7. ielationship to Urban Amenities are many other features to a city, besides hotels, that the donventioneer utilizes. These include various personal serv ides ( ie. dry cleaners, shoe repair, etc. ) , entertainment, restaf1rants, retail, other assorted attractions (ie. sporting event, amusement parks, aquariums, zoos, etc.). As it has been menti ned that CC's should have near proximity to extensive hotel space, the ideal situation would have many of said amenities in the s me vicinity of them both --in fact, areas between the and the cc would be the perfect location. This situation could manifest itself in the form of a semi-autonomous 'district', or in simply blending in with the city as a whole. A direct physi9a1 relationship between CC and such amenities is a strong markeuing point, as it helps to uncomplicate the life of a converitioneer, which is the goal of the meeting manager. Lastly, a potkntial site should be analyzed for potential 'spin-off' (convention-generated new business and construction) for tHese types of amenities within the vicinity. I d d t 8. Bu1 1n Des1 n an Func 1on he intricacies of facility design, both internal and exter al, is out of the scope of my research. I believe that site is at least as, if not more, important than design. Most any (IV-9)

PAGE 53

design can be, theoretically, manipulated to put on any site. Howevdr, the cc design and planned method of operation, in a gener1 1 sense, is very important in marketability. First, the specifications must be appropriate for the site, meet state and national building and safety codes (ie. ICBO regulations). ] Will the design allow for maximum safety precaution, in terms of evacuation, and state-of-the-art firejpolicejsecurity monitoring equipment? Physically, the external design should be as pleasing and 'welcoming' as is possible for a huge 'box' to be. The enhancement of urban aesthetic qualities in the near vicinity of the CC is desirable, as the full integration of the cc into the community is sought. This may be difficult as a centers' immense scale and often windowless exterior design may be anything but aesthetically pleasing. The overall appearance of quality and utility will help assure local acceptance of the structure. Has the design utilized the site most advantageously? Is the densityjscale of the project compatible with the environs? Does the building design best incorporate future plans for expansion, if any, into its present plans? l Has separation of incompatible functions been well planned for? These are all external design questions that need to be reviewed. Internally, the developer and architects should design according to preferences recommendations proposed by meeting and interior/space designers. Most importantly perhaps is that the facility design should promote efficiency in staging events. It is this lone ability that may determine if a CC is a success or failure economically. Lastly, it have become apparent early if the design and site utili ation is too much a function of constraints. It would be delet rious for the city to embark on a new CC that is beset with an in rdinate number of physical obstacles to overcome, out of a desir, to locate at one site versus another. 9. d e Im act on Residential Nei hborhoods and Vice Versa mentioned in no. 1, a cc can give needy innercity substantial economic benefits, including employment. the close proximity of a CC could also help to destroy the neighborhood. Analysis of the following questions is needed in determining impacts: (IV-10)

PAGE 54

Have undesirable adjacent zoning regulations been instituted to allow for a new CC? Will the construction of the CC itself displace residents and business owners? If so, what level of opposition exists, and what form of restitution and assistance will be available to compensate them? Will the scale and mass of the cc simply overwhelm the remainder of the neighborhood? Will access requirements, parking and traffic impacts have a destablizing effect on the neighborhood? Can community identity and cohesiveness survive the displacements and disruptions caused by the CC? From the conventioneer and meeting planners' perspective, a CC locatetl in too residential a context, or one lacking an impression of hospitality, cleanliness, and safety, would not be marketable. 10. of Public Transit Connections j_ry much related to "Access" (no. 2), efficient local public of all forms (rail, buses, taxis) is desireable for the conventioneer. Anyone unfamiliar with a city's spatial configpration must inordinately rely upon those who are familiareffr.ctively, public transit. To the luggage-toting conventioneer, the most important example is that first connection the airport and the CBD. The following are questions that need t be addressed. Are transit networks provided reliable, efficient, quick, and reasonably priced? Once in the CBD, are connections easily made for the CC and various hotels? Is public transit a feasible option for conventioneers in touring other areas of the city? Do public transit options exist for out-of-city travel to other statewide/regional attractions? If a ne1 w CC is successfully marketed and booked, many more people, if temporary visitors, will be in need of public transit-obligi g the city to respond. The ultimate scenario is in having the a'rport, CC, and hotels well-linked through a public transit network. The site location of a new CC would substantially from direct proximity to existing and proposed transit networks. I (IV-11)

PAGE 55

11. Technical and Environmental Considerations M bdern planning, zoning, and engineering regulations require that physical elements be satisfactorily addressed and for, before actual construction can proceed. All envirormental impacts and potential hazards must be studied and anticipated for. These include, but are not limited to: Water runoff: A huge impervious area has been created by the CC and its parking, so various forms of water diversion must be provided for. This can translate into substantial on-site and off-site infrastructure expenditures by the city andjor the developer. Floodolain: Is the proposed cc site within a floodplain or located over a high water table? If so, proposed designs must provide for methods of eliminating potential water danger. For example, to avoid flooding, a CC could be constructed on an elevated base. However, water that would have normally flooded such a site is, theoretically, forced upon adjacent non-elevated land instead. As this increased flood danger is highly detrimental to neighboring land owners, most planning or code regulations nationwide would require that they be compensated andjor their property also be made free from the danger of flooding (which would also be a significant additional expense for the city andjor developer) . Hazardous material: Is the proposed site contaminated by hazardous materials, or in any other manner impacted by them? When thousands of conventioneers are congregated in one place, the prospect for a man-made catastrophe is even less appealing than a natural calamity such as a flood. How could a proposed site be made safe from such dangers? Is this a very localized concern, or a city-wide concern? Soil conditions: Are soil conditions stable, and compatible with the scale of the structure? If not, what measures might be taken to remedy the situation? Is the CC locale subject to heavy earthquake activity? What engineering techniques can be employed in the design and construction of the cc to minimize such risks? 12. C nstruction Requirements and Impacts I t t d d 11 P re-construe lOn requlremen s are varle I an are usua y initia ed by municipal regulations. Adherence to planning and zoning codes is mandatory, and any proposal should additionally show interrelations with a cit 's 'Master' or 'Com rehensive' Plan. Some CC sites will, circumstantially, be more prone to regulal ory issues (ie. proposal that requires zone changes) than (IV-12}

PAGE 56

other sites. Such extensive bureaucratic delays in seeking the desir d clearances, could act unfavorably in a case of competing sites. Neighborhood opposition may play a role here. average cc requires two to three years to build, during which the city is impacted in many different ways. Primarily, there is heavy disruption and interference with existing acti v ties caused by construction-related activities, commencing with cjlemolition trucks. Pre-construction preparation of a site includes demolition and debris removal, which can vary enormously by pr'1 ject, followed by excavation or infill. On-site and offsite infrastructure improvements are done next followed by casin s, foundations, etc. A project of this scale will have many subco tractors, which will generate a large number of vehicle trips, impacting existing traffic patterns. Street closures and excavation for utility installation will also serve as If expansion is planned, the entire process may be repeated, and disruption could be greater than the original construction due to the contiguous relationship to the new f . cilities presently in use. A superior CC location would gener te minimal construction-related impacts on the city. III. Conclusion most important factor to recognize when planning for CC are the interrelationships with the city (and region) I that Jre fostered. Analysis, through using such criteria, can greatl y aid in approaching this task in a comprehensive manner. As earlier, any CC proposal will be subject to strengths and weaknesses by using such criteria, and final decisions should be prJmised upon how well they are addressed as a whole. preceding twelve (12) site location criteria will be broadly used in analyzing various site proposals of De' ver, Colorado, including my thesis proposal. As the physi al planning for a new cc is enormously complicated, other facto s inherent to a given situation may arise, which cannot be ated for at this point. (IV-13)

PAGE 57

CHAPTER 4 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Eliash Robinson, "Convention Centers: Essential Meetings; ry Fixtures; Revitalize Cities," Meetings and Conventions, Nove ler 1984, 58. 2. DfLeuw, Cather, and Co., "Convention Center Access (prepared for City and County of Denver, Colorado) May 1 _[87, 1. 3. R ger A. Smith, "Site Ought To Match Purpose of Convention Cente ", Rocky Mountain News, 24 May 1987, 79. 4. D Leuw, Cather, "Convention Center Access Requirements, 15. 5. J 1986, Weisberg, "Battle of the Barns", New Republic, 28 April (IV-14)

PAGE 58

CHAPI'ER 5 CASE IN POINT: DENVER, COLORADO II. I. Background and History Doer : nevseDreAnvsecroRnveaenltlyioNneceditNyew Convention Facilities? o rnver convention center Twenty-Year Chronology (1968-1987) v. E isting State of Affairs/Related Land-Use Issues III. IV. VI. C nclusions (V-1)

PAGE 59

CHAPTER 5 I. Background and History Denver,Colorado was founded in the 1860's at the confluence of the South Platte River and Cherry Creek. The City is situated on the high plains at the eastern edge of the Rocky Mountains, and is well -known for being one mile high (5,280 feet) in elevation. The colorado territory, which gained statehood in 1876, posed many I obstacles to the thousands of settlers that marched westward. In fact, lhe primary overland routes, including the Oregon and Santa Fe trJils, intentionally bypassed the state to the north and south, as to avoid the many unknown dangers that our mountains presented. Once the 'gold rush' found its way to Colorado, howeveJ , more people began to settle here to seek their fortunes. Mining and supply settlements were founded throughout the back and Denver soon became recognized for its strategic value in supworting regional growth. Eventually, railroads came to the City, and engineering advances helped to make the once inaccessible Rocky Mountains to the west accessible, via the train. T is advent of comparatively easy travelling enabled people from walks of life to come to Colorado without the hardships of pasti. The scenic beauty of the state became less intimidating and coLld now be appreciated by many Colorado's tourist indust was born. Colorado's economy, to this day based on mining, tourism, agriculture, and service industries (with little uring), has been especially prone to economic cycles. (V-2)

PAGE 60

This 'boom and bust' phenomenon has greatly influenced development patterh s in Denver and throughout the State. Millions of dollars were Jade, and lost, in the mining industry, and many imposing buildihgs were constructed during the good times. Denver was once even k own as the "City of Mansions." II. Denver as Convention City As Denver continued to grow, bolstered more by tourism and locatib n than by mineral wealth, it became more of an entity unto itself The tradition of grand structures exhibited itself with the completion of the Denver Auditorium Arena --the region's first convention center. civic pride and a desire to put Denver on the map (remember these two rationale for later) provided the impetu for City leaders to justify the $700,000 expense for the structure. Helping to justify the 'need' for the Arena, in Decembjr, 1907, a delegation led by the lieutenant governor went to wasrington, D.c. and successfully bid for the 1908 Democratic Conven,ion. (See Attachment 5-l.) Not only did the delegation boast J f a new auditorium, but of an abundance of hotel space, a climate, a host of tourism possibilities, and a solid guaranjee of $100,000 as an added enticement.* "Good for you, old boy, y 1u did bully," proclaimed the Denver Post. "The benefit is * The "Convention League of Denver" had been planning to attrac a national political convention for several years. The City a d several counties, large department stores, brewers, and the tr mway company jointly raised the funds needed to lure the event. The hotel space proved to be inadequate for that week, however, and makeshift accommodations were required to house many of the 5,000 people attending the convention. (V-3)

PAGE 61

I al tog ther incalculable. A couple of million dollars will be spent here that week . . why, the Tammany Hall bunch from New York is reportedly bringing $100,000 just for entertainment, another $175,000 for cigars, and another $38,000 for beer and Unfortunately for the Democrats, their candidate, Jennings Bryan, was overwhelmingly defeated in the presi ential election later that year. The subsidization (and frivo of national political conventions continues to this day, nut in larger proportions, as the city of San Francisco spent more than $10 million in attracting the 1984 Democratic Conven ion. Nevertheless, their candidate, Walter Mondale, was also +feated. The Auditorium Arena served as Denver's sole convention until the late 1960's when the 140,000 square foot currigr n Exhibition Hall was constructed. For reasons that will be discussed in greater detail, Currigan is now also felt to be inadeqrate for Denver's present needs. "Denver has lost its abilit to host a national political convention," states the modernlday Denver Post, "but that would all change after a new hall is built. n2 As large political gatherings are few in number, private industrial and business needs the bulk of the lucrative convention industry of today. Denver! s self-perceived inability to effectively appeal to public or priwate conventions has initiated a twenty year political and economt c shortly. I analyzed. battle over a course of action, as will be reviewed First, however, the question of feasibility must be (V-4)

PAGE 62

I I Does Denver Really Need New Convention Facilities? Denver can justify the construction of new cc facil+ies. In spite of tremendous competition nationwide for convenlion and trade show business, I believe the underlying premil on which Denver is planning new facilities to be sound. As ne CC's open around the country, the theoretical market share poten ial decreases for everyone. Meeting planners have unwilltngly bypassed the City due to inadequate facilities, and it is my contention that at least since 1977 (when the first study of Currigt j n expansion was undertaken), Denver conventioneering has operat d at below market capability. I further believe that with the co struction of new, well-conceived convention facilities in Denverl the City will not only reach its market potential, but actual y surpass it --thereby deriving an unproportionately high market share. "My observation about Colorado is that you have one the most desireable convention destinations in the world, and one of the least prepared facilities to deal with it," states Marion Kershner, founder of Meeting Planners International. "It I seems a real shame to me that, with all of your areas natural attrac ions, you haven't planned for more and better meeting accommo idations. Either your state does not want the revenue and respon ibilities connected with it, or you are so new at it that you re.lly don't know what you need. I prefer to think the latter."3 (V-5)

PAGE 63

enver must pursue the national convention market to be succes\sful, as the City is comparatively isolated, w ith a relatiwely small and dispersed population base. New facilities would not be economically feasible if largely dependent on the fewer umber of regional and local shows and the limited attendees drawn from the same basic areas. Additionally, Denver would have to com rete for the market with Tulsa, Omaha, El Paso, Albuquerque, and s rlt Lake city --all of which have larger convention facililies than does Denver presently. F0r the reasons explained forthwith, Denver should feel confidknt in its decision to build a new CC: I 1. Inadequate Existing Facilities The present CC, Currigan Exhibition Hall, opened in 1969, has become inadequate for the needs of many, if not most, national conventions and trade shows, due to: Being too small in overall size ( 140,000 square feet) and in main display floor ( 100,800 square feet). For example, when the 11,600 member American Hospital Association (AHA) met in Denver in August of 1984, they required 140,000 square feet for exhibits. As Currigan has only 100,800 square feet of open space, some of the exhibits had to be displayed outside. This drew many complaints, as did the lack of quality hotel space. By 1991, the AHA will require 240,000 square feet for displays, and Denver could not possibly accommodate this group again until new cc facilities are opened, according to Denver Metro Convention and Visitor Bureau (DMCVB) chief, Roger Smith.4 Inefficient interior design, not providing for back to back/simultaneous booking and compartmentalization requirements. Small, inefficient kitchen and banquet facilities. Poor audio/video capabilities. Richard Grant, public relations manager for the DMCVB compares the situation to "someone carrying in and setting up a movie screen."5 (V-6)

PAGE 64

Pent-Up Demand As of March, 1987, the DMCVB had 283 organizations on file that wanted to come to Denver but concluded that the facilities were inadequate.6 There are very likely many more events that would come to Denver should the facilities be upgraded. Meeting planners often work on a rotational basis when scheduling events from year to year, and Denver further gains from being on the border between a central and western zone boundary. It is, therefore, more likely to be selected when meeting planning is done in this fashion, and has the effect of creating a greater backlog of organizations wanting to come here. Existing Hotel Space Would Be Adeauate Barely. Presently, Denver has approximately 12,000 rooms citywide of all types, with 4, 000 convention-quality and committable rooms within the CBD. For most medium and large events, the City's existing stock would suffice, under strain, until more hotel space could be constructed if warranted. Perhaps a new headquarters hotel would be feasible. Denver may never want to plan for a 30,000 delegate mega-event, such as a national political convention that would require 20,000 rooms!7 (See Attachment 5-2.) 4. Denver and Colorado Are Historically Tourist Destinations Due to impressive and abundant natural scenery, as well as many man-made attractions, the entire state has traditionally derived a large portion of its income from tourism-related commerce. When asked where they would like to spend a vacation, respondents to a 1986 national survey placed Colorado as number three on the list-only behind Hawaii and the Caribbean. 8 There is a certain mystique about Colorado, and both the City and the State have a generally favorable national image, as reinforced by the media, sports franchises, etc. Denver's air pollution problem, vying with Los angeles for worst top honors, receives unfavorable national media attention, however. The DMCVB is one of the few such entities nationwide that jointly markets a city and state-which is cost-effective and marketing-positive. Unlike many states and specific cities, Colorado has a yearround appeal, with both summer and winter attractions. The state is well-known internationally for its skiing, and yet winter tourism only accounts for approximately 25 percent of total visitors, with 75 percent coming in the summer. 9 Colorado has an excellent climate, with over 300 days of sunshine per year, although Denver is sometime wrongly perceived as being buried in snow most of the year amidst its 'mountain' location. Due to (V-7)

PAGE 65

touting its "mile high" status, many people believe that Denver is in, rather than adjacent to, the mountains. Conventioneering here offers a wide variety of pre-and post-convention activities, and unlike the majority of convention cities, has much more to offer than just the city proper. Of the 25.9% of convention delegates who take pre-or post-convention vacations: 33% go to the mountain resorts for 3.3 days average; 26% go to Colorado Springs for 1.4 days; 29% stay in Denver for 1.7 days; and 24% go somewhere else in Colorado for 3 days.10 Especially beneficial is the fact that the low periods in State tourism, parallels the high periods in national convention occupancy rates -spring and fall. This will tend to move evenly distributed tourist volumes throughout the year, and facilitate making hotel reservations. 6. Lower Costs Due to many interrelated factors, the cost of staging a large event in Denver may be less than in most areas of the country. Air transportation costs will prove to be less as Denver is a well-connected hub city and prone to the benefits of airline deregulation. Ground transportation costs for private automobiles and the large exhibit-carrying semi-trailer trucks will also be lower, again due to the City's geographic location, but also due to generally lower fuel costs in this part of the country.* Partially inherent, and partially due to slow economic times, hotel costs and labor costs are also lower in Denver than most places. "When you compare our hotel room costs with those of the major cities, we're far lower. The average rate in all those cities is close to $100 or over $100. In Denver, we're still between $75 and $80 in average rates for the convention hotels," states Roger Smith. "That's why the American Hospital Association pulled out of San Francisco and came here in August of 1984."11 * • Denver is at the end of a petroleum pipeline and refining system, and directly benefits through lower fuel costs than much of the country experiences. (V-8)

PAGE 66

IV. Qenver Convention Center Twentv Year Chronology (1968-1987) of this writing (December, 1987), the previous twenty years in Denver have been characterized by political infighting, high inancial stakes, and vacillating commitments and alliances, in cortemplating the need for convention facilities as well as where to locate them. Throughout this period, nearly a dozen differ nt site proposals have been suggested, several having more than ,ne development plan. There are four primary sites that may be considered realistic and feasible: "Silver Triangle" (includes existing Currigan convention facility) "Golden Triangle" "Colorado Gateway" "Union Station" (See Attachment 5-3.) Each these will be reviewed in greater detail in Chapter Six. ring the past twenty years, there has been an incredible amount of CC-related information generated, which for the sake of clarity and . 3/191 8 5/1969 . 12/1977 limited space must be encapsulated, as follows:* A year before Currigan Exhibition Hall opens, city consultants say it should be at least doubled in size to attract all the conventions that want to come to Denver. Currigan Exhibition Hall opens for business, at a cost of $13.1 million. This project itself had been fifteen years in the planning. Mayor McNichols commissions an initial study to examine the necessity and feasibility of expanding Currigan, perhaps into the adjacent areas known as the "Silver Triangle." * Although aided by a short time-line of Denver CC planning (Denve Post, 14 September 1983, p. 4A), I assembled the vast majority of the twenty year (1968-1987) chronology myself, based on lit1 rally hundreds of local newspaper and magazine articles I during this time period. (V-9)

PAGE 67

0 6/1980 0 6/1981 0 8/1981 I 0 9/1982 0 11 1982 I 0 1/19i 3 Jl 3 Consultant Harris, Kerr, Forster and Co., recommends that exhibition space at Currigan be tripled to enable Denver to capture a larger share of the national convention market. Mayor McNichols appoints a new cc development task force, at the urging of the Denver Partnership, the Denver Chamber of Commerce, and the Denver Convention and Visitors Bureau. Their findings largely agree with those suggested by consultants one year earlier, but make first mention of alternative site proposals. Five railroad companies that jointly own the Denver Union Railroad Terminal ("Union Station"), independently solicit redevelopment proposals for this location on the periphery of the CBD, and would utilize abandoned rail yards. Denver Union Terminal owners (railroads) select the partnership of the Argentine holding company SOCMA and New York-based BA Capital Corp., in conjunction with Denver-based Realities, Inc., to redevelop Union Station and adjacent properties into a CC. The proposal calls for the City to lease the new cc, and sell Currigan to them for transformation into a retail and commercial complex, all at no cost to the City. Prompted by the Union Station proposal, three other developers submit their own CC proposals to the task force. They are: Daniel Crow; Brady Corp./Sheraton Corp. co-venture; and William Seman;u.s. Caribe Realty/Bank of China. All of these proposals involve the redevelopment andjor expansion of Currigan, andjor the adjacent property termed the "Silver Triangle." The appointed City task force recommends the SOCMA Union Station cc;currigan redevelopment plan, with an overall estimated cost of $1 billion. The Denver City Council embarks on six months of exclusive, secret negotiations with the Denver Union Terminal/SOCMA team. Mayor-elect Federico Pena inherits the Union station CC plan from the previous administration. He was elected on a platform of "Imagine a Great City," that strongly supported the redevelopment of Denver's increasingly unused rail yards adjacent to downtown (the Central Platte Valley), including the Union Station CC plan, both of which were touted as a stimulant for the stagnating Lower Downtown area. (V-10)

