DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Translation - Matt likes commercial office towers built in the last 20 years. We don't really have any of those. But this isn't new, Matt has been on here saying he wanted new, better commercial office towers in Denver for at least 15 years. Matt's been decrying Denver's skyscraper architecture for as long as I've been riding a bicycle.

You're right... it's only limited to the office towers. The "low rise vegetation" surrounding Calgary's CBD looks exactly like Denver's endless see of monotonous and dreary Colotechture:



In many ways, I blame Denver's "one-track mind" on the drive to rebuild LoDo and surrounding areas after the Skyline Urban Renewal Project. We became stuck in a trend of trying to recreate a "false historicism", which for LoDo itself was fine, but soon enough the red brick and earthy colors associated with late 19th century/early 20th century architecture became the de-facto for EVERYTHING we continued to build thereafter. The end result is a laughably contrived district that strives too hard to mimic the past, rather than adopt cleaner and more progressive-looking buildings.

What's more, the ColoCrap being built today is anything but historic; it is constructed with cheap materials, bland stucco, shoddy construction practices, and all originates from a "template design" in which every new development looks nearly identical to all the others. I guess I didn't get the memo that we are actually building Main Street Disney. Denver's false historicism is completely contrived, and I anxiously await the time when this stuff ages and goes out of style. It will be a far bigger embarrassment for Denver than the Skyline Urban Renewal Project itself. As for other cities, they haven't placed all their eggs in one "design basket", if you will. So, instead of lambasting nearly every city on earth for not being as stubborn and limited in the selected design style for their developments, perhaps we can learn an important lesson from them: A lesson on how to hedge your bets.

But anyways, this is Denver. We are an incredibly insecure city, still searching for our identity. We think adopting a template design to "claim as our own" will give us that identity we so desperately need to validate ourselves. I believe it was that same mentality that gave us that wonderful DURA project in the 1980s.

I love Denver, but let's face it. We are capable of doing so much better than this.

PS - You want actual historic? Denver, historically speaking, was always a city that improves upon something in a bid for the future. We are the city, after all, that merely put a slice of cheese on a hamburger and created a global food commodity (or so the legend goes). Instead of cowardly retreating into our past with faux-historic stucco boxes, we need to rekindle that same spirit of innovation and creativity in our architectural advancement moving forward.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by Matt

In many ways, I blame Denver's "one-track mind" on the drive to rebuild LoDo and surrounding areas after the Skyline Urban Renewal Project. We became stuck in a trend of trying to recreate a "false historicism", which for LoDo itself was fine, but soon enough the red brick and earthy colors associated with late 19th century/early 20th century architecture became the de-facto for EVERYTHING we continued to build thereafter. The end result is a laughably contrived district that strives too hard to mimic the past, rather than adopt cleaner and more progressive-looking buildings.

What's more, the ColoCrap being built today is anything but historic; it is constructed with cheap materials, bland stucco, shoddy construction practices, and all originates from a "template design" in which every new development looks nearly identical to all the others. I guess I didn't get the memo that we are actually building Main Street Disney. Denver's false historicism is completely contrived, and I anxiously await the time when this stuff ages and goes out of style. It will be a far bigger embarrassment for Denver than the Skyline Urban Renewal Project itself. As for other cities, they haven't placed all their eggs in one "design basket", if you will. So, instead of lambasting nearly every city on earth for not being as stubborn and limited in the selected design style for their developments, perhaps we can learn an important lesson from them: A lesson on how to hedge your bets.

But anyways, this is Denver. We are an incredibly insecure city, still searching for our identity. We think adopting a template design to "claim as our own" will give us that identity we so desperately need to validate ourselves. I believe it was that same mentality that gave us that wonderful DURA project in the 1980s.

I love Denver, but let's face it. We are capable of doing so much better than this.

PS - You want actual historic? Denver, historically speaking, was always a city that improves upon something in a bid for the future. We are the city, after all, that merely put a slice of cheese on a hamburger and created a global food commodity (or so the legend goes). Instead of cowardly retreating into our past with faux-historic stucco boxes, we need to rekindle that same spirit of innovation and creativity in our architectural advancement moving forward.

Well said! We could do so much better.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Denver post app works fine.

Good election night. Always enjoy being reminded that we do have a savvy, discerning electorate here.

And by the way, Colorado Springs overwhelmingly approved a tax hike for road repairs. Who'd'a'thunk it possible.

