DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

http://www.denverpost.com/lifestyles/ci_...would-design-rules-create-better-looking

Would widespread design review save more of Denver? Would it eliminate the undistinguished apartment buildings going up in other areas — quickie construction jobs that use cheap vinyl and wood materials, cram their lots, leave little breathing space for the people who live in or around them, that dab on bright Velveeta cheese-colored squares of paint to obscure the fact that they are boring blocks otherwise?

cram their lots? leave little breathing space for the people who live in or around them?

So he is advocating for suburban-style development?

Is it really about the aesthetic or is it about the density?

Zeppelin suggests that's just a matter of writing the best rules, making things like innovation and neighborhood needs part of the standard. Design can have unintended benefits for a city. Limiting building type and height in a developing part of town, he suggests, also limits the value of property in those places because developers can't go up and up, creating more units. If property values are limited, neighborhoods in general are more affordable — they don't become places where only wealthy people can afford to live.

Limiting heights limits property value? Not sure I follow his logic...

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by CastleScott

Here's a condo story right next to Union Station:

The final act in Union Station's rebirth is going to be a big one: a 19-story, 342-unit condominium tower offering up the first and only new for-sale housing in the booming neighborhood.

"

It's been amazing how quickly we went from NOTHING in the Union Station area to complete development.

Ryan did his final DaVita update on August 26, 2012. At that point, the entire "Union Station" area (west of Union Station) was almost completely empty. Within a year from now, it will largely be completed, and in any event will be completely developed by 2018. That's like the downtown area of small city built from scratch in six years.

I remember there was some skepticism over the original Union Station plans and how much demand there was likely to be for residential and commercial real estate there. If I recall, the original business plan was like for a 20 year build out.

Who knew?

[TakeFive]

How Gentrification Really Changes Cities - A surprising case study out of Philadelphia
November 9, 2015 by Karen Weise BloombergBusiness

A new paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia looks at census data from 2002 and 2014 to compare three kinds of neighborhoods in the city: those that were gentrifying, those that were poor but not changing, and those that were already relatively wealthy.

Overall, residents do leave gentrifying areas at "slightly" higher rates than areas that aren't changing, but researchers found it's people with higher credit scores who are more likely to leave—a kind of "up and out" move to suburbs or wealthier parts of the city.

A summary, this is an easy read. Based on Federal Reserve analysis no value judgments are made; simply follows the data and makes observations.

[TakeFive]

RiNo voters OK higher taxes to fund improvements
NOVEMBER 6, 2015 by BURL ROLETT

RiNo Art District, a nonprofit that promotes RiNo and its artists, headed up the BID campaign. Executive Director Jamie Licko said the money will fund streetscape improvements along Brighton Boulevard, a parking and access study and a new set of design guidelines for development in the neighborhood.

I didn't recall this being posted though it may have been. It's interesting, partly because they created both a BID and a GID.

Originally Posted by bcp

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the sweeping generalization in that Zeppelin quote. It's not making sense, especially in that with more density you get the opportunity for more affordability by choice / demand. This really isn't about height....look at DUS - height caps yet very expensive.

Considering RiNo and what Zeppelin might be thinking, all I could come up with is that by limiting height - say 5-8 stories maybe - you'd only get buildings that were built to accommodate the "masses"? Nothing about limiting supply would normally suggest a limit on values, quite the opposite. I can only guess it's the product he's actually targeting.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

Zeppelin suggests that's just a matter of writing the best rules, making things like innovation and neighborhood needs part of the standard. Design can have unintended benefits for a city. Limiting building type and height in a developing part of town, he suggests, also limits the value of property in those places because developers can't go up and up, creating more units. If property values are limited, neighborhoods in general are more affordable — they don't become places where only wealthy people can afford to live.

Limiting heights limits property value? Not sure I follow his logic...

You can also make thing more affordable by plopping suburban-esque developments right outside downtown, slap some shitty metal siding on them, and call it innovative. Seems to be the Zeppelin development model up to this point and the hipsters are eating it right the f**k up.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

You can also make thing more affordable by plopping suburban-esque developments right outside downtown, slap some shitting metal siding on them, and call it innovative. Seems to be the Zeppelin development model up to this point and the hipsters are eating it right the f**k up.

Taxi is awful from a site development standpoint.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

http://www.denverpost.com/lifestyles/ci_...would-design-rules-create-better-looking

Yet nearly everyone backs them, especially now in Denver, where the construction boom is on and the consensus is that a lot of buildings are going up that disrespect the character of their surroundings and harm the city's image as a capital of progressive, Western living. Ugly might be hard to define, but there is widespread agreement that it's on the rise.

This is such nonsense. What consensus and what the hell is progressive Western living as an architectural style?

All of the neighborhoods mentioned - Stapleton, Cherry Creek - that have design guidelines around used materials are still full of new buildings clad in cheap-looking EIFS. There a few stand-out buildings but, in general new-builds aren't particularly better looking within these areas than their surrounding areas that have no guidelines. The only place where I've seen design guidelines work is in LoDo but, that's because I like brick buildings. I'd like to see existing design rules work before we start expanding to new

cram their lots, leave little breathing space for the people who live in or around them, that dab on bright Velveeta cheese-colored squares of paint to obscure the fact that they are boring blocks otherwise?

Cram their lots??? Is this guy suggesting suburban setbacks and huge corporate plazas? There's not a block in Denver where I feel crammed. It sounds like he's calling for reduced density.

Denver designer and builder Mickey Zeppelin is among those pushing for the guidelines. His Taxi development is proof of what's possible, a place that has introduced mixed uses to the neighborhood — retail, office, residential — without losing the character. His buildings have a similar personality to the factories that long defined the area's style.

