To add a comment, please submit by clicking here.
Our primary residence is located in the Golden Triangle and we support the zoning with the two conditions as they are approved. Amplified music in an outdoor venue on a weekly basis would adversely effect our quality of life and the value of our investment(home). Christou has an opportunity to create a very different "unplugged" venue which would attract the upscale residents of the Golden Triangle to patronize this establishment and show a true investment in the neighborhood and his neighbors.
My comment is similar to the one I made before. If this gentleman is so interested in the neighborhood and the benefit of the residents and owners he would do all of the things he is proposing anywway with no conditions. No matter what he does for the Golden Triangle organization it will still be loud noise and drinking outdoors I think someone should ask why he is not offering to make the concessions without a pay off.
Mr. Chistou is offering to invest in our neighborhood, is willing to abide by the restrictions or pay severe penalities and is willing to address the problems voiced by residents at his own expense (i.e., security to assist his patrons to their cars and cleaning up the trash). What am I missing here? This is a GREAT opportunity for GTA!
The Urban Garden concept sounds so exciting and fresh; nothing like a nightclub. It seems like the kind of venue that would draw an upscale, daytime crowd and could, in fact, ADD to the desirability of the neighborhood.
The only issue I see is parking. However, I've lived in a few major urban areas now and have come to accept that parking is one of the problems that will never be adequately solved.
In fact, the best overall solution to the urban parking dilemma is to sell your car and get a bike or use public transportation. Not only better for nieghborhood, but better for the Earth!
I have some comments about Mr. Christou's proposal. 1) He says " I will continue as I have done for the last 12 years to clean the area surrounding our clubs." I have never seen ANYONE picking up the hundreds of flyers his clubs distribute. He has not said he is able to use the parking lots he refers to. Also if it is "not another night club", there is no need to be open until 2 a.m. anynight. The last thing this neighborhood needs is more loud, drunk, disruptive people, yelling, fighting, and leaving empty bottles and trash on our streets! I am tired of picking up trash on our streets, ( i.e. flyers and other advertisments, as well as beer bottles) EVERY Saturday and Sunday morning! I say he is not keeping ANY of his word now, what makes ANYONE think he will after he gets what he wants???? The Diamond Shamrock is constantly calling the police because of drunk people leaving the bar's fighting and causing problems in their lot. This will be just another nightclub! That is all Regas knows! This project is not needed in this neighborhood!!!
why is he only willing to enter into his "agreement" until october of 2009? what happens after that?
As Golden Triangle Residents, we are a tolerant bunch. We have allowed the city to construct/operate a jail, a detox facility, schools for at-risk kids, and other places to serve people that don't live here and don't contribute much positive to life here. We allow it because we understand the needs of the city are larger than we are. We have also allowed Mr. Christou to grow an empire of nightclubs that have served a different need, and most of us are willing to tolerate the noise and other issues that come with them because we believe in an urban and vital neighborhood. But this new proposal is simply going too far. There are already parks and outdoor concert venues in the greater Denver area which hold outdoor concerts, and all are sufficiently distanced from residential areas and comply with strict conditions regarding sound. If Mr Christou is serious about improving life in the Triangle, let's try his idea with the current city restrictions. If those go well, then perhaps we can look at relaxing restrictions on a limited basis, perhaps if Mr.Christou seeks permits for occasional special events. Without the restrictions, we are risking a major disruptive force in our neighborhood that is already straining from the results of our previous goodwill...
I am a long time resident of the Golden Triangle. How long are we going to put up with Mr. Christou’s broken promises and greedy endeavors inconsistent with any positive or active community involvement, accountability, or responsibility? I am a little confused with Mr. Christou’s proposed agreement #8. It states the following: “I am so confident that this project will be so beneficial to the neighborhood, that I will be willing to make this agreement stand until October 30, 2009.” Does this mean after October 30, 2009 all agreements and commitments of Mr. Christou shall expire indefinitely with no further obligations or commitments of Mr. Christou?????????????????
I support the conditions of the use permit issued by the City of Denver.
