DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by derek.berardi

Bell Tower.....what happened?!!??!????! I hope to God design review tears this apart. How did they manage to make this look worse than it already did. I'm sorry, but no city I've been to in the past 10 year does a more pathetic job with architecture than ours. Where is the sense of pride? This isn't a "victim of the times" situation...this is a Denver problem.

Agreed. I like the parking lot better.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

I'm going to go into Matt-mode for a moment and ponder what the chances are that Cherry Creek's height limit could be raised. I think CC would make a nice secondary mid/high rise district, and its skyline has become quite table-toppy with the recent infill. I'd love it if Denver had our own Buckhead style mini-skyline, but is there any mechanism for the city council to revise height limits?

That would be cool if Cherry Creek could get increased height, but sure seems like a crapshoot. An easier pick would be golden triangle. I really despise height limits everywhere, they lead to generic and uninteresting city-scapes.

If you drive on 6th Ave West of I-25, it's a great sight when you see all the 1960's and 1970's senior buildings of 10+ stories poking up throughout many neighborhoods. We could never EVER do that now because of our current zoning...

[rds70]

Originally Posted by derek.berardi

Bell Tower.....what happened?!!??!????! I hope to God design review tears this apart. How did they manage to make this look worse than it already did. I'm sorry, but no city I've been to in the past 10 year does a more pathetic job with architecture than ours. Where is the sense of pride? This isn't a "victim of the times" situation...this is a Denver problem.

Keep in mind that this design is only for massing review by the LoDo review board. The final architectural design comes later.

[rds70]

Originally Posted by laniroj

That would be cool if Cherry Creek could get increased height, but sure seems like a crapshoot. An easier pick would be golden triangle. I really despise height limits everywhere, they lead to generic and uninteresting city-scapes.

If you drive on 6th Ave West of I-25, it's a great sight when you see all the 1960's and 1970's senior buildings of 10+ stories poking up throughout many neighborhoods. We could never EVER do that now because of our current zoning...

As part of the updated Golden Triangle plan, point towers options are being discussed.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Agreed. I like the parking lot better.

Denver's design review board should just be a single architect from Chicago. If that architect chuckles, the developer goes back to the drawing board. If the architect laughs, the developer is banned forever.

[Ich]

Maybe you all should move then. Tired of transplants whining about everything. Most natives (myself included) were happy with Denver and our “shitty” architecture.

[roshea999]

Originally Posted by Ich

Maybe you all should move then. Tired of transplants whining about everything. Most natives (myself included) were happy with Denver and our “shitty” architecture.

What's the point of this? People who aren't born here aren't allowed to have an opinion on something like the quality of architecture in our city? And if they do have issues with it the solution is to simply leave? You think you speak for all natives or that person speaks for all transplants?

The whole transplant vs native thing is tired bullshit. Denver is evolving. People are going to continue to move here. All opinions should be on the table. You aren't more entitled to this place than anyone else simply because you fell into the world here.

[Curtis Park]

Originally Posted by Ich

Maybe you all should move then. Tired of transplants whining about everything. Most natives (myself included) were happy with Denver and our “shitty” architecture.

Hello fellow native. What tribe are you from? And since you were here before everyone else, your arbitrary point in time is when you decide everything is good enough?
Cities change, and that's a good thing. And an even better thing is we don't allow those without vision dictate how we change. (but it seems like it sometimes. I'm looking at you Lakewood.)

[Ich]

Originally Posted by roshea999

What's the point of this? People who aren't born here aren't allowed to have an opinion on something like the quality of architecture in our city? And if they do have issues with it the solution is to simply leave? You think you speak for all natives or that person speaks for all transplants?

The whole transplant vs native thing is tired bullshit. Denver is evolving. People are going to continue to move here. All opinions should be on the table. You aren't more entitled to this place than anyone else simply because you fell into the world here.

It’s not really and transplant versus native but Denver isn’t a Seattle, Chicago, LA or NYC. And yes when a bunch of people move to a city and then complain that it’s not like others cities, it’s not meaningful discussion. I’m all for growth but the fugly crowd and the transplants nimby crowd have gotten annoying to the point i can’t take them serious anymore. No one has talked about the design or provide meaningful criticism that would lend to a discussion. It was just simply that building is hideous and ugly and Denver has ugly buildings blah blah. You can say all you want I’m just saying if you want a Chicago, then move to Chicago. If you want a Seattle then move to Seattle. As if I wouldn’t move to Austin then complain about how it’s not more like Denver’s development or SLC. Difference between complaining and discussing.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by rds70

Keep in mind that this design is only for massing review by the LoDo review board. The final architectural design comes later.

Shhhhh...... context doesn't help when bitching about computer generated images.

[Ich]

Originally Posted by Curtis Park

Hello fellow native. What tribe are you from? And since you were here before everyone else, your arbitrary point in time is when you decide everything is good enough?
Cities change, and that's a good thing. And an even better thing is we don't allow those without vision dictate how we change. (but it seems like it sometimes. I'm looking at you Lakewood.)

