Wednesday, architect Daniel Libeskind revealed his concept plan for the makeover of Denver’s Civic Center Park before a standing-room only crowd at the Colorado Convention Center. Let’s get straight to the images, OK? (Numbers 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 courtesy of Studio Daniel Libeskind).
My initial reaction is that I like it. I think it accomplishes the primary goals of revitalizing the park: to add new design elements that activate the park and make it more engaging and intriguing, to create better pedestrian connections to the surrounding areas, and to preserve and enhance the existing historic park elements.
The soaring arched pedestrian bridge connecting the plaza above Civic Center Station to the center of the park is my favorite design element. The bridge would also serve as an excellent complement to the Millennium Bridge at the other end of the 16th Street Mall. More about the Libeskind Civic Center plan at a later date.
Regarding the earlier comment about building a 1000-car parking garage near the park:
As much as everyone dislikes the parking situation downtown, it serves its purpose in reducing the number of vehicle trips in the area (decreasing smog and emissions) and allowing for the greatest efficiency in space use (a 1000-car parking garage that is empty every night is a bad use of the space). This only prolongs the negative individualistic idea that cars and other personal transporation devices are only form of American transportation. The fact is, its not only unhealthy physically (based on pollution and non-exercise), it's unhealthy mentally and socially, as well.
On another subject, I think we should all pay close attention to the future of this area. Trammell Crow Company and the State of Colorado are proposing a genious and generous plan to complete Mayor Speer's city-beautiful era Civic Center Park by building the new History Museum building within it. This idea has stood the test of time for a hundred years and is maybe finally nearing completion.
Beyond providing a beautiful new facility within a beautiful park, recognizing the storied history of this beautiful state, it will also serve to clean up the step-child of mis-use and non-use in the park (stabbings, beatings, drug deals).
Comments to this post from the previous Blogger version of the DenverInfill Blog:
I don’t really care for the Libeskind design for a number of reasons.
I feel it takes away too much of the grass area that is frequenty used for various festivals at the park. The RMN article states that it is only 6″ deep and can be drained for the festivals, but I have doubts about the functionallity of that.
Also, one of my favorite views of downtown is entering on Colfax from the east. I think the pedestrain bridge is too much and will take away from the view while coming down the hill on Colfax from the Capitol building. Also, I have doubts about how much use the pedestrain bridge will get due to the start and end points. They are too far away from the main sidewalks on Broadway and 16th Street and I know that I would just choose to use the crosswalk below. The only time I would venture onto the pedestrain bridge is to take in the view.
I also feel that the miniture glass version of Libeskind’s art museum addition that he has placed along Broadway seems superfluous. Does it serve any function other than to stroke his own ego? (although it would be a really cool subway stop, if we had a subway)
I do like other aspects, including the horizontal plane forming the promenade canopy.
Permalink Posted by ScottV : 8/31/2006 09:27:00 AM
I actually like the pedestrian bridge. It creates an unhindered (by automobiles, street crossing, etc.) pedestrian corridor to a transit center, e.g. Civic Center Station, which has the potential to become much more important should streetcars, subways, lightrail, or anything else be developed along Broadway/Lincoln and Colfax. I would use it all the time when in that area because one, I like taking in views even when doing something as simple as crossing the street or commuting, and two, I hate crossing streets and feeling rushed/threatened by cars. Hmmm, I wonder if bikes could use the bridge? That would be excellent. The only detractor to the bridge is that it might be too far inside the park to be useful for a lot of pedestrian commuters. I personally don’t feel that that’s the case, but some might.
I also really like the ideas that have been proposed by some of putting another museum (Colorado History Museum) in symmetry with the McNichols Bldg in the park. Maybe the water feature could be curtailed a bit, or part of the new museum building built over a part of the water feature.
Scottv, the glass building on Broadway would serve as a cultural pavilion (don’t know what that means) and a place of retail. So it does have some function other than stroking egos. I think.
Permalink Posted by Paul : 8/31/2006 10:47:00 AM
I think the more I look at this the less I like it. I really wanted to like it, but I just can’t. I guess I just never thought civic center park itself needed a makeover, instead, that the area around it needed to be revitalized and that in turn would benefit civic center park. Also, I’ve never been a fan of grafting modern glass and steel structures onto the grounds of neo-classical buildings, no matter how fashionable it seems to be.
That said I do like the idea of a pedestrian bridge, as crossing colfax is pretty unpleasant now. I don’t think the bridge should end up one of the dominant design elements of the park but instead complement what is already there.
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 8/31/2006 12:54:00 PM
I agree with a lot of what Paul said. I can see some viewpoints from people who think the bridge would not be used. And not to sound crude, but most people in general are sheep and will go where they’re lead. All that’s needed is wayfinding signage and attractive plaza to invite the pedestrians to the bridge. The views from the bridge will be awesome as well.
