A bill for an ordinance designating 123 East Speer Boulevard as a structure for preservation. Approves an individual Denver landmark designation for property located at 123 Speer Boulevard in Council District 10. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 4-20-21.
I. Madam Secretary, closed the voting and announced results. 1111 nine Counsel Bill 352 has passed. Congratulations, Councilman Flynn. All right. Now we are on the homestretch here. Councilmember Black, would you please put Council Bill 437 on the floor for final passage? I move that. Council bill 20. 10437 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved and we've got a second there. The required public hearing for Council Bill 437 is open. May we please have the staff report? Good evening. Let me show you my screen real quickly. I hope you all can see that. Mm hmm. Go ahead. Okay. We are here for the landmark designation application of 123 year boulevard. Which is located in Council District ten in the Sphere neighborhood. It's at the confluence of Sphere Lincoln and East Seventh Avenue. The current zoning is the Annex 12, and this is our post designation. The owner scripts media is opposed to the designation application. This came forward through a Certificate of Demolition eligibility review. There was a facilitated stakeholder meetings and unfortunately no compromise could be reached. And so three applicants submitted a designation application. And here is an overview of this site. And you can see that the neighborhood area and then I wanted to show you also here is the proposed Lima foundry, which is on the western half of the block. As you are aware, in order for a property to be designated, it must meet the criteria established in the landmark audits. It must maintain its integrity. The structure must be 30 years of age or older, or be of exceptional significance. It needs to meet at least three of the ten criteria and the LPC needed to consider the historic context when reviewing the property. LPC and staff consider the designation application very narrowly. We look at it under just this criteria. However, council can look more broadly and consider the recommendation of the Commission. The written views of the owner. And any other comments received at the public hearing. Designation application I put forward that there were six criteria that were met and the Preservation Commission concurred. So we'll go through all of these. The first is the direct association with the historical development of the city. This property is significant for its association, the historical development of the telecommunications industry in Denver, the KLC Communication Center, or Denver Channel seven, as it's known now embodies the history of the development of television as the food source. Through the second half of the 20th century, pre-war pre-World War Two music entertainment was primarily consumed through print radio. The FCC only printed for TV licenses in Denver in 1953, which was a little later. And once those licenses were printed, it revolutionized the consumption of news nationwide and in Denver. By the late 1960s, multiple network television stations throughout the country, we're seeing unprecedented growth. And as that was happening, the broadcasters began to expand or expand their studios and their offices. Here in Denver at this particular site. I can tell the work initially out of a repurposed Parker and Studebaker showroom and building that they converted into a studio in 1969, and they built a purpose built communication center, which is what we see here at the corner sphere. And so that was part of a nationwide trend that you were seeing throughout the country and new stations building purpose built studios. And this particular one serves as a physical representation of the television industry's explosive growth here in Denver and a representation of what was happening nationwide. The property is also significant for its direct and substantial association with a recognized person with influence on society. Cube Terry was the president and GM of Kiehl's. He was initially a part owner of Kiehl's radio and then helped it transition from radio to television. The Rocky Mountain News said that he was so impressive in his pursuit of the FCC licenses that he was characterized as Mr. Denver, and it was largely due to his strenuous efforts. The county was granted a license to broadcast television. The station. He oversaw the station from 1953 when it first began televising a through 1974 when he retired. During that time, he oversaw the transition to the new building and he was instrumental in a variety of different. Ways for the television industry. He worked not only as president of KLC, but also was promoted to the Western region. While his time working as filming it was limited to only a few years in duration of the association is important factor in determining significance. The original warehouse was converted was converted to the TV station is no longer standing. So this makes this building the best remaining structure associated with the influential work of Hugh Terry and his productive life at KLC. The building is also significant as it embodies the distinctive physical characteristics of an architectural style, and that would be the brutalist style, which is actually French for concrete that is raw or unfinished. It came into the usage in the 1950s and it celebrated raw materials. The shape that this decorations and presented honest architectural expressions, which basically means that its structural and mechanical components were often open to view. Architectural historian and clinical marathon man said that there were three things that really defined brutalist style memorability as an image clear exhibition of structure and valuation of materials as found. Here in this building, you can see more multiple areas of brutalist style. So brutalist style typically has monumental steel exposed concrete structure, a cantilevered mass or a monumental first floor, geometric forms and windows that are insets or slits in the walls. And you can see from the intentional siting here on the corner of Sphere that it had a very monumental setting, that it is cantilevered on the first floor. There is the octagon tower and then the square buildings behind at the rear of the tower. But it has a combination of cast in place and pre-formed concrete with contrasting gray with with the Colorado aggregate and then deeply recessed windows. And so it has the defining characteristics of the brutalist style. The application also put forward that it was that the building is a significant example of the work of a recognized architect. It was designed by a former and Bowers designed communication buildings nationwide for smaller markets and virtual markets. And they designed, as most architects do, for the purpose of meeting their clients using the architectural styles that were popular at the time. They showed a mastery of pushing modern design styles in a variety of their communication centers, internationalism through formalism and in the brutalist structure here in Denver. This building was one of the last television studios that they designed. It is one of the only brutalist styles, and it's the only example in Colorado. So it is a significant example of the work of a recognized architect. The designation application also stated that it is a significant as an example of a master builder. It was built by Energy Tea Tree Construction Company. While the application demonstrated the scope of their work. Both staff and the Landmark Preservation Commission found that additional contextual information and a comparative analysis was needed to really study modern, large scale construction companies and whether those qualify as master builders. So the LPC found that it was significant for former employers, but not for the construction company. The property also represents an established and familiar feature of the contemporary city. Due to its prominent location or physical characteristics. So this is a distinctive octagonal building. It was sited on a prominent corner at the confluence of Sphere Lincoln and seventh with visibility from Broadway. And six, the architects intentionally considering the site. And that, coupled with the building's arresting design, has created an iconic building that has been well known and prominent along Speer Boulevard for over 50 years. And finally, the building promotes an understanding and appreciation of the urban environment by means of rarity. It is one of only two older historic buildings that are associated with Denver television stations or Denver's oldest stations are located within about a mile of each other along Lincoln Street and Speer Boulevard. And this is one of only two in all the historic buildings. And then also it is a rare example of brutalist architecture in Denver. There are approximately 160,000 primary structures in Denver, and this is one of only a small handful of buildings that are in the brutalist style. Here are a few examples of some of the previous buildings in Denver. The two buildings on the outer edge of the site are both a combination of custom placed and pre-formed concrete. And then the complex, the jail complex in the middle, well, it has brutalist forms, is actually made entirely of brick. And so brutalism can look it can be made up of different materials. But these are some of one of the few highlights of brutalist buildings in Denver. And so this property because there are you know, only a handful is significant for its rarity. And then finally, the landmark ordinance requires that a property retain its integrity, which is basically if the property looked like what it used to look like. And in this instance, there are minimum alterations there. Screens and satellites that were recently added would be considered non contributing to the building so they could be changed over time if needed if it's designated. There were also smaller changes to the rear garage doors and your alter, but overall the property maintains all aspects of integrity. And so the LPC considered the historic context and the period of significance for this property, that it reflects the history of the development of television, that it was developed under President MGM and Terry , that it was designed by a well-known firm with extensive experience designing purpose built television stations. And it was designed, this style of style popular at the time, the historic context and the designation application adds significant detail to all of those areas. The period of significance extends from construction. In 1969 to 1972, when the station was sold in the call, letters were changed to Cam g. H. This is the public comment that we have received at CPD. By May six that 11 a.m. we had received 23 comments in support and 92 in opposition. And then in the LPC public hearing there were two members of the community who spoke in support and one in opposition. And all of that was forwarded to you in your packets. So in my view, the Preservation Commission in CPD staff found that it met the criteria. It is over 30 years of age. The application that at least three out of the ten criteria the building retains integrity and the OPC considered the historic context. I was watching him once and I will answer any questions. All right. Thank you very much for the presentation. And tonight, counsel has received 51 written comments on Council Bill 437. There are five submitted comments in favor of the application and there are 46 submitted comments in opposition of the application. All members of Council that are present have certified that they have read each of the submitted written comments. Do any members need more time in order to read all of the written testimony that was submitted? All right, scene one. Council secretary, let the record reflect that all written testimony, both in favor and in opposition of Council Bill 437 have been read by each member of council and all written testimony will be submitted to the official record of the hearing. We have 40 individuals signed up to speak this evening. And just a quick reminder to folks. Everybody has 3 minutes available. And if all 40 of you took all 3 minutes, we will be here for 2 hours and we're up and we're getting close to 930. And so if you have repetitive comments or can make your comments a bit more succinct, we would greatly appreciate that this evening. And so we are going to go ahead and start out with our first speaker and we have Dean Littleton. Thank you. Council President. Good evening, council members. My name's Steve Littleton. I'm the general manager of Denver7. We are located at one, two, three Steer Boulevard. Thank you for the opportunity to make comments. In addition to what we've already submitted, you have in front of you an incredibly important decision that will forever impact the future of our . Business and. Nearly 200 employees. This all started more than two years ago because. The staff that. I have the honor of serving just needed a better place to work. I'm so proud of what our team. Has. Accomplished. At. A time when all we hear about are stories of local newsrooms shutting down or furloughing staff. We've been able to protect our employees and their livelihoods at a time of need while actually adding quality jobs. Journalism. It's our journalism that has driven our staff growth of 30% over the past few years. And all that growth has been squeezed into this purpose built structure for a 1970s TV news operation. That's what led to our staff driven initiative to improve our workspace by reinvesting in Denver. We disagree with the advocates position that our building is exceptionally historic or that the architecture rises to the level of permanent landmark designation over the wishes of the staff that work here and the owners, the community overwhelmingly agrees with us. Between the public comments submitted to landmark preservation staff and those delivered to the City Council, by our count, more than 122 Denver residents and business owners have taken the time to indicate their opposition to designation. But now with this application, we feel like we've been pushed into a corner. If our building is designated, it severely impacts or prevents us from moving and reinvesting in the more modern facility our team needs. If we stay, we're tied to a purpose built building that no longer serves the purpose for which it was built. The situation we're in right now, I'm delivering this message to you tonight was never the outcome that I saw it. From the first meeting with the applicants, I was hopeful we could find a compromise. We've had numerous conversations with the applicants, the city and the neighbors over the. Last five. Months. The conversation with city council members that the Rudy committee was helpful to. We were challenged in that meeting to go back and look harder for compromises. We did. We dug deeper into adaptive reuse and rezoning options for the site, and today none of those ideas is proven to be feasible. The team doing this analysis is the same team behind 17th and Pearl and many other landmark and adaptive reuse projects in Denver. I trust their guidance. While we're why we were looking harder for compromise or purchase or PMG was able to work out an email u with the adjacent R.A. that keeps. Sorry. Here we go. But that keeps important issues and options on the table for future collaboration. So that brings us to tonight. What started as a simple idea to relocate and reinvest in better work environment for our employees has led to this. I'm asking for your understanding. Please give me the opportunity to finish what we've started. Give our 200 local journalists and staff the facility they need to better serve the people of Denver. