The Capitol Building Advisory Committee voted to send a conceptual design for a proposed elevated pedestrian walkway over Lincoln Street to the Capital Development Committee for further review and permitting, a step that keeps the project alive but requires multiple further approvals before any construction could begin.

The committee’s vote, 8-4, followed a presentation by the governor’s design team and Studio Gang (lead architect Juliana Wolf) and more than an hour of public testimony both for and against the plan. The design team presented the walkway as an accessible connection and a new “monument” to Colorado’s history, using curvilinear geometry, weathering steel, stone abutments, and integrated public art. Proponents emphasized the project’s accessibility benefits and the value of art and programming for activating the park. Opponents, including Historic Denver and neighborhood groups, said the form would intrude on the Civic Center Historic District’s deliberate City Beautiful symmetry, create long-term maintenance and security costs, and may not be used often enough to justify the impact.

Why it matters: The committee’s yes vote advances a high‑profile and contested proposal in a public space that is a national historic landmark. The project must still clear a state capital approval (Capital Development Committee), city permitting (a Tier 3 encroachment review that will include the Denver Landmark Commission and city council), and a legislative step (a joint resolution for monuments) before construction could occur. Funding combines governor‑designated ARPA dollars already placed with state personnel offices and planned private fundraising; long‑term operations and maintenance remain an open question.

Design and accessibility: Studio Gang design principal Juliana Wolf told the committee the design responds to the site’s topography and existing vistas. The team said the walkway exists to create an accessible route between Lincoln Veterans Park and the State Capitol where none exists now. The presenters described the key geometric constraints: an elevation change of roughly 27 feet from Colfax/Broadway to the front plaza (they said the plaza will be raised slightly, making the final delta about 30 feet), and a roughly 21-foot elevation difference at Lincoln. To meet ADA slope requirements the team calculated a run length that led to a curving 880‑foot total walkway (they said an all‑at‑grade accessible route from Lincoln would have required a 420‑foot zigzag ramp that would have consumed Brown’s Bluff and its public uses).

Materials and art: The design team said materials would include weathering steel, stone abutments, concrete and native plantings; the team is also integrating public art and storytelling elements. The project team reported an artist call that drew 159 applicants and that 20 artist teams are being advanced for proposals; the committee will retain advisory input into selection of art elements.

Public testimony and stakeholder concerns: The committee heard more than a dozen in‑person speakers and read letters from accessibility advocates. Supporters argued the walkway would provide dignified, integrated access for people with mobility impairments, improve safety for school groups and tourists, and create educational art opportunities. Stuart Tuckalunde, who said he has used a wheelchair for 44 years, described the walkway as “essential” to equitable access.

Opponents, including Historic Denver’s CEO John Deffenbaugh and neighborhood leaders from Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods and Neighbors for Greater Capitol Hill, urged rejection or redesign. Their concerns included interruption of historic vistas and City Beautiful symmetry, potential for the structure to produce concealed spaces under the elevated portions, increased long‑term maintenance costs (the preservation trust fund for Lincoln Park currently holds under $200,000 in principal and by statute only interest may be spent), questions about who would clear and deice the structure in winter, and potential additional burdens on public safety resources.

Security and maintenance: Major Michael Ryan of the Colorado State Patrol said Colorado State Patrol (CSP) staff were engaged early in the project and have been discussing site‑specific solutions (natural surveillance, lighting, purpose‑driven activation to reduce illicit use, access control mechanisms and gated closures when needed). CSP representatives said some mitigation measures can be implemented with existing staffing and design changes, though others will carry additional costs and require coordination with Denver Police and the city. Rick Lee of the Capitol Complex explained that Lincoln Park preservation trust funds are limited (he said the fund is just under $200,000 and statute limits use to interest), and that daily snow removal and specialized maintenance would be handled through existing capital complex contracts or new contracts as needed.

Process and next steps: Committee members and presenters outlined the remaining approvals needed before construction: (1) additional review by the Capitol Building Advisory Committee on art and final details; (2) approval by the Capital Development Committee; (3) city permitting including a Tier 3 encroachment review through Denver’s Department of Transportation and Infrastructure and review by the Denver Landmark Commission; and (4) a joint resolution of the General Assembly for monuments on the Capitol Complex (the presenters said the governor’s discretionary ARPA allocation for the project has been placed with the Department of Personnel and Administration’s p3 office and private fundraising will cover the remainder). Presenters said construction would not begin before spring of the next year and that a maintenance endowment and other fundraising will be pursued to limit long‑term operating costs for the state.

Committee action and vote: Member Mister Prince moved and Miss Garcia Barry seconded a motion to forward the concept design to the Capital Development Committee so the project can continue through state and city review. The motion passed on a roll call 8‑4.

Votes at a glance (as recorded in the meeting transcript): Motion to forward concept to Capital Development Committee — Mover: Mister Prince; Second: Miss Garcia Barry; Outcome: approved; tally: yes 8, no 4. (Roll call recorded in transcript: Senator Ball — No; Garcia Barry — Yes; Contagulia — No; DePrince — Yes; Pembroke — Yes; B. — Yes; Mandel — Yes; Van Norick — No; Olivetto — Yes; Riley — No; Linstead — Yes; Chair — Yes.)

What remains unsettled: committee members and many public commenters asked for clearer, line‑by‑line answers on maintenance funding and responsibilities, winter operations (snow and ice removal), exact security/gating strategies and costs, and further refinement of the design to reduce visual impacts on the Civic Center historic district. Multiple commenters asked that the design team test alternate at‑grade accessibility solutions and demonstrate why those alternatives were rejected.

Next reporting: The design team said it will return with additional detailing and artist‑selection materials, and the project will appear before the Capital Development Committee and the city permitting bodies. The advisory committee’s vote advances concept approval only; it does not authorize construction or final artwork selection.

Ending: The committee’s decision keeps the project moving through the formal state and city permitting pipeline, but the design’s fate will depend on the outcomes of landmark and city reviews, the Capital Development Committee and possible legislative referral. The discussions at the committee underscored broad public interest and highlighted unresolved questions on maintenance, operations and historic preservation that the project team must address in subsequent reviews.