PAGE 68

• 9 1 83 • 11/]983 • 3 1984 • 10 1984 • 12 1984 • 1 1985 • 10/1985 SOCMA Corp. announces it is withdrawing from negotiations, citing a difference of opinion with the City as to the value of Currigan (Denver wanted $80-90 million and SOCMA would only pay $60 million) , and from an unwillingness to post a large assurance bond that the City required. Angered by the collapse of the SOCMA negotiations, City officials decided to re-open the bidding process, and would review a total of seven sites including past and new proposals (including a second Union Station plan) . Mayor Pena names a new task force (including himself and City Council members) in lieu of the SOCMA withdrawal, to determine the best CC site proposal. Panel determines that a much larger facility than Currigan expansion proposals have suggested would be justified. After reviewing differing site proposals, panelcommissioned consultant, Thompson Ventulett, Stainback and Assoc. of Atlanta, determines that a site in an area just south of the Civic Center/City Hall known as the "Golden Triangle" would be the preferable location. Mayor Pena's task force votes 4-2 in favor of Currigan expansion, and states that any plans to build a new center should be overruled. Pena, being one of the dissenters, says the task force recommendation is "unacceptable," due largely to excessive costs and logistical problems in expanding Currigan. He directs the various developers to submit less expensive proposals, which they do. Despite growing dissention between the Mayor and City Council/task force members on the cc issue, Pena scores a political victory as City Council votes 7-5 (with one abstention) to build the center per the latest Union Station proposal. This proposal is from 'Mile High Land Associates', a partnership between developers Marvin Davis and Myron "Mickey" Miller, and the Glacier Park Co., the development arm of Burlington Northern RR. Voters overwhelmingly reject the Union Station cc proposal 2-1, in an unusually heavy turnout for a special election. There was a total of approximately $750,000 spent by pro-and opposition forces on convincing the public relative to their stance. It is generally believed that this defeat was as much due to financing methodology proposed, than a mandate against the site itself which the Mayor successfully (V-11)

PAGE 69

. 4 1986 :::I: . 12 986 . 4 1987 espoused in his election platform. This kind of internal dissention is "not unusual in western cities that are still sorting out their urban identities between ideas of progress and ideas of tradition. " stated the New York Times.12 "The bottom line is the friction of change," said Pena's chief aide, Tom Nussbaum of the opposition.13 This was . a major political defeat for the Mayor, giving more power, effectively, to dissenting City council members and alternative site locations. Capitalizing on consultant analysis in favor of the "Golden Triangle" site two years previous, partial landowner/developer Al Cohen, in partnership with Bechtel Corp. , proposes CC site at this location. After re-grouping and re-acknowledging the actual need for new facilities, and sensing Mayoral vulnerability after the vote, City Council plays a strong role in the consideration of this plan. As popular support grew for this location, Mayor Pena was also obliged to lend his support. City Council voted to begin contract negotiations with Cohen for a new cc at the "Golden Triangle." Cohen's project partner, the Bechtel Corp., drops out stating too many risks and contractual problems as the cause. As contractual proceedings continue, the method of financing is again at issue. Whereas Union Station was defeated due to financing tied to the general fund, methods are sought for separation from public support. City Council votes for an increase in the lodgers tax from 5% to 8%, and car rental taxes from 3.5% to 4.5%. This is expected to increase revenues by $5 million per year to help pay debt service on an estimated $75 million in bonds required. Many financing needs and questions persist. Initial Colorado State Legislature proposal calling for State financial involvement, in buying the land for a new CC. Much debate ensues. Politicking for the upcoming mayoral election starts to intensify. A development team of Philip Anschutz and Rio Grande Railroad present a last-minute proposal of their own, just days before the City was to undertake final negotiations with Al Cohen for the "Golden Triangle" site. This proposal, known as "Colorado Gateway" is located on property deep in the Central Platte Valley, adjacent to the new Walnut Street Viaduct, the South Platte River, and Interstate 25. Pena called the proposal "too little, too late," but six other mayoral candidates favored studying the plan and it became an election issue. The nature and timing of this (V-12}

PAGE 70

• 5 1 87 • 6 1 87 . 7/1987 proposal offended many people, and it re-opened the locational debate as well as brought Central Platte Valley redevelopment plans back into the forefront. Mayor Pena re-elected to office, by a narrow margin . Like the previous election, the CC was an issue, although this round Pena's position was diametrically opposed to his original stance. Politically and legally he had to remain committed to the $110 million Cohenj"Golden Triangle" proposal, as an estimated $1 million had already bee invested in the project, and legal proceedings would most likely follow should the City back out now. A1 though site location was now put to debate again, State financing involvement was finalized after six months of political infighting --manifesting itself in an urbanjrural split. Governor Roy Romer signs House Bill 1382 into law, requiring the State to contribute a total of $36 million from its capital construction fund (in $6 million increments over 6 years), to secure land for the site. "It really is an investment. It's not just building some monument in Denver. It's an investment on the part of the City, it's an investment on the part of the State, it's an economic benefit for all of us," said Fred Timmerman, City Council staff director.14 "We have a ways to go to get the cc built, but his is clearly a very big step in the right direction to get people back to work and to move our city and our state forward into the 90's", added the Mayor.15 Politically, this bill would: appease rural lawmakers as to the ultimate benefits a cc would have statewide; and, leave the actual site location decisions to the City, but only if an independent analysis of all potential sites be undertaken, on which to base the final locational decision. At one point, State lawmakers had proposed they also do the site planning. "The City should select the land ... it's one of the biggest land-use decisions we'll have to make in the next forty years. I'm not going to give that over to the State!," proclaimed Concilwoman Cathy Reynolds.16 Per the requirements of HB 1382, the City had to conduct yet another study as to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of various CC site proposals. As the 'eleventh hour' "Colorado Gateway" proposal reopened the debate, the City was consequently obliged to allow other proposals to also join the race. Three additional sites were offered for review for a total of five. As this study needed to be independent in its entirety, the City commissioned the assistance of an impartial panel from the Urban Land Institute (ULI} (V-13)

PAGE 71

to propose the overall best option. Yet, the ULI final report acknowledges that "we were faced with the very real possibility that the optimal convention center site not be among the predetermined set of proposals." Eventhough the study was made under state mandate, the City was not bound legally by its decision . . 8/1987 After review of all proposals, two were eliminated due I to inadequate or infeasible concepts, leaving three major contenders: "Golden Triangle," "Colorado Gateway," and a new "Silver Triangle" proposal by developer David French. Another Union Station proposal was not offered for review. For reason that will be revised in greater detail next chapter, the dark horse candidate, "Silver Triangle," was chosen, to the surprise of most everyone and dismay of City officials and Al Cohen. This decision negated over a million dollar in development planning costs by the two front-runners, as well as months of negotiations and review done by the City. Additionally, the selection of this ground adjacent to the existing facilities reopens an option that most had thought was put to rest years ago. Because the City is not absolutely bound by the ULI decision, however, the next step was for the City officials to more critically scrutinize the proposal as to applied feasibility. As of this writing, French and Team have successfully survived several major tests imposed by the City, and received City Council final approval in late November, 1987. Despite apparent serious questions about certain aspects of the design, it appears as though the new "Colorado Convention Center" will be constructed adjacent to existing Currigan Exhibition Hall, with possible connections. Meanwhile, an anxious Al Cohen and Philip Anschutz are waiting in the wings to see what transpires. abreast of the rapidly evolving events, in researching for this t hesis, was fascinating, but proved to be a challenge. Only time till tell the final outcome of this 'unconventional' controJersy. (See Attachment 5-4.) (V-14)

PAGE 72

v. Existing state of Affairs and Related Land-Use Issues o fully assess the City of Denver vis-a-vis the cc physical a number of important eleme s inherent to the City. virtually all of these factors will ave a role in corroborating and substantiating the premises of my hesis. Most of the contemporary planning issues facing the City directly, or indirectly, related to transportation, as Air pollution in Denver is a major health and image concern, and will eventually mandate physical remedies. The City was once known for its clean air, and was a destination for many with respiratory problems. "Metro Denver is losing new business because of our air, " stated Governor Roy Romer, and "we have to make some very tough decisions on air pollution," added Mayor Pena.l8 The automobile per capita rate is very high in Denver, and has greatly shaped the spatial configuration of growth. Volunteer methods, such as "no-drive days" have been having only a marginal effect. Fixed-guideway networks have been proposed to help remedy this situation. New airport facilities are widely felt to be needed in both political and economic circles. "The airport is absolutely critical to our economy," proclaimed the Mayor,1 9 Thousands of jobs in the City and State are directly and indirectly related to having an airport. Stapleton International, the existing facilities, have become too small and inefficient in handling the enormous amount of flights and passengers. Denver's geographic centrality has seen the city chosen as a 'hub' for several different airlines, which has put national (and some international) pressures on a facility that was built for a regional volume. A new airport, like the CC issue, has been in the planning stages for years, but has become more of a priority with the importance placed by the new governor on economic development. A new airport will, most likely, be located farther east of the existing facility on I-70. The present option of taking surface streets between the Airport and the CBD will no longer be available with this scenario, leaving only the highway as the transportation link. Eventual connection by a fixed-guideway system is proposed. (V-15)

PAGE 73

House Bill 1249, is the most recent and realistic attempt at providing at least the initial segments of a fixed-guideway system for the City. More of a debate than either the cc or the airport have been, incredibly, "light rail" has been proposed for many years and has lost in referendum several times. The Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) has repeatedly denied the City's appeal for Federal funds for such a system, due mainly to Denver's low population density, and relative "need" as compared to other cities. HB 1249, signed by Governor Romer in May, 1987, gives official sanction to this cause, and creates a "Transit Construction Authority" that is mandated to build the first segment. This locally funded project, devoid of UMTA assistance at this stage, proposes to build the first section between the CBD and the fourteen miles south to the Denver Technological Center. The downtown routing and terminal location have yet to be decided. "If we cannot get our collective act together and make our transportation system work," warns Don Butt, special assistant for economic development with U.S. West, Inc., "we will find it difficult, if not impossible, to attract people, business, and investors to Colorado.1120 16th Street Mall was justified, and largely funded, by UMTA to assist Denver in better organizing its local and regional bus services. Presently, the Regional Transportation District (RTD) , which constructed and manages the Mall, operates a bus terminal at both ends of continuous shuttle services connecting the two. The Mall has been a tremendous success by most accounts, despite "weak" portions. The city of Denver "Comprehensive Plan" and the Denver Partnerships' "Downtown Area Plan" both recommend extending the Mall to the Central Platte Valley, a minimum distance of approximately three blocks. "Lower Downtown" is a 22-square block area of the CBD that contains the best remaining vestiges of historic Denver. The City once had the best examples of mercantile architecture between St. Louis and San Francisco. (See Attachment 5-7.) It is the most depressed area within the CBD, and has great potential for historic preservation and redevelopment. Presently, there is a demolition ban within this historic district, as an attempt to secure its future. During the oil boom years of the early 1980's, many investors bought Lower Downtown properties in anticipation of continued Denver growth (which did not occur), and a cc at Union Station. Now that property values have fallen city-wide, owners of property in Lower Downtown want the right to develop these (V-16)

PAGE 74

properties as they see fit which does not correspond to attempts by the city and the Denver Partnership to preserve its identity. This area, dominated by small floor plate, victorian, low-rise structures, lends itself to small scale business, entertainment, and service-related concerns. Larimer Square, a successful restored two-block section within Lower Downtown, gives a hint of this greater potential. Central Platte Valley is a 500 acre area adjacent to Lower Downtown. Formerly, rail switching yards in its entirety, the majority of the tracks have now been removed and consolidated --opening the possibilities for redevelopment. The Central Platte Valley, located between the CBD and residential neighborhoods to the west, has a great deal of development potential despite problems due to partially being in a floodplain and never having been developed before. Presently, aging viaducts carry automobiles between I-25 and the CBD through the Central Platte Valley into Lower Downtown. 1982 bond money will help finance a host of road improvements in this area. "The shortening of the 15th Street Viaduct, removal of the 16th street viaduct, consolidation of 19th and 20th Streets and an interchange at those streets to I-25 must be completed by 1989 under a city contract with railroads in the Platte Valley.n21 The Walnut Street Viaduct and Auraria Parkway, with connections to Lower Downtown, are the first manifestations of a number of improvements to be made. "That' 11 open up the whole valley to traffic at ground level," said Denver Planning Director, Bill Lamont.22 II. Conclusion Denver has excellent possibilities for being a very succeslful convention center. though the City has struggled with cc issue, as has other cities, it is my contention that this i a healthy process --that will, hopefully, result in the creati n of well-conceived facilities. The fact that the CC issue (V-17}

PAGE 75

is only one of many land-use issues, Denver has the opporJunity to "link" development stratifies if done with fores1ght. My thesis is directly related to the inter-relat'onships that exist between the above-mentioned issues. (V-18)

PAGE 76

CHAPI'ER V BIOGRAPHY 1. P trick Yack, "1908: Convention Fever Amok," Denver Post, 16 July 984, pp. lF, lOF. 2. Gary Delsohn, "Denver Couldn't Host a Convention Today," Denve Post, 16 July 1984, p. lOF. 3. J n H. Simms, "Colorado Convention Industry: Not Ready for the Leagues," Denver Business, October 1983, 36. 4. Lo lis Barr, "Denver's New Convention Center: Out of The Doldruls," colorado Business Magazine, March 1987, 23. 5. 6. Denver Metro Convention and Visitors Bureau Statistics (extrabted from #4). 7. 8. Data Center, Colorado Business, March 1986, 12. 9. 10. Denver Metro Convention and Visitors Bureau Statistics . 11. w lrren Smith, "The Tourist Game: A Serious Business, II Colorado Business, March 1986, 10. 12. I ter Peterson, "Dispute in Denver Pits Pinstripes Against Jeans,' New York Times, 15 October 1985, p. A-18. 13. Ibid. 14. D knver Post, (article name unknown) 21 August 1986, p. lOB. 15. D lnver Post, (article name unknown), 26 June 1987, P. 2B. 16. M l Kowalski, "Rep. Gillis Ready to Re-Open Con. Centr. Discusjion," Denver Post, 17 May 1987, p. lOA. 17. Panel Advisory Service Report, "An Evaluation of Proposjls and Site Selection for the Colorado Convention Center," (Urban1Land Institute, Washington, D.C.) 23-28 August 1987, 2. 18. T Channel 6, "State of Colorado," 30 October 1987. 19. Ibid. (V-19)

PAGE 77

20. Peopl Sprin usan Bavaria and Linda P.Smith, "Public/Private Bond Makes Moving Possible," Corporate Connections, Vol.2, No. 1 1987, Squire Publications, Inc., (Englewood, Colorado), 6. 21. oni H. Blackman, "Platte Valley Remains Development Prior'ty," Denver Post, 29 January 1986, p. 3B. 22. evin Flynn, "Platte Valley Buildup Looms," Rocky Mountain News, 20 April 1987, 7. (V-20)

PAGE 78

CHAPTER VI ANALYSIS OF FOUR PRIMARY CC SITE PROPOSALS IN DENVER I. ntroduction II. . ilver Triangle III. , olden Triangle IV. rolorado Gateway v. nion Station I . VI. onclus1.ons (VI-1)

PAGE 79

CHAPTER VI I. Introduction discussed in Chapter Five, the City of Denver has histo,ically developed four primary site locations, for which new or ex anded CC facilities have been proposed. These are, again, as follows: "Silver Triangle" (includes existing Currigan Exhibition Hall facilities) "Golden Triangle" "Colorado Gateway" "Union Station" Each of these site-location proposals have had their "day in the sun," as such, and have alternately been scrutinized by public obse and private interests. Even though my thesis proposals that the decision-making process should remain open, any empathize with the frustration levels experienced by in the inability to settle this matter until very This inability can largely be attributed to: Opposing economic and political factions. The reality that all four of the proposed sites could, conceivably, offer a feasible location for new facilities. In fact, it has been noted that, "many cities in the United States would be pleased to accept any of the ... proposals."l Acknowledging this, the decision becomes more an issue as to preferences in urban design for Denver. (VI-2)

PAGE 80

II. Silver Triangle "Silver Triangle" (ST)site is property within the Denver CBD thht is roughly bounded by Champa Street, Fourteenth Street, Speer ioulevard, and Colfax Avenue (see Attachment 6-1). Although this a ea is roughly triangular, the associated term "Silver" has no historical connotation or relation to anything geologic. Four Jeparate development proposals, submitted at various times for a CC within these confines, will be discussed. All of the proposals have been limited to only a basic six square block area within the ST however, which also encompasses the existing Currigan Exhibition Hall facilities between Champa and Stout, 14th I and 12th Streets. I am opening this review of the four major sites with the ST becaus it was this area first considered for expansion of Currigl n ten years ago, and despite periods of disfavor, has recentl y gone full-circle and emerged again as the site-apparent I for nr facilities. Acknowledging the inadequacies of Currigan Exhibilion Hall, resulting in Denver's inability to attract larger, more income-producing events, I will briefly describe the alternatives that have been offered for this site. This will t ren be followed by a site-specific analysis (not proposalspecif1c), using the twelve criteria established in Chapter Four as a t l uide I must operate under the assumption that, despite inhere t and conceptual differences of each propos 1, they are all in the same basic location and can thus be treate1 as a single entity, vis-a-vis the twelve criteria. (VI-3)

PAGE 81

T! e Four Major ST Site Proposals are:* 1.} Daniel Crow Interests 2.) currigan Redevelopment Ventures (Brady Enterprises and Sheraton Corp. joint-venture} 3.) Denver Chaparral Joint Venture (William Seman, U.S. Caribe Corp., Bank of China} 4.} David French and Co. , (and Hensel Phelps Construction Co. 1.} Daniel Crow Interests, (see Attachment 6-2} envisioned the 5odification and expansion of Currigan to California Street, 12th and 14th Streets. This would involve of land under private ownership (some of which is drow-owned}, as well as city-owned property known as 'North Bank Park', which also contains the heliport. This scheme have required closing Currigan during the construction and utilization of air rights over Stout, 12th and 4th Streets to almost completely cover four city blocks. he development concept proposed a 320,000 square foot xpansion of the Hall, an adjacent 1,000 room hotel and mart, and underground parking for 4, 000 cars. office towers would form the site's corners. The scale, Bhasing, and financing of this project was considered very domplicated, to the point of being infeasible, and was from the competition by the Denver Union Terminal in 1983. 2.} durri an Redevelo ment Ventures proposal, a joint venture omposed of Brady Enterprises and the Sheraton Corporation, also envisioned an expansion and modification at Currigan Hall. This plan, however, would have done so on completely owned by the City, which is either dedicated p,ark land or land leased to the adjacent Denver Center for Performing Arts (DCPA). The redevelopment area would be by Speer Boulevard, Stout Street, and a varied line would have encircled the DCPA (including the existing uditorium Arena and Boettcher Concert Hall}. This scheme nvisioned expansion of Currigan to the North and West, over 9hampa Street, and would have necessitated demolition of the office building (formerly Denver Police HQ}. This $215 _ jillion plan would have tripled convention space, added a 1 Major sources of information on proposals 1-3 derived from "Anal sis of Developer Proposals For Convention Center Devel pment, Denver, Colorado" (prepared for "Joint Convention Centel:] Taskforce"} by Laventhol and Horwath, CPA, and zuchelli, and Assoc., Inc., January 1983. General information on the proposal are obtained from the "Colorado Convention Center Book," (French/Hensel Phelps} , 22 October 1987; and the ULI panel final report, "An Evaluation of Proposals and Site Seleciion for The Colorado Convention Center," Urban Land Instibute, (Washington, D.C.), August 1987. (VI-4}