The water feature now looking at it does appear to be a little overdone. Perhaps if it was shrunk a bit or maybe place the central gathering space in the middle of the park as part of the promenade. Put the water feature under the plaza so it appears that the plaza is floating on it. Instead of making it square, make it star shaped or circular, etc. That way it frees up more grass and then you can surround the plaza with small fountains shooting out from the water. Being on the plaza surrounded by a shallow pool with sprouting fountains could be a interesting experience.
I think this whole process is going to be incredible for all citizens. Come to the townmeetings and make your opinions known!! Like what Ken posted before this is everyone’s downtown and we have the say in what we want it to be!
Permalink Posted by Rob : 8/31/2006 01:17:00 PM
I like much of the plan including the bridge, water feature and central gathering place. I do think he tried to include too many other, unnessesary features that don’t add to the park.
It is clear that the park need to connect to both Downtown and the Golden Triangle. The bridge connects to civic center station but you still need to cross Broadway to get there. I would like to see a structure that litterally extends the 16th St Mall into the park. The idea of narrowing 14th St and closing it during weekend is intersting if it does not create traffic headaches.
Finally, parking needs to be addressed, I would like to see the Colorado History Museum placed at 14th and Bannock and a 1000 car parking garage constructed.
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 8/31/2006 02:40:00 PM
I Love civic center park. As I child my grandmother used to baby sit me. She lived right up the street and we spent so many days there I cannot tell you. I feel like I grew up in the seal fountain (pond) We also used to go to the go to the greek theater for all kinds of events. I loved the old, classic feel of the park and it’s architechture. I love Libeskind’s work, but to me, this one is just not a fit. Thats just me… I was saddened to hear the Theater in the Park organization stopped due to lack of funding. Anything that brings more poeple and interest to the park I would be in favor of.
Permalink Posted by Michael : 8/31/2006 02:58:00 PM
That’s what’s fascinating about this whole process. Everyone talks about how much they love the park, but save for a couple of huge events a year, no one goes. I truly believe there are two reasons for that: the built environment and the park’s more permanent residents. Fixing the first should take care of the second.
An example: the Theater in the Park’s plays and other works were great, but seeing a show there stinks. The Greek Theater is cool in many ways, but it’s also very outdated as a performance space. It needs a new direction. That’s what Daniel’s plan proposes. (What actually happens? There will be a design competion to really make it work right.)
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 8/31/2006 05:41:00 PM
It does improve the connection to downtown and add activity by the Civic Center. But it seems to ignore the Capitol building. I think all the homeless would go across Broadway and camp out over there. Another bridge across Broadway might help.
Permalink Posted by John : 8/31/2006 10:30:00 PM
Overall I think it Libeskind scheme contributes to stimulating some interesting possible treatments, but I don’t like the lack of more historical design approaches that would better fit the context of this City Beautiful era landmark area.
– I like the idea of introducing one or more pavillions on the street edges. I also like establishing a strong phyiscal connection between the RTD plaza/16th Street and the park – I’m not totally sold on the bridge design that Libeskind offers however.
– I like incorporating some additional fountains, although I think Libeskind is overdoing it and is dedicating way too much surface area to water features so as to restict the function of the park as a major civic gathering space.
– I like the conversion of the McNichols building to some public use. (One appropriate option would be for it to become part of the Denver Art Museum, for its collection of classical antiquities.)
– I’m also okay with a Pavillion treatment for the Greek Ampitheatre – and something airy and visually subtle is probably more appropriate to complement the neoclassical style of the landmark structute.
Finally, I think some of his contemporary schemes for civic space design would work better with connecting our public facilities in the Central Platte Valley – which is emerging as a secondary civic center area in downtown. I could see some of his bridge designs and pavillions more at home in that setting – linking the Childrens Museum and Aquarium, with Pepsi/Elitch’s and Quest Field.
(Plus the water feature is already in place there, that is, the Platte River!)
Permalink Posted by Rock : 9/01/2006 11:56:00 AM
I really don’t want to be negative, but this is a really bad plan. It doesn’t solve the most important problems, and it would create a bunch of new problems.
It doesn’t address the block east of broadway, which must be part of the solution, and it doesn’t address the weak connection between the 16th street mall itself and the transit station where the bridg begins. If you are walking on the mall, you still have to cross Broadway to get to the park. How is that better than Colfax? The ends of the bridge are definitely in the wrong places. The brige also butchers the pioneer fountain wedge, which will become more of a disaster than it is now.
The plan floods most of the little open area left in downtown. How does 6 inches over 40% of the park bring more people into the place? How much will the water cost to cover the evaporation from that thing?
I don’t see how covering the Greek theatre will solve that venue’s problems, and aside from the cafe, the only new feature that will actively draw people to this space is the small cultural pavillion at the *edge* of the space. The canopies will block many of the views of some of the best architectural treasures we have in this town. And what’s with the 14th ave plaza? That’s useless. If this was built, it would become another skyline park. Nice to boast about the famous architect, but totally impractical.
Geez, give a guy a reputation, and he stops designing things that work. Actually, he seems to have stopped designing at all. I find it highly suspect that his same angular design is the right approach for every cirucmstance in the civic center area. How about a second idea? Let’s hope the art museum interior works out better than this.
