OMG! Hotel Teatro Deal is True!! Part II - Page 6

blm3034L!fe · #**101** Posted **Mar 3, 2007, 6:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfillJunkie

You're backtracking. Not a good move.

Anyway....

Huh? Did I so something wrong?

Paulopolis · #**102** Posted **Mar 3, 2007, 7:02 AM**

Quote:

Is that supposed to be 1100 15th Ave in the background?

pablosan · #**103** Posted **Mar 3, 2007, 7:33 AM**

Hmm? I think so.

FrancoRey · #**104** Posted **Mar 3, 2007, 7:39 AM**

Lol yeah it is! or some other grand tower that never came to pass...

Blm where did u get that rendering anyway? That was my 1st time seeing it.

blm3034L!fe · #**105** Posted **Mar 3, 2007, 3:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paulopolis

Is that supposed to be 1100 15th Ave in the background?

Yeah and see if they would have built the damn thing when the were scheduled to? The office market would have been able to handle it by the time it was complete, or shortly there after.

Why is that developers? And Investors? have zero faith in this City? I understand Denver's history and the 80's and all. But damnit this City is doing things right now that other City's can only dream about! And the ball of serious progression is in effect!

I guess a 12 story 1100/15th is better than a parking lot and same for Teatro. Teatro started up at the 60 story range and now is reduced to a Brooks tower statis? If that? The new design looks like 🞵🞵🞵🞵! Might as well leave that damn "spire" off! Wow Hey way to go there.

I guess as long as something is developed then hey, Denver is moving ahead right? Time will tell. I simply hope that GGT Sticks with thier 50 story height and it actually becomes a reality.

I'm finished ranting and raving

pablosan · #**106** Posted **Mar 3, 2007, 4:34 PM**

If you really think about it, the original Teatro was supposed to be 565' to the roof. That meant that the spire was a whopping 187'. The new Teatro will rise about 500' with the spire 50'-100'. That is still a pretty good height. As far as density is concerned, it will be almost indiscernible. From a distance, 65' doesn't really make that much of a difference.

#**107** Posted **Mar 3, 2007, 5:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by blm3034L!fe

I guess a 12 story 1100/15th is better than a parking lot and same for Teatro. Teatro started up at the 60 story range and now is reduced to a Brooks tower statis? If that? The new design looks like 🞵🞵🞵🞵! Might as well leave that damn "spire" off! Wow Hey way to go there.

I guess as long as something is developed then hey, Denver is moving ahead right? Time will tell. I simply hope that GGT Sticks with thier 50 story height and it actually becomes a reality.

I'm finished ranting and raving

BLM 🞵🞵🞵?! Where are you getting a 12 story 1100 15th from??? There are no plans right now to even develop that property.

Secondly, like Ken said...isn't it better to develop a property in the 40 story range than to have a damn parking lot??? If it is more of a certainty to develop the tower at a lower height...then where is the problem here??? Ya know what...I'd be f-ing happy if it was only 10 stories. It's not about height for christ sakes its about the whole urban experience and the density. Take a drive down 14th street one of these days and get out and walk around, BLM. Stand at the corner of 14th and Arapahoe and now imagine from street level what the difference 16 floors will make. none. Everyone is so worried about the whole 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 skyline factor.

And by the way, how is the design 🞵🞵🞵🞵??? you're basing your opinion off of a 2 dimensional side view drawing. And it's not even a drawing made to show u the detail of the tower. It was created to simply be used as a floorplan guide for prospective buyers.

Ya know what...if they want to chop another 4 floors off...go ahead. As long as I see a fence and dirt flying...I could care less!!!

#**108** Posted **Mar 3, 2007, 5:19 PM**

Oh one thing I do care about is that it looks pretty at night. And I hope the spire is so bright that Buntie can't close his eyes at night. If you've ever noticed i think buntie was behind the fact that the Hyatt beacon isn't brighter than it is.

blm3034L!fe · #**109** Posted **Mar 3, 2007, 7:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfillJunkie

BLM 🞵🞵🞵?! Where are you getting a 12 story 1100 15th from??? There are no plans right now to even develop that property.

Secondly, like Ken said...isn't it better to develop a property in the 40 story range than to have a damn parking lot??? If it is more of a certainty to develop the tower at a lower height...then where is the problem here??? Ya know what...I'd be f-ing happy if it was only 10 stories. It's not about height for christ sakes its about the whole urban experience and the density. Take a drive down 14th street one of these days and get out and walk around, BLM. Stand at the corner of 14th and Arapahoe and now imagine from street level what the difference 16 floors will make. none. Everyone is so worried about the whole 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 skyline factor.