PAGE 82

3. ) 4.) the 1.) 000 room Sheraton HQ hotel, a 3, 000 car garage, and the Illodification of the Auditorium Arena into a 40,000 square ballroom. This plan was also eliminated from the competition in 1983. denver Chaparral Joint Venture (see Attachment 6-3), like the qaniel Crow plan, also envisioned expanding and modifying qurrigan onto privately held properties to the south. This $634 million proposal would have added 200,000 square feet of convention space to Currigan, using an rchitecturally unusual plan calling for a 60-story office uilding at one end and a 44 story hotel at the other end. he expanded hall would have been supported from above by 'Brooklyn Bridge-like" suspension cables attached to the two nd structures. The expansion was to have bridged Stout treet in connecting to Currigan, with an underground parking for 6, 000 cars, and landscaped open spaces on the oof. Like in two previous proposals, this plan was found nferior to a Denver Union Terminal plan in 1983, very J1ossibly due to high construction costs, structural problems, nd operational impacts that would have been encountered. rench and Co./Hensel Phelps Construction Co. (see Attachment is the site-apparent for new convention facilities in as of this writing. This proposal was selected by the rban Land Institute (ULI) over proposals that incorporated ther sites, as will be shown. Not dissimilar to the other sites listed, the French plan would utilize primarily private lands to the south of Currigan, between Stout and l1elton Streets, 14th and 12th Streets. This initial proposal alled for constructing over California, and possibly Stout treets. Even though design and conceptual problems were pparent in this proposal, the ULI selected this site over he "Golden Triangle" and "Colorado Gateway" proposals due to its central location within the CBD, and close elation to existing convention facilities and hoteljretail oncentrations. Although all design considerations have not }jet been finalized, it appears as though California, 13th, and 12th Streets will be entirely closed to traffic to this structure at grade. Initial plans called :fior the Center to be built over the road which would have 1reated design problems and increased the cost. Stout Street ay be left open, if primarily for service access, and will robably be spanned by walkways connecting the new 'Colorado onvention Center' to Currigan Exhibition Hall. ltnalysis of the Silver Triangle convention site, utilizing I . . . t Jelve cr1ter1a developed, 1s as follows: OBD Reinforcements and Connections: may be considered one of main determinants in the ULI selection of this site. : 1The Silver Triangle lies within the downtown core, and by tihis virtue, a convention center located in this area offers (VI-5)

PAGE 83

2 • ) 3 • ) 4.) t l e best opportunities for reinforcing the CBD," so states ULI. 2 The ST is the most central, and established, of the s [tes they analyzed in its near proximity to the 16th Street M bll and existing convention facilities. Perceived weakness ih the middle of the Mall will be, theoretically, bolstered the selection of this site. A bcess: is provided mainly from Speer Boulevard, Colfax, and Street. Most conventioneers, unfamiliar with the city, most likely utilize I-25 in accessing the CBD. Interchanges at Speer, Lawrence (soon to be the Auraria , and Colfax, are approximately two miles from the s lite. Although traffic volumes become excessive at times on tJpe connecting streets, the additional volume produced by cEbnvention-generated automobiles should not overwhelm their c pacity. Service trucks, however, the volume of which will v ry by event and, thus, cannot be totally anticipated for, have a tendency to inhibit normal traffic patternse;specially on Speer and 14th Street. This fact may be if on-site truck holding areas are well-conceived. ST site is impacted by hourly restrictions that presently the times tractor/semi-trailers can make deliveries. A permit from the Public Works Department is required between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. within the central downtown core, of w ich the ST is considered a part, "and has, on occasion, limited trucks arriving in peak traffic hours."3 Jarking: is satisfactorily provided for with all ST roposals, but land cost and availability constraints allow or little leeway. The French plan allows for only 258 onsite parking spaces, but is augmented by shared parking acilities with the 1,700 space DCPA garage, and on-street ossibilities, as follows: public parking spaces: 5 minute walk 5,000 spaces public parking spaces: 10 minute walk 8,900 spaces public parking spaces: total available-21,000 spaces4 arking will not be in abundance, but should prove to be dequate for the near term. T 1raffic: impact is very difficult to anticipate accurately to the extreme variances generated by different types and izes of events. The ST location does adequately meet levels etermined necessary, as follows: weekend peak hour traffic: weekday peak hour traffic: 1,500 cars per hour 500 cars per hours5 traffic impacts and future patterns will be by final design and what streets will be closed or redirected. (VI-6)

PAGE 84

5. ) 6. ) 7. ) 8. ) nand: The most recent ST project, as envisioned, requires tihe acquisition of 62 parcels, 22 improved and 40 unimproved, a total area of 25.4 acres. Of this, 11.2 privately-9wned acres are to be acquired, 7 . 8 acres are in public lights-of-way, and 6.4 acres are occupied by existing urrigan Hall facilities. Seven separate owners control over 6 percent of the private parcels. This area had extremely igh property values during the oil boom of the early 1980's, nd, "land assembly costs for a new convention center during period would have been prohibitive."6 Indeed, only four ago, the ST property would have cost up to $210 per square foot, for a total cost as much as $90 million.7 In today's depressed local economy, land values have fallen and the area in question is considered in the $61.00 to $72.00 per square foot region, a total cost of $31 to 35 million. Hotels: mentioned earlier as a primary factor in the success of any convention center shows the ST site as preferable to other sites in this regard. The majority of existing Hotels are within a few minutes walking time of the ST site. Additionally, this location would be "the least dependent the simultaneous opening of a headquarters hotel, -9ecause of the existing available supply of rooms within Ijeasonable walking distance. In the meanwhile, the new center at Silver Triangle would be generating for the existing downtown hotels, allowing development of a headquarters hotel when the market need has established."8 Poor market conditions in Denver account the low (approximately fifty percent) occupancy rates in owntown hotels present, which makes it difficult to ustify new hotel construction until found to be warranted by he new cc. Jelationshi to Urban Amenities: other than hotels, amenities ost likely to be utilized by conventioneers are services, estaurants, entertainment, and retail shops. (See ttachment 6-5.) Services and shops are found throughout the OBD, but are concentrated in greater abundance on the 16th Mall, and areas within reasonable distance of the ST :'jite. Additionally, the ST site has the true benefit of )::)eing adjacent to existing convention facilities, and the gcPA (Boettcher Concert Hall, Theatre Complex, and Auditorium 'I]heatre) which will be utilized by conventioneers. The centrality of this site makes it convenient in utilizing many acilities throughout the CBD. (See Attachment 6-5.) uildin Desi n and Function: although out of the scope of my esearch in a detailed form, the ST site can be aesthetically nd functionally pleasing if well-conceived. A primary qonstraint to virtually all of the proposed designs for this are present road configurations. The initial French plan entailed building over the roads on-site which would onsiderably raise the costs, make for awkward pedestrian (VI-7)

PAGE 85

9.) 10.) create potential safety concerns. "The Center is cramped by its tight downtown site that it may not be the 'world class' hall officials say they want. The you enter the building through a tunnel . . . it's not tihe modicum of hospitality you look for in a project like "9 The Center, once constructed, may be very visually from the rear andjor Speer Boulevard, but not :Particularly from the main entrance on 14th street ( ie. , Denver Post loading facilities, although now largely unused, Jre directly across the street). Jmpacts on Residential Neighborhoods: are minimal here, in tthe classical sense, but it must be acknowledged that the greatest share of low-income residents in the CBD live within confines of the ST site, and will consequently be displaced. "The proposed ST site which appears to contain dnly vacant lots and low-density blighted buildings disrupts rto neighborhood, but actually may offer an opportunity for tthe creation of a new one in town . . . the few residents to ; 1e displaced offers Denver, in fact, the opportunity to rovide something better for those citizens, perhaps in a new RO (single room occupancy) project modeled on successful projects in Seattle or Los Angeles. "10 I feel this belief diminishes the importance of displacing these residents, in no such relocation plans have reached any level of certainty. "The people who live in those (Silver Triangle ttransient) hotels have no political clout. They're the weak :llink in the chain, and they always give," comments Bernie I • • • qones, Assoc1ate Professor of Urban and Reg1onal Plann1ng at tihe University of Colorado at Denver.ll 1vailability of Public Transit Connections: are few, as Rresently exists. Existing Regional Transportation District CRTD) bus routes serve the ST site, but by itself will prove ]nadequate in meeting the transit needs of the many thousands df the conventioneers anticipated. The 16th street Mall two blocks away, will most likely act as the primary ransi t source within the CBD --for any of the proposed ites. Fixed-rail transit, only in the planning stages in Denver, has included plans to directly service the ST site, difficulties in doing so are evident. Plans calling for California Street routing for rail transit are virtually eliminated by recent decisions on the French plan to build tihe structure at grade. Additionally, accessing this area of tihe CBD from existing historic rail corridors, as obtained by !he RTD, may be very intrusive to adjacent neighborhoods and ogistically and financially unfeasible. I disagree with the ontention that, "rail transit plans would, even if uilt, not become a major means of access to any of the reposed sites."l2 Connections from the airport, existing or (VI-8)

PAGE 86

11.) 12.) p roposed, will be inadequate if dependant only upon local taxi and/or car rental services. Obviously, if public t ansit services are inadequate between the airport and the C D, car rentals will have to increase, putting greater than anticipated on parking needs --which will a [ready be limited. Technical and Environmental Considerations: do not play a 3ajor role in the ST site. Water runoff and flooding pptential are minimized by past protective measures taken on Cperry Creek. Soil characteristics for this site, not unlike t pat which supports nearby skyscrapers, seems to be adequate and without any major problems. Hazardous materials are not an issue. c bnstruction Requirements and Imoacts: may have the most n gative implications for the ST site. Due to: large demolition requirements on site; the central location of the site, in relation to other CBD activities; and distance from highway, site can be expected to be a substantial impact on t l:affic, and daily operations of business concerns in the n far vicinity. Expansion, at a later date, may prove even Yet, the ULI decision favoring this site notes that, hese impacts (street closing, excavation, traffic, and ise) are in the panel's view typical for any major downtown construction and will last for a relatively short time," and " re not considered determents in the selection process.n13 III. Golden Triangle "Golden Triangle" (GT) convention site is bounded by Broad ay and Cherokee Streets, 13th and 11th Avenues. Like the Triangle," this property lies within a larger, triangularshaped neighborhood, and has no connections with anything geologic. This site has close proximity to many government buildi gs and is very near the "Civic Center" area of Denver (see Attachment 6-6). Al Cohen Construction Company developed the sole propos,al for this site, and was within days of signing final (VI-9)

PAGE 87

negoti tions with the City when the "last-minute" Colorado Gateway 1 was submitted for study. This act, subsequently, d the competition, which ultimately led to the Urban Land te's choice of yet a third site, the "Silver Triangle," as the prl ferred area. The GT site was given much credence, in 1984, when a ralyzed as the premier CC location by consultants, Thompson, Ventulbtt, Stainback, and Assoc. of Atlanta, but was persistently dogge by doubts from many different concerns at the local level. The urban design implications, by locating on one of Denver's major Broadway, and on a peripheral edge to the CBD insteaf of in the center, both fostered controversy as to "how we want the City to develop." lalysis of the Golden Triangle convention site, utilizing the t j lelve criteria developed, is as follows: 1. Central Business District (CBD) Reinforcements and cbnnections: the proponents of this site touted its location on the Broadway corridor, and being near many public as being excellent in reinforcing downtown. "The of a convention center in that spot would bring B foadway back to the prominence it once had in Denver . . . the revitalization of a major road in Denver would creep uth," stated columnist Woody Paige.14 In actuality, being veral blocks to the side of one end of the 16th Street 11, and on one of Denver's largest thoroughfares (which to be one-way, leading away from the CBD), combine to this site anything but reinforcing, in this student's e ftimation. The required walking distance between the CBD a t d a Golden Triangle cc may not be as direct or pleasurable a suggested, and conventioneers would be more inclined to s end their "free" time away from the CBD. 2.) A cess: the GT site would be adjacent to, or very near, three of Denver's major transportation corridors (Broadway, Colfax, Seer), and vehicular access to this site from I-25/Stapleton airport can be considered relatively "direct." Not being on the 45 degree angle that the majority of the CBD is on may to be a positive feature for the newly-arrived c fnventioneer. Although truck deliveries are not in need of permit here, as with the Silver Triangle, the narrow width of t e surrounding avenues may have a negative impact on their (VI-10)

PAGE 88

3. ) 4. ) se of access to loading bays. Pedestrian access is but subject to safety concerns posed by the heavy volumes of surrounding streets. This fact is e lspecially acute considering the heavy emphasis placed on lis "pedestrian connection" to the CBD. arking: is a major point of contention with the GT site. ; 1 esently, the undeveloped site serves as parking area for e adjacent city and County building (courts), Police adquartersjjail, the main library, and the art museum. The ertire vicinity is known for its limited parking availability c'lj'uring business hours. Conversely, non-business hours and fekends show this area as being semi-deserted. The lacement of a mega-structure on this site would: eliminate existing parking badly needed by the other uses, generate its own parking needs, thereby intensifying the need, and force parking areas to be farther away, with greater impacts on surrounding areas. Cohen produced a parking analysis of the area, conducted consultants Felsburg, Holt, and Ullevig, finding a need of only 1,560 spaces on the busiest weekday, with a total of 2 1,045 spaces available within a five-minute walk from the site.15 Discrepancies soon appeared as to these numbers, as if was discovered the study counted spaces that would not actually be available for CC use. As the City was not fanning to construct a parking garage for this site, the pact on surrounding streets, especially residential, may be ry negative. has direct and indirect connections to "access" and at this site. Most access will probably come from I r25 via Colfax Avenue, both of which should be capable of apcommodating the increased traffic. In the near vicinity of GT site, however, traffic problems could be considerable. Maintenance Consultants, Inc. considered the nations consultants on designing buildings for smooth (truck) flow, studied the GT proposal and noted the following plroblem areas: "northbound trucks on Cherokee Street will have to swing into southbound traffic in order to negotiate a right turn into the service entrance." "trucks exiting the service area and heading northbound on Cherokee will have to swing into southbound traffic in order to negotiate a right turn." "columns located in the turn-around area will make 360 degree turns very difficult, if not impossible." (VI-11)

PAGE 89

5. ) 6. ) 7. ) congestion which will be created by the current design will increase exhibit set-up and knock-down time and negatively affect the income generating potential of the convention center." (emphasis added)16 Apditionally, the intersection(s) of Broadway/Lincoln/Speer; 6 t h Avenue, close to the GT site, all converge together and c E n become 'gridlocked' during the rush hours. This junction ir,; considered the 'worst' in the City, and to make matters worse, will soon undergo a series of construction P [oj ects to replace bridges there. Governor Romer showed stating, "there's no way we should put a convention c Enter where we would cripple the traffic flow in this city. Ypu show me, can you expand Broadway, Lincoln, Speer? I dbn't believe so.n17 rind: The GT project will require the acquisition of 76 for a total of 25.8 acres --19.3 privately held acres, and 6.5 acres in the public right-of-way. Al Cohen control of 22 of the 76 parcels, representing 61 percent o the privately held land. Total acquisition costs of the p ivate land is estimated at $35 million, or approximately 75 per square foot.18 The private land that is not c ntrolled by Cohen is owned by more than forty businesses, p rtnerships, and individuals. "Obviously, it is more time c nsuming and more complicated," said City attorney, Steve aplan, speaking at the negotiation process.19 Additionally, t ere was a wide discrepancy in what different parties feel t e land is actually worth. "Land owners there feel, on the o e hand, city assessments are set high to derive the most t b x benefit, while on the other hand, the City's land office i b using extremely devalued appraisals to get the best b rrgain on the convention center land.n20 H btels: are located within a few minutes walking time of the site. The Radisson, Colorado's largest hotel, and very ppssibly the designated headquarters hotel for wherever the i is located, is closest to the GT of all proposed sites. hen has also proposed the construction of a new hotel thin the Triangle, probably farther south on Broadway. It ght be noted that Al Cohen has a financial interest in the disson Hotel. R lationshi to Urban Amenities: is somewhat more distant f om the GT than was the case with the ST. As the most types of amenities conventioneers would use are located in the p oximity of the Mall, a GT cc would make accessing said a benities more difficult. Broadway has retail and service businesses, of course, but they are not in as as within the urban core. There is no doubt that a CC at this location would spur growth on Broadway, and this would, in effect, draw business away from the CBD. (VI-12)

PAGE 90

8.) 9.) B ilding Design and function: is difficult for this student analyze, as the specification book for the GT site was not to the public. I can say that when the proposal close to entering final negotiations with the City, it h d reached the highest design level that any CC proposal has since currigan was built. In fact, when the Urban Land I rstitute designated the ST as the optimal spot, it was s ggested to an interested City Council that the use of the Cohen design could be transferred to the new site. Councilman Bob Crider commented, "You'd have the best site a d the best convention center could build . . . it would eally speed up the process." The French team has since adequately proven to City Council that they should be able to pesent their own design. The Cohen plan was a 300,000 s are foot exhibit area, with a 35,000 square foot ballroom, a d 65,000 square feet of meeting rooms and other ancillary s , ace --large enough to accommodate up to 25,000 people. It Wlf1 uld cover three city blocks, bounded by Broadway, Cherokee, 13th and 12th Avenues, and that is just Phase One. Phase Two e visioned an expansion to 11th Avenue. Impacts on Residential neighborhoods: would be the greatest of all CC sites proposed. The GT site, at present, is minated by small businesses, parking lots and a few These uses would, obviously, be displaced with the location of a cc here, but would also impact other areas the GT with a more residential character. It would, t p a degree, affect some of the same hispanic community that had been earlier driven from Auraria. The businesses have erated in a very tentative fashion for several years, due the uncertainties of if, and when, they might have to ve. Business owner Dick Winegar stated, "There's no reason get mad. But it's going to be rough. We've had a good going and now we have to move. It's going to be like starting over. n22 Possibly the most tragic result of a CC in the GT would be the eventual demolition of the E l ans School, a vacant building on the National Register of H tstoric Places at the corner of 11th and Acoma. Under plans Cohen, the school land would not be used for the 'Phase of the project, but would probably be cleared later for p rking andjor 'Phase Two' construction.23 Despite character f agmentation of the GT area, the Denver Partnerships " owntown Area Plan" envisions 2,000-3,000 housing units eventually, acknowledging its historical residential c aracter.24 Where impacts on residential neighborhoods w uld be greatest is east of Broadway, a still-thriving residential community. (VI-13)

PAGE 91

10.) 11.) 12.) of Public Transit: would be possible due to its existing bus services here would lead Enhanced connections to scheduled of course, be developed, as could shuttle Mall and hotels. A fixed-guideway routing has been proposed for Broadway, but does not appear i ' ediately probable in lieu of other corridors. T lchnical and Environmental Considerations: are of minimal ? pncern here, as no problems with soils, flooding, or materials are apparent. Water runoff from wrstward-sloping residential neighborhoods east of Broadway, wpuld not pose significant problems in providing for storm d!rainage. c bnstruction Reauirements and Imoacts: would be moderate for GT site, as much of the land is already cleared. Of course, displaced businesses and homeowners would suffer the impacts, as would the demolition of Evans School. trucks, although a definite impact on surrounding and roadways, will have less of a job, with more route options, than will those for the ST site. I IV. Colorado Gateway: The Colorado Gateway (CG) CC proposal, a late-entry plan which !subsequently re-opened the site analysis process in Denver, was by Philip Anschutz and the Denver and Rio Grande WesteJ Railroad Co. (D&RGW). (See Attachment 6-7.) The CG site is locr:ated slightly away from the CBD, in the Central Platte Valley, and is between the South Platte River and the new Auraria Parkwa (Walnut Street Viaduct). The site has both strengths and ses, as will be discussed, but undeniably offers an tive concept to other proposed downtown sites. Submitted just days before final contract negotiations were to be signed betweeh Al Cohen and the City, the proposal generated enough intereb t within official circles to halt the on-going proceedings. Claims! that Anschutz used his status as being the richest man in Colorado and most powerful Republican, to get his proposal (VI-14)

PAGE 92

officially recognized at a late date, are probably valid --but unsubJtantiated and inconsequential. "Unfortunately, the need to I carefully structure a complicated proposal and the responsibility to thlroughly analyze it are necessary private sector constraints which cannot always be conformed to the timing of public sector processes," rationalizes the CG camp.25 Jhe analysis using the twelve criteria developed, offers the opporJunity to examine the alternative concepts this plan entails, as fo+ ows: 1. ) CBD Reinforcements and Connections: are in question due to the location of approximately one mile from the CBD. One inschutz aide calls the proposal "a master development plan, rtot just a convention center. n26 Proponents stress the rtotion that, more than being a separate entity into itself, tlheir proposal would spur growth in the Central Platte ialley, and would reinforce the CBD in a superior fashion to tihe other sites. Connections, by means of proposed walkways shuttle services, would be greatly enhanced compared to tihe barren property that exists there presently. A parkway, connecting the site to Larimer Square via tihe Tivoli and the Auraria Campus, was planned. Although the plans of greater reinforcements and connections are noble, it this students' contention that this lack of direct to the CBD combined with too many anci l lary Ijequirements necessary to make it work, convinced the ULI that this was not the best site. However, had this concept for a cc been approved, I further believe tihat the resources and the integrity of the Anschutz team Jould have been committed to its success. They pledged $40 niillion in additional "spinoff" improvements for the Central Valley.27 2.) is the best for this site of all proposals. The new Parkway and Walnut Street Viaduct, adjacent to the CG gives direct and immediate outbound access to 25. Inbound access is presently easily afforded y Lawrence Street from I-25, and will eventually be wellerviced by the new Speer Viaduct connection, that will soon constructed. Additionally, this site has direct proximity 't!O proposed rail and bus corridors that run through the Oentral Platte Valley. "The Gateway site's access has not questioned because there is little to question; access tlhere is excellent," said Bob Leigh, Anschutz's traffic <1onsultant.28 (VI-15)