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 9/01/2006 04:07:00 PM
Although I’m a big Libeskind fan in general, there are two big areas that the plan doesn’t appear to address which bother me quite a bit:
1) What does the plan add to the space that will be more of a draw? I think all of the crowded renderings look nice, but umm… what exactly those people doing in the park? One of the big issues with the park is that there is nothing to do in the park or adjacent buildings except the library and art museum. Unless you’re going to court or are a gold dome enthusiast, there’s not really much there for you. The new retail, cultural space and architectural elements will help to be sure, but it doesn’t seem like a complete solution to the problem.
2) Will the bridge be as necessary when the Downtown Circulator bus is implemented and the RTD Civic Center Station is no longer the end of the line? There definitely needs to be an enhanced pedestrian connection to the park (and subsequently from downtown to the museum/library complex), but the bridge seems somewhat excessive. With that said, upon completion of the Highland Bridge and the Museum Plaza, the Colfax/Broadway crossing will be the weakest pedestrian connection in the stretch between the Highlands and the Golden Triangle, and certainly needs to be addressed.
Permalink Posted by Ryan Nee : 9/02/2006 06:21:00 AM
Apparently this plan received a mostly positive response from the 700 people to whom it was presented Wednesday, but I don’t see how that can be. Maybe people are just really anxious to see the area cleaned up in terms of the marijuana market and the transient camp-outs, so they are just glad to see any kind change.
I don’t so much have a problem with the water. I don’t see how that would prevent people from visiting because only 60% of the area is walkable. I think the area would become more like a Union Square of San Francisco – not the shopping area but the square itself. Everyday, dozens if not hundreds of people can be found at any moment lounging about the square, taking in the views, eating their lunches and just relaxing. It’s not a park for throwing a frisbee; it’s a park for enjoying a lunchbreak or a book. That’s how I see the relationship of Civic Center Park to the nearby workers and residents. So it’s good to see something proactive happen to transform the park into something more civilized but…
The problem I have is the canopies and the bridge. Why would we want all of these fashionable (ugly as sin in 10 years) objects sticking out of the ground here and there, blocking the view of the magnificant capitol buildings?
And the bridge might look pretty, but it’s usless. Tourists and suburbanites will use them when strolling. But people like me that are just trying to quickly walk to work or home would never take such a detour. Most of the pedestrian traffic that flows through that intersection flows from NW to SE and vice versa (i.e. 16th St to Capitol Hill, 15 bus to Broadway etc) and even if it did flow from NE to SW / SW to NE, no one would take a half block detour to get to the bridge and then another half block detour to get back to the sidwalk again.
The design is not practical and not very sensitive to Denver’s history and flavor.
Permalink Posted by the inhabitant : 9/02/2006 11:41:00 PM
The design looks like a matte painting from Star Trek. It’s post modern stuck to neo-classical with super glue. The coolest thing about Denver is the feeling that you get trying to imagine its first inhabitants taming the old west in the American tradition – which is reflected in the current CC architecture. This neo-euro design clashes in a horrible way. The new museum is gorgeous – just not juxtaposed w/ the capitol.
I eat lunch there almost everyday, and the only thing I would recommend would be putting picnic benches in the shade. If you want people to go to the park, DO something there. Homeless people like pretty things as much as the rest of us. Want to activate the park? The 4 major festivals that happen each summer draw nearly 1 MILLION visitors. Maybe just have a lunchtime concert or post-work concert. People will come without spending millions on cosmetic (and soon to be outdated) “improvements.”
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 9/08/2006 03:49:00 PM
Regarding the earlier comment about building a 1000-car parking garage near the park:
As much as everyone dislikes the parking situation downtown, it serves its purpose in reducing the number of vehicle trips in the area (decreasing smog and emissions) and allowing for the greatest efficiency in space use (a 1000-car parking garage that is empty every night is a bad use of the space). This only prolongs the negative individualistic idea that cars and other personal transporation devices are only form of American transportation. The fact is, its not only unhealthy physically (based on pollution and non-exercise), it’s unhealthy mentally and socially, as well.
On another subject, I think we should all pay close attention to the future of this area. Trammell Crow Company and the State of Colorado are proposing a genious and generous plan to complete Mayor Speer’s city-beautiful era Civic Center Park by building the new History Museum building within it. This idea has stood the test of time for a hundred years and is maybe finally nearing completion.
Beyond providing a beautiful new facility within a beautiful park, recognizing the storied history of this beautiful state, it will also serve to clean up the step-child of mis-use and non-use in the park (stabbings, beatings, drug deals).
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 9/24/2007 01:59:00 PM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
libeskind’s plan for civic center
click image to enlarge libeskind unveiled his plans for revitalizing civic center, and i have to say, i think it’s garish in its modernity. the successful juxtaposition of modern and classic elements in architecture, …
posted by Big Daddy @ 8/31/2006 10:03:00 AM