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Andy Rockmore. Good evening, Mandy Rock Moore of 50 and 50 Wynkoop Street. I'm also a resident in Denver and a principal at Sures Adkins Rockmore Architects. We've been working with both KMG and PMG on this important issue. As architects, we share a responsibility to shape our city and each site appropriately so that they can be places of interaction and equity and connection. Our challenge, all of us together, regardless of the outcome tonight, is how to make this important gateway site a community connector for the Capitol Hill neighborhood and our city. Our firm has been privileged to work on some of the city's most prominent adaptive reuse projects. The Tavern at 17th and Pearl a few years ago, and currently at Colfax and Franklin. Interestingly, these projects were accomplished without there being landmark. The challenges at one, two or three Speer, however, are significantly more complex. Adapting a building is no simple task. Adaptively reusing a building with brutalist characteristics, an assemblage of imposing austere and opaque elements which does not connect with the neighborhood is a far greater challenge. Nonetheless, from the moment we heard that there were plans to apply for landmark status. We set about understanding this possibility in all respects. We spoke with numerous developers and architects who have extensive experience in adaptive reuse. We reached surged through brutalist buildings, both nationally and internationally. And not surprisingly, an overwhelming number of them are municipal, institutional, government and school buildings, and they therefore have no intention of changing their use. But we learned more about the brutalist style than we ever would have. So after countless hours of research and debate, we had a significant number of our peers in the architectural community, many of whom have written letters to you and staff, believe that 123 Speer is not a building of true historic significance, and it doesn't meet the high standard for preservation. Regardless, DMG asked that we search for a way to keep and reuse all or a portion of 1 to 3 Speer in the development. We did a thorough assessment of the existing building and we identified the need to completely overhaul all of its internal systems. The stairs and elevators don't meet current codes. Its life safety, mechanical and utilities systems are antiquated, and its exterior envelope, with its single glazed windows throughout, is extremely under-performing. Even so, before the threat back in February 10th, all the way up through last week, we've explored many, many options for adaptive reuse and I'm happy to provide more detail on the question and answer period. In conclusion, this building does not need to be landmarked, but our team remains deeply committed to working with CPD staff and the neighborhood to continue to sincerely and professionally explore all options for a successful outcome. The chances of doing so are part of the. Plan we have allocated for each speaker. Thank you. Next up, we have Brian Conley. Evening. Thank you, Madam President. Brian Connolly with the law firm of art and Johnson Robinson, Neff and Reagan. Nettie. I had the privilege of being here representing the landowner team on this application. And I'll just note, I'll be very brief in my comments. I'll just note that our firm submitted a number of things for your packet this evening, including a memo on your approval criteria, a summary of public outreach that's been done, and some written responses to some of the questions that we received at the committee hearing. So hopefully you've had an opportunity to review those. I'm here to answer your question. To the extent you have any about. The materials that. We submitted or quite frankly, anything else and look forward to doing so, I will preemptively answer one question because I know Councilman Flynn at. The first reading asked us to address. First Amendment issues associated with this designation. We had not really had the. Opportunity to have any consideration or. Discussion of First Amendment issues before Councilman Flynn raised that. But we've now had an opportunity to look into it. I will say. That one of the bases of the application. Is obviously the fact that this building has been used. By a journalistic organization and its history associated with journalism. So clearly, it's our position that Channel Seven would be penalized. By the. Designation of this. Property. And obviously that. Penalty is related in part to the fact that it has been engaged in journalism. And, of course, the First Amendment protects the freedom of the press. I'm happy to go into more legal detail to the extent anyone has any questions about that. I will say from a big picture perspective, I think we can probably all agree that good local journalism is a public good. And certainly the designation of this property would require Channel Seven to devote a lot of its resources to maintaining the existing building and would limit Channel Seven's ability to grow its staff. Whereas allowing Channel Seven. To sell this property and have this property. Redeveloped would give it the. Resources to expand and. Relocate and continue to serve the community with good local journalism, which again we think is consistent both with First Amendment principles and with the public good. So we do respectfully request that you deny this application tonight. And again, I'd be. Happy to answer any questions you have. All right. Thank you, Brian. Our next speaker is Evan SHAPIRO. Hi. Good evening. Evan SHAPIRO from PMG. I am here to answer any questions. I think that. Dean, Andy. And Bryan. Spoke directly and to the point. And so in the interest of. Time, I will just make myself available to any questions. And thank you for. Your time and considering this tonight. All right. Thank you. Next up, we have Mike Epstein. Crimean Council member Thor. I am Mike Epstein from 312 Walnut in. Cincinnati, Ohio. Here in opposition to the application and available to answer any questions as an ownership representative from MGM, Jane Littleton Kim JH is general manager is here is our primary representative as the. Owner of that business. Thank you. Thank you, Mike. Next up, we have Amy Unger. Hi. Good evening, council members. My name is younger and I live in Colorado and the principal and owner of Pine Street Preservation, a preservation consulting firm specializing in the preparation of local, state and National Register nominations and attributes of survey. I was hired by the applicants to assist in preparing a local landmark application for this town for the building. My professional qualifications include a master's degree in architecture with an emphasis in our sexual history and graduate certificate in subdivision from the University of Texas at San Antonio. And I'm also a former preservation planner for the city of San Antonio and Park County, Colorado. Prior to starting my current consulting business in 2021, I was a national state registered historian with History Colorado and a five year resident of Denver. With your neighborhood, I've authored numerous successful state and local landmark nominations in my career. I'm here on behalf of the applicants, and I'm available to answer any questions I have about the historical background, information and arguments for significance included in the application. Thank you. Thank you, Amy. Next up, we have Annie Levinsky. Good evening again, counsel. I'm Annie Levinsky. I'm the executive director of Historic Denver. We're a nonprofit located at 1420 Ogden Street. I'm here on behalf of our Board of Trustees and our organization. For those who aren't familiar, it's our mission that generates, can actively experience and thoughtfully maintain our city's historic places now and long into the future . We are an advocate and a resource for preserving Denver's significant historic fabric, its distinctive architecture, and. Its cultural landscapes. And we do this. Because embracing existing buildings and looking at the possibilities of adaptive reuse, borrowing materials and natural resources, and blending the historic context of a place with new investment are. Powerful ways to respect the community's value of place and the stories that made the city what it is as it grows and evolves. Historic Denver did not initiate this designation effort, but we were invited to engage in two of the early dialog sessions with the property owner and the involved community members who want to historically designate the building. In these instances, we seek to bring options to the table. If the parties are working together and exploring outcomes that may. Assist, may need assistance or creative tools to support a historic resource. This is the value of the consideration process and in many cases. A successful outcome did not. Involve. Demolition or historic designation. But getting to that outcome requires respectful dialog, creativity, a sense of civic duty and stewardship, as well as a commitment to the city as a more than a blank slate. But a place with many layers of fabric. We've seen parties come together around these values before, but in the case of one, two, three sphere, the mediated discussions did not provide a clear path forward. So at this point we just want to urge script's PMG and the community members to strongly consider and voluntarily. Pursue all reasonable options presented throughout the process regardless of tonight's outcome. As a city, we must be stewards of the place we call Denver. And expect and seek to support. High quality development that recognizes where we came from and. Reflects that Denver is Denver with all of its unique attributes. In closing, I just want to note that the location of this property is pivotal and its direct proximity to the historic Stewart Speer Boulevard Parkway and the Cherry Creek, which are both key cultural landscapes that define central Denver. The site is worthy of careful attention. And a thoughtful, authentic approach for these reasons alone. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Evan Clark. Thank you, Madam President. And council people. My name is Evan Clark. I I'm with a campaign team. I am available to answer questions, obviously opposing the application and can be available for any. Information you need afterwards. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Caroline Sharp. Thank you. Perhaps more than most ladies and gentlemen of the Council, I feel qualified to comment about 123 spear for two stints in the seventies and eighties. I was Channel seven writer, producer, documentary producer, executive producer, reporter, anchor, and Assistant News Director. For a time, I had an amazing view of the mountains from my office on the west side of the structure. I grew up not far away on Seventh Avenue and often walked by the old Kelsey building. I even was on Fred and Faye to celebrate my birthday. The building was a definite improvement on that old one. I read in detail both CPD's. Assessment of the building's landmark potential and the Heritage Group's rebuttal. As a good journalist, would I look hard at the documentation provided in each? The heritage groups or bubble comes up. Very short where CPD. Provided research and examples. Heritage offered arguments with little to back them up but opinion no references or authoritative resources. Disagreement is not proof. I'm not sure how much Scripps paid heritage for their rebuttal. I suspect it was the lot and I believe that they got cheated. The building is a unique expression of brutalism tailored to its site. Heritage quotes William Wolf. Who joined Fullmer and Bowers after. This building was built. Quote, We don't give a hoot about the consistency of our style, but we do care about is the appropriate of the appropriateness of each building's character to its user and site, close quote. Isn't that precisely the point? The building was designed and built for that purpose at that location with materials locally available and earned an award for it. A Rocky Mountain News headline on June 22nd, 1969, said that, quote, The new KLC building inspires superlatives. Close quote. No, it's not on the National Register. Many local landmarks, including what has become known as the Shop Mansion at Seventh and Clarkson, for which I wrote the Denver Landmark Application, are not. I worked inside 123 Spirit with people considered local media icons Bob Palmer, Starr, Yellen, Warren Chandler and later Bertha Lynne and Andrew Hill. I find it laughable that Scripps argues that landmarking this building will interfere with Channel Seven's ability to cover the news. The original plan called for building another structure on the property to allow room for growth. That's still possible. So is adaptive reuse of the building, which the Scripps people rejected out of hand in mediation with the applicants? Their desire, it seems to me, is. Simply to walk away with a pile of money and leave us in the neighborhood with yet another massive. And based on what we've seen so far in the Governors Park neighborhood, undistinguished luxury apartment house. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate. Thank you. Our next speaker this evening is Lauren Hanson. Go ahead, Lauren. We'll just have to have you unmute. There you go. Out of there. My name is Lauren Hanson. I live 1915 Sherman Street. And I would like to voice my opposition to this landmark preservation. I am a very constant user of the Cherry Creek Trail. As someone that writes Bike, I often use the 83 and 83 hour bus to get down by this area. And for me, the building has a very small significance to someone that was once interviewed by Denver7. However, I am very understanding as someone that's lived in Denver for a. Time about the need for. Things such as new housing. And for me, I'll just keep it brief. I stand with Denver7 and local community leaders in opposing. This landmark designation. Thank you for your time, Council, and I hope we're having a warm evening. Thank you. Our next speaker is Bradley Cameron. We'll have to have you unmute, Bradley. Be all. Right. Go. Sorry. My name is Brad Cameron. I'm a district Ken Denver resident, and I am one of the applicants for this landmark application. I entered into this endeavor because I feel strongly that the Channel seven building is an important part of Denver's urban fabric and history. It would be a shame for it to be demolished and erased from our collective experience as a city. It has been categorized as belonging to the architectural style of brutalism. But regardless of what category the building is in, there is no denying its extreme modernism. Back in 1969, Hugh Terry and Raymond Bowers both wanted to make a statement with the monumental building, and they succeeded. But while its modernism is what attracts many of us, that is also what seems to repel others. Critics tell us things like, I don't like brutalism. It's ugly. It's cold. The last one cold surprises me the most with its beautiful red color, especially in Colorado's sunshine. It is anything but cold, gray, concrete. It is not. People's reaction to it is much like reactions to modern art. Some like it, some don't. But our society would be much less diverse and stimulating without it. Now, from the very beginning with scripts, we said we were open to compromise. We made clear that land not marketing, was not the only way to accomplish the goal of preservation. Adaptive reuse has always been our mantra and not necessarily within the context of the Landmark Preservation Ordinance. Win win was the goal. As mentioned before, for about a six week period back in January and February, we zoomed in numerous times with the Scripps team, an attempt to find common ground. We asked, could something be done similar to what was successful up at 17th Avenue and Pearl Street, where for a little bit of additional density and no additional height weight was found to save the Uptown Tower. Their answer to that was no. We asked, why did the tower have to be converted to residential? Couldn't it be reused as office space its current use? Again, the answer was no. We talked about various available tracks, tax credits. Could any of those be used to bridge the financial gap? Again, no, those wouldn't work. The message was very clear 100% demolition. So when it came time, we took a deep breath. And we filed our application hoping that some type of win win would emerge. We were hopeful when CBD came up with Andrew Webb's discussions, but it didn't bear fruit. So here we are tonight. Please designate the Channel seven building as a Denver landmark. