DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Cranetastic!

http://denverinfill.com/blog/2015/02/central-downtown-1401-lawrence-update-6.html

How did they get away with basically no excavation on that site?

[DenverPoke]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Cranetastic!

http://denverinfill.com/blog/2015/02/central-downtown-1401-lawrence-update-6.html

Excellent! Should be a good year for cranes downtown! Anybody know if Union Tower West broke ground in January as they had indicated? No dirt was moving as of a few weeks ago.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by enjo13

How did they get away with basically no excavation on that site?

No underground levels.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by enjo13

How did they get away with basically no excavation on that site?

All parking above grade. You only need a little excavation around the elevator core(s) in that case and maybe a few other areas

[enjo13]

Interesting. I always assumed that some of the shoring work was more integral to the overall superstructure.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

Shots. Fired.

Wong sunk my battleship.

All we need now is for the Oracle of Stapleton to chime in and laugh at me. Nobody was more bullish on Stapleton then circa 2001 bunt. Alas, Cirrus knew better.

[Paulopolis]

While perusing the Denver Development Svcs projects report, I came across the entry for 336 W 13th (13th & Delaware.) I googled the address and found this on loopnet. http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/19057786/336-W-13th-Ave-Denver-FL/

There are multiple renderings for a 16-story tower for that address on loopnet. I'm not quite sure what loopnet is even though I've heard it mentioned on SSP before. The page looks like it's just an advertisement for the sale of the land, but I don't understand why there are so many renderings. Could it be project plans being sold along with the land?

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by enjo13

All point of view I guess. For me I can't imagine how it could have gone much worse. Although I really do see suburbanization as a modern evil.

That part is easy. Just take a look at REAL suburban neighborhoods. Rock Creek in Superior and Anthem in Broomfield come to mind off the top of my head. Cul-de-sacs, suburban collector streets lined with nothing but backyard privacy fences, gated subdivisions, absolutely no attempt at neighborhood-scale retail, acres of land built by the same developer with the same 3-5 home models, no attempt to mix in townhouses or even apartments except for disgusting "garden-style" complexes near major suburban arterials. That would have been a LOT worse.

I don't understand what else anybody was expecting in that location. Stapleton really isn't all that different from neighborhoods like Wash Park and Park Hill - relatively tightly spaced single family homes with traditionalist elements like alleys and tree lawns, a connected street pattern (even if it isn't a "grid"), townhouses along major streets, and nodes of neighborhood retail. The mixed-use elements could have been better I suppose, but I don't really see the commercial components of that neighborhood as being finished yet. Quebec Square is basically one gigantic future redevelopment site anyway.

I mean sure, it isn't as urban as Cap Hill or other city center neighborhoods, but then again, I can't think of any brand new neighborhoods anywhere that are. To throw out the term "suburban" though demonstrates a misunderstanding of what true suburbia really is. Spend some time in the neighborhoods around 92nd and Wadsworth in Westminster/Arvada, and then try and tell me that Stapleton isn't a positive step forward - flawed though it may be.

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Spend some time in the neighborhoods around 92nd and Wadsworth in Westminster/Arvada, and then try and tell me that Stapleton isn't a positive step forward - flawed though it may be.

Oh I have. I've owned homes in both Corinth and Plano Texas

I guess when I say it couldn't have gone much worse, I don't mean that in the macro sense. I do think we arrived at the worst possible plan that people would have accepted. The momentum around Stapleton, with the new urban moniker, kept it from turning into a "real" suburb. Given that, I still think what happened is sort of tragic.

Yes there is retail. It's almost completely shoved to the edges. I think comparing it to Wash Park isn't particularly accurate. Wash Park, while falling well short of a "urban" neighborhood, still contains at least snippets of integrated retail. That's my biggest complaint with Stapleton (the relative poor density being the second).

When you look at the (land use map) you see it pretty clearly. Although looking at it I didn't realize how much of Stapleton is freaking park land. I suppose in the future we could nibble away at that for some nice integrated retail?

So ya, it's better than a lot of alternatives. I do massively prefer people choosing to live there as opposed to farther flung exurbs.

I am relatively surprised to see so much support for it here, this being the one spot I visit everyday to huddle with my fellow urbanists. Hell I really thought the whole school argument (isn't East highly rated anyways?) wouldn't hold much water here for sure.