Again I’m happy with growth and I’m pro development. Probably one of the few that welcomes people moving here. I’m just not about the negativity of SOME. Same way if I moved to your home town and then complained about it.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by roshea999

The whole transplant vs native thing is tired bullshit. Denver is evolving. People are going to continue to move here. All opinions should be on the table. You aren't more entitled to this place than anyone else simply because you fell into the world here.

Opine all you wish but transplants shouldn't be allowed to vote until they can prove a 10-year residency.


Moving right along


Rendering courtesy of BMC Investments via Mile High CRE

https://milehighcre.com/hyatt-house-...pus-in-aurora/

Denver-based BMC Investments(BMC) has broken ground on a 140-key extended stay Hyatt House hotel, which will include 8,000 square feet of ground level retail, at the Fitzsimons Medical Campus in Aurora. BMC acquired the property, which is located at the southeast corner of Colfax and Peoria – also known as the Gateway at Fitzsimons – in 2013. The project will be one of the first opportunity zone projects in the Denver metro area to break ground.

BMC Investments intends to hold the investment for at least 10 years, in order to qualify for the opportunity zone benefits. BMC owns two additional acres on the South East corner of Colfax and Peoria and are working through various scenarios for its development.

Such a beautiful addition to the neighborhood this will be.

[rds70]

After a three year hiatus, it looks like 1420 Wykoop is moving forward again. Here is the latest design to be reviewed next week:

73,000 square feet of office, 51 residential units, 15,000 square feet of retail, 99 feet tall:



The 2016 design:

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by Ich

It’s not really and transplant versus native but Denver isn’t a Seattle, Chicago, LA or NYC. And yes when a bunch of people move to a city and then complain that it’s not like others cities, it’s not meaningful discussion. I’m all for growth but the fugly crowd and the transplants nimby crowd have gotten annoying to the point i can’t take them serious anymore. No one has talked about the design or provide meaningful criticism that would lend to a discussion. It was just simply that building is hideous and ugly and Denver has ugly buildings blah blah. You can say all you want I’m just saying if you want a Chicago, then move to Chicago. If you want a Seattle then move to Seattle. As if I wouldn’t move to Austin then complain about how it’s not more like Denver’s development or SLC. Difference between complaining and discussing.

haha...I'm a native, real estate developer, republican (libertarian if I had a viable candidate for any elected position), and I live in Boulder County. I also believe in climate change and think Trump is an absolute catastrophe. Is your head exploding yet?

Since you mentioned discussion, let's discuss (please note you haven't actually added to that discussion yet). The building sits at Denver's historical center, legit one of the spots where some pioneers panned for gold and founded the state, as western history dictates - before that it was a seasonal camp for the natives picking off buffalo and antelope. A more traditional form (and likely materials) could go a long way in winning over DRB and many of the puritan Denver folks who know our own history - I get traditional architecture is out the door in the west, but it's alive and well east of us and it has a fantastic modern touch. Remember, DENVER IS THE ONLY CITY IN THE WEST BUILT LIKE AN EAST COAST CITY (Seattle might qualify, but that's a big if)- that is one of Denver's greatest treasures. We were lucky enough to really grow with formal city planning in our city center in some of the best years for urban planning (1880's - 1920's). We owe it to Denver to pay homage to that history on this site. There is quite literally not a more important site in Denver IMO from a historical perspective (unless we can somehow recreate the Tabor Grand). So, get rid of the jagged/random outcroppings, remove the curved glass, remove the offset triangular patio orientation, and for heaven's sake get rid of the psuedo blank 30 story walls on 3 sides of the building. The NW facing facade is particularly disastrous with the blank wall component and also happens to be THE MOST IMPORTANT BUILDING FRONT. Lastly, figure out how to afford to inset the windows - this alone is one of the most aesthetic design practices but nobody does it unless they have to because of the $$$. Having gone through the design process, I just can't imagine somebody standing up in a room FULL of folks with strong opinions and saying, "wow, I really like this".

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Since you mentioned discussion, let's discuss (please note you haven't actually added to that discussion yet). The building sits at Denver's historical center, legit one of the spots where some pioneers panned for gold and founded the state, as western history dictates - before that it was a seasonal camp for the natives picking off buffalo and antelope. A more traditional form (and likely materials) could go a long way in winning over DRB and many of the puritan Denver folks who know our own history - I get traditional architecture is out the door in the west, but it's alive and well east of us and it has a fantastic modern touch.

I don't think a single member of the DRB would go for this idea. They seem to be enamored with the concept of keeping LoDo looking like LoDo and that does not include a 30-story traditional modern tower so they will insist that this project look as radically different as possible from the existing building context in their 10 square block paradise. Their suggestions are going to consist of: a) glass, and b) more glass. Throw in some non 90-degree angles to emphasize the radically different nature of the structure compared to the surrounding context.

The LDRB would never approve something like this:

The Clarendon- Robert A.M. Stern Architects

[twister244]

I have high hopes for the 1420 Wynkoop project. I ride a scooter/bike by that lot all the time going to Union Station, and it is such a great location. I would hope the river facing side will have ground floor retail as it's a beautiful angle to see 1144/Four Seasons.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by laniroj

haha...I'm a native, real estate developer, republican (libertarian if I had a viable candidate for any elected position), and I live in Boulder County. I also believe in climate change and think Trump is an absolute catastrophe. Is your head exploding yet?