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Steven Benishek. Hi. My name is Steven Benishek. I live in just six, specifically University Park, and I'm speaking to ACOs. So this council and everyone here who's speaking are well aware of Denver's housing shortage and the homelessness crisis. That's cause in the city, the council has appropriated millions of dollars and the people have approved the new sales tax in November specifically to deal with this problem. And this tells me that when the council talks about taking action against homelessness, those are empty words. And that's something they very much care about. Well, the thing is, you can only put so many Band-Aids over bullet holes. And at the end of the day, the city has to address its housing shortage. I. Creating more housing. The council has a chance to do that. They can send a message that Denver is open to everyone and they can tell people that a business being successful enough to outgrow its building moved to another one, something to be celebrated and incentivized. And they shouldn't be punished for that success. They can show that they share the concerns of those who can't be here tonight because they're working their second or third job. And they still have to spend 50, 60, 70% of their monthly income on rent. But at the same time, they can do the opposite. They can send a message about the whims of a privileged few with little connection to this building are more important than the needs of people in the city for housing. Designation, quite frankly, is meritless and hostile. Serves no legitimate purpose. What will become of this building if it's landmarked? It's in too much of a state of disrepair to be used for really anything. So it's just going to continue to stand there as an eyesore. And we'll have this monument to just how much we do not want to build new housing. Allowing this demolition will allow new housing to be built near transit, helping the city fix this housing shortage, meet its vision zero goals and cut down on air pollution through fewer car trips. All of this, not to mention allowing Channel Seven to do what they want with what's their property. Quite frankly, are the reasons why I am. Please implore you. Stand up. For the people being forced onto the streets by the cost of living in the city. And please vote. No. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Carla McConnell. Evening and thank you for listening to my comments. I'm a Denver resident and I urge tonight that you vote in favor of landmark designation for the Channel seven structures. Unlike the Landmark Preservation Commission, Council has the ability to consider other community goals in your deliberation. And I'd like to focus on two of those other goals. Neighborhood Goals. The draft Golden Triangle Neighborhood Plan references how the district's eclectic character is enhanced through having a diversity of architecture, historic and contemporary. This site can allow for the historic and contemporary development to occur on this important gateway location. The Golden Triangle neighborhood has long as a strong association with arts and culture. Surely a tower that was purpose built for television could continue to serve creative businesses needing production space. Sustainability Goals. The Denver Office of Climate Action states that 40% of waste heading to a landfill is generated by construction. The National Trust for Historic Preservation states that it can take up to 60 years for new energy efficient buildings to overcome the climate impacts of demolition and associated new construction. Adaptive reuse of existing structures is a sustainable strategy. Any new development will require parking. Why not use the existing parking structure? The tower, in addition to being a tangible symbol of our history, can continue to serve new companies for many decades. While working as an urban design architect in Denver's planning office. Serving two terms on the Landmarks Commission and serving on historic Denver's board, I have seen how development teams can rise to the challenge of meeting community goals instead of insisting on a vacant site. The resulting projects are always more interesting and often much more profitable. I listened with interest to the discussion about Loreto Heights and heard how many times the inclusion of preservation was going to enrich that whole project. Landmark designation of Channel seven structures will result in a win win for both gender and the development team. There is no downside. These structures meet landmark designation requirements. Designation brings benefits for the developer, and Denver will be a richer community with these structures continuing to serve for many decades. Thank you very much. Thank you, Karla. Our next speaker is Travis Leiker. Greetings. Denver City Council. Travis Leiker, president and chief executive director of Capitol Hill Neighborhoods. And we are one of Denver's largest and oldest registered neighborhood organizations. And 1 to 3 sphere is located within our boundaries. Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods has been monitoring the conversation and the debate concerning the landmark application of one, two, three year boulevard. And while the organization has not taken a formal position on the matter, we have been concerned with the discourse and we share Councilwoman Sandoval's perspectives as expressed that the recent land use Transportation Infrastructure Committee, that compromise is essential. With an estimated eight large scale development projects underway for the government park neighborhood. Working together will be important for the future of the immediate surrounding neighborhood and good for the city over the long term. And to that end, Tron was approached early on by both KMG and PMG just to engage our organization in a conversation. And just last week, Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods entered into an MSU Memorandum of Understanding to better guide the future of the property, ranging from assembling a neighborhood working group to actively exploring the myriad opportunities for this area. And some of the elements of the milieu include conceptualizing opportunities for PMG to incorporate public art and amenities. Pocket Park to the final project. DMG will provide a transportation demand, management and multimodal transportation plan that prioritizes bike, pedestrians, transit opportunities and access. We're actually going to explore historically sensitive design possibilities that recognize the importance of TMG and pay homage to the history of the site. And we're going to tackle our colleagues at Historic Denver consider opportunities for adaptive reuse and preservation for the existing structures. And we're going to engage in affordable. Housing advocates and pursue partnership opportunities for attainable and affordable housing. And in addition to this, we'll be looking at conducting a traffic and mobility study prior to the site development plan. Absent another approach, as we have called for in previous communications with council and city leadership of something like a neighborhood design review committee or something similar, we need to refrain from absolutes and we need to establish a framework that could be a better standard for city planning and development and site specific collaboration. This is a unique and unprecedented approach from our perspective. It's one of the few times that we've been able to proactively engage in a memorandum of understanding and an agreement with the developer to custom craft opportunities for the neighborhood. So we remain committed to working with the neighborhood to get the city moving forward and and to collaborate further with Denver residents to shape the future of this site in a thoughtful and constructive way. And when Denver neighborhoods work together, we all will. Thank you. Our next speaker is Kathleen Wells. Go ahead, Kathleen. I thank you. Good evening. Council president and council members. I'm Kathleen Wells. I'm a Denver resident and I live in District ten. I'm here to support the designation of the Channel seven building. I'm a Denver native. The building is a prominent part of the cityscape. It's widely recognized by the public, and it has been for over 50 years. It should be preserved as part of Denver's commitment to preserving its past. The building should also be designated due to its historical link to figures in Denver who should be honored, especially Hugh Cherry, the President and general manager of KLC. Mr. Terry referred to as Mr. Denver, due to his commitment to Denver, assembled a first rate news staff, one National Awards, and was considered one of the most respected broadcasting executives of his generation. But most importantly to me, he believed broadcasting was a public trust and an instrument that must be responsive to the needs of the community , the values he cherished and worked for. The importance of facts, objectivity, honesty and balance in journalism are ones we must continue to honor in our community. A fitting tribute to Mr. Terry's devotion to Denver journalism. And the common good would be to designate the Channel Seven building, where he built and maintained a fine newsroom of which the city was proud. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Our next speaker is Kevin MATTHEWS. The evening. My name's Ken MATTHEWS. I live at 1020. Madison Street, and I'm. With you in Denver. First off, I need to correct something. I'm a master's student in. Environmental policy and sustainability. The thing about this building being sustainable and having a 60 year payback. That is a concept known as embodied carbon. And that is. Very unusual especially and it's location dependent. And in this location where it's near transit, near bike lanes. That payback period. Probably not more than ten. That being said, what I really want to talk about tonight was basically about, you know, we we still hear a lot about how new market rate building is causing rents to go up, especially considering all the academic literature that points in the opposite direction. But as Emily Hamilton, who's a senior fellow at the Brookings Center, has written. There are a couple of. Urban land uses that have been shown to increase land values and lead to economic displacement. The first is you should all by now. Now know by now is having lots of land dedicated to single unit detached buildings. And the other, as we've seen in cities in New York. Chicago, Baltimore, San Francisco. Are historic districts or places where historic designations have been made remarkably easy. Now, that doesn't mean that all historic designation is bad, but it comes with trade offs. A study in the Journal of Urban Economics found that properties near newly designated historic districts and buildings see price increases. It also found that a disproportionate use of historic designations by high income residents is especially concerning as high income is correlated to greater political resistance. And I'll just quote this part directly. Political resistance is defined as the amount of community organization or feedback against a change in zoning when new historic designations effectively halt any zoning changes or new development in a wealthy neighborhood with political influence. And this affects less wealthy or politically connected areas or less politically connected areas outside the historic district that are impacted. So I ask, is this building worth the tradeoff? And I think that should answer itself. We're still trying to solve the housing crisis, a single building and a single rezoning at a time. And that's not going to work. I just want to finish off by saying. That we've. Created a non resilient and non adaptable housing system in an era where adaptability and resilience should be traits that we should be pursuing. There was a. Thing in the L.A. Times about the drought in California, noting. That's really not a drought. And they point out that the years. Of steady and predictable water flows are over and there is no sign of them coming back in our lifetimes. This is it. We have to build, thank heaven. That's the time allotted we have. Thank you. Our next speaker is Greg Hulme. Thank you. My name is Greg home. I live in the West Force Park neighborhood. And I'm speaking in opposition to the proposed hostile landmark designation 123 Speer Boulevard. The starting point for any land use decision made by city council should be the impact of their decision on the people of Denver. People are more important than buildings after food and water. Housing is humanity's most pressing need. Denver is in a major housing crisis. Housing is inaccessible and unaffordable. Homelessness is exploding, as is displacement of residents in low income communities. Use proposed for 123 Speer Boulevard is attainable multifamily housing, which should have a much higher priority than preserving preserving a building. Dubious significance. 123 Speer is neither historic or architecturally important. It is a squat, ugly, special purpose building constructed as a television studio, an associated office building made of concrete which is expensive and difficult to modify. The authors of the staff report, as well as the applicants and supporters in their letters, practically stand on their heads in their attempt to conflate this unremarkable building with an architectural masterpiece. Any ordinary observer reading the descriptions and looking at the building would be challenged to reconcile the descriptions with reality. The construction type for pint sized lack of windows and other factors make 123 Speer terrible candidate for adaptive reuse. Denver deserves better from its built environment. Pursuit of landmark designations are too often used by a privileged elite as an anti-development tool to stop construction of housing. This is an abuse of the landmark designation process, which is not in the best interests of the city or its residents. Blueprint Denver helps us aspire towards a city that is equitable, affordable and inclusive. This aspiration cannot be realized unless we build more units of multifamily housing in our neighborhoods. The benefits of density extend beyond supporting more affordable living to include everything from lowered greenhouse gas emissions to support for transit, local businesses and more walkable neighborhoods. City Council should vote unanimously to deny this ill advised attempt by privileged elites to use the landmark designation process to stop or delay the construction of housing desperately needed for Denver's current and future residents. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Michael Henry. Mr. Henry, we'll have to have you hit Star six to unmute. There you go. Good evening, members of council. My name is Michael Henry. I'm one of three applicants for a landmark designation of the Channel seven headquarters at Lincoln Street in Speer Boulevard. As you know, after the landowner filed an application. In late December for demolition eligibility. Landmarks have reported that the building has potential for a landmark designation and sent a report as required by the Landmark Ordinance to registered native organizations and historic preservation organizations. Bird, Cameron, David Wise and myself. I have lived and worked in greater capital health for many years and have worked on many historic preservation projects and we are thrilled and submitted the application for this designation. We reached out to the building owner and and the prospect to purchase her home and had several Zoom discussions with them both before and after we filed the application. We were unable to reach any compromise solution. We filed our application because we. We're convinced in our. The building and its history meet several of the criteria set forth by the ordinance. It's true, I think. We have been told in Turkish, like you mentioned. That a memorandum of understanding. Oh. That are critical. Recording the property to reach a compromise between. The relevant parties regarding our application. However, it is important that Council carefully review this so-called compromise. First, the students were never invited by the landowner or the property purchaser to sign such a memorandum of understanding. Thank you, Mr. Henry. That's the 3 minutes we have allotted for each speaker. We'll go ahead and continue on with our next speaker, Bruce O'Donnell. Good evening, Madam President, a members of council. I'm Bruce O'Donnell. I live at 386 Emerson Street, a few blocks away from the Channel seven building. I've served on the Denver Planning Board. For ten years and served on the boards of. Both history, Colorado, pardon me. And historic Denver. And so I have an appreciation. For it and understanding of the importance. Of historic preservation. And speaking to unite in opposition of. This application for landmark designation. This is a hostile application, which means the owner objects in the permanent. C bar for a decision of this magnitude should be higher. It is clear from the Heritage Consulting Group. Report dated March 22nd of the building, does not meet the criteria for landmark. Designation. The three. Proponents of landmarking this property do not own. It. Disagree. So meeting the criteria may. Be unclear. And is in question. This should never. Be the case for a hostile designation over the property owners. Objection for a hostile designation. Meeting the criteria should be unambiguous. The bar should be higher and the property should not be designated. In addition to meeting the criteria being in question. This building, at an important gateway intersection. In Denver is among Denver's ugliest and most embarrassing. Buildings. It is a walk on our skyline. It turns its back on Speer Boulevard, and Cherry Creek is unwelcoming, inwardly focused in discouraging street activation. Its cheap, nearly windowless design and poor use. Of materials is the antithesis of everything we aspire to do for our city's built environment. Landmarking this building will lock in these horrible. Design shortcomings forever. This building, not being landmarked, however. Will create a new, a unique opportunity for Denver to improve our built environment. An important attribute as a Denver zoning code is that it prohibits a lifeless, monolithic structure like this building from being built. Instead, it can be replaced by a well-designed building that addresses the public realm and engages as a community. A new building. All of us can be proud of it. This important intersection is what is needed. In the facts of the developer is entered into an M.O. You with shown. Is an important step toward ensuring a quality redevelopment and is indicative that not landmarking this building is a first step toward improving the intersection and the neighborhood. All City Council needs to know is that if the words hostile and. Brutalist are describing the situation, something's amiss. And it would be a poor policy and unfair. To look. To pardon me to lock in this wrongness in. Perpetuity. I urge City Council to vote no on Council Bill 21, Dash 0437 and not landmark 123 Spirit Boulevard, thereby catalyzing much needed additional housing in the core of our city. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Mary Chandler. We'll go ahead and have you unmute, Mary. Thank you. My name is Mary Chandler, and I live in North Capitol Hill in Denver. Two Denver City Council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak for the application for designation of the Denver Seven Building. For two decades, I wrote about architecture excuse me preservation and art for the Rocky Mountain News while producing two editions of The Guide to Denver Architecture. My interest in Denver's architecture is still important, even though I have seen too many tears in Denver's urban fabric and the loss of history. What stands before us is a large corporation ready to demolish the Denver Seven Building at 123 Speer Boulevard. The office tower is the building that has had much attention. But when gone, the land will leave a blank slate for an apartment building. This is no surprise because Denver has allowed many neighborhoods that have changed and not necessarily for the better. The three men who have worked to save the tower from the beginning have sought adaptive reuse. Denver may talk a lot about being green, but apparently that does not apply to this. Ours owners. Excuse me. We know the city will change and evolve. But the past decade has been like a tornado tearing down buildings that we'll never see again. At some point, only Victorians can survive in Denver. The application to the city by Scripps Media Inc sought the approval for the total demolition of buildings on that land. They had three ideas. No distinct. No distinguished architect. No appreciable appreciation for the architectural style. And no understanding of a tower that is highly visible. I must disagree. Scripts Media made a list of the items that meant to them, ignoring the reality about the architect, the style and the towers visibility. Their goal was to receive a certificate of demolition eligibility. That's all. The style and the word brutalism have often been tarnished because of the imposing buildings that rely on concrete and weighty massing. Denver is a few examples of this style in terms of the office tower. The monumental building offers a balance. It covers above a smaller base. The loss of this tower would be a loss for Denver's evolving architectural history. Finally, there has been a resurgence of interest in bearded brutalism across the country, but not in Denver. Instead, my fear is that the city has turned Denver into anywhere U.S.A.. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is Mike Stejskal. Oh, you'll have to unmute. Mike. We'll have to have you go. There you go. I didn't want to get too far into your head. Had no thank you. So I'm the general manager and future owner of Turn Bicycles at 700 Lincoln Street, which is directly across seventh Avenue from the 123 Speer Building 12 When I want to simply state my opinion that the assertion that the 123 Speer building represents a high quality example of the architectural style known as Brutalism is dubious when compared to examples like the anchor building or the Pikes Peak Center for the Performing Arts. I also agree with prior remarks that many other examples of this architectural style are public buildings that will remain and never see a reimagining of their use. I believe, though, that it is in my experience as a general manager and future owner of Turn Bicycles that carries more weight in this issue. Myself, my customers, my staff and my staff are the ones who look at this building every day. And I will tell you it is not an inviting building and certainly does not add to the area that has grown into a true neighborhood over my 21 years on this corner. That neighborhood is now inhabited by people who patronize local retailers and restaurants and take pride in their neighborhood, as opposed to the current inhabitants of 123 Speer, who simply drive into and out of the imposing chain link parking lot without a thought for the surrounding neighborhood. 21 years ago, I never saw groups of friends or couples walking arm in arm to visit local restaurants after dark where they are the norm today. I see redevelopment of the Channel seven building as an opportunity to further this transformation, and the prospective residents of a responsibly designed, mixed residential and commercial building represent the perspective represent perspective business to myself and other local businesses. I don't think I speak for myself when I say that business will be greatly appreciated in the current climate of flight from the office buildings in the area and the idea that it could be repurposed to even more office space seems inaccurate. Furthermore, if we intend to focus on improving the esthetic of the city, I don't believe disincentivizing land owners to work with well-known designers achieves that purpose. In my opinion, the best way to realize a more milquetoast development is to tell land owners they can't do as they choose with the property that they've owned for decades, even after that building's original intended use has long been outgrown. Redevelopment of 121 23 Speer Boulevard represents an opportunity to invest in a neighborhood on the rise, not protect and outgrown, underutilized and frankly, unattractive building. So I ask the council, the city council, to reject the proposed landmark status. Thank you very. Much for your time. Thank you. Our next speaker is David Weiss. Good evening, members of council. I'm David Wise, an architect in. Denver and a resident of Capitol Hill. I'm one of the applicants as a grad student at Harvard and had extensive studies of the social history and physical development of Denver. I returned to become the Director of Urban Design with the Partnership and President of the Urban Design Forum. I chaired the LA Downtown District Urban Design Committee and of course filled Urban Design Committee and preservation experience includes the poet's historic district, the Crawford IL Mansion reuse and the reuse of the New Stairs building on 16th Street Service video. So as chair of the Channel Seven Building is nondescript and unremarkable, and those comments motivated me to advocate for adaptive reuse. Denver last key parts of our modern architecture heritage from current hall, the modernist parabola at Skyline Park and Mile High Center to the now threatened 16th Street Mall, where replacements are generally downgraded and disappointing. Those treasures are from the late modern period. Of American architecture from 1950 to 1980. They prioritize boldness, robustness and honesty. In contrast, Denver's boom era apartment buildings, for the most part, offer bland design, harsh street frontage and high rents. David Hill, Denver's nationally known writer on design, wrote to the Denver Post regarding the Channel seven building. Unquote. It's a superb example of brutalist architecture. Scripps Media characterized the building as nondescript and unremarkable. It scripts as mistaken, end quote. The architecture celebrates an exciting period in Denmark. German broadcast television helped unify the region. The builder Nick Petrie of the Colorado Business Hall of Fame, and the architect Raymond Bowers, who founded an Institute for Excellence in Design at Penn State, were acclaimed professionals at the top of their game. We've seen the proposed apartment building in its concept form, extending the underground parking ramp deeper, which supports the developer's goal of 600 apartments. With no added height and would leave the tower standing. We Africans have never seen the adaptive reuse schemes set to exist. Let's remember that in downtown Denver. Holy Ghost churches. Wrapped comfortably with the high rise office building and a historic building is integrated neatly into Coors Field. Our effort to preserve Channel Seven relies on adaptive reuse and links, preservation and a fact based way to environmental and societal benefits. We know that preservation sells and that it works. It's been good for Denver businesses and good for Denver neighborhoods. Developers skilled at adaptive reuse demonstrate those truths again and again. Dialog over the Channel. Seven. Building has been constrained and contentious and future case to this. The development proposals and the preservation. Alternatives should be made available with. Drawings, calculations and cost analysis for real negotiation. Thank you, David. All right. Our next speaker is Monica Ortega. Hello, everybody. My name is Monica Ortega and I live at 3275 West 14th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80204. I'm a fifth generation Colorado native. I was a Uber driver from 2013 to 19. I had over 11,000 trips. I've also been the pitch person that appeared on Mile High Living for Power as or complete. Our business knows this building very well and I've seen all the changes in Denver, Colorado. So like I say, I am speaking in opposition to this landmark preservation application. The first and obvious reason for my opposition, and it's just my personal opinion, I believe that this building is unattractive and it it does not meet the surrounding areas , especially all the businesses that are surrounding it. On the corner at 640, Broadway hosted an upscale nail salon in a new building. Next to that was a Burger King, now demolished, is now a first bank in a new building. The Denver Post moved into a new office building on 101 Broadway. In a new building. A high traffic gas station that used to be situated at that triangle right across from that building bordered by Sixth Avenue. Grant and Speer is demolished and is now a new building. The original Racine's, that building was on block, Bannock and Speer. It's gone. It moved into a newer building that's directly east of the Channel seven building on Sherman. Further east, the entire University of Colorado Medical Campus on ninth and Colorado Boulevard, lots of concrete buildings there. Was also. Demolished and is now mixed use. Buildings one block away from Channel seven is Denver Health. They upgraded and built a much larger needed facility to house their clinics and office space in a brand new building. But somehow Scripps Media Channel seven can't do what they want with their property, though this landmark application sounds like sabotage, in my opinion. The corner is a high value location, so why shouldn't they be able to profit from the sale of the building and use it to build something that better fits their needs? In Denver, not too far away is another building found to be a national landmark. Its description reads. A three story deco. Sorry, a three story deco. Colin Thompson Motor Company, Chrysler Building, decorated window frame, stained glass windows, pinnacles Crockett's and a sign that still reads the 1930 Plymouth here and now that is the old Sports Authority building. That to me is a historic building. That building that they're in at 123 square is not. So I don't. Understand how those compare. However, also. A concrete building at ninth and Granite used to be the former. DPS moniker. That's