[Cirrus]

Stapleton is great, as a suburb done better. If better suburbia is the goal, it delivers and is a great model. I don't have any problem with that; we need good models of better suburbia.

It's just that wasn't what Stapleton was supposed to be.


via Forest City, 2003

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by enjo13

Oh I have. I've owned homes in both Corinth and Plano Texas

I guess when I say it couldn't have gone much worse, I don't mean that in the macro sense. I do think we arrived at the worst possible plan that people would have accepted. The momentum around Stapleton, with the new urban moniker, kept it from turning into a "real" suburb. Given that, I still think what happened is sort of tragic.

Yes there is retail. It's almost completely shoved to the edges. I think comparing it to Wash Park isn't particularly accurate. Wash Park, while falling well short of a "urban" neighborhood, still contains at least snippets of integrated retail. That's my biggest complaint with Stapleton (the relative poor density being the second).

When you look at the (land use map) you see it pretty clearly. Although looking at it I didn't realize how much of Stapleton is freaking park land. I suppose in the future we could nibble away at that for some nice integrated retail?

While I agree that neither this, nor Wash Park are truly "urban" (for that, something like Denver's Cap Hill or Lower Highland is on the lower end of my expectations, and something more like the tenement neighborhoods of Manhattan are the gold standard); I guess I keep returning to the bigger question of what on earth else could have possibly gone here? It has taken Denver several decades just to build one respectably sized high-density neighborhood from scratch (The CPV), and that is literally adjacent to downtown. Something of that nature that would never, and could never happen in Stapleton's location. At least not in our lifetimes, and definitely not when the whole area was just an empty field without a "there" there. To put it in perspective, the TOD/Quebec Square area of Stapleton is bigger than Riverfront Park and Union Station Neighborhood combined. At best, that would only have ever been a tiny snippet of the entire airport property, and there's no reason it can't still happen someday now that there is a baseline population out there. The alternative at Stapleton would have been something hopelessly suburban, or nothing at all.

And I guess I have to disagree with the assertion that Wash Park has more retail nodes than Stapleton. They're just different - built along ghost streetcar lines as opposed to intersections with high visibility. Just take a look at that land use map you just posted... anything that isn't yellow is meant to be just such a node, and they are not all exclusively on the edge either. The real problem here isn't in the site plan, it is in the execution and current state of buildout. Most of the mixed-use parcels along south Central Park Blvd have not been developed, the ones along MLK are just now being built, the Eastbridge town center is an infamous development snafu (it should have a lot more retail at this point than it currently has), and the TOD area hasn't even begun construction yet. I also feel that Northfield's parking lots leave a whole lot of room for future infill once the "newness" of it wears off and they don't need that much parking anymore.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Stapleton is great, as a suburb done better. If better suburbia is the goal, it delivers and is a great model. I don't have any problem with that; we need good models of better suburbia.

It's just that wasn't what Stapleton was supposed to be.

[Kiss the burbs goodbye image]
via Forest City, 2003

We posted at the same time, but I kinda touched on this in my last post... this was always a marketing gimmick at best. Anybody who thought that Stapleton was going to be a true urban "borough" right from the start must have been kidding themselves. Denver has had a hard enough time in the last 20 years just trying to get decent urban building forms and infill into its authentic neighborhoods. There's no way it was ever going to leapfrog out to the Aurora border build an entire authentic urban neighborhood from scratch. Can anybody give me a 21st century example of such a thing being done anywhere in the US? I think the fact that we got something even remotely like Park Hill or Wash Park on the first try is actually remarkable in this location. This was never going to be a neighborhood of brownstones or apartments.

From my observation, the best urban neighborhoods are built through chronological layers. We can see that principle at play right now in our oldest neighborhoods. Stapleton is just the very first layer on its site, and most of us will not live to see the subsequent layers. This is okay, and certainly nothing to be disappointed about.

[DenverInfill]

There's this:

http://stapletonion.com/posts/forrest-ci...-urb%E2%80%9D-slogan-to-whole-new-level/

My favorite line: "I mean, someone threw a flaming brick at us. That’s just a little over the top.”

