DENVER | Main Development Thread #6 - Page 327

RyanD · #**6521** Posted **Nov 24, 2015, 10:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Well look at that, definitely a tower crane base. All I can guess is that if they are building a precast concrete garage, they must be using one hell of a tower crane (which I have never seen or heard of before), because each one of those precast double tees weighs about 15 tons (30,000 pounds) and are usually much too large for a tower crane to handle. Could be that its a cast-in-place concrete garage too, but you wouldn't need a tower crane for that unless the city of Denver is not allowing them to shut down a lane for the crane access for the next several months to lift formwork and other miscellaneous items.

A couple of the Skyhouse parking decks have been built with standard concrete pouring. The Charlotte one, IIRC, is a good example of that and they had a separate tower crane for that one too.

lumos · #**6522** Posted **Nov 24, 2015, 10:10 PM**

As I was cycling around RiNo I was inspired by Ken's article on the Residences at Prospect park so went to check out progress. I was a little taken aback by the bizarre brickwork on the centre portion of the structure. Is this a technique or did the brickies learn mortaring from a correspondence course? The entire section using old bricks (or new ones looking like old bricks) is similarly treated.

awholeparade · #**6523** Posted **Nov 24, 2015, 10:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumos

I had been trying to find out the situation about this bridge online but could not find anything so I went out to investigate. To my delight I found construction started on both sides of the tracks. I could not tell the design of ramps that they settled on though.

It'll be an elevator on both sides.

EngiNerd · #**6524** Posted **Nov 24, 2015, 10:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumos

As I was cycling around RiNo I was inspired by Ken's article on the Residences at Prospect park so went to check out progress. I was a little taken aback by the bizarre brickwork on the centre portion of the structure. Is this a technique or did the brickies learn mortaring from a correspondence course? The entire section using old bricks (or new ones looking like old bricks) is similarly treated.

Looks like they were going for the flush mortar look, and failed miserably at doing so.

bunt_q · #**6525** Posted **Nov 24, 2015, 11:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Looks like they were going for the flush mortar look, and failed miserably at doing so.

But it's not a defect so long as it complies with the building code!

lumos · #**6526** Posted **Nov 24, 2015, 11:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

But it's not a defect so long as it complies with the building code!

But what breaks my heart is that it stands behind a wonderful brick building with perfect mortar that has probably stood there the best part of a century. It certainly takes many design elements from it.

lumos · #**6527** Posted **Nov 24, 2015, 11:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by awholeparade

It'll be an elevator on both sides.

That was the least bike friendly option, I knew the spiral ramp was too much to ask for but I had hoped for ramps with switchbacks.

bunt_q · #**6528** Posted **Nov 24, 2015, 11:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumos

That was the least bike friendly option, I knew the spiral ramp was too much to ask for but I had hoped for ramps with switchbacks.

The least bike friendly option makes it the most pedestrian friendly option. Not that I don't enjoy getting crushed by cyclists riding up/down ramps. About as much as cyclists enjoy it when pedestrians accidentally swing their briefcases into the front spokes of passing bikes.

RyanD · #**6529** Posted **Nov 24, 2015, 11:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The least bike friendly option makes it the most pedestrian friendly option. Not that I don't enjoy getting crushed by cyclists riding up/down ramps. About as much as cyclists enjoy it when pedestrians accidentally swing their briefcases into the front spokes of passing bikes.

Highland Bridge? A cyclist ran into my camera, which was over my shoulder, once. Not saying my hostility or language was perfect but a forum friendly version of what I said was:

Good sir, would you like to slow down, dismount your cycle and walk it across the bridge, as it's a very narrow path for us pedestrians.

His tight pants were probably restricting crucial blood flow, and he didn't care.

lumos · #**6530** Posted **Nov 24, 2015, 11:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The least bike friendly option makes it the most pedestrian friendly option. Not that I don't enjoy getting crushed by cyclists riding up/down ramps. About as much as cyclists enjoy it when pedestrians accidentally swing their briefcases into the front spokes of passing bikes.

I am sure that you are right, although I must admit I have never experienced either and have found cyclists to be very kind even if I have unwittingly walked in front of them on a ramp. Also the elevator has the least visual imposition as its street frontage is minimal. Mind you, when the elevator is out of action it is not that friendly to anyone (they have not even anywhere to urinate).

bunt_q · #**6531** Posted **Nov 25, 2015, 12:25 AM**

I actually agree and think elevators in outdoor/public places are a pain, and would much prefer a ramp that doesn't depend on expensive maintenance. But my rationale is that a good ramp is better for everybody, including and most particularly, the disabled. Not because it's convenient for hipster stunt-cyclists!

lumos · #**6532** Posted **Nov 25, 2015, 12:49 AM**

I came out of the Museum of Modern Art an evening this week and the sky was on fire and it illuminated the most delightful array of forms. It may not be to everyone's taste but for me we really do get some things right in Denver.

Robert.hampton · #**6533** Posted **Nov 25, 2015, 1:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

These areas such as Highlands were already zoned for the townhome style construction that is ongoing, it was just 10 years ago this neighborhood, and other inner city areas like it, weren't desirable enough to warrant heavy investment and development like they are today. People moved in with the mindset that the area would never change, and now that it is, they seem to take it as a personal affront and try to bully to keep their neighborhood the same. What they also don't understand is that stagnation is also bad for their property values.

Is it though? I think the strong preservationist values for a neighborhood like park hill is why property values there are so high and why it is a desirable area to live. Not necessarily in lohi, but the rest of highlands probably would be better off in this mold. Preserving and improving the craftsman bungalows rather than going the monstrosity townhome route that jefferson park and sloans lake is going would probably be better for property values in the long term.