the time allotted for each speaker. Thank you for joining us. Our next speaker is Kathy Corbett. Hello. Thank you. Thank you. And I'd like to thank you for the work you do. First of all, I understand that we're really we're all here because we love our city. And and Denver is a very important place to us. I'm here to speak in support of the application. I actually have a Ph.D. in architectural history, and I've worked in historic preservation for 17 years in Colorado. I live in Denver. I live in District four. And I am and I am president of Corbett H.S., which is an architectural history services firm. I didn't work on this application and I really haven't been much involved with it, but I have been watching it in the press and I and I and I do understand that Brutalism is an important architectural style. It was a very important part of modernism. It doesn't mean brutal. It means authentic. It means you know it. It means what it means. The raw, authentic materials that we see in the work of Marcel Breuer, Le Corbusier, I can see in this building, I understand, I think is important here that honor opposed designations, honor opposed. Landmark applications are inconvenient for property owners and developers, and often they're very costly. I understand that. But I believe that Denver citizens deserve a voice when the places that they love or the places that represent parts of the city's history that are important to them are threatened. When when we think about modernist buildings that we've lost, like like the I.M. Pei designed Parabola and Dorf Plaza downtown, where a lot of it's used to go ice skating. That's that's something that we'll never we'll never see again. And that a lot of a lot of people in this city loved and it's gone. So. People deserve a chance to try to save the places that they love. And that's what the landmarking process gives us. That's that's one of the tools. The landmarking process is one of the tools that people can use to try to do this if they feel that something is really important to them. And so this particular application exceeds the number of criteria that it would need, that it would need to be landmarked. I think the channel built seven buildings should be saved. I think that a solution for development can be found where there's a will, there's a way. And I encourage you to vote to approve landmark status for 123 Spur Boulevard. Thank you very much. I yield the rest of my time to Monday evening. Thank you. Thank you, Cathy. Our next speaker is Adam Astrup. Hello. City Council. My name is Adam Ashraf. I live at 361 L.A. Street in District seven. I live really close to one, two, three SPEER And I'm speaking in opposition to the designation. It's right now, it's a parking lot surrounded by a fence. That's my experience with the building. You know, it's not really adding a lot. And there's a huge housing crisis going on. We all see the stories every day of housing, of houses going four over, asking price going in like two days with 18 offers. We all see rents going up and that's all because we've made it really, really hard to build housing. And this is one of the ways we've made it really hard to build housing. And we've seen all over our city when historic preservation is valuable, like in Uptown, where they preserve that facade, they do it. And here it would be really, really hard to bring this building up to code. And we really need housing now. So I urge you to vote no. And thank you so much for your time. Q Adam, our next speaker is David Engel. Kurt Angle Ken, or go ahead, David. I probably mispronounced your name. Go ahead. You get me? Okay. Got it. Thank you very much for your time and for your great patience with this kind of work. I live at 1633 Humboldt Street. My name is David Engle and I'm a member and leader in the Humboldt Street Neighborhood Association. Our block is also the Humboldt Street Park Avenue Station Historic District, which we created working with historic Denver City staff. And in Councilwoman Eva, Elvira Wedgeworth is and this became usual with our work. We were supported with good coverage from Channel seven News. So I want to share some other experiences I've had that we've had together in our neighborhood preservation work as reasons for my personal support for preserving this building. We began as a single block organization almost three decades ago. We worked with Hiawatha Davis, our councilman, and then with Carla madison. When she was both a neighborhood leader and later councilwoman. We were able to rezone our immediate area of Capitol Hill and save its now delightfully restored Victorian and postwar Victorian historic structures. And a fellow officer in the Navy with me who was an architect and serving in the in the U.S. Navy on the same ship. And here his ideal was the Courvoisier inspired type of architecture, was what he felt deeply he wanted to do with his own career. So I recognize the preservation importance of this particular current in architecture, given even its modernist, maybe somewhat controversial aspects. To date, we've led from Humboldt Street different citywide efforts to protect our small part of Denver's excellent history, and sometimes with thank you for the small light ordinance that a number of you worked on with your predecessors. And we've worked to help protect neighborhood character in the city as a whole. The seven nine News, the seven News Building always played a crucial role in all those campaigns, so I speak in favor of supporting it. Mike Henry always enjoyed that. Our block was called by a different channel, the little brat blocks abroad. But our campaign victories over here could never have happened in helping preserve the city's character except for Channel Seven. So I hope that you'll back the same quality and commitment that we've found from Channel of Channel seven News historically to preserve the history and the character and shape those for the benefit of our citizens. Thank you. Thank you, David. Our next speaker is Lloyd Lewis. There you are. Hi, I'm Lloyd Lewis. I'm the president, CEO of the ARC Thrift Stores, one of the state's largest nonprofits and funders of programs that advocate for people with intellectual disabilities and testifying respectfully to ask that you reconsider the decision on the landmark application for the Channel seven building seven is a long time partner of Arkansas stores, and we rely on them to achieve several of our relief effort goals across the state, including, but not limited to one of the largest food drives in the state. Their ability to expand operations is critical to our partnership and the additional efforts and projects we plan to add in the coming years. Just this year alone, with the help of Channel Seven, we were able to collect over 40 tons of food for families impacted by COVID and loss of jobs and food insecurity. They also assisted with many other relief efforts to those impacted by the COVID crisis that we were involved in. In addition, they've been a strong supporter of our employment programs for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, providing financial support, as well as coverage of our programs and their impact on our community. A particular impact was a story they did on the need for vaccine priority for individuals with intellectual disabilities or at much greater risk of severe impacts from COVID, as is my son Kennedy, who is 17, with Down's syndrome. Their impact on the nonprofit community in Denver is quite broad, important to us for the food and relief we provide as well. It's important to us as an employer of nearly 100 individuals in our two stores on South Broadway in Alameda and federal as CEO, one of Colorado's largest employers of people intellectual development disabilities. We rely heavily on this partnership and would ask you to reconsider this application. And I have to say this I love the people in that building, but I don't love the building itself, you know, and the people in the building apparently want to move. So I'm a little confused, particularly with the housing shortage. So I urge you to reconsider its application. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Chris Marotta. And you'll have to go ahead and unmute yourself. Okay. Well, see, Chris, you're up. And it looks like we have you in the queue if you can unmute yourself. All right. We'll see if we can get Chris. Next, we'll go ahead and go to Jeremiah Bebo. Oh. Good evening. Thank you. Madam President, members of Council for your Public Service and the work done by city staff. Jeremiah Bibeau. I live at 89 1/14 Street Unit 907 muzzle speaking on behalf of the parlor Capitol Hill, which is a locally owned salon located at 218 East Seventh Avenue, just one block from the site. And the city planner by trade. But commenting as a resident myself in the parlor are adamantly opposed to the landmark designation being pushed by the neighborhood group and against the will of the property owner. While we do support and start preservation and at times against the desires of the property owner, this specific case to us is an example of a neighborhood group opposed to development and densification and appears to be using this process to prevent the redevelopment of the site. This era of. Architecture. In time represents an era of suburbanization, urban renewal, white roads and overall for urban planning with zero attention to the public realm. While there have been some beautiful examples of this brutalist, brutalist style, it is our opinion that the style was done with detrimental to the inclusive and equitable city and beneficial to the elites and wealthy who wanted to keep the public out or make the public feel unwelcome. Additionally, we might add, as others have, that we're in the middle of a housing affordability crisis with the city that is primarily zoned for single family only use, as we must do whatever we can to ensure that in areas such as this, we prioritize densification and additional housing stock over lackluster forms of historic preservation, such as this attempt. CMCs 12 zoning was put here for a reason. Additionally, the site is located along a rapid bus transit corridor and the site should contain land uses that support that unlike the parking lot that is here, the site and area and this area of Governor's Park has been planned for high density development and that should be respected and respected to add added housing to sustain local businesses. History has a place in our city and in our neighborhoods. We have so many other valuable buildings that deserve protection. This building, however, is not one of them. We should be focusing our preservation efforts in historically black and brown neighborhoods, such as five points on the north side, where so much of our city's history has been lost. Prioritization should be on buildings worth saving that have true meaning and directly meet the intent of the preservation ordinance. We need more housing. We need more density. Please vote no on this. A post on its own. Our post landmark designation. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Our next speaker, we're going to go back to Christy Marotta. And see if we can get Kristy into the queue. Oh, right. No, Christie. Okay. We'll go ahead and go to Joseph Halperin. Joseph. All right. We'll see if we can get Joseph in. Can you? All right. Well, go ahead and. There you go. Go ahead, Joseph. Too many, too many. Little buttons to click on to undo my. Computer's buttons. And your computer. Your buttons there. Thank you for your time this evening. It is late. My name is Joseph Halper and I have lived in Capitol Hill for all of my 42 years in Denver. Less than a mile from the CMS building. I am here to speak for the building's designation as a Denver landmark as I did before the Denver Landmarks Commission. I have been personally involved in historic preservation for 50 years, and that includes a leadership role in the designation of the Alamo Casita Historic District. The KMC building has always had a commanding and dramatic presence on a prominent site. One commentator has rightly called it, quote, a brutalist beauty, a bold and muscular but unpretentious design, unquote. But thanks to Esteban Hernandez of Denver ICOM for that quote, both the application for designation and the Landmark Commission's report amply demonstrate that this structure meets all of the criteria in in multiple categories juxtaposed against those well-documented reports. Is the report of a Philadelphia consultant hired by Scripps Media to tell us that the CMS building is at best a mediocre building built on the cheap in the backwater of Denver. Councilman Hines commented earlier this evening that for profit companies exist to deliver shareholder value and not necessarily to serve the public interest. That's why Scripps Media shut down the Rocky Mountain News in 2009, just short of its 150th anniversary. You have an opportunity to tilt the equation in favor of the public interest. I recognize that your job is easier when a property owner is in favor of landmark designation. But if council takes the inflexible view that owner approval is always required, there is no incentive for the Scripps Company, the Scripps companies of the world to seek a bold, imaginative solution that incorporates the best of the old. With the new, the octagon tower of the building can be incorporated into what will still be an extremely large, high end apartment building on the remainder of the site, which is a full city block. There are other examples of Denver incorporating old modernist buildings into new construction, including our central library building downtown that incorporated the 1956 library building and 1445 Cleveland Place that was incorporated into the Webb Building. Those are stellar examples, and this could be a stellar example to if the city council gives a nudge to this property. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Christian Louboutin fils. Yes, thank you, Madam President, and members of council. My name is Christian Lipton, fellows of District four at. 3205 South Brant Court. I'm a Denver resident of over 30 years. I grew up about a mile and a half from the site for one Franklin Street. I can past the site regularly. I patronize the nearby retailers regularly for lunch, dinner. Tours and bicycle shop. I will be brief to say for repeating the many. Accurate comments. From my fellow citizens regarding the power of properties, failure to meet any of the ten landmark criteria, especially in consideration of what should be a more stringent. Evaluation in the face of hostile application. I would like to highlight my perspective of this landmark designation process. Landmark designation as an important. Useful tool. To preserve the culture of our city and community. Unfortunately, a very select few have increasingly used this tool as a blunt instrument in an attempt to stall and stymie well-planned growth and development. I respect respectfully request that City. Council resoundingly deny this application for landmark designation. On its complete lack of qualified criteria. The vague nature of the current landmark application process opens too wide a door to allow for any building older than 30 years for consideration. Should council not express a clear and resounding denial? The city will only foster further misappropriation of city resources, time and this important tool encouraging other select activist citizens to utilize the landmark designation process when historic preservation is not their goal, but simply a means to resist. Creative and well-designed development. Lastly, I'll just say the subject property is a gateway entry point to our central core. It would be dead devastating to stick in permanence, this obsolete purpose built and uninviting building at this critical front door to our city. The nature of the building will also likely lead to it either sitting vacant or being excessively underutilized for decades to come. I appreciate the council's time, my citizens time in hearing my comments and respectfully urge each of the council members to vote this application down. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jason Sisk. And Jason, you're going to have to unmute yourself. Council president, council members, thank you very much. I'm going to try to make this concise. This session's getting. Pretty long in. The tooth. I appreciate that. So I'm just going to go here and I speak as a citizen of Denver. Senator Lincoln Street, 34th floor. I've got zero economic interest in that in the subject property. But I definitely want. To speak up to oppose the landmark. Designation. That building is not worthy, and neither are any of the buildings that are currently housed in other media properties here in Denver. You know, if we had to count on the noble work of journalism today, you know, they wrote the rules for the state. I think that when you go to work on federal. Facilities that let them do their job, you know, let them do with their assets as they please. So it's definitely a property rights issue. I'm also against the process that has been, I think, abused. Namely by the. Serial applicants that have made many. Many all applications for limited designation, namely to this property. And I. Think it's turned into. An activist tool, and it's been wrongly used for buildings that really aren't like this one that I have really a I'll. Speak for kind. Of in the public realm of smell. I've never been to the mill, but any. Rate. I want to. Stand. To oppose that and and say that we should let scripts and this. Society's denver7 do it their assets as. They please and give them the. Latitude to continue their business in an ever evolving and changing media landscape. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Jason. Appreciate you keeping your comments short as well. Next up, we have Tess Dougherty. Hi there. Good evening, City Council. My name's Tesoro. I live in District nine, and, um, I. I don't know how I. I don't completely. Know how I feel about this one way or another. I know that historic preservation has been used by people to keep other people out of their neighborhoods. I also know that it's been used, you know, to help with with sites that would prevent gentrification. So, you know, I don't I don't know how I feel about this, but I do know that when certain properties in other parts of the city have come before you and people have come on here and we stayed on here till one in the morning and they've all been in opposition. I mean, literally the majority of the people like have been twice as many as are here tonight have been in opposition of a property. You've gone ahead and passed it anyway. And so tonight, though, because we're talking about people who want new development and they're saying that it's going to be for affordable housing. Affordable housing in this city does not mean what people think it does. Affordable housing, according to this council and the planning board does not mean what people think it does. So don't be fooled by the fact that you think that they're going to be, but that this is going to help the housing problem. This is going to help further gentrify. This city. Just like every other development that has been allowed. This is a developer's playground. Denver's. Developers have just been allowed to come in and build high rises and it does not. Density means pushing poor people out of the city. That's what it means for this council in the city. Denver does not. Denver hates poor people, actually. Look at the city. Look at the streets. The city has not done anything to actually put people in houses. So, you know, I don't know how I feel about this historical preservation, but I do know what it means to actually put people in houses. And y'all are not doing it. Thank you. Our next speaker is Jeff Bernard. Am I needed? Uh huh. Go ahead, Jeff. Thank you very much. City Council. Thank you for your hard work. You do a lot for. And I'm not that bird up there. I know where I come from. You do a lot for our city. And I I'm sure a lot of us appreciate it. I'm speaking out in opposition of of this initiative and primarily because we we do need more housing. It's been reiterated many times. There's a few things that haven't really been touched on that it could reduce traffic congestion considerably. Most of the people that would move there would likely logically work downtown. So it's going to be more walkable. That would reduce emissions. Emissions would be, you know, these things are important for the future of our city. And perhaps most importantly is this property is the southern gateway to downtown Denver. So many wonderful things can be done there. And it is not that I don't appreciate. Historic buildings and property. Quite the contrary. I just think that it demolishes real historic buildings and property. To consider this to be one. I have a long history of real estate experience in Denver. Both in my career, I've served on the Broadway Partnership District and many other boards, including the Homeless Coalition. I care deeply about Denver real estate. I oppose this, and I hope you consider that when you make your final deliberation. And once again, thanks for your hard work. Thank you, Jeff. Our next speaker is David Pardo. Uh, City Councilor, can you hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Thank you. So I feel like a lot of people have already spoken to a lot of the points that I care about. I'm speaking in opposition to this designation, things about the fact that it could reduce our ability to produce more housing in units that the city desperately needs. To me, one thing that people haven't really made mention of is that plenty of people who spoke out against this designation called the Building Ugly. Nobody spoke out for this designation. Thought it was a it seems to think it's a pretty building. Because it's not. Plenty of people do not like Brutalism as an architectural style for good reason. It's it's not the easiest to enjoy. It tends to be a little rough and all of that. But there are some absolutely incredible examples around the world, and there are some not bad examples in Denmark. This building is not one of them. It's kind of a is about to use something that I shouldn't use on a zoom call in front of 120 people. But it's bad. It's not a pretty building. It should not be saved. It is it is an eyesore in my mind every time that I've ever rode past it on the cherry tree trail or driven by it on spear, I have gone, wow, why is that there? And I think that is worth taking into account, even if it meets some of the requirements to be a historically designated building. Do we want to use that tool to save something that looks like this and that will, with a historic designation, continue to look like this after we're all gone? And that's really all I have to say about that. Thank you for your time. Thank you, David. Our next speaker is Jonathan Patoka. Yes. Good evening. Hello. Good evening. As West Colfax residents over on Newton Street, I understand the importance of history and the benefits that come with the appropriate and thoughtful use of landmark designations. It is for this reason that I speak to oppose this landmark application. I do commend those who directed discussion seeking adaptive reuse of this building. As adaptive reuse can result in exemplary results in some cases, and that pressure did result in an MRU that will enhance the next life of this lot through superior design and community benefit offerings. However, this building does not rise to the level of designation in the landmark criteria, and the claims in the application lacked the exceptional nature warranting designation over the objection of the property owner. The 1970s television studio was notably constructed at the end of, or arguably after the Hugh Terry period that city staff presented on tonight. Even the staff report notes that this building was designed by a company that specialized nationally in communications buildings just like it. It was effectively a mass production design in its time. You need no more than a quick perusal of reader comments in Westword and other publications regarding this application to understand that the broader public does not consider this building to be so exceptional as to be worth preserving. In contrast to notable structures such as the Molly Brown House, the Diana Tower, or the Brown Palace. We want our historic districts and landmark structures to thrive and have active and successful uses. This building is not a good starting point. It is not well-positioned to thrive. Even the use that it was purpose built for a television studio cannot sustain operations within the claim that a television studio should be designated as a historic landmark. Because the news was broadcast from that building is a stretch. By this measure, the presence of any business in any building more than 30 years ago could merit landmarking. There are better ways to celebrate the news media than landmarking a single studio. This holds particularly true given that the landmarking this building would do damage to the future business prospects of that very same news organization trying to survive in today's difficult media landscape. How does landmarking this building do them honor? If we know, it will hurt them. Additionally, the developer of the site seeks to replace it with housing, which is desperately needed in our city as it faces a crisis of housing supply. And this site is particularly well positioned for sustainable transportation options. Denver's network. Again, I urge the City Council tonight to vote this landmark application down. I also encourage City Council to consider this application a clear example of why our city's rules for landmark preservation should differ for hostile designations. We should, at a minimum, require a council supermajority for such designations or the bar. The criteria that have to be matched should be clearly met, not questionably met. Thank you. Thank you. And our last speaker this evening is Kevin McCrossin. We'll have to have you go ahead and unmute, Kevin. All right. There you go. Go ahead, Kevin. Hello. So my name is Kevin McCrossin. I own counterculture brewing group. We are right there. On the edge at 205. East Seventh Avenue. And we. We're going to have to go ahead and oppose the designation as well, because we believe that there. The neighborhood will do well. If we could redevelop that area where the building resides. Which is. As we've discussed. Not the most beautiful thing. And thank you for your time. All right. Very good. Thank you, Kevin. That concludes our speakers this evening. Thank you, everybody, for staying with with us, questions from members of Council on Council Bill 437. Council member can each. Thank you. Council presidents. I have some questions about the criteria, so I know for sure that I'm going to have questions for Kara, but I may have questions for I think the she was Adkins architect as well. So I'm just going to dove in. And so the first one is the period of significance. Kara I'm a little confused. The slide reference, 1953, and it referenced the second half of the century and the fall of print media and the rise of television. But this building didn't open until 1969. So I'm a little concerned about the citation of, you know, a change that happened 15, 16 years ago when that's not the period of significance. So can you help me understand why we're referencing things that weren't part of the period of significance when describing the significance of the building? Yeah. So we're talking a little bit about the historic context of like, what is that? When did these changes occur? Understanding what happened before helps understand how this building came to be. So the period of significance for this building is 1969 to 1970. Two or three, I apologize. All of a sudden it dropped out of my head. But it's talking about basically how it was media and television really transformed enough to. Decided to build a whole new studio for it that they had been using only for the studio. And then because it was so successful, it led to the development of this new purpose built studio. And so leading up to it is just an important part of the history and talking about the importance of Hugh Terry and some of his work. And so that that, that, that was the purpose of the designation application narrowing the period of significance, providing greater historic context. But I just want to clarify, the rise of television did not occur during this period of significance. It happened in the 1950s. It did not happen during this period. Yes. Correct. Okay. The second question you mentioned, Hugh Terry, I want to ask about. I'm going to try to get my wording right here, the significance association with the significant person. I'm going to say it wrong anyway. An important person associated with the building. So, you know, I'm familiar with buildings that were lived in by significant people. I'm familiar with buildings built by or owned by significant people. This person just worked there. So can you give me is that is that a common I don't recall other applications coming before me with someone who just passed through a building for a couple of years being associated with that building for a designation criteria. So can you help me out if if I'm not remembering. There aren't necessarily a lot of buildings that have been designated for in the preservation term. It's called their productive life, but for works of where they have worked. But occasionally because their work is so significant and the building itself is what's left to represent that work that is sometimes done in Denver. We haven't done it a lot, but it is part of an established preservation practice to do that. Anyone else with this short of a period. On the overlap in the building like this is not a person who worked in the building for 30 years. They pass through for 2 to 3. I'm sorry my math might be off too at this hour, but anyway, I mean, I just it it seems short to me. It is short. And one of the things that was we considered our staff as well as was put forward in the application was that because the other building had been torn down, that this was the last remaining building that was associated with this productive life? If the other building was still standing, that would be more representative of his work. But because it wasn't and because it has been demolished, it's the building that's most associated with his productive life. All right. I question whether the criteria allow us to consider a building that's already gone in comparison. I don't know that I question. That is something that I don't read in the ordinance. But the. I want to talk about brutalism for a second. And this is where I might need to ask the serious Atkins folks to chime in. But there is conflicting testimony or information in the record about whether or how much of this building was cast in place versus I forget the other prefabricated and it's significant piece of that brutalism is this cast in place. So can someone clarify for me definitively how much of this building was cast in place? I think we need to get Andy Rock more promoted. Thank you for your help identifying who to ask for. Amy Unger, who also wrote the designation application, may be able to answer