From reading local reports down there, the roads have gotten so bad even the most extreme tax haters seemed to realize either they approve the tax or their crap roads will get crappier.

Maybe Colorado Springs will pick up on what Denver metro figured out decades ago: wise infrastructure investment not only makes citizens' lives better, but creates a cycle of success as both businesses and individuals are attracted to a city that clearly believes in its future and invests in it. For all the billions spent by Denver area governments on local projects over the past 20 years (convention center, sports facilities, cultural facilities, airport, convention center hotels, roads, highways, pedestrian bridges, new parks, bike lanes, public transport) the results have been multiplied by the private investments that followed.

Flash back to Denver, circa 1985. A city in decline. Losing population. The highest commercial vacancy rate in the developed world. Collapsing infrastructure, literally, in the form of ancient highways, viaducts, and bridges that served its central business district. A massive area of abandoned (and in may cases contaminated) industrial land, stretching from present day Elitches and Pepsi Center, through the Central Platte Valley, "Union Station" and on into present day Ball Park and "Rhino" neighborhoods. An airport that was a disaster, convention facilities that were a joke. A tiny downtown hotel market. That was a key moment for the City, the decline could have continued and Denver could have become another sad "Rust Belt" story, notwithstanding its western location. That alternative history never happened because of wise decisions made by local governments and their voters.

For cities, just like private enterprises, if you are not investing and planning for the future your enterprise will ultimately fail. Lousy infrastructure shows you to be a city that doesn't give a damn about its future. Hard to attract businesses that have a lot of different choices on where to locate, when you are that type of city.

[awholeparade]

Originally Posted by Scottk

Meh.


But, I am more concerned about what is happening at the ground level. The overall urban feel of a city.

And in that regard Denver is almost certainly better than several of the cities on that list.

I'm curious to know which cities you feel Denver is better than in that regard? I feel like all of those cities are on the same level, if not better (especially LA).

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by awholeparade

I'm curious to know which cities you feel Denver is better than in that regard? I feel like all of those cities are on the same level, if not better (especially LA).

I'll answer, because I've been in every single on of those cities in the last 6 months.

Denver far outpaces Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston and it's not particularly close. While all of those cities have massive towers and very pretty skylines, the actual on the ground experience far trails what we have in Denver on just about any measure important to me. Including essential services, people on the streets, food, entertainment, shared spaces... we're doing far better in just every regard.

Minneapolis and Denver are actually really similar places. Our Downtown is orders of magnitude more vibrant, but the overall center city neighborhoods are fantastic in both spots.

Personally, I'm not a huge fan of downtown LA. It has a lot of buildings and lot going on, but those big roads (even bigger than Denver) make walking there.. difficult.

Seattle is on another planet, if it weren't for the weather I'd probably have chosen to live there instead of Denver 8 years ago.

[RyanD]

It's all a matter of opinion and what you like.

x amount of public spaces + x amount of pedestrian enhancing experiences + x amount of people + x amount of services = different per person.

Also, cities vary and aren't all 'downtown' centric. You go to Denver, and it literally dies and goes mega car oriented / low density only 3-4 miles outside of downtown. All of your nice city experience is packed in Downtown Denver and Cherry Creek.

If you were to go to Los Angeles and just rate the city on downtown, you're doing yourself a huge disservice. LA has a lot urban sprawl, which a good portion accessible along subway, LRT, and express bus lines. Go to K-Town, Santa Monica, Long Beach (and get stabbed), West Hollywood, Hollywood (if you're into that), etc. Most of those are all 8+ miles from Downtown, and you still get a good experience. There are so many urban pockets, and stretches of Colfax / Broadway equivalents. I would rate LA's pedestrian / ground floor presence better, as a whole city.

DTLA is also booming about twice as much as Denver adding tons of condos (omg they exist!), apartments, and office space. DTLA also has some awesome pedestrian pockets (Art's District, Little Tokyo, up and coming South Park). Lastly, I've been to LA 3 times this year and have felt safer there, walking around downtown, than I do here in Denver lately. Once again, all a matter of opinion. The roads in DTLA are literally the same size as Denver's with the exception of like 2. Figueroa being the massive 6-lane one of them. Oh, and most of their transit has dedicated right of way meaning you're going to get there faster than driving, which we know transit is double your drive time in Denver especially with it's LAesque traffic lately.

I haven't been to Houston in a while, couldn't speak much for it. I didn't like it too much when I was there.