PAGE 93

3 • ) 4. ) 5.) 6. ) 7. ) Parkin : capability is also in greater abundance here than in e ther the ST or GT sites. There is more vacant land a 1 ailable than would actually be utilized for the cc, much of Anschutz already owns. The possibilities for shared p rking are also the best at this site, being adjacent to Auraria and Tivoli lots, but primarily through being djirectly across I-25 from expansive lots surrounding Mile !fgh Stadium and McNichols Arena. There presently exists a bridge that affords this connection. T6affic: would impact the CBD the least at the CG site. Both a rutomobile and truck traffic would be kept away from the u lrban core, where traffic is a problem and would thus pose 1 l ss safety concerns for conventioneers. The ease of access t the CG site, with straightforward vehicular connections, uld allow both private and service vehicles to reach their spective destinations on-site with comparative ease. IJand: availability in the Central Platte Valley is without question. The issue of cost however, vis-a-vis the assessed of the land, and alleged claims of profiteering, became negative factor for the CG proposal. The project would quire the assemblage of 13 parcels of land, seven of which e controlled by Anschutz --representing 73 percent of the tal land needed. The total area comprises 32.33 acres, 2 !6.54 acres being held, with 5.79 acres being in tihe public rights-of-way.2 Although Anschutz has specified tihe land costs to be the equivalent of $19.32 per square f l1oot, opponents pointed out that he had paid as little as $7.26 a square foot for much of the same property not long before. Keep in mind, the $19.32 figure is less than onethe GT land costs, and less than one-third of the ST and costs. otels: of the CBD are from one and one-half miles to almost tro miles from the CG site, and due to their importance in meeting planning, were found to be a major drawback to this p lroposal. As a counter-measure, $5 million of the proposed $40 million in additional improvements pledged by Anschutz, was to go to funding the construction of a new headquarters otel on adjacent properties. The comparatively limited access to the other hotel space available, in the CBD, would s ill be an issue, and certainly pointed out by these existtng otel interests. "Hotel development is demand driven. T erefore Gateway has much greater potential because of many 1 eople generators like I-25, sports complex, and nearby shopping and entertainment centers," rationalizes the p oponents.30 R!elationship To Urban Amenities: at the CG site is more p iroposed than existing. The distance from the CBD 1 s c1oncentration of most often utilized amenities would be to overcome for the CG site. Theorizing that many conventioneers will be staying at hotels within the CBD, this (VI-16)

PAGE 94

8. ) 9. ) 10.) 11.) is partly resolved. The promised $40 million in dditional improvements was largely introduced to satisfy is criteria, through developing the Central Platte Va lley a "people place," including enticing Elitch's Amusement ark to the Valley. Presently in the midst of residential orthwest Denver, Elitch's is looking to relocate and has interest in the possibilities of doing so in the CPV. "The Vision," CG' s conceptual plan, states, "In the future, ateway will act as a catalyst, helping create a new and amusement complex, an unprecedented 1ransportation corridor, and even more retail stores, estaurants, hotels and commercial business, all in the enter of historic Denver.n31 never reached the level of etail that had been attained by the GT site. The proposed by renowned I.M. Pei and Associates, was a semiriangular, or "crystalline," floorplan. The awkwardness of 1everal triangular exhibit halls, as designed, was proclaimed opponents. Proponents, however, felt that "I.M.Pei's qoncept for [this] convention center provides Denver with a but powerful building that reflects the grandeur of Rockies and the boldness of this City on the Plains. It timeless design; its geometry and its symmetry give it trength and lend it beauty. It is a design worthy of its ocation at the 'gateway' to Colorado.n32 mpacts on/from Residential Neighborhoods: would not have a bearing for this site. The nearest residential is to the west of the 'Sports Complex'. These are severely impacted by traffic from sporting events, It would feel little, if any, impact of any type from a CC cated at this site. No displacements would occur. ailabilit of Public Transit: is limited at this outlying ite at the present, but represents a major tenent in the "master plan" of which the cc is the catalyst. adjacent to rail corridors, which Anschutz controls hrough his ownership of the D&RGW railroad, his overall roposal include plans for direct servicing of the cc, and by a fixed-guideway system that he would expedite. Ajdditionally the CG conceptual plan "links" the cc with the 9Ports complex to the west, and the Mall to the east, via a monorail. Unfortunately, the cost and logistics of creating comprehensive transit network as envisioned, is even beyond financial and political abilities of Philip Anschutz. re likely would be the necessity of establishing an tensive shuttle bus service, to provide these links into e indefinite future. echnical and Environmental Considerations: are many with site, but not particularly insurmountable. The primary negative factor, as touted by opponents, is the adjacency of tlhe site to the Platte River. The site sits in the flood (VI-17)

PAGE 95

12.) p [ain, which poses complicated legal and bureaucratic I ' obstacles before construct1on could proceed. Downtown Denver whs extremely prone to flooding prior to flood control mkasures instituted on both Cherry Creek and the South Platte The risks are greatly reduced now, partly due to a etions taken after the extensive June, 1965, flood. Hpwever, City codes still require 'floodproofing', which Aeschutz has proposed doing by locating the center on six feet of fill dirt. This measure would force water onto properties though, which would be unacceptable if npt planned for. This sole factor could necessarily require an extensive review process, to analyze the flooding p ptential, and the development of a comprehensive plan for tne subsequent development of the remainder of the Valley. A rditional obstacles to overcome in this criteria may be in special foundation precautions necessary when building on soils; the fact that the Platte Valley has the worst a r pollution in the City; and lastly, in that hazardous m terials are transported through Denver daily, on the very adjacent to this site. Requirements and Impacts: would be few, as compared to either the ST or GT sites. However, if six feet fill dirt would be the only means of constructing on this s'te, many truck-trips would be generated. Otherwise there is little demolition necessary, and construction-related v rhicles would be able to enter and exit the site easily from I-25, without impacting the CBD whatsoever. c. Union Station T r e "Union station" (US) cc site proposal (see Attachment 6-8) had a tumultuous history and was, unfortunately, not among lthe recent proposals analyzed by the Urban Land Institute. I am rot suggesting that the site would have been analyzed as to the others, but it would have been interesting to see h j w the ULI would have judged it. As noted in my 'thesis proposll' (Chapter One), I believe that the last design proposed for t his site would have been an excellent choice, but the I proposal was defeated at referendum in October 1985. My thesis proposll, advocating a Union Station-vicinity site, entails (VI-18}

PAGE 96

the original concept. Analyzing this site against criteria, as will be done shortly, is intended to also thesis contention, as well as review past actual The US site has had two separate proposals suggested, briefly described: 1.) Tre first, a plan by the consortium of SOCMA/BA capital orrp./ Realities, Inc. envisioned a CC directly contiguous to Union Station terminal, presently still used by Amtrak. (See Attachment 6-9.) This scheme would: 2 • ) l retain the existing Union Station as the historic lobby entrance for both the new cc and a new hotel. Wings of the station would become retail and office space, build a stair-stepped 1,000 room hotel behind the us, construct the CC above the existing railroad tracks behind the hotel, extending a full three blocks for 3,000 cars, and rail commuter rail platforms for future service33 is location may have become reality if negotiations had not I oken down in September of 1983. 'Ere second proposal, by Mile High Land Associates/Glacier Bark/Miller, Davis, Klutznik, Gray, was passed by City ouncil in early 1985 on a split decision. (See Attachment 6-10.) The initial proposal entailed: construction of a CC to the immediate west of US, in Central Platte Valley, an extended 16th Street Mall, which would be below a raised 16th Street concourse that would run for three blocks west of Wynkoop, and a HQ hotel where Postal facilities are at present, the raised concourse.34 Department Terminal Annex and connected to the cc via second design, to better facilitate the extension of the 6th Street Mall, moved the convention center north of the all, (with the main entrance fronting on the Mall) maintaining the same distance between the CC and US terminal. (VI-19)

PAGE 97

1 is this design that most closely resembles my thesis droposal. Despite the simplification and improvement in the design, opponents forced this site to referendum in October 1 f 1985 --and it was defeated. ]he following is an analysis of this basic site proposal, using the twelve criteria developed: 1. ) BD Reinforcements and Connections: has been hotly debated or this site. Some feel the site is too far removed from 2. ) 3. ) 4. ) 5. ) he CBD, and yet, in reality, this area was the CBD in Denver the 1950's. Union Station was a beehive of activity during the heyday of train transportation. My contention is this site is still connected to the CBD, as it is only tihree city blocks from the west end of the 16th Street Mall. distance is simply not that great, and connections could re-established relatively easily. As the Central Platte behind Union Station, has only been cleared for development within the last decade or so, the issue of this area is also comparatively recent. "It's a asset of the town that had been more or less overlooked," said landowner Jack Weil.35 ccess: to the US/CPV site, as presently exists, is poor. ihis may partially account for the ignorance of many people s to what development actually exists there. This is argely due to the viaducts that span the Valley from the est, and do not enter the downtown core for several more locks to the east. Lower downtown, the historic area Larimer and Wynkoop, is somewhat inaccessible, but '1he Central Platte Valley behind US is very difficult to each --due to existing land uses, including viaduct lacement. Most people are only familiar with this area when ooking down on it when driving over the viaducts. arkin : due to an abundance of vacant land that once was o1ccupied by railroad switching yards, necessary provisions adjacent at-grade parking could be easily achieved. 'Ilraffic: would not be an impact for other areas of the core, in that the site offers relatively close oximity to highway access, and would be subject to provement when road revisions are accomplished. Jand: cost is one of the most beneficial aspect to any site in this locale. The proposal that was defeated at had land costs of only $9.00 per square foot, and the time would have represented a $15 million savings in quisition over the $45.00 per SqlJ.are foot GT site, and I ill more of a savings on a ST site.36 Today, the estimated oost of the land would probably be in the $15 to $20 per slquare foot range. This is still substantially less than l rnd costs of the other sites. (VI-20)

PAGE 98

6. ) 7.) 8. ) 9. ) 10.) 11.) H . tels: are only available in small amounts close to the s j i te. Most notable is the restored, 8 0 room, Oxford Hotel. The apparent need for hotel construction near a US site has been a problem area. Yet, extension of the Mall to us site would enable conventioneers direct shuttle between the CC and hotels throughout the CBD. land in the CPV would also enable construction of hotel facilities. Relationships to Urban Amenities: are few presently, but $uld be strongly bolstered by the extension of the 16th S reet Mall. Lower downtown, a depressed 22-block district f historic buildings, has the capability of becoming an area that would be well suited for the types of amenities required conventioneers. Additionally, as the CPV continued to be d!eveloped, amenities could be developed there (ie., amusement etc.) that would serve the visitors. bildin Desi n and Function: I believe was best approached the second design submitted by the Davis team. A cc on the Mall, with Mall shuttle service, is the ideal proach in this students' estimation. It avoids many tential negatives that may have been experienced with arlier, more complicated, designs. Simplicity with 1unctionality are the key components to modern CC success. Ib acts on from Residential Nei hborhoods: would have a inimal impact here as this land has only been historically as railyards. The nearest residential neighborhoods, tlhe Highlands, are across the viaducts to the west. They voiced concern over potential traffic problems that may ! generated by CPV redevelopment, but with proper planning, st impacts, including traffic, could be directed the other rection --towards the CBD. ailability of Public Transit: would be excellent with the s1xtension of the Mall and corresponding shuttle service. the site is adjacent to Amtrak rail lines, and ould be connected to eventual fixed guideway service --the orridors of which meet in this locale. Bus service the CBD can easily be integrated into this site. Jechnical and Environmental Considerations: are a factor in tihe redevelopment of the CPV. The US site is on the edge of Platte R1ver floodplain, but by most accounts would not oe unduly affected as would the CG site. The site does have relatively high water table, any ill-effects of which could negated by appropriate engineering techniques. Opponents f the US proposal used the issue of hazardous materials assing through the CPV on trains, as a major tenent in their s1uccessful campaign in defeating the proposal. I do see this a problem, considering the Centers close proximity to the lines. However, I view this as a City-wide problem that must be dealt with, and not a problem localized to this site. (VI-21)

PAGE 99

12.) Construction Requirements and Impacts: would be minimal, Cfmsidering the peripheral nature of the site, and close p oximity to highway access points. III. Conclusion I l should be apparent, by the preceding section, that each of the s ttes have positive and negative aspects. By virtue of analysi s using twelve criteria, there is doubtfully any situation, nationride, that would be perfectly cognizant of all issues. I originrlly tried to assign a valuejpoint system when comparing the sites. This soon proved infeasible due to being prone to 'd ltl .. f 1 JU grne r a ass1gn1ng o va ues. My thesis contention, soon to be addresbed in Chapter Seven, I believe to be most cognizant of the many i sues and opportunities that exist in Denver, however. In brief summation, the major strengths and weaknesses of Denverl's four major site proposals are as follows: 1.) Triangle: S rengths: location in the heart of the CBD adjacency to existing cc facilities/shared parking close proximity to existing hotels close proximity to other properties that are considered for urban renewal closest to majority of urban existing amenities of all sites Weaknesses: -access constraints, which may entail future traffic problems limited expansionability "cramped" location displacement of residents considerable construction impacts (VI-22}

PAGE 100

2.) 3. ) 4 • ) Golden Triangle: Jtrengths: advanced stage in design/planning comparatively good access reasonable land costs minimal environmental concerns eaknesses: -poor reinforcement and connection to CBD potential severe parking, traffic problems moderate relationship to urban amenities impacts on neighborhoods aolorado Gatewav: I Strengths: access parking traffic land availability, cost little impact on neighborhoods potential public transit connections minimal construction impacts eaknesses: -CBD reinforcements and connections lack of proximity to nearby hotels Station: removed from majority of urban existing amenities location in flood plain being part of a larger issue the development of the Central Platte Valley trengths: potential CBD reinforcements, connections, "spin-off" generation parking capability traffic land availability, cost potential relationship to urban amenities building design, function possibilities few neighborhood impacts public transit connection possibilities few construction impacts eaknesses: -existing CBD reinforcements, connections lack of proximity to existing hotels existing relationship to urban amenities technical and environmental considerations (VI-23)

PAGE 101

reas J felt unable to compar e the sites o n a value basis, I developed a matrix which graphically describes and evaluates each proposal using the twelve criteria. This is done, however, using no assignation of values to the criteria thems lves, but rather, analyzing each site without bias. The natur l tendency to weight the selection process i n favor o f certal n criteria (i.e. hotels), would negate the importance that place on meeting the criteria as a "package'; as well as being arbitrary. On the following page (VI-25) is the matrix referled to that graphically highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the different sites, and concludes that the Union Station sites (including my thesis, which will be detailed better in chapter VII) are generally superior to the othe sites examined, a s follows: (VI-24)

PAGE 102

Sllf I< f Y ro ANALYSIS : ([ CENTER I . b /,.,.11, : poor ( p•;,..h) ANALY51S 1 . 0 tG.ir ( 0 rrl; .. h) l. 0 : ( + 2 r; .. 'f .• : ( ll CfJI(rft ( f If ph) -----I ---PRof>O SILVER &oLDEN VNION l11ESIS CRIT R\A TRIANC1LE &ATEWAY (ftv. 5\n.) I. ,REI NF P.CfMfiiiTS T ! CON E CTIOI\IS 0 I Ac I 0 e i z I 3. PA TRA FFI C. e e I ! I I i LA I 0 0 e I I I I i 5. b . I I I l 1-\(11 I 0 0 ELS I I I ! I I .. I RUAT 0N5HJP I 0 r/!1) TO 0 i AMqNITJES i I w 0 I AND 0 I FVJ'/C I ON i i 0 0 I RfSI EN11Al N , , r . 1. P V&LIC. 0 0 @ I CONr I 10. 0 C.ONS11 EMTIOW5 0 II. !ONSt•GTtO>J 0 0 0 P.ESVIt. ENT'i • I OVEI\ALL oveAALL OVERALL SGORE 5COitE + '" +c. t ILJ + 40 t 28' RANKIN&: 3 RANK1Nf1: 5 RANKIN& : 4 2. AANKIN&: CD (VI-25)

PAGE 103

CHAPI'ER VI BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Kj_lly Introduction !!/Rosenburg, "An Evaluation of Proposals and Selection For The Colorado Center," Urban Land Institute, (Washington, D.C.), August 1987, 9. 2. "An Evaluation of Proposals and Site Selection for the Colorado Convention Center," Urban !Land Institute, (Washington, D.C.), August 1987. 3. "An Evaluation of Proposals and Site Selection for ti:he Colorado Convention Center," Urban Land Institute, (Wash'ngton, D.C.), August 1987, 2. 4 . F:qench and Co., "The Colorado Convention Center Briefing Book,', transportation report (derived from Frayer Consultants, Downtdwn Denver Parking Study, May, 1987), 22 October 1987, 8. 5. D lLeuw, Cather, and Co., "Convention Center Access Requi11ements," (prepared for the City and County of Denver), May 1987, Table B. 6. T:qklajLand AcquisitionjWelsch, "An Evaluation of Proposals and Site Selection For the Colorado Convention Center," Urban Land Institiute, (Washington, D.C.), August 1987, 3. 7. S j lzanne Weiss, "Land for Center Could Cost $210 Per Square Foot,' Rocky Mountain News, 7 December 1983, 10. 8. M 1CarthyjRelationships-UrbanjDepperschmidt, "An Evaluation of Proposals,"2 9. Delsohn, "Crucial Design Flaws Plague Convention Center Proje t," Denver Post, 21 October 1987, 8. 10. :urberjimpact-NeighborhoodsjRosenburg, "An Evaluation of Center," Urban Land Institute, (Washington, D.C.), August 1987, 3. 11.Mi e Anton, "Progress Leaves No Room at Inn for Poor," Rocky Mountdin News, 13 September 1987, 8. 12.EaJerjAccesspk, "An Evaluation of Proposals and Site Selection for lhe Colorado Convention Center," Urban Land Institute, (Wash'ngton, D.C.), August 1987, 4. 13. egenhardtjVarioius InsertsjRosenburg, "An Evaluation of Propo,1als and site Selection for the Colorado Convention Center," Urban Land Institute, (Washington, D.C.), August 1987, 4 (VI-26 )

PAGE 104

14. oody Paige, "Unconventional," Denver Post, 24 October 1984, p. 2A. 15. ]oni H. Blackman, "Putting on the Glitz: Conventions Hue 'Gold n"," Denver Post, 15 May 1987, p. lB. 16. 'Politics of Selecting Center Site Runs Counter to Fair Evaluation" Rocky Mountain News, 11 June 1987, 56. I 17. KR.MA-Channel 6, "State of Colorado," 15 May 1987. 18. JrklajLand AcquisitionjWelsch, "An Evaluation of Proposals and Selection for The Colorado Convention Center,: Urban Land (Washington, D.C.) August 1987, 3. 19. Kowalski, "Golden Triangle Land Cost May Delay Convention Center," Denver Post, 23 June 1986, p. 9A. 20. 'Triangle Owners Want Better Deal: City's Condemnation Offer Far B ,low Reassessed Value," Up the Creek, 26 June 1987, 4. 21. Kevin Flynn, "Use of Cohen Design on New Site Urged," Rocky MountJin News, 2 September 1987, 8. 22. f1ike Anton, "Golden Triangle Businesses Cool to Convention Hall, ' 1 Rocky Mountain News, 25 April 1986, 6. 23. Kowalski, "Convention Center May Topple Landmark," Denven Post, 11 June 1986, p. 1. 24. Area Plan, "Denver Partnership and the City of Planning Office, 1986,28. 25. Vision: The Colorado Gateway Convention Center," Denver and Grande Western Railroad Co., April 1987, "Why Now?" 26. Ashton, "Rush to Judgement," Westward, 26 August 1987, 15. 27. Maples, "Anschutz Vows Millions for Platte Site," Rocky Mountain News, 25 August 1987, 1. 28. Jevin Flynn, "Need for Convention Shuttle Buses," Rocky Mountdin News, 17 April 1987, 11. I . . . . 29. rklajLand Acqu1s1t1onjWelsch, "An Evaluat1on. . . " 4. 30. 'The Vision:," Denver and Rio Grande, "Site Comparison" section. 31. 32. , JThe Vision:," Denver and Rio Grande, "A Gem in the Valley" Section. (VI-2 7 )

PAGE 105

33. Gail Pitts, "Union Station Redevelopment Plan Unveiled," Denver Post, 9 September 1982, 16A. 34. Blackman, "Planners Imagine a $137.4 Million Jewel," Denve Post, 6 October 1985, 1H. 35. 1ancy Weaver, "Businessman Sees Headache, Progress in New Cente Plans," Denver Post, 20 January 1985, 4A. 36. uzanne Weiss and Kevin Flynn, "Union Station Land Bid Beats Other 2 Sites by $15 Million," Rocky Mountain News, 10 January 1985, 1 (VI-28 }

PAGE 106

CHAPrER VII THESIS PROPOSAL I. Introduction II. Extenuating Circumstances and Land-Use Issues Pertinent to hesis III. Tenebs In This Proposal (VII-1)

PAGE 107

CHAPTER VII I. Introduction he superior site for the new "Colorado Convention Center," Demlver Colorado 1's at an extended 16th Street Mall Central in Platte Valley location. propoJal is not unlike the Mile iigh Land Associates, the i ortance of transit As I have previously stated, this last "Union Station" (US) proposal of but there is one critical difference: "linka es" within m I have inten ionally avoided associating my proposal with the "Union Stati n" namesake, due to any remaining negative connotations that may suill exist in the public eye after the referendum defeat of OctobJr, 1985. Also, previously mentioned, it is generally held that this loss at the polls was not due as much to the site propobal, but rather, the financing proposed, design uncerJainties, and a host of ancillary developments necessary that cast J shadow on the whole proposal. It is my belief that any 1 I . t t b t th t nega 1ve percep 1ons rema1n1ng a ou 1s s1 e, 1n parti lar, as well as development in general within the Central Valley {CPV), will relatively soon be dispelled due to unfol ing events which will reflect more positively upon the CPV's enthough recent developments have, apparently, signified a final ecision has now been made in favor of the ST, I would have liked to see the decision-making processes remain open. T here has been great emphasis on getting the cc built as soon as (VII-2)