that. I could I could take a stab at it that you have the the gray pieces, the ribs that you see are the cast in place. Would it be accurate to describe that as a minority of the building? Yes. Okay. And so I guess I would just ask maybe, Kara, you wrote, you know, the staff report if that's a significant feature of brutalism and it's a minor minority of this building, how is it that you determine it as in, you know, I'm going to say the wrong word again, but the an exemplary, you know. Anyway, do you get the question? It's very I have no vocabulary right now. I understand at 11:00, I'm sure my answer is coherent because they would be at an earlier time. So losing can be a combination of brutalism can also have different materials like the example of the jail. It is a. Brutalist style, but it is a brick material. So it can be cast in place, it can be pre-formed concrete, it can be a mixture of both. A lot of the examples in Denver are mixtures of both, so it doesn't have to be just one or the other, but it's its form and its use of concrete, whether it's free form or casting place. Can I have Andy chime in on that question as well, please? Sure. I'd love to. Thank you. I think the the challenge that we found in describing this building as brutalist is that brutalist style is really known for its integrity, for for its rigorous application of karst concrete. There's there's really no sort of gray area with a brutalist building. And in in almost all brutalist buildings, precast concrete is used either for ornament or maybe sunshades. So here I agree that it's in this building. It's almost flipped. The precast is by far the significant material, save the columns and a few exterior elements. It's this building lacks integrity, in our opinion. For that reason. Got it. One more question on the brutalism. Are there? Did anyone who researched this building, either the applicants or the owners? Were there contemporary descriptions of it as brutalist when it was built? Did the media say, Hey, Denver has a great new brutalist building, you know, etc., etc. Where was that term applied to it? In contemporary contemporaneously to its creation? This is the I'm the prepare the of the nomination. I did not find any. In my research, I did not find any references that were specifically noting it as its request building when it was first open. But that's not unusual for this type, I would say. I would also, just to hearken back to your question about past concrete sources, precast panels that I would agree with Terry's interpretation and Brutalism is a. Type of architecture that is often tried to be defined by very narrow, just a few boxes that you pick off. It has to with cars.com. It has to be colored concrete, things like that. When brutalism, when it was first described as it first emerged, was really about principles, a set of principles. And one of those principles was the honest use of material especially and concrete being the primary material that was over building buildings. And so the honest use of concrete is really what is most. Indicative of brutalism as opposed to what it is, how it's put in place, whether it's passing plays. What? Pre-Cast panels are then installed. Thank you. Thank you. That's really helpful. My last question is for Cara again. I want to understand a distinction between how I have become accustomed to hearing recognized architects described and this recognized architect that you guys identified in the staff report as recognized. So I guess, you know, I'm used to you all saying this architect was known for their clean ends or this architect was known for like developing half the post-World War two. You know, I don't recall another architect that was just famous for doing a lot of buildings nationally. So I guess I want to ask you this. Of major architecture firms who are in in business nationally who would not be recognized based on value. I guess I'm curious about I did you know, Walmart does a lot of volume, but they may not be known for, you know, the particular value that they bring to retail. I don't know. I'm just trying to use a bad analogy, forgive me, but I guess the fact that this architect does a lot of buildings, is that enough for it to be recognized under our criteria? Because I just I don't see that they have a record from the testimony of me in the record that they have, you know, that they're known especially for Brutalism. I don't see that they're known, especially that they have other dedicated buildings. It just seems like they do a lot of buildings. So I who wouldn't qualify under that criteria. And so the LPC actually had a discussion of like what does recognize me? And that it's a known architect, it named architect, someone that has a body of work. And in this particular instance, the Fuller and Bower, Fulmer and Bowers designed a variety of different types of buildings, but they were known for doing purpose built television stations . And so that's part of what they were recognized for, is that television studios would hire them because they knew how to do purpose built. It was sort of this national trend, sort of postwar in the fifties, late fifties and sixties of television studios having their own kind of figured out how to do studios. And so they're nationally known for doing television studios. And so that's why they're recognized for that. And so that's why we found that they were a recognized architect and that this was significant for them. As one of the early realists in only one, it was. Aware of. Where any of those other television studios designated. I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. Okay. All right. Thank you. I can answer that question. None of their studios have been designated. But I would argue that that does not mean that they're not sick. They would not be eligible for designation. And certainly one of their finer works has been already demolished, and that certainly would have been eligible for National Register designation. But didn't get a chance to. So just because something hasn't been. Designated to date doesn't mean that it's not necessarily eligible. All right. Thank you, Amy. And thank you, council member Mitch. Next up, we have council member Black. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to all of our speakers who came tonight. Appreciate your passion. I have a question about. The discussions that the owners. Had. With the. Capitol Hill United Neighbors. I know in 2019, when. We updated our. Landmark ordinance. There was a. A specific effort to bring applicants. And owners together to. Try and find a compromise. But I'm curious about this agreement. Because the Capitol Hill United Neighbors are not the applicant. But Travis Leiker spoke and he sent us a letter with all the details. And so I'm. Curious how that came. About. And I'd like to hear more from the applicant. About their commitments to. The Capitol Hill, your neighbors and what. Might go in that spot. Councilwoman Black, I think we should have been Littleton promoted as well. He's the general manager of Channel Seven, and perhaps he and Evan SHAPIRO can answer questions about interactions with John. Great. All right. We've got Evan promoting and theme. So please go ahead. You have. Thank you. The memo you is is actually with with PMG and Shawn. We had a number of conversations with with John as part of our community outreach. So, Evan, maybe you want to touch a little bit on the on the IMO you. Sure. So throughout the process. We we've approached a number of neighbors and stakeholders who obviously have what goes on this site in their interest. And over the past several months, we've had conversations with Sean. And certainly and this is in many ways thanks to what happened at the at the. Rudy hearing a. Few weeks ago. We recognize that now is an opportunity to continue to reengage. We did offer a good neighbor agreement to. The applicants for this designation, which didn't gain any traction. And that Sean. Group was aware of that. And discussions began about, is there a way. For us to work together? You know, if if we're still going to be interested in this, even if, you know, the applicants aren't interested necessarily in any sort of agreement like that. Is there an opportunity for other stakeholders. In the neighborhood to engage with us in that sort of conversation? And so a number of. The of the key issues that Sean has. Happened to be exactly the things that we care about ourselves. And so we're looking forward to the opportunity going forward to. Have those working sessions with them, hopefully starting as soon as within. The next 30 days, about things like engaging local businesses, about sustainable building materials and practices, about public art, about the opportunity to see if. If there are ways that we can pay homage to to the history of this site, that I think is completely understandable, that there is so much passion about it by the neighborhood. And then. You know, attainable housing is a core principle. Of what we're doing. And clearly. The housing crisis in Denver is real. And so an opportunity to engage with many. Stakeholders in the neighborhood about how do we like to solve that problem, but also what are your ideas for it and. See if there are overlapping opportunities there. Is is such a testament to what we're trying to do anyway, that there's no reason for us to not have that sort of M.O. in place. And so the email you is with John. And you PMG as. The potential. Owner. That's right. And I and without. Going too much into the specifics. The working group is supposed to include more than just China in its first include a number of other stakeholders that showing, you know. To their credit insisted should be involved in the process. And so I think the idea is because there is not an. Existing. Methodology in the planning process. Of getting stakeholder. Input, that this is a way to work together to do that anyway. And the applicants declined to work with you on some kind of. Agreement like this. Sure. I mean, of course they're on there. So I'll let them speak to, you know, how they feel about the process. You know, they are focused on landmarking this building. And so we made an offer. They they can explain the reasons why they didn't feel it was appropriate. But, yes, they are. Not a party. To the M.O. You know, we have negotiated with China. We not. Participate. I'm sorry. I. The the entire process is predicated on demolition. And we have not been invited to participate in any discussion of adaptive reuse. Okay. And so back to you, Evan, that the. Ammo you is not. There's nothing legally binding about it, is there? Well, I'll let Andy I'm sorry, Bryan, speak to that. My understanding is that it is a legally. Binding document. Of we must work in good faith to to go through the the bullet points that are in there. And I think that the vast majority of them are things we will do anyway. I'll let Brian speak to, you know. Whether or not I said that correctly, Councilwoman Black It is a legally. Binding document and what it binds. PMG and John two is. Is a process. And so it creates a community working group. It requires certain. Meetings of the community working group. And the types of things that Evan was listing off are set forth in the memo. You as topics that the Community Working Group. Is going to work on as this project progresses. Obviously, because of this process, the project has not been fully designed. By any means. It's sort of dependent on the outcome of this process. But, you know, as Evan indicated, that the intent is that assuming we receive a favorable vote this evening, then Gavin and his team and Sean will work together to begin those conversations and to begin to develop those plans. Okay. Thanks, Brian. And I see that one of the points in that agreement or the MRU is to consider opportunities for adaptive reuse or preservation. Yeah. I think the idea with that is. That throughout. This process we've been open. We've held designs for us with the applicants, with historic Denver, and we are open to to ideas that we perhaps haven't. Considered, even in. Just the past two weeks, since alluding we've you know, we've met with the Landmark and. Planning. Group at the city of Denver to understand what. Are the opportunities for 16 stories they they come. With. The potential in our in our view, of trading one problem for another. And that has certainly been indicated to us by a number of the groups that we've spoken with. But that. Doesn't mean that during the working group that somebody. Doesn't bring to us a solution that we haven't yet. Considered. The problem that you know, and I don't want to get too far ahead of myself, but once a building is landmarked. We lose the opportunity to do that. So we are. In all can, you know. In being transparent. We're not saying. We are going to preserve the building, but we are also not, you know, our history. Our our firm was founded in the first ten years of of a 30 year company was all about adaptive reuse. And so we haven't been able to find a workable solution yet. But if something is put to us that is clearly going to work, then it's something that we will consider. But it's only possible for, in our. View, to do those things if we don't have the limitations of a landmark on this. And if we are unable to do that, at. Least this gives us a way to. Achieve so many of the other things that the stakeholders in the surrounding areas. Are passionate about. There's clearly a number of different drivers. For everyone who is in this area. Some people are concerned with density, some people are concerned with height, some people are concerned with preservation. And certainly we need to do our best to weigh all of those. And there's not always a perfect solution, but we want to do our best. And in my view and our view, we think we've come up with. A way that can help us do. That. Is it perfect? I you know, I don't know. But but I think it's a it's a I think it's a good attempt, certainly. All right. Well, thank you for explaining. All that and. There's a lot happening in. Denver right now. And you you heard all sides of it with our hours. Long public comment. And that location really is a very prominent location in our city. And it is a gateway. And I think a lot of the fears. That residents have. As well as members of council are, yes, we're having a housing crisis. Yes, Denver's crowded. But we also fear ugly apartment buildings and we're getting an awful lot of them in our city. And so I think a lot of what we're hearing is about that. So I'm really glad that you're working with that neighborhood group to really talk about those. Kinds of things. And that's all I have for now. So thank you. Thank you. And Councilwoman Black. We also have Travis Leiker from Capitol Hill. United Neighbors, did you want to pose that question to him as well, or do you have enough information, Councilwoman? Oh in your muted. I said, I think I'm good. Travis wrote us a long email with the. NYU. Intact. So very good. Okay. All right. Great. Thank you, Councilwoman. Next up, we have Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you to Councilwoman Kim each for exploring the issues about the criteria. But I want to remind folks that Chapter 30, the procedure here allows the council, in fact, I would say, imposes on the council the duty to take other things into consideration, such as the the opinions and the position of the owner of a property and a third party designation. So with that in mind, I think we need to explore some of the things I brought up last week, Dean Littleton or Brian Conley. I, along with my colleague Mary Chandler, who was testifying here earlier, the