Minneapolis (was there 4ish years ago) feels like a Denver clone, but from what I've seen recently, they're adding much more density than we are lately.

[Cirrus]

I like Colotecture. I don't have a problem with Colotecture. What I don't like are cheap materials*. Well-executed Colotecture with brick and ornament looks great and is plenty diverse. Bad Colotecture with EIFS and no detail looks terrible.

* Cheap materials are fine if that's what it takes to get an affordable building. It's only cheap materials on expensive buildings that I have a problem with. But we have a lot of those.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Matt

Calgary shares the same natural color palette of Denver, yet they've managed to stay away from relying on earth tones to carry their skyline.

The argument that "This is Colorado, henceforth we shall drown ourselves in earth tones" is so provincial and short-sighted it doesn't deserve acknowledgement. Denver doesn't own the earth tone pallet, nor should we let it completely define us and limit architectural diversity.

A few things...

During the period a few years either side of 1980 earth tones weren't unique just to Denver. That was a period when earth tones were popular in general in the whole country. This period is when Denver had its high rise boom.

Calgary is built on oil & gas money. When oil money flows they spend money on nice things. Think of Houston or Devon Energy Center in OKC. Because of the development of "tar sands" Calgary grew substantially over the last 20 years. Tower development has been AWOL in Denver until just recently. The new towers and Denver Union Station neighborhood are not Colotecture for the most part.

Colorado/Denver has not had (and still doesn't) the home grown Fortune 500 companies that drive signature type buildings. Additionally, those that do exist became primarily residents of the SE Corridor at a time when that was the place to be. You can't demand architecture that nobody is willing to build and pay for.

Denver has precious little historical buildings and with LoDo, not giving it the middle finger with "modern" buildings was absolutely the right thing to do. With lower rise development (red) brick never goes out of style.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I like the colors. Colotecture is, incidentally, the color of Colorado. Not every modern city on the planet needs to look identical.

I agree. Plus as more towers are built over time the overall appearance will change. Aside from cityscape photos, Colotecture at a human scale provides much more warmth. It's the appeal that older cities have as opposed to all that glass and steel.

Originally Posted by Scottk

If you look at all the big towers currently under construction in Denver (1114, 1401, skyhouse, the confluence) they are all mostly glass towers, and none really scream colotecture. I don't think 999 17th looks bad at all, even if it is colotecture. 1 out of 5 isn't so bad

Exactly.

Plus, as you also pointed out, the value of the street view and feel are more important.

enjo13... YEESS, that's what I'm talking about.

[TakeFive]

As my still favortie quote from EngiNerd might suggest... It's an infrastructure project masquerading as a "stock show" development.

To reclaim and create more riverfront park that requires moving the railroad tracks, is delightful. Connecting north Denver neighborhoods to the rest of the city is desirable.

In addition to the Stock Show, the new National Western Center adds more options and flexibility with new exhibit and ballroom space. Looking down the road another decade, which we are with this, this adds to Denver's competitive menu of options and could easily appeal to a significant number of groups that might prefer a less formal setting or for whatever the appeal might be.

I think the addition of Colorado State University's equine medical center is a Big Win as well.

While not as sexy as skyscrapers or Union Stations neighborhood development none-the-less it's stuff like this that rounds out and adds to the city's overall flavor and variety of lifestyle offerings that are invaluable.

Oh, and bunt's Convention Center improvements too.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

A few things...


Calgary is built on oil & gas money. When oil money flows they spend money on nice things. Think of Houston or Devon Energy Center in OKC.

THANK YOU!!!

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Colorado/Denver has not had (and still doesn't) the home grown Fortune 500 companies that drive signature type buildings.

Again, THANK YOU!!!

Forum veterans will know this has been a pet peeve of mine for the last 15 years or so. So unfortunate that not only did we have so few back then, but we have virtually none left now. CenturyLink didn't even relocate their HQ's here upon buying Qwest, choosing to remain based in a trailer park in Monroe, LA. What a punch in the gut to Denver. This is the primary reason we have no trophy towers. In comparison, Charlotte's skyline of nothing but trophy towers resulted from a "skyline war" between First Union and Wachovia. Amazing what a corporate headquarters can do!

[Mulligan]

Originally Posted by Matt

THANK YOU!!!



Again, THANK YOU!!!

