DENVER | Main Development Thread #6 - Page 335

rds70 · #**6681** Posted **Dec 9, 2015, 11:18 PM**

I think I like the original design better:

The Dirt · #**6682** Posted **Dec 9, 2015, 11:27 PM**

I prefer the super old Nichols proposal that had 3 towers on the site. Still, it looks really nice. I'm confused about that curve in the alleyway, though. Why is that needed?

wong21fr · #**6683** Posted **Dec 9, 2015, 11:29 PM**

I preferred the setback at the podium and the roofline on the original design. But this one will be a great complement to the SS Coloradoan on the diagonal.

ramanboy33 · #**6684** Posted **Dec 9, 2015, 11:35 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Finally, some new renderings of Ascent Union Station (19th and Wewatta):

Height: 14 FL | ~148'

The west facade looks like a penis.

wong21fr · #**6685** Posted **Dec 9, 2015, 11:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dirt

I prefer the super old Nichols proposal that had 3 towers on the site. Still, it looks really nice. I'm confused about that curve in the alleyway, though. Why is that needed?

I think that's because the loading dock for the King Soopers sticks out into the alley right there.

J21bird · #**6686** Posted **Dec 9, 2015, 11:52 PM**

Man, you guys are fast. Looks like 280 parking spots/142 residential units and 4,000 sq of retail for this one.

http://denverurbanreview.com/

Denver Dweller · #**6687** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 2:34 AM**

http://www.denverpost.com/denver/ci_2921...ges-arapahoe-square-expecting-big-things

TheNightfly · #**6688** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 3:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

http://www.denverpost.com/denver/ci_2921...ges-arapahoe-square-expecting-big-things

Quote:

The zoning will depend on the location within Arapahoe Square, but parts of it could allow for buildings up to 30 stories depending on the design.

Hell yeah!

Scottk · #**6689** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 7:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ramanboy33

The west facade looks like a penis.

Funniest thing I have read on skyscraperpage

lumos · #**6690** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 2:05 PM**

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramanboy33 View Post
The west facade looks like a penis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scottk

Funniest thing I have read on skyscraperpage

It seems that all the new skyscrapers in the City of London get their popular names by people like ramanboy33 starting to use them. Thus the Shard, Helter Skelter, Cheesegrater, Walkie Talkie and the Gerkin were all pejorative names that have stuck. Thus we have the Penis Building (or perhaps more accurately the Knob and Bollocks building).

Denver Dweller · #**6691** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 5:29 PM**

http://www.confluence-denver.com/features/adus_denver_120915.aspx

TakeFive · #**6692** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 7:08 PM**

Speaking of SkyHouse parking garages, the one in Charlotte will have amenities on top. That's because it will sit between two SkyHouse towers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BG918

The rumor with Block 162 is that they've been courting Anadarko Petroleum to take a significant chunk of the office space. With oil prices hovering near $30 I wonder if that will delay the start of this one?

I would have thought Anadarko would be a Hines' tenant (to lose) if they moved.

Fracking has been popular because they have an initial strong flow which allowed for a rapid payback - especially at $100/barrel price range. They are also notorious for rapid depletion rates which kept drillers drilling new wells. These factors will likely mean that 2016 will see a curve down in production as drilling has and will be cut back. In any event the global picture gets more complex with a number of negative financial consequences.

Ascent Union Station, especially in that 1st rendering looks to be a very "green" building. I'll agree with rds70.

wong21fr · #**6693** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 7:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp

Shit ton of parking...hopefully that's voluntary, can't imagine zoning required, unless they are larger units under the TOD zoning.

Design is sharp! Too bad they couldn't buy that sliver of a parking lot (I amost bought that once) and the cool artsy house on the north end. But we could get some cooler small scale stuff their w just 50' of frontage left

The higher parking is voluntary. It's pretty obvious that those who are renting in these new development like their cars, just maybe not for use everyday.

TakeFive · #**6694** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 10:01 PM**

Yippee

Economic Development Commission awards $121.5 million to Denver for National Western tourism.

Stonemans_rowJ · #**6695** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 10:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNightfly

Hell yeah!

Why limit the height to 30 stories? To protect the views of the Purina Plant? Seems pretty arbitrary.

TheNightfly · #**6696** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 10:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

Why limit the height to 30 stories? To protect the views of the Purina Plant? Seems pretty arbitrary.

Yeah now that I think about it, it does seem a bit arbitrary. I think somewhere between 35 and 45 would be more reasonable. Lets pick 41 arbitrarily.

Cirrus · #**6697** Posted **Dec 11, 2015, 3:35 PM**

December 16: I-25/Broadway area plan workshop
6:00-7:45 pm at McKinley-Thatcher Elementary School

DenverPoke · #**6698** Posted **Dec 11, 2015, 3:58 PM**

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_29...-sunrun-opening-denver-office-hiring-800

bunt_q · #**6699** Posted **Dec 11, 2015, 4:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp

^ great stuff...one thing the city could do to help is make it EASY to do a lot split of the back 25-50 feet. that cures some of the re-sale / rental / finance issues.

That sounds like a terrible idea. Once you subdivide that out, you have to start being able to service that parcel separately with utilities, guarantee access, etc. our alleys simply aren't big enough to accommodate all of that - that's why we have streets. Suddenly you end up granting permanent easements across regular residential parcels, adding restrictions on what you can do there - effectively imposing side setbacks you wouldn't otherwise have.

mhays · #**6700** Posted **Dec 11, 2015, 4:29 PM**

It might not be simple, but it's common. With townhouses you plan from the start, like the ubiquitous "four packs" in my area with two in the front and two in the back. Sometimes it's keeping the old house and putting townhouses in the back of the lot, so services and maybe a driveway go alongside the old house. Basically services should be in an area that can be disrupted.