What do you think about tech paks? (park, development, class)

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

The only issue I have with the tech parks in Denver is they are not dense but spread out. In the case of the DTC and Inverness is strung along I-25 south of the city. Sure it looks good as you drive on the interstate but I think if they would have planed it more dense in one area closer to Denver the MSA would not be so sprawled out now with developments like Highlands Ranch.

I haven't spent a lot of time at DTC, but Interlocken has some nice parks. That, of course, contributes to the "spread-outedness" of the area. There are always trade-offs.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I haven't spent a lot of time at DTC, but Interlocken has some nice parks. That, of course, contributes to the "spread-outedness" of the area. There are always trade-offs.

I actually agree with this but in the end the more tech jobs they bring to the MSA seem to outway the negatives especially if the planners can learn from the mistakes of the current tech parks when designing the new ones.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

So I think the answer to this problem would be to develop a high density tech park with residential as well as restaurants, parks etc. Then have it tied to the city, university and downtown with a highway and mass transit lines.

Such a plan would require a lot less space than a suburban-style park, and you would end up with something that more closely resembled central city architecture...so why not put it downtown in the first place?

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by wburg

Such a plan would require a lot less space than a suburban-style park, and you would end up with something that more closely resembled central city architecture...so why not put it downtown in the first place?

That is a good question and I think the answer depends on the area and why they want a tech park. Personally I think you can have a suburban tech park which would be no better then a suburban office park or you can have a urban tech park in the principal city of the MSA that is devoted to tech companies who would other wise not locate to that city.

In Pueblo's case our tech park will be in the city of Pueblo and allow Pueblo to go after tech companies, something that we can't do now. So hopefully as the developers gets a few tech companies to move there the "synergy" will cause even more tech companies to move here and really help this area grow. At least that is my hope.

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by wburg

Such a plan would require a lot less space than a suburban-style park, and you would end up with something that more closely resembled central city architecture...so why not put it downtown in the first place?

Maybe b/c it would be hard to put enough land together downtown to do so?

[EclecticEars]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

They are boring, bland, but purely functional and cost effective.

The reason they exist is because doing most tech-type businesses in old buildings is expensive. Upgrading the electrical service is difficult and expensive. Running network cable or fiber-optics through masonry walls is a challenge, and you not only have to get a basic permit to do the work, but often times a structural permit if you have to modify the structure to accommodate upgrades. The new buildings are designed for easy upgrades and changes and come "fibre-ready" in most cases.

Ditto

The last large tech park I'm aware of in the U.S. is the Information Age Park near Paducah, KY, built 15 years ago. Flop-o-rama.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Maybe b/c it would be hard to put enough land together downtown to do so?

Depends on the downtown. Where I live, there are a couple of large brownfield sites (and an underutilized downtown mall that is up for sale) that have enough room for fairly substantial projects like this--plus they don't need to add a whole lot of things like restaurants and gyms and transit facilities, as they are already there. Lots of other central cities have brownfield sites, underutilized zones, redevelopment areas, and other spots for this kind of project.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by wburg

Depends on the downtown. Where I live, there are a couple of large brownfield sites (and an underutilized downtown mall that is up for sale) that have enough room for fairly substantial projects like this--plus they don't need to add a whole lot of things like restaurants and gyms and transit facilities, as they are already there. Lots of other central cities have brownfield sites, underutilized zones, redevelopment areas, and other spots for this kind of project.

Where do you live? Because even where I live, Pueblo, we have the states second largest downtown and we don't have enough room for a large tech company unless they wanted to go vertical. Now I do live sky scrapers and want some in downtown but I can appreciate where tech companies would not want to build the kind of building that would be needed in downtown.

[wburg]

Sacramento. We have several downtown sites that are currently targeted for future growth: the Railyards (the former site of the old Southern Pacific railyards and locomotive works), the Docks (the former site of our old waterfront docks and canneries, demolished after the Port of Sacramento opened and Interstate 5 constructed), the R Street corridor (an old industrial/factory/warehouse corridor) and the River District (the industrial area north of the Railyards.) They are walking distance from the Amtrak depot, the hub of our light rail system, the state capitol, around 100,000 existing jobs and 30,000 or so residents, bike trails and parks, as well as museums, restaurants and cultural attractions. The sites vary in size from a few acres to hundreds of acres. Personally I'd rather see a whole lot of housing on those sites (30,000 residents and 100,000 jobs is kind of out of whack) but as these sites get filled up, they will also hopefully attract employers looking to site their business in the heart of a downtown instead of a detached "campus," in an effort to attract the sort of knowledge worker that thrives on city life.

But yes, it is pretty implicit that to do an infill project in an existing downtown, they would have to "go vertical." That's what "high density" means, and you wouldn't have to bother with a lot of the infrastructure that the remote "high-density tech park" you mentioned would need.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by wburg

Sacramento. We have several downtown sites that are currently targeted for future growth: the Railyards (the former site of the old Southern Pacific railyards and locomotive works), the Docks (the former site of our old waterfront docks and canneries, demolished after the Port of Sacramento opened and Interstate 5 constructed), the R Street corridor (an old industrial/factory/warehouse corridor) and the River District (the industrial area north of the Railyards.) They are walking distance from the Amtrak depot, the hub of our light rail system, the state capitol, around 100,000 existing jobs and 30,000 or so residents, bike trails and parks, as well as museums, restaurants and cultural attractions. The sites vary in size from a few acres to hundreds of acres. Personally I'd rather see a whole lot of housing on those sites (30,000 residents and 100,000 jobs is kind of out of whack) but as these sites get filled up, they will also hopefully attract employers looking to site their business in the heart of a downtown instead of a detached "campus," in an effort to attract the sort of knowledge worker that thrives on city life.

But yes, it is pretty implicit that to do an infill project in an existing downtown, they would have to "go vertical." That's what "high density" means, and you wouldn't have to bother with a lot of the infrastructure that the remote "high-density tech park" you mentioned would need.

Are you guys going to be part the the HSR network in California? If so that would help your downtown a lot. Colorado wants one on the front range and it will connect with the New Mexico one in downtown Pueblo at our historic train depot. So I am keeping my fingers crossed we get it.

Looks like you guys are doing a great job in revitalizing your downtown. Im really torn. If given the choice I would prefer the tech companies to locate downtown as I tend to be more of a urbanist. However, right or wrong, some tech companies don't want to locate in a downtown so they will go to a tech park. I would rather them locate in my cities tech park then another. So if a city is going to have a tech park to attract those companies I would prefer it be somewhat close to downtown and more dense then spread out and in the central city so they get the population and tax revenue. I would, also, like to see the downtown and tech center connected with some kind of mass transit.