Anyway, back in the 1990s, the "urbanness" of Stapleton was always talked about relative to historic single-family Denver neighborhoods like Washington Park, Congress Park, etc., but never anything more dense like Capitol Hill or the Central Platte Valley. In that sense, Stapleton is a success, with the main exception being its lack of embedded neighborhood retail. Nevertheless, the architecturally diverse homes on small lots with alleys and front porches and tree lawns is pretty consistent with these historic Denver neighborhoods.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by mr1138

this was always a marketing gimmick at best.

Yes.

There's no way it was ever going to leapfrog out to the Aurora border build an entire authentic urban neighborhood from scratch. Can anybody give me a 21st century example of such a thing being done anywhere in the US?

There are plenty of more functionally urban examples of greenfield New Urbanism than Stapleton, but nothing on Stapleton's acreage.

This was never going to be a neighborhood of brownstones or apartments.

Wellllll, it could have had a better mix. A lot of single family houses were always going to be there, but more apartments and rowhouses fanning out around each town center might have been realistic, and it would've been nice to have enough density for some corner stores outside the town centers. And there are certainly plenty of US examples of newly built town centers with much denser, taller buildings than anything in Stapleton. So while I don't think Stapleton is a disaster, I do think it could have been better. It's OK, but not perfect, even given the constraints.

Whether the Colorado market was ready to absorb that 10 years ago... perhaps not. It seems like it would be now, though.

I wonder if you could build a whole neighborhood of rowhouses there now. What a cool experiment that would be. Maybe we can convince Park Hill Golf Club to sell.

the TOD/Quebec Square area of Stapleton is bigger than Riverfront Park and Union Station Neighborhood combined. At best, that would only have ever been a tiny snippet of the entire airport property, and there's no reason it can't still happen someday now that there is a baseline population out there.

Incidentally, one thing about Stapleton that I'm totally fine with is Quebec Square. It was never going to be permanent. They'll be talking redevelopment there in another 15 years, if not sooner. And it'll be a good chance to build a better town center, more gradually (which I agree produces better results long term).

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by enjo13

I am relatively surprised to see so much support for it here, this being the one spot I visit everyday to huddle with my fellow urbanists. Hell I really thought the whole school argument (isn't East highly rated anyways?) wouldn't hold much water here for sure.

East is high quality, but most of downtown (outside of Cap Hill, Uptown, Ballpark, and Arapahoe Square) is in the West boundary. The Highlands is in the North boundary. Wash Park is in the South Boundary. None of those high schools are exactly highly regarded. Then there's Manual...

In DPS you're either trying to get your kid into East, GW, or that success-in-can Northfield.

[CONative]

Originally Posted by mr1138

While I agree that neither this, nor Wash Park are truly "urban" (for that, something like Denver's Cap Hill or Lower Highland is on the lower end of my expectations, and something more like the tenement neighborhoods of Manhattan are the gold standard); I guess I keep returning to the bigger question of what on earth else could have possibly gone here? It has taken Denver several decades just to build one respectably sized high-density neighborhood from scratch (The CPV), and that is literally adjacent to downtown. Something of that nature that would never, and could never happen in Stapleton's location. At least not in our lifetimes, and definitely not when the whole area was just an empty field without a "there" there. To put it in perspective, the TOD/Quebec Square area of Stapleton is bigger than Riverfront Park and Union Station Neighborhood combined. At best, that would only have ever been a tiny snippet of the entire airport property, and there's no reason it can't still happen someday now that there is a baseline population out there. The alternative at Stapleton would have been something hopelessly suburban, or nothing at all.

And I guess I have to disagree with the assertion that Wash Park has more retail nodes than Stapleton. They're just different - built along ghost streetcar lines as opposed to intersections with high visibility. Just take a look at that land use map you just posted... anything that isn't yellow is meant to be just such a node, and they are not all exclusively on the edge either. The real problem here isn't in the site plan, it is in the execution and current state of buildout. Most of the mixed-use parcels along south Central Park Blvd have not been developed, the ones along MLK are just now being built, the Eastbridge town center is an infamous development snafu (it should have a lot more retail at this point than it currently has), and the TOD area hasn't even begun construction yet. I also feel that Northfield's parking lots leave a whole lot of room for future infill once the "newness" of it wears off and they don't need that much parking anymore.