PAGE 108

possible. This, in a pragmatic sense, can be justified due to the many that have already been spent on deciding this issue, as well s the potential revenues lost due to this indecision. As a CC in errelates heavily with many activities in a city, its impact In my estimation, it would be far preferable to spTnd the necessary extra time (and lose the corresponding revenues) to properly locate a cc, given the long-term it will have. I thesis proposal, detailed shortly, is very concerned with this eng-term relationship, and through reviewing the other makes me conclude that they are short-sighted and selfserv11 g 1n comparison. Each of the four site proposals reviewed was fiinancially backed by millionaires (if not billionaires) and was d irectly related to their respective land holdings and other financial interests (including US). Having no financial or polit'cal interests whatsoever in any of the site proposals, my in ten as a Denver-born urban planner, is to provide an alter ati ve proposal that I feel would be preferential for the city' long-term vitality. I firmly believe that, after conducting extensive research for this report, I would have developed this concept even if the US enjirons had never been previously considered. The potential for a truly outstanding "world class" facility is afforded by this site, especially when cognizant of "interrelated planning11 poten Since the referendum defeat of the actual US lan inde endent factors have that when together, serve to corroborate my theories. Referring to (VII-3)

PAGE 109

the ' jtrengths' and 'weaknesses' of the US proposal in the previous chapter, it could be argued that the relative merits of the s Jte, vis-a-vis the other proposals, would not make for an overwhrlming argument as to its superiority. This has now change6, in my estimation, and these factors or "extenuating circutances," that have progressed or developed anew, will be addres ed next. II. Extenuating Circumstances and Land-Use Issues Pertinent to Thesis A y uncertainties of the past US proposal, the "what ifs," as such, have in the past two years become more substantiated in reality. The following is a list of what I see as factors that will ,ave a direct bearing on my actual proposals, listed in the next srction: 1.) The Certain Eventuality of a "Fixed-Guideway" Mass Transit Nbtwork in the Denver-Metro Region: I the capability of the Regional Transportation (RTD} in constructing and operating such a system has been put to debate, and has been rejected three times in it can be argued that some form of mass transit ( 1 ther than traditional bus services) is justified. The proposed new airport, also an eventual certainty, will, most likely, be located farther east of the existing Stapleton facilities adjacent to Interstate 70. The present option of taking surface streets to the CBD from Stapleton (ie., Martin Luther King Boulevard) will cease to be an option with these new facilities. The use of the highway will certainly become the primary means of providing this connection. Shuttle and taxi services will not be able to serve this need alone. "The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) says that in the year 2000, just a little more than 12 years from now, some 72 million passengers a year will pass through Denver's new airport, making it the second busiest in (VII-4)

PAGE 110

the world."l This level of volume, great for developing the state's tourist potentials, also mandates a mass transit connection to handle the sizable proportion of those passengers that seek to come into the CBD. Due to having one of the highest autos per capita rate in the country, and thus, the world, as well as through certain climatic conditions that occur in the city, Denver has an air pollution problem that is only second behind Los Angeles. "Cleaning up Colorado's air is not solely an issue of protecting the public health. Air pollution affects the quality of our economy, the quality of our lives, and our state's future," states Senator Tim Wirth. 2 Measures such as "no-drive days" and wood-burning bans help somewhat, but real progress will not be made until serious steps are taken in developing mass transit. In this regard, the most serious attempts at developing the first segment of such a network has recently been initiated. House Bill (HB) 1249, was recently passed, and mandates the formation of a "Transit Construction Authority" that will oversee the development and management of the first leg of a "light rail" system-between the CBD and the 'Denver Tech Center' environs, approximately 18 miles to the south. (See Attachment 7-1.) The proposed corridor for this is nearly complete, from past RTD acquisitions, excepting for the final routing into the CBD. This spearheaded by DTC developer, George Wallace, is expecte d to cost $750 million, the majority of which will be borne by taxes imposed on businesses within one mile of the corridor. 2.) Road Im rovements --Pro osed and In-Pro ress: Governor Remers, being the state's former Treasurer, is very concerned with economic development and how it interrelates with other issues. One primary concern of Romer is the condition of the roadways statewide, which prompted a spending bill to upgrade and repair those roads especially in need of repair. Included in said plans are massive restructuring plans to the "Mousetrap" junction of Interstate 70 and Interstate 25, and the 6th Avenueji-25 interchange, among many other areas. These two particular plans have consequences for the entire Metro area, but especially in accessing the CBD --via the CPV and Lower Downtown. Related in theory, but not fiscally, the removal and/or replacement of viaducts leading from Interstate 25 into the CBD is now a reality. In progress and near completion, is the Walnut Street Viaduct, which will eventually completely replace the existing (VII-5)

PAGE 111

3. ) Lawrence/Larimer Streets configuration. This summarily turns into the 'Auraria Parkway', which will directly funnel traffic into Lower Downtown --onto Market and Blake Streets, with ties to 14th and 15th Streets. The Speer Viaduct, next to be considered, will replace the unsafe 14th Street outbound bridges, and refurbish the 13th Street inbound bridge. The 15th Street Viaduct will be shortened from its current 'touchdown' point at Blake Street in Lower Downtown to Wewatta Street in the CPV. The consolidation of the mainline railroad tracks has allowed this to happen. Eventually, the 16th Street Viaduct, connecting Lower Downtown to northwestern neighborhoods will be demolished, and not reflaced. The 20th Street Viaduct will follow soon after. It should be noted that the aging, and unsafe, condition of virtually all of these viaducts has led the City Engineer to publicly state that he will no longer personally travel over them! The urgency of replacing them must be considered paramount. success of the 16th Street Mall Has led to the commitments by the Denver Planning Office and the Denver Partnership, via the jointly-inspired "Downtown Area Plan, 11 to the extension of the Mall westward to Union Station and beyond --potentially the entire distance to the South Platte River. "In general, it's been a rousing success, both in transportation forms and the effect it has had on downtown as a whole," said Lewis Mraz, Regional Administrator for the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) , which initially paid 83 percent of the $76 million overall cost. 4 The "success" of the Mall is debated by some, citing business losses along its length. Denver Partnership officials, however, argue that the general economics in Denver is responsible for any stagnant numbers, and that if the Mall didn't exist things would be worse.5 Research into the business of conventions (Chapter Two) has shown the importance of overall marketability. The 16th Street Mall has, since its inception, become the major marketing tool used to promote the City on a national (and international) level. (See Attachment 7-2.) Obviously, people come to Denver to also experience other aspects of the State ( ie. , the mountains) , but comparative success of the Mall has become the primary focal point in visiting Denver. Imagining Denver without the Mall would now almost be inconceivable. 4.) T e 'Potential' of Lower Downtown (LD) This is also widely regarded by these same planning agencies, but the future of the 22 square block area (VII-6)

PAGE 112

hangs in the balance between competing economic and historic interests. This vicinity has the character of an autonomous 'district', in that it comprises the largest concentration of the remaining historic buildings in the City. (See Attachment 7-3.) Denver once had the foremost examples of Victorian mercantile architecture between st. Louis and San Francisco. A great deal of these structures were razed by 'Urban Renewal' projects of the 1960's, to rid the City of 'blight'. In actuality, historic preservation had not yet gained popularity, and the easy solution was demolition. LD was spared this wholesale destruction, and exists today largely intact. Recent efforts to preserve it by zoning andjor historic designation have met with opposition by landowners who want to develop this properties as they see fit usually meaning redevelopment into a much larger building. This situation is especially acute when the landowners purchased the property at inflated prices during the oil boom of the early 1980's and feel economically compelled to try to recoup any loses. LD has particular significance to my thesis in that the area is 'anchored' by Union Station, and in the general character of the vicinity. The 'human scale' and western charm of the individual buildings, and of the district as a whole, lends itself to being renovated/restored in such a manner as to be excellent for conventioneer-related amenities. Most of the individual structures have small floor plates that are perfectly adaptable for service, entertainment, restaurant, and small-scale, professional users ( ie. , architects, lawyers). City officials and private developers are beginning to claim the true chance for steady and reliable entertainment can be best nurtured in lower downtown. 6 "It could be the true 24-hour Denver night-life spot," adds Larry Borger Administrative Aide to former Mayor Bill McNichols.? The success of the restored, historic "Larimer Square" and "Tivoli" complex gives an indication of potential and positive public acceptance. Both of these projects narrowly escaped demolition. The notion of holding a convention in Denver conjures up a 'western' theme to many conventioneers, and this area has the best potential for fostering this image. Denver should learn from the success experienced by similar historic districts that have been restored such as in Seattle and Portland. Public transit linkages are greatly responsible for the success, and developing 24-hour character, of 'Pioneer Square' in Seattle.s (VII-7)

PAGE 113

5.) The Adjacency, Potential, Platte Valley and Certain Redevelopment of the I The CPV is "the largest parcel of undeveloped urban land in the country . . nearly 500 acres await the first stages of a development that city planners say will continue for some 40 years, into the late 2020's.9 My proposal, situated behind us, only represents thirty acres of this total. The challenge with developing the CPV is in that, until recently, it contained extensive rail yards, and has never been developed as anything else. (See Attachment 7-4.) The necessity of providing extensive infrastructure costs has, no doubt, clouded its future. Additionally, much of it is in the South Platte River floodplain, which has complicated and delayed its development. The Denver Planning Office and Denver Partnership envision a huge, 60-acre park termed the "Denver Commons" behind us, where my proposal would go. The Valley's potential to the lay person is underestimated due to its historic inaccessibility and industrial character. Overlooking past and present land users there, the potential for the CPV is enormous. As the viaducts are reconfigured, however, the Valley will become far more accessible and the potential for redevelopment, on a large-scale, will become much more apparent. Unlike most urban "infill" potential, the CPV is unique in that large, comprehensive projects could occur here. One example is Elitch's Park, which is seeking to relocate to a mucK The CPV is virtually the only spot nk.ar..._ neCBD with this much property available. o summarize my contentions relating to the aforementioned issue the combination of these five on-going developments: .) light rail; 2.) roads; 3.) 16th Street Mall; 4.) Lower Downtown; and 5.) Central Platte Valley, will serve to provide a basis for the 'interrelated' aspect of my propos ls, as described next. (VII-8)

PAGE 114

III. Major Tenets in Thesis Proposal o best take advantage of the opportunities afforded by the five lssues just listed, I am proposing the following actions-as tht steps in an overall development strategy for the location of a new CC on an extended 16th Street Mall, west of Union Station in thr Central Platte Valley o (See Attachment 7-5 o ) This 1 ist will lpproximate the necessary phasing schedule. 1.) .lacement of the 300,000 square foot cc to the west of the Jnion Station, allowing for an approximate 150 foot-wide lransportation corridor clearance between these two uses. space must be provided as to allow for safety Jonsiderations, and to maintain the US facade visibility from ihe west. This area, between the cc and US, if designed 2. ) 1ccordingly, has the potential of being well adapted for , uman-scale appeal. Construction could be concurrent with 11 following actions. emolition and permanent removal of the 16th Street Viaduct. fer intentions of the Denver Planning Office and City engineer, this aging structure needs to be removed out of a 1oncern for vehicular and pedestrian safety 0 The viaduct jill be removed from its 'touchdown' point at Wynkoop Street j o the bridge leading over the river. This would no longer 1 e used by through traffic, but would allow adjacent neighborhoods access to the CPV. I (VII-9)

PAGE 115

3.) !Demolition of the 16th Street Viaduct further entails the 4.) 1removal of a storage area used by the Postal Department, Jhat extends from the southern win of us underneath the .iaduct, to the Terminal Annex Building. This locale, combined with the removal of the viaduct, will ,rleeaatreed 'a 1 direct new "opening" into the Valley from LD, and 1ill make my overall proposals appear very feasible, if for tihe first time. of the 16th Street Mall ond Market Street approximately four city blocks, through this new 'opening" to a point adjacent to the designated main entrance d f the new cc with a turn-around cul-de-sac. This will be ,he western-most point the Mall can take, in my estimation. Jhis. is due to reconfigured main line railroad tracks, that the long, slow-moving trains that bisect downtown. Previous attempts to renegotiate the location of the tracks on the opposite side of the river, thereby creating a t ansit corridor with I-25, met with stiff opposition from rrsidential neighborhoods. n rgate any possibility of a[ll the way to the River, riverwalk'. This sole factor will probably realistically extending the Mall to create Denver's version of a 5.) In this extension of the Mall, create another, but more I t 11 th eK ens1ve Ma 1n e area 1n front of the southern wing of US. This area is presently utilized (VII-10)

PAGE 116

6.) :for truck trailer storage by the Postal Services, and will Jepresent the primary west-end shuttle stop. The cul-de-sac Jdjacent to the CC is further west, but will not have the Importance which the us stop will have. lefurbishing of the existing Union Station terminal building Jnto a multi-use transit center that would: act as the central terminal for light-rail in the CBD. Existing rail corridors, most of which are already owned by RTD, are to be used for light-rail transit. continue to service the minimal passenger traffic generated by the limited Amtrak service. Safety and design concerns, in accommodating both light-rail and Amtrak, may be formidable but not insurmountable. Should problems become too severe, it is suggested that the Amtrak stop be located elsewhere in the CPV, per previous City suggestions. he terminal, still in good condition with much historical aracter, once saw th9usands of people daily pass through My intention is to restore US as a major focal oint for the City. It is a ready-made situation, and would eatly facilitate this desired transit-linkage: light-rail, ' trak Mall Shuttle. Additionally, conventioneer-oriented ain service, such as the ski trains, could leave from here. (VII-11)

PAGE 117

7.) 8. ) 9.) Amtrak track estern facade of US and the CC. The southern corridor Jracks will cross the extended 16th Street Mall at Grade. 'Fhis can be done safely, and with a pleasing human-scale Jie., miniature train crossing guards, etc.). There need not , e problems created by this rail crossing, for Mall Shuttles or pedestrians, as Amtrak service is only twice daily, and service, vis-a-vis Mall Shuttle services, can be scheduled by RTD. Both rail services will stop behind us, between 16th and 18th/19th Streets. urther enhancement develo ment of US as a focal hub of 1 t'vity. Removal of internal waiting benches to create more reat hall' effect. Renovate interior of 'wings' for Jetail uses. Preserve office uses as exists presently. area in front of the north wing of us, (adjacent to Wynkoop, and across the main entrance from the Mall shuttle ] lurn-around) into retail, kiosk, gathering-spot uses. he combined effect of a CC in this location with US as a I I I transit connection hub will, through natural market rocesses, generate spin-off benefits to the CPV and LD--e to needs justified by the much greater number of people (VII-12)

PAGE 118

ccessing the CBD/Mall via US, and those needs of conventioneers previously discussed. The front of US, at the Jnd of 17th Street, would, additionally, foster greater donnections with the Denver business district. IV. Conclusion methodology, just detailed, will have the most positive benefib s through keeping downtown Denver the central "core" of the litan region. This dual approach, will create an extremely focal point for the City; will support the entire CBD via the " pine" effect the Mall creates; will foster preservation of LD inj o uses compatible with conventions and Denver residents; and, srur ancillary developments in the CPV such as an amusement park, a new Headquarters Hotel, etc. I happen not to subscribe to the theory of Mall over-capacity, but the Mall Shuttlr Service could be augmented by circulator bus services providing alternatives in travelling throughout the CBD. theory may seem bold, but it is feasible given the condittons previously listed. Considering that the new cc will probab y be located in a ST location, however, which represents, in my a compromise between upper downtown and lower downtown interelts, I appeal to the City's business community to consider the wireness of this approach as compared to bisecting the Mall further up on the Mall. The ST, located at grade, may negate this (VII-13)

PAGE 119

propo as envisioned in the 'Downtown Area Plan', which may furth r justify the utilization of Union Station. (VII-14)

PAGE 120

CHAPI'ER VII BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. 11 ore Traffic, Stronger Case," Denver Post editorial , 14 Septeter 1987, 18. 2. Wirth, "Colorado Air: Let's Make It Clear," U.S. Senate Publi Document, (Washington, D.C.), December 1987, 2. 3. K vin Flynn, "Denver Wants to Switch Viaduct Funds to Speer," Rock Mountain News, 10 June 1987, 8. 4. C nstance Johnson, "16th Street Mall Celebrates Milestone," News, 11 October 1987, 38. 5. I 1 • 6. M rk Stevens, 11 Lower Downtown on Verge of Rebirth, " Rocky News, 6 February 1983, 20. 7. I 1 • 8. C ris Ford, "What Seattle Can Teach Us About Lower Downtown," Risto ic Denver News, January 1986, 8. 9. K J is Browning, "Renaissance in Denver's Birthplace, " Denver March 1987, 38. (VII-15)

PAGE 121

GENERAL REFERENCE SOURCES NewspJpers: DenveJ Post RockyiMountain News Business Weekly Up the creek Westwdrd USA Today Barrorls . 1 . Per1od1cals: . I k Bus1ness Wee New Ydrk Magazine New Ydrker Forbes Nations Business EnginJering News Training Assocl.ated Management u.s. Banker Industrial World Business America Denve'if' Business National Geographic Land Use Digest Meetirlgs and Conventions Meetirlg Manager Converltion World Real Estate Review Ameridan city and County OtheJ Rocky Mountain Business Journal Historic Denver News City Edition New York Times Christian Science Monitor Wall Street Journal McLeans U.S. News and World Report Time Architectural Recorder New Republic Hotel/Motel Management Advertising Age Sales and Marketing Manaqment National Real Estate Investor Canadian Business Colorado Business Denver Magazine Urban Land Magazine Planning Meetings and Incentive Travel Meeting News Real Estate Today Colorado Municipalities City alerks Office-Ordinance Index/Council Bills "The (Colorado Gateway Plan) "Downt+own Area Plan" (Denver Partnership) "State of Colorado" (KRMA-Channel 6 broadcast) "Stat:ilons" (movie on refurbishing railroad terminal buildings) From Constraints" (seminar, May, 1987) of Developer Proposals for Convention Center Development, Denver, Colorado" ( Laventhol and Horwath, 1983) "Prinqiples of Planning in Colorado" (Colorado Chapter, American Assoc., June, 1986) "The aolorado Convention Center" (French and Co., October, 1987) "Procedure and Criteria For the Comparison of Proposals for the aonstruction of the Colorado Convention Center" (State of I ' qolorado, C1ty and County of Denver, June, 1987) "Denv r and Colorado 1987-88 Official Visitors Guide" (Denver etro Convention and Visitors Bureau)

PAGE 122

"The Conventioneer" (Weaver Publications, Inc., Denver, all, 1987) "Denv r's Convention Triangle" (1970) The Convention City of America" (1910) "Mark' t Analysis, Financial Projections, and Economic nd Visitors Council, 1987) Impact of (1983) Convention Proposed Convention Center, Denver, Colorado" "Destination Planning Guide: Houston" (Greater Houston "The acob K. Javits Convention Center of New York" (1987) "Dall s Convention Center" (1987) "Las tegas News" (Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority, "Seat le: The New West" (Seattle-King County Convention and isitors Bureau, 1987) "San !Diego Convention Center" (San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau, 1987) World Congress Center" (1987) "An E faluation of Proposals and Site Selection for the Colorado Jonvention Center" (Urban Land Institute, 1987) Inte iew: Ron s Lraka and Sandy Drew, Denver Convention Center Project lanagement Stern Kaplan, Denver City Attorney Russe 1 Heise, Senior Vice President, Municipal Finance epartment, Dain Bosworth Co., "Rosie" and "Mary Ann," real estate department Mille , Davis, Klutznik, "Romaine," in real estate department Richa d Grant, Denver Metro Convention and Visitors Bureau, qirector of Communications Will leisig, Denver Planning Office Georg Beardsley, Al Cohen Co. Dick .auman, RTD

PAGE 123

@ 0 • @ OFFICES EAST EXHIBIT HAll ORIENT A TION MAP LVCYA UN*PftOVED AREA ---------------------'"' ' I I I I I I 3-t SECOND FLOOR EAST MEETING ROOMS -----------__________ .. N Stag1ng A,.ea I ' I I 1 -
PAGE 124

