Our representative from Congress Park to the Central Denver Rec Center stake holder group, Aaron Goldhamer provided this report. It is presented in its entirety . Pictures were also provided by Aaron. Thank you very much Aaron
*All photos are presented as thumbnails. Please select image to enlarge
Dear CPN,
I am writing to report on the Stakeholders meeting that was held on 1/7/15 regarding the Central Denver Rec Center. I hope this recap is informative! I’ve attached the agenda that was circulated with my notes thereon.
Rec_Center_Meeting_Agenda_1.7.15
We heard about–and saw–a revised layout for the design.
Some pictures of the presentation are attached (I will see if I can just get the slides themselves). The basic overview is that–compared to the last set of drawing that were circulated–the entrance is more squarely at Colfax and Josephine and the pool orientation is removed somewhat from fronting Josephine (to reduce glare and to accommodate a possible additional two lanes for the lap pool to the east, up to ten lanes). There will be 100 to 125 parking spots. This is significantly less than many Rec Centers, but is being proposed due to the smaller size of the site, its accessibility via public transit, and the general density around the site. The northwest end of the site still has some undetermined uses, with some storm water detention, possible small dog park, and/or possible outdoor activities to be determined for that space. Storm water detention is a significant issue due to the slope on the site. The design will continue to emphasize strong pedestrian connection to East High School.
There is apparently some groundwater contamination at the site. This issue partly motivated the re-orientation and reconsideration of the extent to which the pool would be dug out below grade; the revised design will reduce costs of construction with respect to the contamination. It is believed that the contamination is due to a leaking fuel tank from the Sunmart, but the source is not entirely clear. The contaminant is MTBE, an additive to gasoline used in the 1970s. There will be continued monitoring of this issue to confirm that the source is not a moving plume of some sort. Liability issues for the old Sunmart owners were not discussed.
Right now, the City has a $23.1M construction budget. The “base” project right now is estimated to cost $23.87M to construct.
This figure does not include construction costs for some adjacent retail space (estimated at $600K, layout pictured in the attached), finishing off the rooftop for an event space ($830K), a walk/jog track ($500K) around the “mezzanine” level overlooking the basketball court and exercise area, and a climbing wall on the exterior of the building ($150K). These elements could be added in as funds become available, but between the “base” project budget and these alternates, the project faces a $2.9M shortfall.
There are various proposals to address this shortfall. One could be a loan of some sort that is repaid from revenues from room rentals on the site (party room by leisure pool, rentals for other events, rental of retail space, etc.). There may be some grant money available as well. Naming-rights sponsorship of a major element of the construction (a pool, or another major feature) could be had for donation of 50% of the cost of construction of that element/feature (while the City isn’t sure that the community would accept some sort of corporate overall naming rights for the whole center, naming rights in the component pieces appears more palatable). Additional proposals include selling the land underlying the proposed retail space and/or trying to fit some sort of additional development (probably housing) on the site and selling that space.
Brad Buchannan presented some thoughts on the additional development aspect. He noted the “pro” aspects of this proposal included increased density and activity at the site. Proposal for such a development is outlined in the dotted line at the northern side of the site in the attached. Additional parking for housing may be accomplished underground, but the timeline for this development in conjunction with the Rec Center itself could be problematic. Gordon Roberston presented some “con” aspects of the additional development idea. Those include a perhaps untenable busy-ness on the site, the possible lack of architectural control if there would be an interested developer, and the notion that additional development on the site would decrease from Denver’s attempted “City in a Park” feel. The larger group discussed the additional development idea, agreed that if it was going to happen there needed to be a concerted communication effort between the City and the public, and that there may be some strong resistance to the idea in light of the onsite retail and the perception that Denver’s public spaces are being overly privatized and commoditized.
There does not appear to be any resolution at this point between the City and DPS concerning any usage of the student parking lot across 16th. It was noted that during certain times of day, that lot is packed with student cars. In the spring time, as more students obtain a drivers license, it is worse.
Let me know if you have any follow-up questions!
Best,
Aaron
Addition pictures are here
Where does one apply for a job at the new Denver central recreation center ?
Apply with the City and County of Denver Parks and Rec