I agree with the conditions as they now stand, and regret that the city did not make further conditions with regard to parking, security, etc. Rigas Christou's idea of an urban garden/farmer's market, etc. between two restaurants sounds splendid...but why not put that into effect first - without amplified music? It might go a long way toward future cooperation if Mr. Christou shows his good intentions toward actually improving life in the Golden Triangle, rather than making it a place where thumping outdoor music might disturb our nights every weekend -- in addition to disturbances from fights, people stumbling around looking for their cars after closing time, etc. I would also point out that amplified music is a rather recent technological development in overall world history and that going back to ancient Greece and beyond, plays and musical performances were done without amplification.
Hello again. I am not exactly sure how, but I received an email directly from Regas. It was not the one sent by the GTA, but, rather, it came from him directly. Again, I ask that you uphold, without modification, both conditions. Thank you.
The requests for changes in the conditional uses are permanent. If the altruistic Regas should sell the property without these restrictions, then someone else could turn the area into something that really ROCKS. Think about it.
I am very concerned about the parking issues. My business is near one of the night clubs too, and have had nothing but trouble with the patrons and employess of this club. They drink until after 4 a.m. at their cars, have fights, deal drugs, vandalize my building and more. I have had people from the surrounding apartment complex's email me to see if I can do anything to stop people from parking in our lot after hours and disturbing them. These aren't even my customers and I get complaints!! We already have enough parking problems. We don't need more.
I was at the meeting on Tuesday and have read Mr. Christou's letter to the GTA.
Mr. Christou's states his use will "foster a sense of community, foot traffic,...." If so, why is he so concerned about parking that he's researched the parking lots in the vicinity including the new History Museum parking spaces to ensure there's enough parking for his business? His plan encourages more cars in the area which is contrary to Denver's integrated land use and transportation plan known as "Blueprint Denver." Such conflict needs to be presented to the BOA on Tuesday.
Mr. Christou states that the area is "stagnant and in need of new ideas and unconventional thinking. Well, the area does not need uses that encourage cars and parking lots! It needs developers who build high density residential buildings. Such developers are not attracted to areas with outside amplified noise and certainly not noise late at night. They have to offer a product that competes with those that offer peaceful enjoyment of the premises.
Mr. Christou states that he was "taken aback by the apparant animosity" towards him at the meeting on Tuesday. Well, I believe most members were "taken aback" by the abject disregard he has for their right to peace and quiet in their own residence. Playing amplified music outside late at night is basically against public policy.
He states that the Art Museum has had little effect on tranforming the area. That may or may not be so but the community is not going to embrace the transformation that results from uses that encourage outside amplified music late at night and increased traffic.
Lastly, if a person expects to be taken seriously, they need to be credible. Mr. Christou states that he purchased a condo in the Prado for $505K and it's depreciated down to $350K. Maybe that's so, but he also purchased one for $190K that's now worth over $400K according to public records. Why didn't he include that transaction in his letter to the GTA?
thx for the update, looks and sounds great! I would just suggest a different name (urban garden seems kind of vanilla). lets get a naming contest together!
FYI - I just wanted to say that I support this project. I agree with Christou's assessment of the GT and I hope his project will lead to improvements in restaurants etc. . .
By the proliferation of Regas's businesses in Denver, we see what an extremely smart and determined team has been put together. Every point made has good things to it and every one has a flip side that we've learned to look for. What a justifiably suspicious group we are! I think he is counting on our becoming weary of all the fights long before he does.
It's POSSIBLE for Regas to actually fill a need for early evening activity - somewhere for young people and older adults to go to weekends and after dinner. The bar scene starts at 10 or 11 and goes til 2, and that market is already saturated as far as the residents are concerned.
Keep the 2 conditions without alteration and don't be fooled by "good intentions".
I like his concept and I support it.
Seriously?! This project could change the scope of the neighborhood for the better and these comments are showing that there's a willingness to pass this up? Chasing away potential business like this seems backwards. My guess is that these comments aren't indicative of the majority of the residents & businesses. I'd like to see this pass. I'd also like to see trash cans, lighting & some attention payed to this area. He's right - it looks dead during the day and not welcoming. These comments are definitely not from my neighbors who desire a better community.