architecture writer at the Rocky and I was the city hall reporter are both survivors of Scripps Rain in Denver for what it's about since 1926, when they in 1985 they took our building and right across from the Mint on Delaware Street to Colfax, and they added on to it in a parking lot just to the west. And they built three more stories above the the existing two stories that I remember. Mary will remember that we also everything will be better when we get the new building. And I think that's what Carolyn Sharp, who also testified, who worked at Channel Seven, said they were remarking the same thing about your property there, where the old Packard dealership was on the east side of that block, right where the original studio was before this was built. Tell me about the exploration of the potential for expanding onto that east side, as Carolyn Trump wrote to me in her email, which I have not yet replied to, I apologize, Carolyn, if your story it was always said at Channel seven, everything will be all right when we get into the new building, which would be on the on the old Packard dealership site. What did you look at? What factors did you examine financial or otherwise for expanding onto that parcel? Keeping the the term building in place. We did. Thank you, Councilman Flint. I appreciate the question. We've explored myriad options on this site, as you're I'm. Sure aware that the the issue that we looked at with regard to making this move, we this is an. Employee driven initiative based on how much we've grown and figuring out this, you know, addressing the structural limitations of this building. By adding. Space does not necessarily address the needs that we have, which are the fact that the majority of our staff is in the five storey tower. Adding space off to the side keeps us even more spread out from where we are now. So the idea with this move is to be in a facility. With two or three floors where I can have the. Teams all together as opposed to. Adding more space. Elsewhere and then further spreading our teams out on the site. That was the reason that we went to screw ups and asked for their help to make this happen. Brian, can you help with that or Diem Maybe you could talk a little bit more, not just about the functionality of expanding onto that site, but about the cost. Did you explore costs or did you not get that far? Well, we didn't we did not get that far. Simply because it didn't address the needs and the problems that we had with the site. That's what led us outside. We really need to. Sell the site and use those funds to reinvest. In and. Local journalism somewhere else here in Denver. Okay. Could you briefly describe functional issues that caused you to want to move and get out of that building? And I've been in that building many times. I know the constraints that it has. So I'm just curious why that East Side parking lot, why could that not be designed to create the functionality that you're looking for? Sure. The the issue that we got. Is the fact that, for instance, I have I have three newsrooms and that's just. Not oh, my God, it sounds horrible. There's so many people in our building now we've had to scatter them all about. So adding another building elsewhere to scatters. And further, that's sort of at the core of the functional issues that we've got in the building. I need those teams that work together. Yeah. Mm hmm. Is that due to the two changes in broadcast media in Denver or nationally, that the old style doesn't work anymore, just like many other industries? And explain that. It's more so because of the small four plates in the five story arc. The issue. I'm sort of hamstrung by that. There's no amount of remodeling. Or, you know, painting something, removing walls that will. Address that. Okay. I believe that's all I needed to hear from you. Thank you. Now, that's why. Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And seeing no other hands raised. The public hearing is closed. Comments by members of Council on Council Bill 437. Councilman Hines. Thank you, council president and thank you so much for for all the people who have remained this late into the evening. Also, thank you to CPD staff for all your and all the people who have testified on this important topic. District ten has seen a quite a bit of historic designation activity in the last two years. This is the third matter that's come before us since since this 2019 class was took office. The first Tom's Diner made international news. That was right after we started. We received comments from all over the U.S. and beyond about Tom's Diner. Our vote was ultimately not needed because at the effectively at the last minute, various parties came to an agreement. The second was an owner sponsored historic designation, and that passed with little fanfare, unless, of course, you are the owner of that newly designated property. So congratulations again to the owners of 1272, followed by that this third application is once again owner opposed. I want to disclose that I'm a fan of brutalist architecture. I don't know what that says about who I am or what is going on in my soul. But but I like the I like the style. I enjoy viewing the clyfford still the the Federal Reserve and other brutalist buildings in Denver, that center of land. The landmark process isn't about what is. Pretty or not. It is about what embodies the characteristic of an architectural style or type. So I think some of some of the comments and questions really encapsulate that, that a lot of this conversation and what we've heard in District ten office is that a lot of the people who supported landmarking discussed the rapid development in in the metro area . And a lot of the people who were opposed discussed our housing shortage. So, you know, just in this area, there's Racine's, there's Frank BONANOS restaurants. There's the park. The park, too. There are 15 projects that CBRE is tracking that's underway in the Golden Triangle and six more projects in Pre-Application that CPD is currently aware of. And this is in Golden Triangle. So, you know, this this one, two, three. Spirit isn't even in that list of 21 current and Pro's proposed developments. Same with the recedes in sight and in Mr. Bananas restaurants. Those are also outside the Golden Triangle designated the proposed text amendment and a statistical neighborhood. So put another. Or to put another way. There's an incredible amount of development all around 1 to 3 spirit. And I feel the pain expressed by so many who have lived in this area for decades and who feel the pressure of all this construction. To quote Caroline Sharp, the fear is another massive, undistinguished luxury apartment. But let's move beyond a proxy battle between those who discussed our housing shortage and those who resist rapid development. This application is about landmark preservation. We've heard from CBRE staff and other architects in support of landmark preservation. We've also learned or heard from numerous other architects, many with deep backgrounds in historic dwellings and opposition to this preservation. What's also at stake is the protection of landmark of all landmark structures in Denver in the process. If we approve a landmark such as this that has division among architects, it calls into question the other buildings that have already been through the process without controversy. Our landmark buildings and process should be beyond reproach, just as our current process is so that we retain the reputation of being a national model for historic preservation. We have architects who are who have presented tonight. We have architects who have not presented tonight. You are on the national stage and they report that we are a model here in Denver and how we preserve buildings. We, as in the city of Denver, recently made tweaks to the process to help facilitate decisions because neighbors didn't feel they had a voice. I'd suggest that this process says we should. Take another look. And and make sure that the conversations that you mentioned before, that proxy battle have the space to occur. Ultimately, the quasi judicial nature of this conversation kept me from sharing a lot of thoughts before now. And so I'm glad that that that the conversation continued in other and other ways and added, for example, to the conversation, the M.O. between Capitol Hill, United neighbors and and the proposed developer. What what I will say is I challenge the developer that whatever comes next, we don't want as much as another massive, undistinguished luxury development. We already have enough essence as as I think Councilmember Black has said as well. While the text the Golden Triangle text amendment doesn't cover this land. It is full of ways to improve the pedestrian experience. It's full of public comment from neighbors all around. What you three square. Should this not pass, please listen to the neighbors and create something that is exceptional and provide honor, dignity and homage to the history of this location. I will vote no and I hope you do as well. Thank you. Council President. Thank you. Councilmember Hines, Councilmember Black. Thank you, Madam President. And thank you, Councilman Hines. You said everything I was thinking, but you said it very, very well. Even though we're all so tired. So thank you. It is a really, really. Important corner for. Our city. And it's really important that no matter what happens tonight, that. We improve. That. Corner and make it a. Welcoming point in our city. I am a fan of historic designation. I am a historian. I'm a Denver native. A lot of beautiful historic buildings have been torn down and it is a huge loss for our city. I will not be supporting the preservation of this building. And one of the main reasons why is I believe that owner opposed designation should. Have a higher bar. I thought that for. All of my time on council. And in 2019 I asked council members if we could talk about it some more, but you all did not want to do it. But Councilman Sawyer and I are going to reopen that conversation. So hopefully we can have some more discussions down the road and we're going to engage some experts and get their opinion, too. So thanks again to everyone who is so passionate about our city. And again, I will not be supporting the designation. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Black. Councilmember Kenny. Thank you. Council President I have not been shy about taking bold votes to preserve some of the character of our city, even when controversy is involved. And so I start with that assumption that it's critical to preserve some of our character in our city. I also take seriously the criteria, and I will just say thematically, my feedback to the commission, the Landmark Preservation Commission and to the staff is that the adjectives matter. It's not just that history was happening, it's that there was a significant event, right? And there was a significant role. It's not just that there's an association with a recognized person. It has to be substantial. And I do find that even though I couldn't find each of those words because I couldn't look at both screens at once. A few minutes ago, I've been thinking a lot about those adjectives, and I really don't find that those things were weighed. There was a person who was known. There was you know, it's not just that there was an architectural an architect who is known. It has to be a significant example. And you have to be able to distinguish why every other building made by that architect wouldn't count as significant. Right. If everything they do is a significant example, then it's not significant. It's just an example. And here's why I think this matters. I'm going to find tonight that this designation does not meet the criteria in our code. But I'm deeply concerned about the fact that both some I think less than rigorous evaluation and also, frankly, attempts to to designate some marginal buildings might weaken the overall regime that we need to preserve really important examples that really meet high standards. That's what concerns me about this report. So I respectfully I have so much respect for the staff of Landmark and for the Landmark Commission. And I have worked with you side by side for years, frankly, to try to save this ordinance. So I see this with loving kindness, that it is important to apply the adjectives rigorously in the analysis, because only if you can make the case that only some buildings qualify, not every building. Can we then really justify the standards that we have? And so I'm nervous about, you know, my colleagues, well-intentioned effort to evaluate whether higher standards should apply. And I'm fearful that we could lose the Molly Brown house or we could lose a low doe if we have unrealistically high standards. But I also understand that the failure to rigorously distinguish between rate significant, embodied, distinctive and substantial things from those that are just kind of like there while history was happening that I understand that that's why we've ended up opening in this conversation again. So I hope that those watching from historic Denver, from the Landmark Commission have some conversation about this and really reflect on it. And I hope that we can save these standards that we really might need to save some really critical things. The one last thing I'll say is, if for any reason this building didn't meet the standards, I would also find that the inability to adapt it for residential and commercial use because of the concrete materials would make it economically less viable and therefore also not warranting a rare circumstance. We don't have that with your average church or your average building, but all this concrete does make a difference. So thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Flynn. Thank you, Madam President. I thank Councilwoman Kimmich again for her comments. I fully agree with them. And I would add on to this that the code, as we amended it a couple of years ago, specifically directs us to look at factors beyond the criteria such as the views of the owner. And I am very concerned about the financial implications to scripts and to their expansion and their ability to continue to compete with their other media challengers in the city. I say that even knowing having worked for Scripps for 27 years before they closed the Rocky Mountain News, how how it's not really prudent to trust all their financial statements. Okay. I mean, when I was hired, Al Knight, the Prince of Darkness, who hired me, said, Why do you want to work here? I said, Well, Times Mirror had just bought the L.A. Times. It just bought the Denver Post. There's going to be a great newspaper, War and Times. America's got deep pockets. And Al said to me, Well, scripts, scripts has deep pockets, too. Problem is, they are tiny little arms. So I'm naturally suspicious of the financial projections. However, I do also believe that the implications of tying a landmark designation that severely restricts the possibilities as a councilwoman can each set for adaptive reuse. The recessed windows and and the lack of any windows on four of the four of the eight sides entirely is problematic. And so I would also I would join my colleagues in voting no on this. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilmember Flynn. And likewise, I do not believe that this meets the criteria and I will also be voting no against this. Madam Secretary, roll call on Council Bill 437, please write a. Cashman No. Can each. No. Sandoval. No. Sawyer? No. Torres. No. Black? No. Clark. No. Flynn No. Herndon. No. Madam President. No. Madam Secretary. Close the voting and announce the results. 11 Nays.