...,. " '. •• , . ' . Las . Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority I 150 Paradise Road • Las Vegas, Nevada 89109-9096 • Telephone (702) 733-2323 r 't , • I FACT SHEET Las Vegas Convention Center encompasses 1 . 1 million square feet of total space , including open exhi ' it space , mee ing rooms , shops and warehouses . • ' Seven exhibit halls (625,000 square feet) separable by movable walls , plus West Hall, adjacent structure qf 120 , 000 square feet joined by overhead walkway. Lobby and concourse areas of 240,000 square and 75 meeting rooms with seating cap . acities ranging from 50 to 7500 , all carpeted for public use meetings , or cbnvention trade show exhibit booth area . Room combinati ons offer meet ing expan ion versatility . Gold Room (6, 674 square feet-seats 624) with carpeted area, 53' x 101' hardwood center floor, and equipped with stage . Silver tlomed Rotunda of 20, 340 square feet with 4 , 392 permanent balcony seats, floor seating capab ilityt p to 2,100 , with shower and dress i ng rooms, rad i o / television booth space, project i on / sound roo s, four xenon super trooper spotlights, ticket booths , cloak room, and three permanent concessio stands. All ex j ibit halls on ground level with unlimited floor capacity, air conditioned/heated, and fire sprinkler Full utility services in columns, perimeter and overhead throughout the entire exhibit ar :; a . Electrical power (110 / 120V 15/20 amps single phase, 208 / 480V three phase) . Underground utility system in parking lots Band C . West Hall power with transformer. Metal halide and fluore cent overhead lighting throughout exhibit halls. Acce sibility directly from parking lot to floor. No docks or lifts necessary, however, docks are available t east end of East Hall with levelers . Outside crate storage . Ceilin heights : East Exhibit Halls-35feet; D Concourse -31 feet ; North, South and West Halls25 feet . Parki g for 3,500 cars . Ingress / Egress for handicapped, also elevator service to second level meeting r om and office areas . Exhib t booth telephone service available . Television cameras can be located on exhibit floor or catwalks . Master antenna system througho t building for local or closed circuit television for video tape recording . Com lete food and beverage facilities-nine permanent concession stands ; permanent 9 , 403 square fe t dining room; portable snack bars, and group meal function space for unlimited numbers, plus cocktail lounge . Regis ration services, including clerk typists, bulletin typewriters, badges and badge holders are made available , with cost based on anticipated attendance . Las V gas Convention and Visitors Authority will operate a housing bureau for the association at no cha 1ge. lnfor ational brochures, maps , service lists , rate sheets and reference manual available. 3/20/86

PAGE 126

George L. Smith , II Qeorgict 'Ubrld Congress Center THE EXPANDED GEORGIA WORLD CONGRESS CENTER represents the largest construction contract the State has ever warded; total facility is 1, 817,000 square feet or 42 acres, which is the square footage of drawing paper used in designing the Center; is as long as the Eiffel Tower is high and greater in width than the Peachtree Plaza Hotel is on its side; s 55,930,000 cubic feet in volume, equivalent to the volume of the orld Trade Center in New York1 xhibit halls are 15 acres or equal to 14 football fields side by ride; bontains 2,512,000 cubic feet of concrete, which if poured as a fhree-foot wide sidewalk would be 3,009,850 feet long or 570 miles enough to build a sidewalk alongside both Interstate Highways 5 and 85 from State line to State line; as enough wall framing, wallboard, doors, plumbing, lighting, carpet nd glass to build 500 houses; sed enough paint to paint a three-inch wide stripe on the ground l [long the State line around its entire perimeter; and, enough chairs, tables, and kitchen equipment to feed the Town r f Gainesville in one sitting; floor is over 3/4 of an acre in area; ccupied to its capacity would equal the population of the City of [ thens; capabilities, exhibit space and meeting rooms make e Georgia World Congress Center a very unique facility; D LAST, BUT CERTAINLY NOT LEAST in designing the building, rchitects had to allow 1/Sth inch variance at each end of the building to conform to the natural curvature of the earth. 1:" R.'\;A TIO ;\;A L BL\'D. ,'.; \\' TELEX ', pn Depa rtm ent • Ope r at i o ns Depart m e nt • 5dl•s DepHtment (>51> " (,(\ 1>5 h 7f>7f>

PAGE 127

19701 19711 1973: 1974: 19761 1977: 1979: 1980: 1981: 1984: 19851 GEORGIA WORLD CONGRESS CENTER Chronology A Hoc Committee formed to study feaaibility of developing an irlternational trade and exhibition center in Atlanta. General Assembly paaaed legislation establishing the Georgia W 9rld Congress Center Board, later reconstituted as the Georgia World Congress Center Authority, to develop the facility. General Assembly authorized $35 million general obligation funding for construction of existing Georgia World Congress C ,nter. October 30 ground breaking ceremonies celebrated initial of current facility. Georgia World Congress Center officially opened its exhibition h 111 on September 8 as host to the Bobbin Show/American Apparel M Jnufacturers Association. C nstruction of existing facilities completed in mid-January. World s Jsed upon feasibility and market studies, Georgia General Assembly $10 million general obligation bond funding to acquire : j::g ::r :: t :::: :::c t :a :o :ii;:il::• g:::::•l io: b :::::: b 9 nd funding to construct expansion facilities. Ground breaking ceremonies held on September 17. C nstruction of expanded Georgia World Congress Center, one of the jtion' s largest and most complete national and international trade ow facilities scheduled for partial occupancy, November 1984. e Georgia World Congress Center officially celebrates expansion p oject completion, April 26, 1985.

PAGE 128

Welcome to a whole new World . Bienvenidos a todo un mundo nuevo . Bienvenue au nouveau centre des congres. The Georgia Wor l d Congress Center . A totally new . greatly expanded trade show. meet1ng and convenllon c enter i n the heart of downtown Atlanta. Georg1a . The World at large : 640.000 sq uare feet of e x h i b i t space . 70 cozy-to-cav ern ous meeting rooms. A magnificent 33 .000square foot b allroom . A comfortable 2 .000seat auditorium . A plu sh . pnvate Corporate Conference Center . A 35.000square-foot grand entrance. Plus every concei vable convent i o n serv ic e and amenity within . And all the renowned hotels. restaurants and entertainment of Atlanta without. The new Georgia World Congress Center. It's a great big beautiful Wor l d . El Centro de Congresos Mund1ales de Georg1a es un centro de convenc1ones. reun1ones y fenas l ndustnales total mente nuevo y ampliado . ubicado en el mismo coraz6n de Ia c1udad de Atlanta . Georg1a. E l Centro comprende 58 . 788 metros cua d rados de espa cio para expos1ciones . 70 salones para reuniones . bien sean i nt i mas o enormes. un magnifico salon de fiestas de 3 . 065 me t ros cuadrados . un c o modo auditono con 2 .000 butacas . un Centro de Conferencias lnternacio n ales lujoso y pri vado y una gran entrada de 3.253 m et roscuadrados . En el Centro encontrara todos los servicios para con venciones imagi nables . y afuera del Cen tro encontrara Ud . todas l as atracc i ones . los finos restaurantes . y los hote les re nombrados de At lanta. E l nuevo Centro de Congresos M u ndiales de Georgia es todo un mundo grande y hermosa . Le Cen tr e des Congres Mondiaux de Georg1e : un centred exposit i ons . ren contr es et congres tout neuf et consldera blement agrandi. en plein centre de Ia ville d'Atlanta en Georgi e . Le Centre en bref : 58 788 metres carres c onsacres aux expositions. 70 salles de con ferences des plus int i mes aux plus gigantesques . Une salle de ba l magnifique de 3 065 mefres ca rres . Un audito r ium conforta ble de 2 000 p laces . U n Centre de Conferences lnternationales pr ive de grand luxe . Un grand hall d ' entree de 3 253 metres carres . En supplement: tousles services et commodites pour congres poss ibles et ima g i nab les a l'inte r ieur: eta l'exterieur : taus l e s hOtels. restaurants et spectacle s fameux de Ia ville d ' Atlan t a . Le nouveau Centre des Congres Mondiaux de Georg i e est un complexe s pecta culaire . Covered park ong EsJaCIOflamoenlo cuboerto Pare de s1anonnemen1 couvert 4f:'ll Ballroom Salon de f iesJaS Salle de bal -. Exhobot halls Sal ones de exPQSOCIQnes Halls d 'exposmon 0 Meetong rooms Salones de reuniOn Salles ae conferences l!iflo Conf erence center Centrodeconterencias Centr e de conferen ces I;'> Entrance and servoces area W Entrada y a rea de servocoos Entree et aore de servoces Audo tonum WI' Audo tono Audo tonum Q Res1aurant cocktaol lounge and snack shops ResJaurante. bar y comodas fig eras ResJaurant baret comptoors pour snacks

PAGE 130

Jacob K. Javits Convention Center ofNewYork. 655 West 34th Street New Y o r k , New York 10001-1 188 (212 ) 216 -2000 Sol C. Chaikin C h a i rman of the Boa r d John H. Krumpe P r es ident a n d C h i e f Execu tiv e Off1 cer Allen Y. Lew Contact: Engelman D'rector Public ( 12) 216-2116 Affairs E x ecut ive V1ce P r es1dent a n d C hi e f Operat1ng Off1 c e r FACT SHEET DEVELOPERS. New York Convention Center Development Corporation (CCDC) is a subsidiary of the New York State Urban Development Corporation (UDC) and is jointly owned by the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TGTA) and U.D.C. It was created to plan, design, develop and construct the Center. ARCHITECT: I. M. Pei & Partners CONSTRUCTI1N: H.R.H. Construction Corporation. OPERATOR: New York Convention Center Operating Corporation (CCOC) is a public benefit corporation established for the purpose of marketing and overseeing the operation of the Center. MANAGER: eeoc has contracted with Ogden Allied Facility Management Corporation (OAFMC), a subsidiary of Ogden Allied Services Corporation, to conduct the day-to-day facility operations of the Javits Center. This staff coordinates each event and provides complete event services, electrical and telephones, security, mechanical as well as all administration of all profit centers and subcontract work. LOCATION: I FINANCING 1475G 571 Bounded by 11th and 12th Avenues between 34th and 39th Streets on Manhattan's West Side. The Center is situated on 22 acres along the Hudson River. The project is financed by the State of New York through the sales of Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) bonds. Surplus funds and interest income from New York City's Municipal Assistance Corporation (MAC) also contributed $60 million to the funding totaling $486.2 million. Convention Center Operating Corporation An Equal Opportunity Employer

PAGE 131

DIMENSIONS AND STATISTICS: * * * * * * * * * * Encompases 1.8 million gross sq. ft. Accommodates up to 85,000 people. Exhibition Space Up to 720,000 sq. ft. plus 50,000 sq. ft. of adjacent outdoor exhibition space. Exhibit Hall, Level 1 230,000 sq. ft. divisible into three self-contained halls, with ceiling heights from 17 to 20 feet. Exhibit Hall, Level 3 410,000 sq. ft. in all -divisible into three major self-contained halls with a 33 to 38 foot ceiling. 1The Center's dedicated six lane roadway is 1,000 feet long. This private road system is designed to allow entrance and egress directly into the Concourse. Concourse, Level 2 entry is a 1,000 foot long, glass-enclosed 65,000 sq. ft. area ideal for registration or association activities. Escalators lead directly to Level 1 and Level 3 exhibit floors. Over 130 Meeting Rooms of varying sizes accommodate groups from 15 to 3,600 by varying the size of the room with moveable walls. Crystal Palace lobby is 150 feet high and provides 60,000 sq. ft. for registration, receptions, promotions and other unique functions. Mezzanine cocktail lounge overlooks lobby. Special Events Hall seats over 3,600 for large meetings, approximately 2,000 for banquets, or provides 35,000 sq. ft. of exhibit space. It is equipped with a 70-foot-wide stage with 10 foot wings on either side, a sound room, a 12' x 20' movie screen and a lighting system for stage shows. The adjacent lobby offers almost 40,000 sq. ft. for registration or additional exhibit space. The Galleria provides 55,000 sq. ft. of retail space for shops, services and a gourmet restaurant. Two outooor terraces provide a dramatic view of the Hudson River.

PAGE 132

FEATURES: Convenienc;=es: Safety: V e r sat i 1 i , Y. : Food: * The Outdoor Plaza, across from the main entrance on 11th Avenue, provides additional area for bus and taxi loading and unloading. It includes fountains, trees and kiosks for signage and information. An underground passage leads directly to the Center's Concourse lobby. * Six drive-in truck ramps provide on-floor access to major exhibit areas. * 50 truck docks on two levels. * 24 escalators and 18 elevators. * * * * * * * * State-of-the-art fire prevention system. A fire sprinkler system with 117 separate sprinkler zones containing over 22,000 sprinkler heads covering the entire Center. A mini fire department with two large pumping stations, and special fire trucks provide additional protection. Up-to-date first-aid facilities on premises. Utilities on 30' centers -electrical to 460 volts, compressed air, water, drains, telephones. Exhibition floor load capacity of 350 lbs., per sq. ft. Floor-to-ceiling acoustical dividing walls, with above track baffling. Brilliance illumination of 100 foot candle-power. Dimable lighting in most areas. Heating and air conditioning regulated by computerized system permits individual zones to be maintained at different temperatures. Service America Corporation, a subsidiary of Allegheny Beverage Corporation, was created in 1985 by combining the Servomation Corporation and the Hacke Company. They are one of the largest business and industrial food service contractors in the United States, providing dining and vending food services specializing in convention centers, sports arenas, stadiums /

PAGE 133

Special Services: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: * * * * * * * * * * and race tracks. As the exclusive caterer in the Center, they offer an array of food services from specialized catering and executive dining menu to cafeterias and a full line of vending and coffee services. On-site kitchens can serve up to 10,000 meals simultaneously for receptions, banquets, and all other requirements to suit the needs of its host. "The Cafe," featuring fresh salads and continental cuisine, can serve approximately 1,200 people an hour. Mezzanine cocktail lounge overlooks the Crystal Palace with a spectacular view of the New York skyline. I Permanent and portable food concessions throughout the Center. Easy access and full use of the Center by the elderly and handicapped with restrooms, telephones and entrance ramps for the handicapped, elevators with Braille indicators for the blind and flashing fire alarm indicators for the hearing impaired. State-of-the-art Video Information System, with over 100 monitors, serves as a message center and information system. Simultaneous language interpretation in up to eight languages in Special Events Hall and some meeting rooms. Press Center facilities on premises provide interview rooms, telephones and other equipment for the press, radio and television. Specially designed and decorated VIP suite. Advanced electronic signage. The Javits Convention Center continues to promote the hiring of minorities and women, as well as the advancement of minority and women-owned business.

PAGE 134

QUANTITIES OF CONSTRUCTION COMPONENTSi * * * * * * * * * * * * Over 16,100 panels of glass. Over 1/2 mile of glass handrails. 100,000 sq. ft. of skylights. 16 acre roof. Capacity to cool 98,400,000 B.T.U. 's or heat 102,8QO,ooo B.T.U. 's with over 100 DX units for I .heating, ventilation and air conditioning. I 230,000 sq. ft. of terrazzo flooring --one of the largest in the world. A total of 864 miles or 4,568,000 ft. of wiring. 7,100 mercury vapor lights and 2,500 other lights. 52.6 miles of sprinkler system pipes. 22,000 sprinkler heads. 5 miles of roof drain pipes. Over 435 plumbing fixtures. TRANSPORT TION: The Jacob K. Javits.Convention Center of New York is located at 11th Avenue between 34th and 39th Streets on Manhattan's West Side. It is easy to reach by one of several bus routes. These include the 34th Street and 42nd Street crosstown bus routes (M34 and M42, respectively, both of which bring you right to the building, and by the Ninth/Tenth Avenue buses (Mll), which let you out a short distance away. The Center is also within easy walking distance of the Penn Station subway and railroad complex (33rd Street and Eight Avenue) as well as the Port Authority Bus Terminal (40th Street and Ninth Avenue).

PAGE 135

04971 Parking in the immediate vicinity of the is limited on weekdays, so all attendees are encouraged to use other means to get to and from the Center. From New Jersey, visitors can use the Port Authority's Park-N-Ride lot in North Bergen (for evenings and weekends) or the Meadowlands parking lot (on weekdays). Both lots are served by New Jersey Transit buses which will bring you directly to the Port Authority Bus Terminal • . Additional services are also available, connecting the Center with New York's three regional airports and other important locations throughout the City.

PAGE 136

0 Administrative O ffices ..., 0 LEVEL 1 LEVEL2 (CONCOURSE) M34f! SHUITLE,BUSES 11 AVENUE ( lil I< u 0 "' "' < 0 LEVEL3 EXHIBmON HALLS @ @) ( : -ffi. ! Cocktails! Machine ( 11 AVENUE level 4: Show Managers ' Suites, Balconies, and Galleria JAVITS CENTER FLOOR PLAN 0 Men ' s Restroom 0 Women 's Restroom !! Coat Chec k KEY U Telephone g E l e vator El P ublic Bus es f1 Taxi Stand @l Inform a tion C First Aid 0 Exhibition Halls !!] Meeting Rooms Stairca s e UJ :: reac < :: u (room n o . ) m u :.. B facets/Autumn 1987 >"' "' ::E < "' :.J < i5 Facets /Autumn 1987 I I 15

PAGE 138

FACT SHEET CONVENT iON CENTER DESCRIPTION: The 760,000 square foot exhibition and meeting complex to accommodate the great majority of conventions and trade shows, is under construction on San Diego ' s harbor, bounded by Harbor Drive on the east; San D i ego Bay on t H e west; F i fth Avenue on the south and major hotel , shopping and restaur a nt complexes o the north. LAND AREA: .06 Acres on bayside location. OWNER/DEVELOPER : San Diego Unified Port District. OPERATOR: City of San Diego. ADMINISTRATION, San Diego Convention Center Corporation (Board of Directors appointed by City). DEYELOPED SPACE: Total development includes the following . features: *354,000 square feet of exh i bit space * 254,000 square feet exhibition hall with 9 possible configurations) * 100,000 square foot multipurpose bayview pavilion * Additional 00,000 square feet of meeting space * 32 meeting rooms * 40,700 square foot ballroom * Outdoor amphitheatre overlooking the Bay *Utilities on (30' centers) * 3 direct floor access points for trucks * 32 covered truck dock positions * ceiling height (30' to truss 40' to ceiling) * 350 pounds per square foot load capacity on the main floor CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE: Ground breaking took place on May 22, 1985 with scheduled opening 989. COSTS. The total cost of building the San Diego Convention Center is estimated at $125 million . TRA In addition to conventional motor vehicle access, the Convention Center is serviced by the San Diego Trolley lightrail system and a wa t er taxi service linking all bayfront hotels, and shopping areas. HOTEL PROXIMITY. Over 8,000 first class rooms within one mile by 1991. S A N DIEG O CONVENTION CENTER San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau. San Diego Convention & Visitors Bureau 1200 Third Avenue, Suite 824 San Diego, CA 92101 619-232-3101

PAGE 139

FACTS ABOUT SAN DIEGO'S NEW CONVENTION CENTER San D iego's jew Convention C enter opens in 1988. H ere are orne of the features to build your plans around: • 354 , 000 squ re feet o f ex hibit space • 254 , 000 s q are feet of exhi bition hall (available in nin e configu ration s) • 100 , 000 sq1 are foot bayview pavilion • 1 00 . 000 squ're feet of meeting space • 32 breako ts • 40 , 200 s quare foot ballroom • Outdoor am1 hitheatr e • Seatin g fan 500 overlooking the marina • Util ities ( 30' I enters ) in-ground and overhead • 4 direct floor access points for trucks • Covered truck dock position s • Ceiling height 30 ' to truss . 4 0 ' to ceiling • 350 lbs psf load capacity • 37, 000 square foot lobby/ registration area • 5 , 000 first class hotel room s ne arby For more information , write the San D iego Convention & Visitors Bureau , 1 200 Third Ave . . Suite 824, Dept. N 522 , San Diego , CA 92101. Or c all 619 1 232-3101. You can al so contact th e Sa n Di ego Convention & Visitors Bureau East ern R egional Office . 1620 Eye St. N .W, #613 , Washington D.C. 20006 (phone 202 1 293-4040) . SAN DIEGO CONVENTION CENTER

PAGE 140

I = .tt 15 SWX'Ght !'t .. pM::'Oit4&5&Jif& i&MtJrt14dt'>HfPM3&*' 9 SM *'tf* Washington St k te Convention and Trade Center in downtown Seattle Introducing the Ne , r w \Vashington State Convention Cente n Our new Conve tion Cen ter has a total square feet that we can tailor t o the needs of just about an organization. And it couldn't be \ in a better place. It's in the heart o f the city, so you can get to hotell, restau rants and entertainmerlt on foot, not on shuttle bufs. And it's in the heart of a 7-acre park, so you cah hold your coffee breaks and ! receptions outside in a garden-lik setting. Room for exhibits. • Up to 140,0C() sq. ft of exh ibit space. • Main level offers sq. ft., divisible into 3 sfnaller halls. 1 Main level floor loa ! to 350 lbs. per sq. ft. • Ample utilities, con \ niently placed. . • 11 covered loading: dqx:ks. • 3 drivethrough doorls for on floor delivery . • Large, heavy-duty , ight e l e vator. • H igh ceilings to 35 • S how manage m e n t ices overlooking the exhi it floor. Room for meetings and banquets. • 50,CX)() sq. ft. on up r level. • 20,0C() additional sq ft. of open lobby and hallway space. \ • Baffled movable walls e:ISily divide into dozens of 'diff er ent configurations-for meeting space to accommbdate 50 to 4,CX)(). • Carpeted, sound-separated, individually climate controlled. • Ceiling heights to 21 ft. • Dimmable lighting. • Large, on-site kitchen for . convention-size banquets. • Larger spaces in main level exhibit hall for general sessions of up to 7 ,(XX). )o4Ail'4 l.OIIIIY Room for the extras. • An lS,OCO sq . ft. grand lobby off the exhibit halls, ideal for regjstration, receptions, and special events. • Distinctive board room with private terrnce. • . Press facilities with overnew of main level exhibit halls. • Convertible restrooms. Covered taxi aoo bus drop-off . areas. • High-speed escalators and elevators. • . Frre and ccrv security. • Indoor parking for more than 900cars. • Fully handicapped accessible. ..;