Of course blocking something like the medical facility is totally over the top, and I dont agree with the hostile historic designation in Jeff Park, but I dont think splattering stick construction townhomes all over highlands will be great for the neighborhood.

In 20 years I think Jeff Park and Sloans Lake will be tow neighborhoods where people think "WTF?" It will basically be how we see the current crappy ranch houses in sloans lake but on a much more imposing and offensive scale.

bunt_q · #**6534** Posted **Nov 25, 2015, 5:14 AM**

So exclusionary elitism, basically. When you talk about what's "good for the neighborhood," you must be referring to the people who live there today. Not the people who would like to live there but don't, or who might live there in 20 years, who will be pleased they can afford to do so. Cities evolve, they are not museums. Nor should the lucky few be permitted to close off development - in the process, restricting others' ability to do what they want with their properties - to selfishly drive up their own property values. That's an abuse of planning power that I am glad we do not stand for.

Robert.hampton · #**6535** Posted **Nov 25, 2015, 2:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

So exclusionary elitism, basically. When you talk about what's "good for the neighborhood," you must be referring to the people who live there today. Not the people who would like to live there but don't, or who might live there in 20 years, who will be pleased they can afford to do so. Cities evolve, they are not museums. Nor should the lucky few be permitted to close off development - in the process, restricting others' ability to do what they want with their properties - to selfishly drive up their own property values. That's an abuse of planning power that I am glad we do not stand for.

So I guess you agree with me that dumpy stick row homes might not be the best for property value in a neighborhood?

And preserving Denver's more historic neighborhoods is not elitism. Go ahead and fill in parking lots or knock down the crappy 60s ranch houses in sloans lake, but its not like we are so hard pressed for land in denver that we have to knock down highlands bungalows to make room for new people.

EngiNerd · #**6536** Posted **Nov 25, 2015, 3:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Is it though? I think the strong preservationist values for a neighborhood like park hill is why property values there are so high and why it is a desirable area to live. Not necessarily in lohi, but the rest of highlands probably would be better off in this mold. Preserving and improving the craftsman bungalows rather than going the monstrosity townhome route that jefferson park and sloans lake is going would probably be better for property values in the long term.

Of course blocking something like the medical facility is totally over the top, and I dont agree with the hostile historic designation in Jeff Park, but I dont think splattering stick construction townhomes all over highlands will be great for the neighborhood.

In 20 years I think Jeff Park and Sloans Lake will be tow neighborhoods where people think "WTF?" It will basically be how we see the current crappy ranch houses in sloans lake but on a much more imposing and offensive scale.

I'm not saying it will be the best thing for the character of the neighborhood to rip down all the old stock and replace it with modernist (or whatever we are calling this architectural style) on every block, but it's zoned for it, and unless the neighborhood group pulls together and creates a historic district (which I'm guessing would be impossible to do based on the type of housing stock) then really there is nothing that can, or should be done, to block the redevelopment in my opinion. The moment we start blocking redevelopment just because it isn't good for the character of the neighborhood, then where does it stop? You might as well just throw away the zoning code.

What are the boundaries to decide what the character should be (again, historic district)? Zoning already sets what the form/context should be.

If the RNO thinks the character should be saved, have they actually come together to try and do something actually useful about it, rather then try and use hostile tactics to block redevelopment on a per case basis?

EngiNerd · #**6537** Posted **Nov 25, 2015, 3:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

So I guess you agree with me that dumpy stick row homes might not be the best for property value in a neighborhood?

And preserving Denver's more historic neighborhoods is not elitism. Go ahead and fill in parking lots or knock down the crappy 60s ranch houses in sloans lake, but its not like we are so hard pressed for land in denver that we have to knock down highlands bungalows to make room for new people.

Then try and preserve it if you think its worth saving using the proper channels such as creating a historic district, don't just pick and choose which house someone thinks should be saved right before it is going to get the wrecking ball which is testament to theft in my book. If Highland thinks it's Bonnie Brae (it's not) then by all means go for it.

EngiNerd · #**6538** Posted **Nov 25, 2015, 3:40 PM**

Downtown Hyatt House/Hyatt Place at 14th and Glenarm is now open, 361 more hotel rooms downtown.

You know, I'm actually impressed with the build quality at the street level on this tower, they really did a pretty good job considering the rest of the tower was standard fare

http://denverurbanreview.com/2015/11/denver-construction-update-november/

bunt_q · #**6539** Posted **Nov 25, 2015, 4:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

So I guess you agree with me that dumpy stick row homes might not be the best for property value in a neighborhood?

And preserving Denver's more historic neighborhoods is not elitism. Go ahead and fill in parking lots or knock down the crappy 60s ranch houses in sloans lake, but its not like we are so hard pressed for land in denver that we have to knock down highlands bungalows to make room for new people.

I'd like to see an example of what you call a dumpy stick row home. Most of the product seems of good quality to me. Nothing at all like the quality of apartment stock being built. And almost certainly not a negative influence on property values.

I think what it comes down to is you think a 100-year-old brick single-family home is inherently better. And on that, we will just have to disagree. There are nice houses for sure, but the vast majority in that neighborhood are just run-of-the-mill and disposable. Want to live in a permanently unchanging neighborhood of old single-family houses? Move to a small town in the Midwest, there are thousands to choose from. That is not inappropriate base land use in the core of a fast-growing modern city.

TakeFive · #**6540** Posted **Nov 25, 2015, 4:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lumos

I came out of the Museum of Modern Art an evening this week and the sky was on fire and it illuminated the most delightful array of forms. It may not be to everyone's taste but for me we really do get some things right in Denver.

I love that. I've always been a big fan of the library though so that helps but that's an awesome view of Denver.