Is being a good teacher a bad thing at a research intensive university? In Do student reviews of teachers matter?, there are a couple of comments which suggest that being labeled a "good teacher" is a bad thing at a research intensive university. I have heard this in the past, but have always thought it was based on the fact that you wanted to be known for your research as opposed to your teaching. In other words that you want to be known as a "good researcher" as opposed to a good teacher. The way the comments are used in that question it sounds like you should in fact strive to be known as a "bad teacher".

Is it bad to be known as a good teacher? Is it good to be known as a bad teacher?
No.

I work at a university that focuses almost exclusively on research (we have only graduate students, most of whom are Ph.D. students, and the number of postdocs, research staff, etc. is approximately equal to the number of students).  A few faculty members are well known as excellent teachers, and a few are commonly known to be poor teachers.  In general, I don't think the distinction has very much influence on the respect accorded to each within the university (and even less in the larger academic community).  But I think the good teachers are better liked, both by their peers and the administration.  I certainly appreciate it when I find that students are well prepared thanks to having taken a course with a "good" teacher.  And bad teachers are occasionally so bad that they cause administrative problems, which makes everyone unhappy.

Part of each faculty member's annual review is an evaluation of his/her teaching (by the dean).  A positive review is definitely a good thing.