Finally, someone that gets it. Many don't realize that there are some retail and commercial areas that ARE NOT on the edges of Stapleton already (i.e. spirits store and dry cleaner near MLK and Central Park). There are more mixed use spots coming (i.e. ground floor retail with housing above). As I mentioned in my post yesterday, it is similar to a Wash Park-like neighborhood and it's good to see someone else that agrees. Calling it another Highlands Ranch or other typically suburban developments isn't accurate for several reasons. There are 4-story residential buildings being built now with retail/shops nearby. It's happening, but it takes time. Again, people are quick to judge before everything is complete. Let it fill out. Let those deliberately left vacant parcels that are slated for mixed used and higher density happen when the market allows for it (just like it is starting to happen on MLK now). It's 7.5 square miles for Pete's sake.

Also, the parks and open space is great and no reason to complain about that. We all know that a great city has a good amount of parks; especially when many of us don't have much of a yard at all. This gives us reason to get out and enjoy the parks and open space with our neighbors and have a sense of community (instead of keeping to ourselves in our back yards like in Plano, TX). :-)

[CONative]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Yes.

There are plenty of more functionally urban examples of greenfield New Urbanism than Stapleton, but nothing on Stapleton's acreage.

Wellllll, it could have had a better mix. A lot of single family houses were always going to be there, but more apartments and rowhouses fanning out around each town center might have been realistic, and it would've been nice to have enough density for some corner stores outside the town centers. And there are certainly plenty of US examples of newly built town centers with much denser, taller buildings than anything in Stapleton. So while I don't think Stapleton is a disaster, I do think it could have been better. It's OK, but not perfect, even given the constraints.

.

This is what I'm talking about. Have you seen Stapleton lately? There are now more 3 and 4-story buildings near the Town Center that were not there a year ago. So there ARE "more apartments and rowhouses fanning out" than there was just a year ago. There is an example of a corner store outside the town center (liquor store and dry cleaner blocks away from the Town Center and the shops along the Central Park south area). Those are not in Town Centers are major retail centers. These weren't there some years ago when many made their first judgments of Stapleton.

[DenverPoke]

If I didn't have a kid there is no way in hell I would be moving to Stapleton, but the school quality and price point combination(at least in Northfield) make it a good fit for a lot of families.

Anywho, today they finally started demolishing that old medical building on Lafayette between 16th and 17th that had been fenced off for a few months. Anything definitive planned for this spot?

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by CONative

Have you seen Stapleton lately?

Admittedly, no. How out of date are google aerials? And are the main curved buildings in 29th Street town center still the biggest ones?

[mr1138]

The curved buildings are still the main retail focal point of 29th Street. The Google Aerial is from October 2014, so pretty recent. There is a large "Texas Doughnut" building slated for the vacant lot adjacent the town square though. http://denver-cityscape.com/images/StapletonTownCenter.jpg The image was a bit large, and has been posted here before, so just see the link instead. I'm not sure of the status on this one, but it was supposed to be starting soon. I'm not sure what's going in along MLK (I haven't been out there in over a year and am also judging by the Google aerial), but they are certainly bigger than single family homes. The 2-3 blocks south of the 29th Street Town center were originally built with 2-3 story duplex/triplex/condo buildings as well, and 29th street extending east into the neighborhood is lined with rather attractive townhouse units for many blocks, as will be MLK by the park. The vacant corner lots W/SW of Central Park, where the old control tower stands, are also slated for higher-density residential when the market allows. CONative is absolutely correct, most of the mixed-use sites still have not even been built on. There are quite a few more along Central Park Blvd in the southern portion of the development that can be seen on GoogleEarth. Not to mention the many other private parcels left over from the old airport (which can also be seen on the aerial photo) that may redevelop one day.

I think we're on the same page that something more urban may be possible today, or certainly will be in the future. But in the 1990s, it made sense to aim to be like Wash Park; not Cap Hill. Thank you to Ken for pointing out that this is what they meant by "urban" in their ads. It certainly is a lot more urban than something like Highlands Ranch, both in location and in design. Personally, I also believe that the parking lots behind the curved buildings at 29th Street, and some of those suburban pad sites along Quebec could one day be redevelopment sites as well. Changing attitudes over time, and changing real estate economics could render the suburban strip malls obsolete, especially if it remains a hot neighborhood.

Urban forms like what we see getting built in Lower Highland, or the mid-century apartments buildings in Cap Hill only make sense when there is something nearby that people actually want to be close to. In the 90s, after the airport closed, there was no "there" there; like I said before. Now there is! And I think we will start to see it fill in over time, just like everywhere else in town.