PAGE 141

lw; &Ld e5!9ft5?' 112*'4? M$i F$ W t #' @tUp(#tij !fcg;; R'tf! q.tSM
PAGE 142

ALABAMA 81RIIIHGHAM BIRMINGHAM-JEFFERSON CIVIC CENTER 1 CMc Center Piau 12051328 -8160 "'"'"in9 Rooms: 20 Exhib/1 Space: 120.000 SQ. tt. COntact: E . A. Jones HUNTSVILLE VON BRAUN CIVIC CENTER 700 MonM;e: 223.000 sa . II. Contact ; Dennis Maus TUCSON TUCSON COMMUNITY CENTER 260 S . Church Sueet lucaon_ AZ 85702 1602 ) 791 4 101 Mee1tnv Rooms: 8 ElM;e : 60,000 SQ. II. " CAUFORNIA ANAHEIII ANAHEIM CONVEHT'ION CENTER 800 W . AWW'!Ue """""""'CA92802 (714 1 99!;-8950 Meeting Rooms: 46 Exhlbll Space: 685.000 SQ. 1t. Conact: Lynn Thompson FRESNO FRESNO COHVEN'IlON CENTER 700 '"M" Slroel Fresno. CA 93721 (209 145&1511 Meeting Rooms; 16 Exhibit Space: 72.000 IQ. lt. Contact Emosl Voloez LONG IIEACH LONG BEACH CONVEHT'ION CENTER 300 E. Ocean Blvd. L.onQ Beac:n. CA 90802 1213 1 ..:30-3636 MHtin9 Rooms: 20 Exhibit SpoKe : 193..000 sa. fl. Conact: Geo Hayden PAUl SI'RINGS PALM SPRINGS COHVEN'IlON CENTER 2n AYentda CaDaStetos Palm Somgs. CA 92262 1619 1322-6393 ..._,ng Rooms : 11 E.ahlbit Space: 1 OO..CXXl SQ. ft. ,.ASADEHA PASADENA CENTER 3(X) E. Green S.reet Pasadena.CA91101 18181793-2122 Meeting Rooms: 20 Exhibit Space: 60.000 sa. 1t. SACRAWENTO SACRAMENTO COMMUNITY/ CONVENTION CENTER Sacoenong 1989 1 Contact: a;a Hollman SAN FRANCISCO MOSCONE CENTER 747 HoNard St. Son F tanOSCO. CA 94103 1415 ) 974 -4()()() ....tong Rooms: 34 Exhibll Space: 260.000 IQ. tt. Contact: Rocnard Shaft SAN JOSE SAN JOSE CONVENTIOH CENTER 291 S. Man.el SI-Son Jose. CA 1408 12775211 .... tinO Rooms: 12 Exhibit Space: 55.000 SQ. tt. Contact: Geo w . Water Street Jacksorwilie . Fl.. 32202 19041633-2350 Meeting Rooms: 22 uhibi1 Space: 78.500 SQ. tt. Contact: Vo.ie Smi1h MIAMI/MIAMI BEACH MIAMI BEACH CONVENTION CENTER 1901 ConventiOI'I Center Drive M'itmi BeaCh. Fl33139 13051673-7311 Exhibll Space: 238.500 sc.lt. ContKI: Nomwl L.il2 Note: ma,or utO!fway . MIAMI EXPOfCENTER 777 NW 72nd A...enue M"Obs GEORGIA WORLD CONGRESS CENTER 285 lntema tiOI'\ill Btvd.. -GA30313 14041656-7676 MHtng Rooms: 70 Exh ibit Space: 640.0CX> aQ. f'l Conuct: Rosemary Gelshenen SAVANNAH SAVANNAH CMC CENTER P . O . Box 726 Savannah. GA 31498 1913 1236-4275 Meeling Rooms: 6 Exhibit Spoce: 26.000 SQ. 1t. Contact: Bob Hool ard HAWAII HONOLULU NEAL BLAISDELl. CENTER 7n Ward A-enue Honott..ltu. Hf 96814 1808 1527 Meeting Rooms: 9 Exhibit Space: 45.000 SQ. 1t. ILUNOIS CHICAGO McCORMICK PlACE 2301 l.al
PAGE 143

.,.. SPRINGFIELD PRAIRIE CAPITAl CONVENTlON CEHTEI 1 ConYeniiOI'l een.er P\az.a Spnngfield. ll 62701 (217) 788 6800 WICHITA CNT\IRY I CONVENTlON CENTER 225 w . Douo;llas Wchola.KS67202 C316i 264 OCEAN CITY OCEAN CTTY CONVENTION CENTER 4001 Coastal HJ,ghway Oceon C ity . MD 21842 (301 1289-831 1 MINNESOTA DULUTH Minneapolis Launches Convention Center Project .... ting Rooms; 17 Exti1611 Space: 40.CXXl'lq. ft. FORT WAYNE GRAND WAYNE CEHTER 120 W . JeHerson Btvc. Fort W.yne. IN .&6802 (21 9) 426-4100 ..... tlng Roome: 10 Elthlbl1 Space: 95.000..,. ft. Cheryl Taylor INDIANAPOU$ INDIANA CONVEHTlON CENTER/ HOOSIER DOME 1 00 5. Caollol Ave. lndianaool is , IN 48225 (31 7) 632-4321 -lng Rooms: 55 Exhibit Space: 309.000SQ. ft. Mila IOWA DAVENPORT RIVER CENTER 136 Easl Thim Stnlel (31 9 ) 326-8500 -lng Rooms; 7 Exhlblt 15.000..,. n. Lia::t>d< DESIIIOINES DES MOINES CONVENTION Carrel 501 Grand A_.... De$ MoO>es.IA 50307 (515) 2422500 -•lng Rooms: 27 Exhibit Space: 70.000 SQ. ft. TOPEKA E.l:hlbl1 Spaoo: 200.000 SQ. ft. KENTUCKY LEZIIIGTOII LEXINGTON CONVEMTION CENTER 430 w . v.no Slreet 1606 ) 233-4567 .... ting"-""'10 Exhibit Spaoo: 70.000 SQ. ft. LCWIS\'IUE COMMONWEA1nl CONVENTlOH CENTER 221 Fout1h .. _ lDuisYile. KY 40202 (502) 588-4381 ..... ing Rooms: 37 Ea.-Spaoo: 100.000 ..,. n. KEHT\JCKY FAIR & EXPOSlTION CENTER p .0. Box 37130 LDuisYi1e. KY 40233 (SQ2) 361-4642 .,_ Spaoo; 700.000 sq. ft. LOUISIANA SliPEJIDOME 5u9ot Bowl om.e Now OMwos.LA 70112 1504) 587 3663 IAoetlng Rooms: 50 Exhibit Spaoo: 166.000 sq. ft. Conoact: Robert....,._., NEW ORLEANS CONVENTION CENTER 900 c:o.-.oon Cent ... Blvd. Now Or-... LA 70130 1504) 582 3000 IAoetlng Rooms: 42 Exhibft Spece: 381.000 sq. ft. Contoct: Carrol Armstrong MARYLAND IIALTIJIOIIE MMting Rooms: 1 1 Exhibit Space: 50.000 SQ. n. MASSAC...r.;ETTS 80S TON 900 St r l!'et Boston. ...... 1 2115 (617) 236-8168 W..ting Rooms : 41 Exhlbl1 Space: 218.000 ..,. n. Ernesllucd WORCESTER CEHTRUM IN WORCESTER SOFoslegton Blvd. Detroit. Ml 48226 (313ln4-1015 -lng-:50 Elg. Ml 48933 ( 517)483-742 5 -lng Rooms: 10 Exhibit Space: 50.000 aQ. n. SAGINAW DlllliTH ARENA AUDITORIUM 350 s. Fitlh "ve.. w . DuOJtll MN 55802 ('21el722-5573 ExNbl1 Space: 100.000 SQ. ft. MINNEAPOUS MINNEAPOUS CONVENTION CENTER 315 E. Gram S Heet IWrneaDol is. MN 55404 (8001255-1752 .....,,mg Rooms : 58 Elthlbl1 Space: 325.000 SQ. ft. Conlact: Peer Hedlund ROCHESTER MAYO CMC CENTER 30 s..e. 2nd Avenue Rocnes t er . MN 55904 (507) 281-6184 -ling Rooms: 10 Exhibl1 S.-:e: 50.000 SQ. ft. Conlact: Roy Sulnenand MISSISSIPPI 81LOXI MISSISSIPPI COAST COLISEUM & CONVENTION CENTER 3800 w . Beach Blvd. BioAi. MS 39531 (601) 388 8010 .... ting Rooms: 18 Exhibi1 Space: 100.000 sq. ft. Contact Bill Holmes MISSOURI KANSAS CITY KANSAS CITY CONVENTION CENTER 3:)1 w . 13:1h St 1sas Ci1y. MO 641 OS (816)4218000 .... ting Rooms: ... 0 E.a.hiblt Space: 300.000 so. ft.. Contact Kalhleen Lee ST. LOUIS Ar. extrava'an1 ground-break ing ceremony fea turing marching bands. magical allusions. a gauJe of and indoor lire,.'Orks was held in June to launch con. struction of the new S!Ol6-million Minneapolis Convention Cc:nter in the bean of the do,.nto,.n area. The ceremony was intended to get the public excited about the 775 .000-square-foot convention center and to anract aneotion within the convention m a rketplace:. said Marketing Director Hedlund. • Situated on the edge of the Nicollet Mall-the city 's mile-long. iree-lined pedestrian shopping . walh.-ay-the new facility ,.;u contain 325.000 square fm of exhibit space. at least 57 rooms. and a n ele2ant square-foot ballroo,; which v.ill seat 2.500 persons for a banquet. The convention center ,.-ill be connected by a climate-conuoUed. glass-<:nclosed s l')"''liY 10 70 blocks of first-class do-..ntOO>n h<>ttls. shopping. and entenainmcnL The lim major national bookings ,.;n begin in Apriii99L •'hen the convention center is expected to be totally operational. One of the lim national conventions v.ill be 1he Chemical Society v.ith 8JXJO anendees. CERVANT ES CONVENTION CENTER Progressive M.inneapolis 801 Convem>an Piau Sman planning and constant 5l LOu>s. M O 63101 grov.1h rank Minneapolis one 1 Expocenlre DriYe IIAI.TNOf!E CONVENTION CENTER Gt>QW'CMC'CENlYRI--------t---(3141'342 • 5006 1----------1 t TooeU. KS 6661 2 1 w . Pro!! 51. 303 Jomson Slree< ....,;,9 Rooms : 43 i (913) 235-1986 Baftmore. MD 21201 Sagonaw . "'' 48607 Exl>lbil Spac;o : 240.000 SQ.Il cities. A dramatic sidewalk-l evel J OQ. n. =::=a: 26 4 0.000 sa. ll Contact Bruce Sommer world of v.id e ned streets . plazas. Ccwuct: laurie Wwd Ellhlblt s.-co: 19-C.OOO sa.ll fountains. cos m o polioan shops. CDntact: 1'09gy Daic:Solus superb restaurants. and inspirins archioecture adorn Minneapolis' ,;brant do\1.-nto'-'n.. Additional construction and dov.ntown rtvital i zati o n projects v.ill carry into the 1990s and beyond. The other major area of construction. the all-weather sl-y wa y has become one of the narion 's largest indoor shopping centers.. But the downto"n area isn' t the only place that's gro ... i ng up. In keeping v.ith Minneapolis' riverto,.n his10ry . ex1ensive develop men1 is planned along the Miss issippi riverfront Developmenl is to capture 1he old-time OavorpfMinnea polis' beginnings as a mi lling oown. Instead of tearing dov.n the old buildings to make V.'3)' for modem megastruc tures. many original warehouses and old office buildings are being restored t o retain the area' s his torical prestnce.. Bob Thomas, general manager of the Minneapolis Convention and Visitor Commission. said the city can pro,ide a perfect sening ,.here the beauty of its n atural emironment of lakes and park lands combine harmoniously ,.ith its urban en,ironmenL Within an easy walk of the Convention Center are such at 1ractions as the Minneapolis In stitute of An. the con1emporary Walker An Center. and the renowned Guthrie Theater. Arnone the conven tion near the Convention Center are the 534-room Hyan h l5o_ room Holiday Inn Downtown. the 606-room Marrion City Center. the 282-room Marquette Hotel . and the Omni Nonhsoar Hotel. 0 • •

PAGE 144

.. , \ CHARlOTTE TOlEOO I'ITTSIIURGH ICHOXVIL.LE NEBR.t.SKA NEW YC>f!K CHARLOTTE CONVENTlON CENTER SEAGATE CENTRE DAVID L LAWRENCE KNOXVlU CONVENTlON CEPITER OMAHA IIUFFAlO 101 s College ... Toieoo. OH 43604 CONVENTION CENTER 525 Henley SL Charlone . NC 28202 (419 )2<3 8191 1001PeMAve. Kno>Mie . TN 37901 OMAHA CIVIC AUDITORIUM BUFFALO CONVENTlON CENTER 1704) 332 MHhng Rooms; 24 f'lrtsbu SQ.. ft. I Las 1/eQaS. NV 891 09 RALEIGH CIVIC & CONVENTlON CENTER TUlSA NASHVIU CONVENTlON CENTER (702 ) 733 NIAGARA FALlS 500Fa,.,.-Mol 601 Commerce 51-I . -lnv Rooms: 75 Raiegh. NC 27601 TULSA CONVENTlON CEPITER SOUTH CAROUNA NashWle. TN 37203 ! El SQ. tt liE NO N"'90'" Fals. NY 14302 -tlnv Rooms: 23 .. WIN$TOII-SALEII El<>.II. Meeting Rooms: 20 151 2)883-8543 AUIUOUEJIOUE CONVENTlON CEPITER 1 o bOoths ; 22 rr.etinQ rooms : ... ,, 12161348 Exhibit Space: 1 20.000 sa. ft. -ting 17 401 Second SL NW 5 . 000: benquet tacili1 .... for 4 .100. -ting Rooms: 36 I'HILADELI'HIA EllrSpee"C382.ooo-s
PAGE 145

.. EL I'A$0 EL P.t.SO CIVIC CENTER , CMc eeno .. Plaza E l Puo. TX 79901 (91 5 ) 534-<)600 E.Ahibl1 SpKo: 60.000 SQ. ft. Contact : Jtm Ororvlefly fORT WORTH T.t.RRANT COUNTY CONVENTION CENTER 1111 HoustonSt Fort Worth. TX 76102 (8 1 7) 3329222 .._.ting Rooms: 25 Elthlblt Sp.c:o: t 85.000 sq. ft. Contact: Louis Owen HOUSTON GEORGE R. BROWN CONVENTION CENTER P . O . Box 6t9 Hcuslon. TX n208 (71 3 ) 222 2561 -t"'9 Rooms: 49 E.Ahlblt Sp.c:o: 470.000 sq. ft. Contact: Gerard Tolletl SAN ANTONIO SAN A.NTONIO CONVENTlON CENTER 200E.MmttSL Son Anlonlo. TX 78205 (5 1 2) 299-8500 -t"'9 Rooms: 45 Exhibit Sp.c:o: 240.000 SQ. ft. Contact: Jot Mag Roc>tns : 30 Exhlblt Speco: 200.000 SQ. ft. VIRGINI.t. HAMI'TON HAMPTOH COUSEUM 1000 Col9-.:2 E.\hiblt Speco: 85.000 sq. ft. IIICHMOND RICIMOHD CENTRE 400 E. Ma
PAGE 146

.. -----c:.--1"101 ' . ,... :" , . .... n!.t)fl " ' 0 . ' n vt• produC t.! \\ ' .. , ' " t "":' " . . t , , I . " " N • • t ' . ' .... , • t . •

PAGE 147

h-... EL PROPERTIES & ACTIVITY CENTERS n jNOR TIll --t----= Mile High Stadium McNichols Arena 1 . FAIRMONT HOTEL 2 . BROWN PAlACE 3 . EXECUTIVE TOWER INN 4 . GOVERNORS COURT 5 . HOllO A Y INN DOWNTOWN 6. Hll TON HOTEL 7. MAAAIOIT 8 . OXFORD HOTEL U/C 9 . PARK SUITES HOTEL U/C 10. TABOR CENTER WESTIN HOTEL U/C I I. PROPOSED CONVENTION A. UNION ST A liON B. lARIMER SQUARE C. WAITER SQUARE D. TABOR CENTER PROJECT E. DCPA F . CURRIGAN HAll G . RTD TRANSFER F AGILITY

PAGE 148

{q\ DON'T Y . .. seu. IN -. 10. fVItf AND fk(J) . IN lite CAPITOL IWWING ttmL THe LAWMAKeRs . oecwe Tb . : . . . -_..,.,_ feeL • . n.. 1 .. A 3 . . p ----/ . • 7 CONVeNTioN . : _ R::R WI-!AT VQNTS A MAMMOT11 . l . .>< ' • A foR PAT . • . AN AssGMBL'f oF • : ZlU.lONS • A GA'THQR!NG OF MAYor< PflN.A:-& : . . . • A SoH?efl FoR fv1AJOK' CAMPAIGN CONi1<1BVTnRS WAO WOUL.D L.OVe TO HAVe 5 MINures ALoNQ GARY WHO'Ve -SCORQD WORK-ReLeASe • A MeflTING i\LQ,' flLWooD SQ Fk'oM (j IU.IS FAN Gi.'!JB -(IN oNe • A GeT-ToGemer? FoR Ct.OSe PeRsoNAL. 0 F D ICK GIE1SON • A MeeTING OF AUJ?ORA PIT BUL.l. VICTIMS • • A ReuNION oF CONVeNTION CeNreR S\Tfl LOBBYISTS, •• No 'Tl1AT-We'D TO BV!l.D A LARGeR 14ALL

PAGE 149

• Df""cf 10/11/gs p 2.hP. ""'/;., -nu : llt _ ,YUt tAr.rsr sunday, Apru 19, 1987 -I CoNVENTION CENTER-ARE YoU SURE tT SToLEN oR DID _ ,. YoU M15?LACE-IT AGAIN?

PAGE 151

; CONVENTION CENTER L3 EAST BALLROO <( a: w u. <( u (") -' EAST HALL DOCK FACILITIES I I I I I I I I L3 E A ST E XHI B IT HALL I _: -=. ::;;_ .. ::: :.... =..--.: __ , LEGEND I I I I I I I I LEV E L I I LEV EL Ill SCALE 1 " =100ft. L3 Cc 1 TER E XHI B IT HALL -----w w a: I (/) z u. u. a: (!) Dallas Cun..rnnon Center WEST HALL DOCK FACILITIES L 3 W EST E XHI B IT HALL :.;; L3 WEST BALLROOM STREE T LEVE L

PAGE 152

19TH AVE . ,._ .... .,.. 18TH AVE. AVE. AVE. COLFAX AVE. '\A . , .. .... .. ..-14TH w. 14TH AVE. . . ........ 13TH AVE . w . W . 13TH I _:A..;..V;..;E-... __ _, ,...----. r-I I \ \'\\\ I lt:J 13TH AVE . I (/)I

PAGE 153

... .. . . . ". < ,----___ . . ;.. H : .-: : , . .... : . ::::: . .• . . . . I "'-..... .. .._,. I : . :.. . : ' : . . ( . Chart shows Daniel Crow proposal to expand Currigan Exhibition area.