Seriously? TAXI? That development is utter shite. Go ahead and slap some colorful blocks together and call it innovative. My 5 year old could design a prettier and more functional building and Douglas County could come up with a less suburban layout. Sorry, but if the argument uses TAXI as good example then I want no part of it.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

It's been amazing how quickly we went from NOTHING in the Union Station area to complete development.

Ryan did his final DaVita update on August 26, 2012. At that point, the entire "Union Station" area (west of Union Station) was almost completely empty. Within a year from now, it will largely be completed, and in any event will be completely developed by 2018. That's like the downtown area of small city built from scratch in six years.

I remember there was some skepticism over the original Union Station plans and how much demand there was likely to be for residential and commercial real estate there. If I recall, the original business plan was like for a 20 year build out.

Who knew?

I was having this discussion recently as well. What is on the horizon in 2018 once the billion dollar investment around Union Station is completed? What area of Denver will be able to absorb new growth and be the new hot neighborhood in 3-4 years?

There are a few lots sprinkled around the CBD, GT, and Arapahoe Square, but unless they demolish large swaths of RiNo, there won't be the large lots available for the construction of the big boxes we've been accustomed to seeing.

What will developers do when they have to become creative?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

I was having this discussion recently as well. What is on the horizon in 2018 once the billion dollar investment around Union Station is completed? What area of Denver will be able to absorb new growth and be the new hot neighborhood in 3-4 years?

There are a few lots sprinkled around the CBD, GT, and Arapahoe Square, but unless they demolish large swaths of RiNo, there won't be the large lots available for the construction of the big boxes we've been accustomed to seeing.

What will developers do when they have to become creative?

Buy the giant half-block and full-block parking lots lefts in the CBD, GT, Arapahoe Square, etc. that are the same size as the lots behind Union Station? There's plenty of area left to develop in downtown- just not one landowner to deal with for some cases.

[EngiNerd]

Do we know which rendering of the Coloradan is correct?

DI has one rendering, while the news organizations have another (less colorful) rendering with some other changes.

Denver Infill


Denver Post

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Denver Post

I prefer this one with the cleaner design (a one toned color palette) and what looks like a change to the facade material.

[DenverPoke]

A couple of interesting new items on the latest Denver Project Development listing:

155 Steele - 12-story 67 unit CONDO building
21st & Welton - 17-story 400 unit building. (Talk about a beast).

[Mulligan]

Originally Posted by DenverPoke

A couple of interesting new items on the latest Denver Project Development listing:

155 Steele - 12-story 67 unit CONDO building
21st & Welton - 17-story 400 unit building. (Talk about a beast).

Wasn't there talk a few months back about another Alexan or Trammel Crow Residential project at 21st and Welton?

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by DenverPoke

A couple of interesting new items on the latest Denver Project Development listing:

155 Steele - 12-story 67 unit CONDO building
21st & Welton - 17-story 400 unit building. (Talk about a beast).

One Lincoln Park will finally have a friend! Must be going in that big parking lot on the NE corner of 21st and Welton. 17 stories is probably maxing out the 200' max height for Arapahoe Square.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Buy the giant half-block and full-block parking lots lefts in the CBD, GT, Arapahoe Square, etc. that are the same size as the lots behind Union Station? There's plenty of area left to develop in downtown- just not one landowner to deal with for some cases.

Go by St. Anthony's Sloan's Lake and old CU Hospital sites. Monolithic developments going in there. More non-human scale, more like Belmar.

I totally agree with wong, there are so many huge lots available (still) its not even funny.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by Mulligan

Wasn't there talk a few months back about another Alexan or Trammel Crow Residential project at 21st and Welton?

Yup.

There TWO Alexan developments planned (12 stories each) and the above 17 story development. So, 3 major residential developments for AS plus some smaller stuff.

[DenverPoke]

Originally Posted by Mulligan

Wasn't there talk a few months back about another Alexan or Trammel Crow Residential project at 21st and Welton?

I believe Alexan is planning 22nd/Welton and 20th/California. I'm not sure of the developer on this one.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by DenverPoke

I believe Alexan is planning 22nd/Welton and 20th/California. I'm not sure of the developer on this one.

DownhomeDenver posted this back in July(the 2120 Welton address). Wonder if it's the same, or if the 17 story is in addition to that.

http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7071656&postcount=4510

Originally Posted by DownhomeDenver

James Real Estate Services publishes a quarterly apartments report that typically has some good information in it. I did spot these which were filed under his proposed for 2015 construction list:

Welton Park, 300 units by Larry Lee(?) at 2200 Welton Street in the Denver Central submarket. This is one of a number of new projects proposed (and one under construction) along the Welton Street corridor and RTD light rail line between downtown and Five Points. <--this would be the Alexan property.

Water Street, 172 units by Alliance Residential at 695 Water Street in the Denver Central submarket. The project is across the street from the Denver Aquarium.

2401 Blake Street, 286 units by Lennar Multifamily in the Ballpark neighborhood in the Denver Central submarket.

2120 Welton Street, 300 units in the Denver Central submarket by Welton Street Properties. This looks like another full half block.

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Do we know which rendering of the Coloradan is correct?

DI has one rendering, while the news organizations have another (less colorful) rendering with some other changes.

Denver Infill


Denver Post

This building looks like a communist block. Good god.

[enjo13]

There's some sort of design review for Union Station right? Because that's not ok. We just dumped a whole bunch of money into Union Station and to have that butted up against it would be an actual tragedy (and I'm not one to heavily criticize these buildings generally).