I am business and property owner in the Golden Triangle. I do NOT believe Rigas's promises for a minute. The litter and destruction caused by his clubs and patrons is huge! We have had to clean up after them every weekend for years. There is no "security" on the streets. This not a well thought out proposal!
FYI there is an error in the letter posted - should be the opposite! (east of broadway/west of lincoln)
neighborhood (not necessarily the Golden Triangle, but in the alley just west of Broadway and just east of Lincoln).
After reading Regas' letter I see no reason for us to back away from the 2 conditions the Board has stated, we still need to hold that position.
As for Regas' offer, once again it is him offering to buy his way to what he wants or needs. I have followed his business ventures and way of doing business from his beginnings and I am well aware he does not follow thru to expectations, only to his convience or need. His offer of security, as he admits is only around his club(s) and consists of one person. And about parking, you can direct people all you want, but as long as free street parking is available, the residents and business owners will continue to suffer with influx of patrons of his establishments and are not always "good citizens".
You have included three groups, the Third Way,CHUN,and the Broadway Residences. What about the Museum Residences? What effect will this have on the Residences and what about the future hotel on 12th and Broadway, George Thorne is the developer? What about the Colorado Historical Museum that also will be located on 12 between Broadway and Lincoln? There is also Lewis Sharpe, Director of the Art Museum. Let's get the heavy hitters involved!
Hello again. I would like to mention 3 items with regard to Regas' club. 1. The museum district interests are different from those of the residents. The noise isn't an issue for them because many, if not most, of the people involved live elsewhere. 2. Promises are easy to make. When the noise becomes a huge problem, we won't be able to undo this. 3. Please recall the line of argument Regas took at the meeting with the City. When points were raised against his project, he switched the ground of the argument.
How is parking going to be handled? Is Denver PD going to increase patrol and manpower to accomodate increasing numbers coming to the venue, covering the issues of public drinking, altercations, and noise?
We want to continue to have a good quality of life within our community. Unless something changes, we will only support the two conditions listed in the 6/10/08 meeting. Am not happy about the potential liquor license which will be granted. Parking and security are still a concern for us. We get up at 4:30 AM (M-F) and typically go to bed between 9 & 10. Music heard will certainly impact our ability to sleep. We also feel that this amphitheater will devalue the housing market within the Golden Triangle. Thank you so much for all the effort the GTA is putting into this, we greatly appreciate it.
I support the position that we should KEEP the 2 conditions without alteration in order to protect the residential character of the neighborhood.
I was at the meeting yesterday. I thought the GTA was very kind to the petitioners considering their being 1/2 hour late for the meeting, poorly prepared, and thinking the GTA would embrace a withdrawal of the noise restrictions. I believe removing the noise restrictions would set a damaging precident and hinder the development of the Golden Triangle. I have to ask: What it the compelling reason to remove the restrictions that trumps the clear negatives of such action? I can't think of any myself. I hope to attend the BOA meeting. Thanks for keeping me informed.
I am in full agreement with the GTA board's position to support the conditions placed on the use of the property at 1136 Broadway.
the conditions re the 1136 broadway entertainment seem reasonable to me and i urge the gtna to adhere to them.
I was in attendance at the meeting concerning Regis' project. I thank you for supporting the two conditions. I oppose any weakening of this position. I felt it was clear that the interests of the homeowners are irreconcilably opposed to those of Regis and his project. Moreover, I was unaware of the situation with the home for the teenagers. This, in itself, would be a very strong reason for maintaining the conditions.
I understand there was some inclination to try to work out a compromise and relax the noise retrictions for the new outdoor venue. I do not support doing that. The restrictions are a good solution to the problem. Restricting the additional hours of drinking and loud music may cost the business a little money but it will go a long way toward enhancing the experience of the residents and other visitors in the area. There is already enough noise from people exiting the clubs at the 2:00 am closing time we do not want to have outdoor noise half the night as well. We need to stick to our guns on this one.