MEETING TYPE:	Aesthetics Citizen’s Working Group
MEETING DATE:	September 15, 2003
MEETING LOCATION:	Washington Street Community Center
ATTENDEES
Nell Swiers	Baker	Bob Dorroh	CCD
Tiffany Holcomb	Wash Park	Anthony Lovato	Denver Public Works
Steve Harley	Baker Historic Neighborhood Association	Shane Binder	West Wash Park Neighborhood Association
Jim Zavist	WUCA/RTD	David Harris	WWPNA
Carla McConnell	CCD-CPD-UD	Carole Campbell	Athmar Park Neighborhood Association
Charles Howard	West Univ.	Alan Woodmanson	FHWA
Jim Jones	WWMA	Dean Bradley	FHU
Cassie Gouger	FHU	Greg Ochis	DW
Allyson Mendenhall	DW	Kotch VoraAkhom	DW
Zac Boggs	DW

PREPARER: Allyson Mendenhall, Design Workshop
SUBJECT: Urban Design/Aesthetics for the Valley Highway Project

Prior to the meeting, Design Workshop conducted a photographic inventory of highway elements in the Denver area, which were organized into the following categories: Bridges, Pedestrian Bridges and Passages, Highway Landscape, Wall Treatments, Sound Barriers and Retaining Walls, Slope and Ditch Paving, Medians, Special Features, Monuments and Public Art, Guardrails and Barriers, Lighting, Signage, Bridge Piers and Railings and CWG Examples. Precedents from other parts of the United States and Europe were researched as well. The intention of this photographic accumulation was to enable participants in the work sessions to understand the context of improvements along the highway corridor and to help them make informed choices.

The photographs were organized in categories on presentation boards as an Image Preference Exercise. Attendees were given an equal number of colored dot stickers and asked to place them on images of improvements that appealed to them as well as on images they did not like. The intention of the exercise was to spark a discussion about the opportunities for aesthetic improvement of the highway, to summarize the group’s point of view and to begin to define a common direction.

Other discussions focused on a matrix chart of the role and purpose of various highway elements as well as the distribution of funds along the highway corridor.

Meeting Summary

• The section from 6th Avenue to Federal Boulevard should be included in the EIS aesthetics study.
  
• All highway users and adjacencies must be considered, including the driver of the highway and arterial roads, bicyclists and pedestrians. The point of view of the highway of adjacent neighborhoods and districts must be considered.
  
• Sound walls should be located at residential areas only. Light industrial areas might warrant screening, but not sound walls.
  
• Add a Neighborhood column to Role and Purpose Matrix to reflect this point of view.
  
• Add Safety column to Role and Purpose Matrix.
  
• Add retaining walls to the Wall Treatments category.
  
• Add Bike Paths to the Pedestrian Bridges and Passages category.
  
• Fencing should be added as a highway element category.
  
• Add a Views column (to mountains, downtown, river) to the Role and Purpose Matrix (good views from neighborhoods should not be blocked with walls; poor views should be screened). The benefits of views for drivers on highway should be considered.
  
• Should the Valley Highway section of I-25 be continuous with or distinct from T-Rex in terms of themes and elements?
  
• Should highway elements be varied and clearly reflect each contiguous neighborhood through which the corridor passes or be uniform in this highway section? Some neighborhoods are in transition so it is difficult to determine what to reflect and how to create a sense of place.
  
• Distinct elements at highway nodes could provide a sense of neighborhood identity and help with orientation.
  
• The relationship of the highway to the river should be considered aesthetically and environmentally.
  
• Perhaps the Design Center yellow articulated wall sculpture by Herbert Bayer could have some counterpart in the highway corridor or a nearby node.
  
• Vandalism and graffiti must be considered in terms of maintenance, removal and protection.
  
• Keep in mind that some elements solve one problem while creating others. Ex. Sound walls mediate noise disruption but also can block views. Lighting of the highway and signage contributes to safety and orientation yet can also create light pollution that affects adjacent neighborhoods.
  
• The design of all highway elements should be two-sided. It must always consider the point of view of the person driving in the highway corridor as well as that of the person in the adjacent areas through which the highway passes.
  
• The effects of lighting on neighborhoods must be considered (light trespass, safety, views of sunsets, night sky).
  
• Wildflower seeding was suggested as a low-maintenance way to cover large landscaped areas with vegetation.
  
• The design of all highway elements must be durable.
  
• Different intersections have different uses and needs: Alameda, Broadway/Ohio and Federal should be pedestrian- and bicycle- friendly because of the mixed use nature of the areas and the proximity to transit and open space. Safe passage and emphasized connections at these highway nodes must be a priority.
  
• The experience along the highway and the transition from highway to local road should be choreographed.
  
• Even highway elements and features that are not strictly functional should be included from day one, and not as an afterthought.
  
• Colorful planting should be considered for accent areas such as the transition from local roads to the highway.

Comments related to distribution of budget along highway corridor:

• The aesthetic group should advance their effort without being concerned about budget and its distribution at this stage. Cost should not be a consideration during an E.I.S. effort.
  
• Money should be spent evenly through the corridor on elements and improvements that are applied after the purely functional structures are built.
  
• Integration of special design elements is essential from the beginning.
  
• Competition between neighborhoods must be avoided.
  
• Pedestrian Bridges and Passages – you’re not moving as quickly as you pass by them and you have more time to appreciate them, so more money should be applied to these areas. Also, these areas are not as extensive as for cars, so less cost is associated with them.
  
• Some feel that landscape should be prioritized over other elements, while others advocate spending money on the hard items firms and then landscape can be phased back in the future as a separate project. Structures must be able to accommodate future landscape phases even if not funded.
  
• With a limited budget, the nodes (Broadway/Ohio, Alameda and Federal) must receive special focus because they are where more people benefit.
  
• Cost-wise, is there a difference between unique bridge designs and similar bridge design.