DENVER | Main Development Thread #6 - Page 51

bobg · #**1001** Posted **Aug 13, 2014, 12:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by comoneymaker

Look at Panama City with "It has a population of 880,691, with a total metro population of 1,272,672"

Their drug money went to skyscrapers, ours went to building giant rat cages outside a public library.

It's all a matter of priorities and we need to get our ROUS problem under control first.

RyanD · #**1002** Posted **Aug 13, 2014, 1:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobg

ROUS problem

Well... I might just have to get this t-shirt now...

Brainpathology · #**1003** Posted **Aug 13, 2014, 2:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobg

Their drug money went to skyscrapers, ours went to building giant rat cages outside a public library.

It's all a matter of priorities and we need to get our ROUS problem under control first.

I don't believe they exist.

RyanD · #**1004** Posted **Aug 13, 2014, 4:38 AM**

On tonight's episode of Sneaky, Sneaky, Picture, Picture, Clear the Premises, RyanD hits up Cherry Creek!

IMG_7494 by RyanDravitz, on Flickr

Construction is really kind of beautiful at night...

IMG_7496 by RyanDravitz, on Flickr

IMG_7508 by RyanDravitz, on Flickr

IMG_7506 by RyanDravitz, on Flickr

DenverPoke · #**1005** Posted **Aug 13, 2014, 3:47 PM**

Via Denver-Cityscape

Country Club towers. Nice!!

DownhomeDenver · #**1006** Posted **Aug 13, 2014, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by comoneymaker

Look at Panama City with "It has a population of 880,691, with a total metro population of 1,272,672"

Images from Yahoo

BWAHAHAHAA this is your comparison??? OK talk about apples to oranges. But nice try.

DownhomeDenver · #**1007** Posted **Aug 13, 2014, 4:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverPoke

Via Denver-Cityscape

Country Club towers. Nice!!

Not bad looking at all.

BG918 · #**1008** Posted **Aug 13, 2014, 4:56 PM**

Interesting orientation for the Country Club Towers, you would think they would want to maximize mountain views to the west. How many units is it again? Looks massive.

wong21fr · #**1009** Posted **Aug 13, 2014, 5:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BG918

Interesting orientation for the Country Club Towers, you would think they would want to maximize mountain views to the west. How many units is it again? Looks massive.

The buildings have to be in the footprint of the existing apartment structures. That's why the orientation of the long axis is E/W.

The Broe Group certainly knows how to make the most out of their real estate developments. I believe that Pat Broe is the guy who got the 20-story height limit established for the A and B blocks at Union Station. That was apparently a pretty epic battle.

mr1138 · #**1010** Posted **Aug 13, 2014, 5:30 PM**

These should still have plenty of views regardless! Pikes Peak is due south of here (anyone ever seen the south-facing view from the Governors Mansion?), and the north facing units will have downtown views as well as views northwest toward the Boulder Flatirons and Longs Peak. It likely actually provides more view opportunities than a north-south orientation, which would have around half of the units facing east. Plus this is an ideal passive solar orientation for energy efficiency.

TakeFive · #**1011** Posted **Aug 13, 2014, 6:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RyanD

Construction is really kind of beautiful at night...

Ah, but it takes an eye for the night.
Love the night shots.

TakeFive · #**1012** Posted **Aug 13, 2014, 6:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverPoke

Country Club towers. Nice!!

Looks like a Home Run to me.

DenverInfill · #**1013** Posted **Aug 13, 2014, 9:19 PM**

Snazzy!

RyanD · #**1014** Posted **Aug 13, 2014, 9:45 PM**

Love the CoCl towers, they are going to be awesome for that location. Very prominent. Now I guess we get to see how the neighbors react.

Also...

245 Columbine!

Cherry Creek: 245 Columbine Project Update #2

http://denverinfill.com/blog/2014/08/cherry-creek-245-columbine-project-update-2.html

bunt_q · #**1015** Posted **Aug 13, 2014, 10:31 PM**

I like the building. But this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr1138

. Plus this is an ideal passive solar orientation for energy efficiency.

How do you figure? Half the units get sun all the time. Half never do. General consensus is that east-west is the best residential orientation in Colorado, as it allows you to manage hot and cold.

mr1138 · #**1016** Posted **Aug 13, 2014, 10:48 PM**

It's fairly well known at this point that buildings stretched out east to west have the best passive solar orientation. I'm not entirely sure how this plays out when individuals pay to heat/cool their own units (I see your point about north facing units), but on the aggregate, it still makes for a more energy efficient building. Units in a multi-unit building are always gaining/loosing heat energy from the rest of the building. If you're talking about the desirability of having a sunlit room, then that's another issue, but this is definitely the most energy efficient arrangement. Besides, north facing units will get morning and afternoon sun 6 months out of the year when the sun rises and sets in the NE and NW respectively.

This orientation maximizes the southern sun in the winter while minimizing the morning and evening sun exposure in summer. Look it up if you don't believe me. One of the best professors I had in college was an expert on this stuff, and beat this drum EXTREMELY hard... I got the east-west orientation lecture at least 8 times, and there's plenty of science to back it up. This website I found with a quick google search briefly explains these same principles from his lectures. http://www.ecowho.com/articles/6/The_importance_of_building_orientation.html

bunt_q · #**1017** Posted **Aug 13, 2014, 11:36 PM**

That is very much tailored toward a single family house. It assumes you can do things like place, "rooms most used must be on the side of the house orientated towards the Sun." Or, "Since you live in your home through Summer and Winter, you should design it for the entire year."

I would like to see studies that actually look at multi-family buildings in the same context. Since heating/cooling/lighting decisions are made on a unit by unit basis, what's best for the whole building is completely irrelevant. My hypothesis would be that a north-south orientation, which allows people to habituate/adjust over the course of a 24-hour day, is preferable to an entire half-building of units that won't see the sun all winter, and probably crank up their heating accordingly.

RyanD · #**1018** Posted **Aug 13, 2014, 11:52 PM**

The Denver house had East / West facing units and I was fortunately and unfortunately on the west side. Mornings were great but at 2pm everyday it got hot, even if it was -10, we still opened windows.

My neighbors across the hall, on the east side, had the opposite problem on opposite ends of the day as you would expect. I guess the building efficiency as a whole works out.

As far as CCT goes, if that's what it takes to utilize that land, I say build em. Darth Vader tower has had a good run as tallest outside of downtown.

DenverPoke · #**1019** Posted **Aug 14, 2014, 12:17 AM**

PLANSIT updated a lot of the Denver proposals in the Highrise and Supertall Proposals section of this forum. A couple of things of interest... another dual brand hotel at 15th and Calif is possible, Skyhouse will be 282 ft, and 1144 15th is now 625 ft.

Thanks for the updates PLANSIT!

LAM · #**1020** Posted **Aug 14, 2014, 4:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I like the building. But this:
How do you figure? Half the units get sun all the time. Half never do. General consensus is that east-west is the best residential orientation in Colorado, as it allows you to manage hot and cold.

Interesting, I've never seen anyone speak well of a western exposure - aside from the views. In the summer, that will fry anything facing in that direction which is why windows facing that direction have their shades down all afternoon. I know the west window in my house is very much that way.