PAGE 155

Tho h otul on •t lloot u hnu untQO 2000 h olll"n(MttU of 6 auar o tutulu rd unci Jllll l II t ! numut, lt n t tt, uw lu11ulnn 1 u1n 1 , ununo UlC. • dUIIII!IIU d U JIIH: 1 rtc .. )ly l C t CAlo1• ( fJ t • t ! O UVt!nlJuu cl tuutul. Wo huvu ultud tho holoJ u&. tho 14th Strout uutl ut tho UIIO •u clawo nu pouulltlu to tho tluw n town caa u11 o C n ouvur, ••ul clou u lo lito n o w jwduut,tun mull 1iti 10lh tfttoot. Cu.r llllrklnt: rur Llift lt otol l u tiiJ• ot.:&.ly ltO )alW lho convunlluu conlru umJ huuulllaluly utllnc:unt. to thu h otul. 'l'hu hotol JIUIJ)Jc roOftlu will huvo dltucL accoou to tho n u w uxhlt.dllon cunt• o faotu Lho public aronu, and t o tho uxlutlua At ta Cotnptu• lJy CuuthrJduu ovor Slt>ut fHrnut. via Currlcon llall uncJ tllu lnotl.lrhla;u roolnaunnl. 1 11o uuupo!Hiud root tlock to thu oxhlhJtlon arou will ho lunclucat•ocl and uuuel •u u lluhltc O&lo n npuc:o. Tho .lout:lu(( truc k , uu&u Jy uno-thlrtl ul 11 mtlu lung, wtll add tu Lhu IIIIOnttloO AVaJlMhlu l o tho hulOI UIIUtllS, ' l 'hu UtuiiiiiUI' •• : loc: k w ll) 110 uoud rur ok ... J 116( dtlf' l "" Tho Uoclay Wountainu can bo sooo Irma or tho rocwn a and tho olovutor lot1by uu ull tloo J • u Cucuo Lowatda tho ancl tho a •urk, CIIAI'I1. :11AI. ( ! t.:N'I'IIt: CAI.lt'OIIIIIA ('/011) ll'l'llt: F : 'I' m :IIHII, Clll.lliiAIK I Thu "' lu for lhu t•t opnuud cluvulullluout lu l•mmclud by 8poor lloulovua ,t un llw nnulhwuul alctu. J-tth UL1uul un tho uurth-oaut utllu, fJl.nut !Jln.mL on Lhu uldu utul Ctdlfua•uiM fHruut I)U l .ho uuulh-utwt. ultlu. ' l 'ho ovunalJ ultu l u uta .tL., Luuuthua wllh" fuaLhur Ol,OUO tHJ. rt.. upnuululf Utout 8Lr11uL hL hlnh luvul . A nuw tluvult•JIInunt of 16 ulttt•uyu l o 1uulor cuuulructlon on a wuull pol'llo n o r lhu ltl•uk In lhu uoulh-wuu t con10r or thu ullu. 'J'hon.t 11ro ualunulvu vluwu ul tho Uucky W ounlalnu tnlln 111•rto of tho Au a ruuull of tho C:Jvtc Cunt.ru M ouutaln Vlow llruuuulntlon O ... llnMnc u thoro I a k ll1nlt.nt.Jo n On COIUita m :lluu h ol&:ht lho SJmor O ouluvtt.a• tl AI'I'ruxlmutoly hull of ltto ullu lu uoud au 6Cl' OIInd luvu) IH"IktuK lulu, Lho I 'CIIIIIItulult orunu aro lull It uu with oltlor low rluu pruputlluu. 1 'hu hluhout holuu thu four ut•Jruy Wuu l llut.ul. 1 'ho 00 u turoy ofCic o hluck bulldlna-I s ln the Cu.-. uf two J n u allu1 hlor.kn wllh m ajur vorllcal clrculo.tlon f ormtnu tho crou u h• lcljttJ. rho otflc o Utocku oro ;tr;rt wlllo untl Clln h o tlllud tnt upu n J lllln ofCic:ca or eoully tHih -dlvlt l c•l IJy 1110111\H o f a cuutral circulation corrl1 l o r . l:!nt.ranco to tho offlt:oll are vta Callfun•l• and S t out Btrootu, lhntuuh an olovun lovul C tliNntllctal al•l•ua t o tho ttdrtJ unl1'1Ut c o ut tho IAnduc'*(l'hl a oot duck luvu l . Coflou ShnJiu , Uuotuurllnta, olo .• lwth In tho atrlu11 and 1n thu rout Jlllrk will calor r u t U• o uftlc o J IU JHt 1 all u n . Vluw11 ut thu tuounLLliiUI anti duwn Lmwn llunvur aru uhtalnotl from tl1o olovator unci • uta clrctllatlon •rea o f all flno1s. All u(flr.o atooo will ll o tHHvlcucl with full cat,nllllltlus. A tmllu &.an L I" J 11. raw. or Lho OOfiO car I'" rk a-•r•ae can he onully alloca.lod r o r lllu ofl1co u::aua M tlurtn1 normrt l wo .. klnat h ount, '""' provt.lo huc k 1111 poaktng t o r tho Arta C tJntro/Gonvontlo n Gunlro ul nlt:ht uncJ wook unds. Cu l llLla kln" tuclltllo tl will bo provttlud tor approxluuttolr onou vohlt: l on. lnurunu nnLI onrosu with contrul fuclllttou avllllnltlo to hoth C:allturula Stroot 1ttul Blnul !:lta o u l . 'fhu tWiw1u of tho car Cat :llltlua con lio t otally ttux-ILiu to ullow tor caullt use of lho t.otul caauu:lly. ,,. " Tho uulllno Jll upn uu.l fiLII vo• y clouoly lo the liiUtU:uultH I tl uvulnpmunt u u uut mel In tho roJiorl to tho Clty lOHO "'J'Itu lhmvur Cnnvunllun Cn••Lro". ' l 'hu JncroMuo cunvunlluu ""'' uahlltltton fM(:Illty t.uLulllnl na,a•nuclumt.ulr otJ.[l. will bo conutauctccl 1•n• ullul to tltu uxtuttnu Cua-rlu-..n 11 on thu ndjur.unt :. hlo cku h ulwuo n 12lh Slru•J l •ud 14th St1uut. Tho m ntn uxhllattlon cuntru li10fl • IU3tt un platl la6w a clour laotui•L of 40Cl and covoro d bt a a out uunpcutlotl frua• tho ut uur.h uud. Title tur• of utrnct.uro alluwu fur lhu ualdhllluu arua to t.o c :oma•tctuly ttuo uf uny "''I• J•urllnu ult"tu:tur o . 'l'ho now hM11 cun IJu dtauolly Jlhkuet Jt11 whole lunuth Lo C u• a Jne.n Hull wllh • hrldu o ova• Stout 8truot. Tho chunuu uf l u v u l I Julu a tiCJult with l 1 y 13 aotu uf wu:ulttlu1 a . Thlu llula A1uu h o U11ud aa additional uxhlhlllun BJIAt: o willa tl• c l uar culllnat hutuht or J3fl. Atltlltlonal cuu•nlLtuu l"Otlll upacu lti tocatutJ ou two Cluont ovor Lito Slonl link, pruvldlns wp1co tor uult-lllvtnlon uu uul out. In thu ll onvur C onlro ru1wrt. lHotuHO loa tho ( !unvonlldn Bt••ce ta hulo w tho nuw hul) with v uhlclo accoua 1101• botb Cullfunda anti Slout Sttoolo. AtiUipHtlu IUOtlll eluvatur• uu1l lualula cuuncu: l tho ulor u t11 thu mntu JHihlto aruau. 'l'ho t otul cmnpluJC huu cur tu:llllltut tor nuarly onoo cur•. l'u1 t o f thlu u1uu h oluu alloc•tcul to thU ott1c e and h o l o l soct.lou.

PAGE 156

' .

PAGE 157

4"-Rocky Mouhlairl Nm Sun., Sept. 6 , 1981, Denvet, Colo. •

PAGE 158

le city Is studying a recommendation t? build a conventlofl center In tpe to. Hall. ,

PAGE 159

Page 20 • August 1, 1986 • Sixteenth Street Shuttle own tow to Aa:enu," All Amunae, 2 Calilornia Calc, 29 Caolerbury ol New Zealand , 38 Capitol Fcdttal Savlnas, 4' Caa..at Corner , I 0 Clctnlh Street Shulllc, l7 Skyline Park, II Sporuman Inn, ll Spornm1n Rcs11unnt, 41 S1aac ol Shoct, '9 Staa< Door Calc, 40 Standish Hotel, 32 State farm Insurance, l7 Slcakman, '9 Still Blossom, n Stores Equipment Corporalion, I Strancb, 9 Sun Country Shadet, Jl Sunrise Calc, 39 ------------------y.__. ____________ __ T . Edwards, 10 Tabor Ccnltr, The, 10 Tandoor Cuisine ol India, I Teuii's,IO This End Up , 10 Thilll< ol Shamrock, 39 Tickel Uus, I Y Tivoli Books, '9 Tivoli liallcry, n Tivoli Shop, '9 Tokkyu Bento , 10 Tov..crs Clean ers and Laundry, 9 Toy Tree , The, 10 Trcatc't Restaurant , H ................. u ______________ __ Under World, Lid . , The, 9 United Bank, 14 Un ialobe Mile IIIah Travel, J8 United Mini Bank, 33 ol 41 Union Tavern, 11 _________________ v ________________ _ Veldkamps F lowers, 10, 39 ol 49 Vlctroy ' a ol India, '9 Waldcnboods , 22 Walarccns DruaJ Store , 23 Waxman Sound Camera, 17 Welton Strt Photo, 39 Wcndy 'o, 21 Wcmcu Camera, <44 We , tin f.lorcl, The, 10 Willi a m Crow Jewelers, 18 Yonktc Dollar, II Zaks Coney Ia. , 48A Zaln Jewelry, 42 I. Uth ol Blokt 2 . Uth ol Market 3 . RTD, Morket St . Slatlon 4 . .,lh ol Market 'Dave Cook 6 . Larimer Place Condoa 7 . Market Squore C.9 o . m . and 4-4 p . m., scrvl" lslncreaaed to cvory 1 2 minutet . Midday qporalions u< cvory 4-1 rninulet, •ith tbe lrequco.7 mlnutn. RTD bopct rldlna the frw-lare M.,u ahuule io coavrnlent lor you . For mortlnlormation oa RTD bus • Parking Lots ocher locadou Ia tho Dcavtt -ro area call tbe RTD Ttlephooc lnlormatlon C
PAGE 160

J I Page 34, The Conventioneer, Fall 1987

PAGE 161

7-/ .._; (/) , liTH ' ' " ' ' ' ' ' ' ,?.....: -.... AVE . >-Cl 0 Cl 0 a:. CD > 0 ct 0 a: CD •o 1 n 17TH 16TH COLFAX liTH . • z.;_, . . ... . , ; .. __ ;;.;;.;;.:. AVE. G-' ,,. AVE. AVE.

PAGE 162

Photo shows where the proposed Golden Triangle site is located. It is bordered by Broadway on the east, CheroDAVID L. CORNWELLIRocky Mountain News kee Street to the west, West 1 Hh Avenue on the south, and West 13th Avenue to the north.

PAGE 163

.. .. An artist's rendering shows the convention center design proposed by' devel oper AI Cohen and Intended for construction on the Golden Triangle site at ,.._ .. , ___ ,...,.. _ , ..... West 13th Avenue and Broadway. A Denver broker suggests using that de , sign In the Silver Triangle area near Currigan Hall. • \ I

PAGE 164

V E . DR . \ ', --::.:-,, 7,... ..._, I I I I l ,, \ I I I\ ,, II ,, ,, ,, / / I I i ' I I \ / (,-1 . .. .. , / / . 6 ."0 GATE .JAY . . I / ,---?--/ . . / , r ' .• . ..

PAGE 165

Urb3Jl Rdolion shipi T H E . C 0 L 0 R A D 0 G A T E W A Y C 0 N V E N T I 0 N G1:11uk \f.btem RAilroad Cc. CENT E R • • JVtNMKTDUrrlc.W IFI3 • II;; •=a • IJ • II • IJ • a • ll • II K II • a • ll • II • II ... ... ... ... The Concept Th e Colorado Ga1eway C o memion Cemer is locmed in1he Cemral P/aue Valley . Gmeway sire i s adjoined by 1 he Auraria Edu cat i o n C emer on the so w h . and the Demer sponsComple.r 1 0 1he ,,.es1. Th e Co memionfaciliry will b e an imponam cara/ysr 10 the fwure d e • e l op m e lll and impro•e m e/11 of The C emra/ Plau e Valley area . The Colorado Gateway Th e Colorado Gateway Convention Center is a proposal by the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. which i s both a si!e alternative and a .financial alternative for a new convention center facility . The Gateway Center potential i compelling . even if there were not problems associated with the Golden Triangle Site. The Colorado Gateway site is located immediately adjacent to downtown Denver, next to the Auraria Higher Education Complex. in close proximity to the Platte River. and with easy access to the freeway system . II is now a part of Denver and will continue to be linked to downtown Denver. Th e Colorado Gateway Convention Center would be a t the hub of a multi-f ace ted tran s portation system. It would be directly connected w I-25. the adjacent Aurari a Parkway. and be se rved b y Denver s main railroad complex. The Gateway si te will als o serve as the lynch-pin for an extraordinary tran s it-corridor sys t e m w hich , for the fir s t time , will link the variou s sec tion s of the city and the airport complex with downtown Denver .

PAGE 166

I / / ' I / / I I / I ' ) l I I I . I I I I l I I I / . I I I /( I /; I /II I I I l I I llt. ' /11.11 / I . \ .) I I I I . ' I / I I ' II \ :.:: ' I / ' \ I / / I , f )\ .Ufi\\ , ;,,,.,,1 (J/' , , , , , ,,,., /<()\\ ' t/.ltll'! 1/)oll'U'S THE COLORADO GATEWAY CONVENTION CENTER

PAGE 168

VE. . . . ... .. . .. .. .. . . .. . .. , / / , \\ I I , ---. . .. .•. U ION STATIO .. .. . , ... •.r".rS., '1."

PAGE 170

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Proposal The Denver Union Oevtolopmt>nl Team to c o nstruct an lntrgrated hott'l/convenll o n crmter c omplex un thr. Union Trrmln.,J h•ilst the new ronveutlon C:t!Oit'r t o tlue City of Denvrr In return for the lrau of Hall and d evelop the Currigan Hall site.., a combination office, retail and residenti;.l proj.ect . Tht> Ornvtr Union Ot!vrl opment Tl' a m proj)():tt .. t u lt•aSt-thr> Unln n Term\n:JI aile from the Ot.>nver Unlun Ttnnln•l Railway Company for a period of nlnetynlne ye:us. On the Terminal site tht' Dnt'lo pment Te11m will construct the f ollowing: • A new con venllon c r.nter. CQntalnlng 500 , 000 aquart feel o f e•hlblllon •r , u e of which 300 , 000 S({Uare feet Is columnlru space divisible Into three sep;uate tonvenllon areas. A 1 , 000 r oo m h(ltt'l , Including 67 . 000 AquAre fee t ur mretlns rou1n1. ballroom and banquet fadlltlts. 300.000 square feet of office 65 , 000 square f ee t of retail 1p.1ce . fur J . OOOcan . with the poqlbltlty of The Denver Union IHvelopment Team is rogniunt of the neW. and d emand for young. profrtl•lo n.d I n-city h o u !lh'K and anticipates additional devrlupment In conJuncllon with accus to hotel services on an optional basis . The Union Otovcolnpment Team 11 prepared to provide 100 dwelling units at an the OCPA with an Important, dire<:t link to a landscaped retail atrium. This atrium would offer exp.-tnded OCPA support {acllltlt'S and provide a pedestrian-oriented 1ctivlty base yur-round. Construction on tht Currlg•n H•ll site would M to enable the City to utillr.e the txistin s Currig•n J blt faci lilles until such lime u the new convention ccntt'r w:s• rudy f<1r occup.1ncy . Initi a lly . and without affectins the operation of the exist in& Currigan H"ll , the western tower would M Following the tr.-ansftr of tht City ' s convention operatlnnt to the new c:onvf'nti o n center, the rtnovatlon of Currigan l-la\1 and the ustern towrr would be The envisions th.-at the Otnver Union Terminal Company would particip a te In the proftct In two different ways . thf' R u llwa y CumJmny would be! the srounll les!40r of the f'xi"itins; terminal !lite Under the ground \use contemplated. the lbilwiily Company would reive a lars;e base rent which w ould tSCalate based on The Con."'umtr Price Index . Second , the Railway Comp.any w ould rc<:eivt an equity position In , 1nd a commensur,,te lntt'rett In thr profit• genertttll t-y. the development on the Currigan Hall Silt. al7. e of 1200 tu11mre fret IJ': r rangins In cost from SR4,000 to S\80 , 000. The desljitn f'lemenl tylnR each of the project componrnh' I Opjethtr will bt the existing terminal building, which will bt' Intact ucrpt fur the mort ffiently constructed. n orth and !lOUth wlnpj!' . Acce!L"i t o three of thf' most critical portions of tht' project , the C(lnventlon center. h o tel , and exlstlns h•rmlnAI t-.ulhllng . Acc••ss to the n e w railway trnnlnal. tht' nurthcrn acctlon of th r convrntlon center and the olllce building will lie north of t he north wing of the r e modeled t e rnt i nal. In addition, tht' enUre retail component of tht' pn•Jrct will In termln11l hulldlniJ In ordt'r to prnvhle the nl.."(t'ltUry on-11\tc aupport fnr the hot e l and convention center USi'l. The terminal buildlns thoroughly renovated to (ulf\11 new functions and continue Its operAtion all 1 railway lf"nnlnal . The new c o n vention cenll't will be construc ted on a platform which brldgr:s both the required I 13 foot r:sil corridor and the parking facilities at the western edge olthe 1ile . The hott'l will bt ronstructt'd as a mid-riH band, lyinR above and betwf't'n the tt'rmlnal building and the convenllon center. Special attention has Mrn paid t o the nrcrstlty of havlns the hotel and convention center be operationally Independent and at altuallons may rrquire. The new convention center will In return, the City will bt obligated to lust the exlstlns Corrigan Hall alte to tht developer on I StoUnd luH hav i ng the same lt Is worth nothins that. because ol an antldpatrd dentand lor a separatf' I entity In the terminal development, the proJect on tht terminal tlte may be condmnlnluml7..ed Into at least five stparate c ondominium units: I hotel unit, a convention center unit, a tlation retail unit or unit.", a PJI.Ssenger railway unit, 1nd an olflct unit. In the event nf condomlnlumlzatlon, would be no chanse In the propnsa l to around least the entire site from the rallronds , but the posslbillly would tht'n exist to exchange a fee interest In the convention center condominium unit for the around lease on the Currlgan Hall site . tenn as tht Clty '11 Aublcallt' o f the new convention center. Rrnts under such sublt'ase and Rround lt'oue , whether at nominal or market lt'Vt'ls , will bt structurrd to efft"ctivrly cancel out one another. On the Currip;an site tht' Denver Union Otvelopment Tram will commence a pha.sf'd commercial and residential development, n o w 1latPd to include the f o ll owing component.: A 1,550 , 000 l'el of ofrlce space and 300.000 square o( lu.11ury residential • A 200, 000 (not atrium retail .1nd •Ilium nHict! ullllr:lns th" existing Corrigan • A 1.250 , 000 square foot . f o rty two story tower, •t the eastern end of the sift, cont.tininA office •rur. • Appnu.lm•trly 2 , 500 parldns 1pi11Cell . The ubtlng Currigan building. likt' the terminal station, Is a d esign element which serves lo lntl'JI;r.'lfe tht prujt Tht' two t o wrf:' would be lclt'ated al t'ltht'r end n( the t!Jci!ltinR Currijitan 11 bulldlnR , 1nd the' parklns IClr the prnj.:t t would M lo ca letl bdnw and 1ulj.lcent tu the tower1 and ln the below grade stor:sge s pace now uisllnK In the building. Tht Curri Ran Hall bulld ln&-both on the lnttrlur and exterior . would be ren o vated to pruvldt an •trlum link bttwef'n the two IOWt'fl'. whic h •trium area Is pl.tnnt'd fur mallllkf' retail and atrium office space . In addition, It Is pr opost" d that the existing enclosed ptdt's trian bridge bttwt-en the Denver Center for the Pt'rf orming Art• and Currisan Hall rem•ln. thu• prnvldlnJI

PAGE 172

t l

PAGE 173

.,,, ,, ,, I. 1-tn < z < 0 z 72ND AVE 58TH HB1249 FIXED GUIDEWAY 120TH AVE z < 0 a: w :I: tn BOWLES 10
PAGE 174

-::,.. • -<

PAGE 175

Union_l)tation ______ _ , .-.-r.,-,,,, ----!-J--(f ] ;; • '' Heart of Lower Downtown,' Wynkoop Street 1100 = . :z l='"' I ! I I ld .... I '& -I CJ) ...., I I I Q 1 ..,, ..... I I I I I I r .. Wazee Street Blake Street I I i I I I Market Street ill tiff' ' larimer Street I&UO • w[]filllllr -... ; i • co CD ... CD -pgs .... co I ... :::T (/)
PAGE 176

,_J-_ Union_tation _____ j ---r-,.,,, -----!-l--Wynkoop Street ... =r CJ') '&I-..... Q) (J) -Wazee Street Blake Street r I iii II Market Street If I ; 1 "Heart of Lower Downtown" 1700 ..... ..4 ..4 (1) ....... CD I :; ... ... .. ::r ::r ::T CJ') CJ') CJ') -..... ..... Q) CD (J) (J) CD ... --I I I I ill U I • ...... CD !.• ttl 1 t • I I ...._ ____ Market Street pga I UK> [ [ r 0 m ,a 0 0 z -i 0 z • t--F .. .. ' Larimer Street II ,, _ f W W I i 1 ..4 :; :; :; • :; :T =r C/) C/) C/) CJ') C/) C/) .. .. -.... :: i
PAGE 177

• ROPOSED ?-l LOWER DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT Denver Landmark Preservation Commission 1987 \ -• • • • LJ LJ LJ I I U L . 21ST ST . 15TH ST . ! 00[ 14TH ST : . . . " N . -----------SCALE: 1•:5007

PAGE 178

CENTRAL PLATTE VALLEY DEVELOPMENT COMMlTTEE August 14, 1987 ... -.. [=-j [j c-.:Jc=J . c -1 c= 3BBBE ::JElElBE 31 : ".=JC -r-,1 0 --,-f1JL._l_j __JL • 100 .oo .co

PAGE 179

t-= IJ\ ::s: t-1./l ij P.[). CONVfRTEP "' INTO ST./ COl. L16HT • RAIL TERMINAL ,, / ' / ' -. . ... I ''col.OI\Al>O CONVENTION UNIO'N STATlON I t-Cl) :I: t-"' t..OWER DowNTOWN SUFFER WALL l:ouse" WYNKOOP ST. WAz.EE ST. t t-U') :s: t-00 K . A . SCHMIDT CANDIDATE FOR MVRP/tD 12./1,17 j D . HILl ATTACMtN1 7S AMTP.At< I PASSfN&fR svc. FI'1.Ef>-C1VJ()fWAY I ''LI &HT 1-AIL .. .... en :c )-tr-' NEW AC.C.fSS INTO C.PV.