And by the way, how is the design 🞵🞵🞵🞵??? you're basing your opinion off of a 2 dimensional side view drawing. And it's not even a drawing made to show u the detail of the tower. It was created to simply be used as a floorplan guide for prospective buyers.

Ya know what...if they want to chop another 4 floors off...go ahead. As long as I see a fence and dirt flying...I could care less!!!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a 12 story building going up where this one by "Hines" was supposed to at one point?

I believe that was pablosan's comment about the Hines Tower in that rendering with Teatro I had posted, and to my understanding "Hines" is now preparing for a 12 Story Office or Mixed use tower? No? When they were originally considering a 40+ tower at one time right? Or am I way out in left field? What is the deal with you Junkie? You sure like to jump all over anything I do/say lately? Is everything alright man?

FrancoRey · #**110** Posted **Mar 3, 2007, 8:40 PM**

He doesn't love you anymore.

bcp · #**111** Posted **Mar 3, 2007, 9:35 PM**

12 story office by Hines is in lodo

Paulopolis · #**112** Posted **Mar 3, 2007, 9:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by blm3034L!fe

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a 12 story building going up where this one by "Hines" was supposed to at one point?

I believe that was pablosan's comment about the Hines Tower in that rendering with Teatro I had posted, and to my understanding "Hines" is now preparing for a 12 Story Office or Mixed use tower? No? When they were originally considering a 40+ tower at one time right? Or am I way out in left field? What is the deal with you Junkie? You sure like to jump all over anything I do/say lately? Is everything alright man?

Are you sure you aren't thinking about 1515 Wynkoop? An 8-story development by Hines a few blocks down the road?

And while Teatro might be shorter we also recently heard that One Lincoln Park is actually going to be taller than 360'. It's going to be 380'. To everything there is a season. A time for shorter buildings. And a time for taller buildings.

#**113** Posted **Mar 3, 2007, 9:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by blm3034L!fe

Or am I way out in left field? What is the deal with you Junkie? You sure like to jump all over anything I do/say lately? Is everything alright man?

I think it's PMS. Sawwy BLM, but simma down now!!!

pablosan · #**114** Posted **Mar 4, 2007, 7:53 AM**

What did I miss? Yikes!!

blm3034L!fe · #**115** Posted **Mar 4, 2007, 4:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfillJunkie

I think it's PMS. Sawwy BLM, but simma down now!!!

Or Something? I don't know? But I no mad at yu junkie, Huggs...

bunt_q · #**116** Posted **Mar 4, 2007, 7:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by InfillJunkie

Oh one thing I do care about is that it looks pretty at night. And I hope the spire is so bright that Buntie can't close his eyes at night. If you've ever noticed i think buntie was behind the fact that the Hyatt beacon isn't brighter than it is.

Walking by the EPA building walking home from the Pepsi Center last night, I couldn't help but wonder - why is the energy-conscious ultra-green EPA keeping their lights on all weekend? You *know* nobody is working - not even janitors - at midnight Sat in a federal building. Bet I could do a non-green building and shut the damn light off once in a while and be just as energy conscious as they are. Good thing I don't live across the street from there. Damn lights.

pablosan · #**117** Posted **Mar 5, 2007, 12:37 AM**

soleri · #**118** Posted **Mar 5, 2007, 12:43 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Walking by the EPA building walking home from the Pepsi Center last night, I couldn't help but wonder - why is the energy-conscious ultra-green EPA keeping their lights on all weekend? You *know* nobody is working - not even janitors - at midnight Sat in a federal building. Bet I could do a non-green building and shut the damn light off once in a while and be just as energy conscious as they are. Good thing I don't live across the street from there. Damn lights.

Just a guess, but the EPA under Bush is not particularly green or energy conscious. An agency which has political operatives censoring scientists about global warming is probably more worried about other things. Like which oil company is going to hire them in 2009.

escodu05 · #**119** Posted **Mar 5, 2007, 2:50 AM**

comparison:

San Fran from this angle is not much more than 400-500SF bldgs. But it is dense. We can all hope for this type of pic from denver sometime soon, and these projects (teatro in particular) can get us along way toward that.

FrancoRey · #**120** Posted **Mar 5, 2007, 5:29 AM**

Except our buildings get shorter while everyone elses get taller...I just read the Capitol building in Sacramento is getting a roof height increase from 701' to 776' and 65 floors to 70 because of increased demand there. Also, SLC is getting more condo unit increases in many of their projects. Is Denver just that much of a hot tamale no one is willing to take a bigger risk on maintaining building height? I mean, it's not like Teatro w/50 floors wouldn't fill, it just may not happen in less than 3 years...