Forum veterans will know this has been a pet peeve of mine for the last 15 years or so. So unfortunate that not only did we have so few back then, but we have virtually none left now. CenturyLink didn't even relocate their HQ's here upon buying Qwest, choosing to remain based in a trailer park in Monroe, LA. What a punch in the gut to Denver. This is the primary reason we have no trophy towers. In comparison, Charlotte's skyline of nothing but trophy towers resulted from a "skyline war" between First Union and Wachovia. Amazing what a corporate headquarters can do!

So even though we've agreed that there's a lot of street level action and that that's a good thing, it doesn't really mean anything if we don't have any Fortune 500 companies located in big pretty buildings...

I'd rather have good street level action in lots of shorter buildings over one or two big ol' towers any day of the week.

As for the virtual lack of Fortune 500 companies left in metro Denver...I'm assuming you're casually forgetting to mention Western Union, CH2MHill, Level3, Newmont Mining, Ball, Liberty Interactive, Davita, Dish Network, and Arrow.

But no, you're right...without a big gleaming tower to blind everyone from noticing the sheer lack of street activity, Denver is just a dumpster city. I'll gladly take an entire downtown that has the street level activity and building characteristics of an area like LoDo, Cherry Creek North, or what DUS will have over just a bunch of towers.

[Cirrus]

Add me to the chorus agreeing Denver is a way way better city on the ground than Dallas or Charlotte.

[DenverInfill]

I agree! Soooo much better! I will take a dozen average Colotecture buildings with an awesome street/ped environment and great urban form at the sidewalk over a bunch of shiny Matt-approved skyscrapers in a crappy urban setting any day.

I like Colotecture too. Not all buildings of course, some are better than others, and quality materials are important. But I find nothing wrong with buildings that incorporate materials from the Earth, you know, like they have since the dawn of civilization. Mix in a few glassy and other-colored buildings, and you have a nice mix--like every other city on the planet.

Architectural quality is normally distributed. By that I mean, across the landscape of any big city, the distribution of buildings based on their generally accepted quality of design, form, and aesthetics, will follow the standard bell-curve, with the Y axis being the count of buildings and the X axis being quality (left=low, right=high).

At the left end of the bell curve are a few really bad buildings. Then as you approach the mean, the majority of a city's buildings (68% within 1 standard deviation +/- of the mean) will be basically average. Not super great, not super awful, but nice and average...the "background building" by definition. Then on the right end of the curve are a few really exceptionally great buildings.

Because we are dealing with a normal distribution based on free market actors and economies, we don't have the power to fundamentally alter the overall existence of the normal distribution. It can be skewed a bit here and there, but the general curve remains overall. But what we can do is move the average to the right. In other words, over time the overall quality can improve (due to cultural/economic reasons, regulatory efforts, or whatever) so the new "average" is a little better than the old average, the new crappy buildings are a little better than the old crappy buildings, the new exceptional buildings are a little better than the old exceptional buildings. But the basic bell-curve normal distribution remains.

So it is naive to expect a situation where we have only half of a bell curve--only the right half...every building is "better than average!!". What we should be working on is raising the overall quality over time but understanding that we will always live, like every city on the planet, with half of the buildings in our city that are at or below average.

[Denver]

the Open Studio Architecture has rendering for a 12 story tower at 14th and Larimer. I was not able to copy the Jpeg to this page. I looks pretty nice though if you all want to check it out.

[DenverPoke]

Originally Posted by Denver

the Open Studio Architecture has rendering for a 12 story tower at 14th and Larimer. I was not able to copy the Jpeg to this page. I looks pretty nice though if you all want to check it out.

Good find.

Some pretty cool renderings of what could have been on Block 162 as well!

[Matt]

My argument has always been, since Day 1, "Why can't Denver have both?"

The immediate (and quite predictable response) from people defending our dismal skyline is "Well, but we have (insert positive characteristic here) and (insert positive characteristic here). Not to mention we also have a great (insert positive characteristic here)".

I also agree that Denver is a great city, it's why I live here. But in what world does having a great skyline have an inverse correlation with having a dense and vibrant downtown? Is it either one or the other? Does a city like Denver filled with vibrant attractions and pedestrian activity necessarily have to be uninspiring in the skyline department? Likewise, does a city with an absolutely awesome skyline necessarily have to be desolate at street level?