Since you mentioned discussion, let's discuss (please note you haven't actually added to that discussion yet). The building sits at Denver's historical center, legit one of the spots where some pioneers panned for gold and founded the state, as western history dictates - before that it was a seasonal camp for the natives picking off buffalo and antelope. A more traditional form (and likely materials) could go a long way in winning over DRB and many of the puritan Denver folks who know our own history - I get traditional architecture is out the door in the west, but it's alive and well east of us and it has a fantastic modern touch. Remember, DENVER IS THE ONLY CITY IN THE WEST BUILT LIKE AN EAST COAST CITY (Seattle might qualify, but that's a big if)- that is one of Denver's greatest treasures. We were lucky enough to really grow with formal city planning in our city center in some of the best years for urban planning (1880's - 1920's). We owe it to Denver to pay homage to that history on this site. There is quite literally not a more important site in Denver IMO from a historical perspective (unless we can somehow recreate the Tabor Grand). So, get rid of the jagged/random outcroppings, remove the curved glass, remove the offset triangular patio orientation, and for heaven's sake get rid of the psuedo blank 30 story walls on 3 sides of the building. The NW facing facade is particularly disastrous with the blank wall component and also happens to be THE MOST IMPORTANT BUILDING FRONT. Lastly, figure out how to afford to inset the windows - this alone is one of the most aesthetic design practices but nobody does it unless they have to because of the $$$. Having gone through the design process, I just can't imagine somebody standing up in a room FULL of folks with strong opinions and saying, "wow, I really like this".

Well stated, and totally agree. The NIMBY crowd and the FUGLIES may be annoying at times but so is the "it's Denver, what do you expect" crowd, and the "I know its crap, but hell, at least it's density" crowd! This is one reason why the NIMBY crowd is a growing political force in Denver and the metro area.


I'm happy to keep parking lots over some of these turds that get proposed.

[Ich]

Originally Posted by laniroj

haha...I'm a native, real estate developer, republican (libertarian if I had a viable candidate for any elected position), and I live in Boulder County. I also believe in climate change and think Trump is an absolute catastrophe. Is your head exploding yet?

Since you mentioned discussion, let's discuss (please note you haven't actually added to that discussion yet). The building sits at Denver's historical center, legit one of the spots where some pioneers panned for gold and founded the state, as western history dictates - before that it was a seasonal camp for the natives picking off buffalo and antelope. A more traditional form (and likely materials) could go a long way in winning over DRB and many of the puritan Denver folks who know our own history - I get traditional architecture is out the door in the west, but it's alive and well east of us and it has a fantastic modern touch. Remember, DENVER IS THE ONLY CITY IN THE WEST BUILT LIKE AN EAST COAST CITY (Seattle might qualify, but that's a big if)- that is one of Denver's greatest treasures. We were lucky enough to really grow with formal city planning in our city center in some of the best years for urban planning (1880's - 1920's). We owe it to Denver to pay homage to that history on this site. There is quite literally not a more important site in Denver IMO from a historical perspective (unless we can somehow recreate the Tabor Grand). So, get rid of the jagged/random outcroppings, remove the curved glass, remove the offset triangular patio orientation, and for heaven's sake get rid of the psuedo blank 30 story walls on 3 sides of the building. The NW facing facade is particularly disastrous with the blank wall component and also happens to be THE MOST IMPORTANT BUILDING FRONT. Lastly, figure out how to afford to inset the windows - this alone is one of the most aesthetic design practices but nobody does it unless they have to because of the $$$. Having gone through the design process, I just can't imagine somebody standing up in a room FULL of folks with strong opinions and saying, "wow, I really like this".

I appreciate the thoughtful input about the architecture and how it relates to the site. I think it’s weird and I agree with the blank wall but I like that’s its not another square block and that it’s mostly glass! Would tie in the Confluence and 1144 nicely and hopefully the high rises for DPAC (fingers crossed). Hopefully they refine the weird angles to give in a more elegant shape and find a better treatment for that wall. Not a building worth freaking out (positively or negatively) tho IMO

[corey]

Bell Tower could look pretty awesome if it was like the Flatiron Building in NYC, but with recessed balconies. Maybe make it more in the style of Louis Sullivan with ornate iron railings (or a cool modern take on them). If they went cheap with it, however, it could look like the Belvedere or Beauvallon in the Golden Triangle. Btw, I went to high school with Craig Nassi, the developer of those buildings.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Ich

I appreciate the thoughtful input about the architecture and how it relates to the site. I think it’s weird and I agree with the blank wall but I like that’s its not another square block and that it’s mostly glass! Would tie in the Confluence and 1144 nicely and hopefully the high rises for DPAC (fingers crossed). Hopefully they refine the weird angles to give in a more elegant shape and find a better treatment for that wall. Not a building worth freaking out (positively or negatively) tho IMO