Sunday, April 08, 2007
Back to the Future: Currigan Hall
Denver's first "convention center" was the Denver Auditorium, the historic structure now home to the Ellie Caulkins Opera House at the Denver Performing Arts Complex, which opened just in time to host the 1908 Democratic National Convention. By the 1950s, the Denver Auditorium was losing its luster, and the city started talking about building a new convention center. In 1964, Denver voters approved a bond issue to build a new convention hall and, after holding a national design competition, Denver-based William C. Muchow Associates Architects was selected to design the new facility. Completed in 1969 at a cost of just over $7 million, the 100,000 square foot Currigan Exhibition Hall featured an innovative steel structure design that allowed for no interior support columns. The hall was named for Martin D. Currigan Sr., a prominent and well-respected Denver City Councilman from the 1890s whose grandson, Thomas G. Currigan, served as mayor of Denver from 1963 - 1968 during the convention center's design and construction. Here's a rendering of the proposed Currigan Exhibition Hall, taken from the same publication cited in yesterday's blog, "Metropolitan Denver" published in 1966 by the Junior League of Denver:
By the early 1980s, Denver was considering yet again the construction of a bigger and better convention center. For that story, check out my blog of July 17, 2006, which includes renderings of the proposed-but-rejected convention center project behind Denver's historic Union Station.
By the early 1980s, Denver was considering yet again the construction of a bigger and better convention center. For that story, check out my blog of July 17, 2006, which includes renderings of the proposed-but-rejected convention center project behind Denver's historic Union Station.
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Looking at the CPV proposal for the convention center makes me think Denver made a mistake not locating it there. With the way the land and the building architecture downtown slope down towards the river, it seems like the CPV was tailor-made for a huge low-rise structure. The current location seems more suited for highrises.
Permalink Posted by 
: 4/08/2007 12:12:00 PM
: 4/08/2007 12:12:00 PM
Boy, that would have been one helluva ugly building. Glad we got the current design. And I think the present location is good, since it will gradually bring more and more hotels to the area, more hotels bring more shops, and more shops bring a more pedestrian connection to Civic Center Park to downtown.
Permalink Posted by : 4/09/2007 10:33:00 AM
: 4/09/2007 10:33:00 AM
The problem with convention centers is that they take up so much space on the ground. I would argue that neither the Central Platte Valley nor the current site (known as the "Silver Triangle" site during the period in the Pena administration when the site selection was going on) are really ideal. Look at what the CCC has done: eliminated California Street (until the late 80s it ran all the way to Speer), buried Stout underground, created blank walls on Welton and Champa, and created a giant no-go area for pedestrians. Not to entirely fault Fentress Bradburn, though--it's the nature of the convention center beast.
Chicago put McCormick Place a mile south of the Loop; New York has the Javitz Center way over on the western edge of Manhattan--neither area is pedestrian-friendly. At least ours is near a pedestrian zone, and on a rail line (which neither New York's nor Chicago's are).
I do have fond memories of Currigan, and wish it hadn't been necessary to destroy it.
Post a Comment
Chicago put McCormick Place a mile south of the Loop; New York has the Javitz Center way over on the western edge of Manhattan--neither area is pedestrian-friendly. At least ours is near a pedestrian zone, and on a rail line (which neither New York's nor Chicago's are).
I do have fond memories of Currigan, and wish it hadn't been necessary to destroy it.
Links to this post:
<< Home