That seems to be the going argument for people who feel they need to "defend" downtown Denver when I'm not attacking it. I'm just highly critical of our skyline, and swerving the argument into highlighting the vibrancy of our downtown is a "red herring" without addressing the merits of introducing some newer design styles and cleaner colors into our urban fabric. There is absolutely no reason in the world we can't have both a great downtown skyline (our "face" to the world) and a vibrant downtown. They are NOT mutually exclusive.

Thanks for playing!

[DenverPoke]

Originally Posted by Matt

My argument has always been, since Day 1, "Why can't Denver have both?"

The immediate (and quite predictable response) from people defending our dismal skyline is "Well, but we have (insert positive characteristic here) and (insert positive characteristic here). Not to mention we also have a great (insert positive characteristic here)".

I also agree that Denver is a great city, it's why I live here. But in what world does having a great skyline have an inverse correlation with having a dense and vibrant downtown? Is it either one or the other? Does a city like Denver filled with vibrant attractions and pedestrian activity necessarily have to be uninspiring in the skyline department? Likewise, does a city with an absolutely awesome skyline necessarily have to be desolate at street level?

That seems to be the going argument for people who feel they need to "defend" downtown Denver when I'm not attacking it. I'm just highly critical of our skyline, and swerving the argument into highlighting the vibrancy of our downtown is a "red herring" without addressing the merits of introducing some newer design styles and cleaner colors into our urban fabric. There is absolutely no reason in the world we can't have both a great downtown skyline (our "face" to the world) and a vibrant downtown. They are NOT mutually exclusive.

Thanks for playing!

This is my view as well, I think Denver can (and eventually will) have both. Add a Bank of America Tower (NYC) and something along the lines of Devon in OKC and the "Big 3" won't stick out so much. Buildings like the Confluence and 1144 15th are a step in the right direction.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I agree! Soooo much better! I will take a dozen average Colotecture buildings with an awesome street/ped environment and great urban form at the sidewalk over a bunch of shiny Matt-approved skyscrapers in a crappy urban setting any day.

I like Colotecture too. Not all buildings of course, some are better than others, and quality materials are important. But I find nothing wrong with buildings that incorporate materials from the Earth, you know, like they have since the dawn of civilization. Mix in a few glassy and other-colored buildings, and you have a nice mix--like every other city on the planet.

Architectural quality is normally distributed. By that I mean, across the landscape of any big city, the distribution of buildings based on their generally accepted quality of design, form, and aesthetics, will follow the standard bell-curve, with the Y axis being the count of buildings and the X axis being quality (left=low, right=high).

At the left end of the bell curve are a few really bad buildings. Then as you approach the mean, the majority of a city's buildings (68% within 1 standard deviation +/- of the mean) will be basically average. Not super great, not super awful, but nice and average...the "background building" by definition. Then on the right end of the curve are a few really exceptionally great buildings.

Because we are dealing with a normal distribution based on free market actors and economies, we don't have the power to fundamentally alter the overall existence of the normal distribution. It can be skewed a bit here and there, but the general curve remains overall. But what we can do is move the average to the right. In other words, over time the overall quality can improve (due to cultural/economic reasons, regulatory efforts, or whatever) so the new "average" is a little better than the old average, the new crappy buildings are a little better than the old crappy buildings, the new exceptional buildings are a little better than the old exceptional buildings. But the basic bell-curve normal distribution remains.

So it is naive to expect a situation where we have only half of a bell curve--only the right half...every building is "better than average!!". What we should be working on is raising the overall quality over time but understanding that we will always live, like every city on the planet, with half of the buildings in our city that are at or below average.

Haha! Ken, you would applaud an ISIS compound if it meant development for another surface parking lot in downtown Denver. Your standards for this city are incredibly low; you accept anything for the sake of "infill development" with total disregard for the growing monotony of a single architectural aesthetic. Can't you think outside of the brown box? (pun intended)

True, buildings have (and always will) feature materials from the earth since the "dawn of civilization". But on that same token, we're also no longer using rocks to carve drawings on cave walls. We have Facebook and Twitter now.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by DenverPoke

Good find.

Some pretty cool renderings of what could have been on Block 162 as well!

Complete with observation tower. Although, I have not seen this particular version. Pretty cool.

http://www.openstudioarchitecture.com/#!2013-site-study/sqirr

[Denver]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Complete with observation tower. Although, I have not seen this particular version. Pretty cool.

http://www.openstudioarchitecture.com/#!2013-site-study/sqirr

Note the Hilton branding on the hotel as well....