DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[transistor]

Block 162 is going to change a fair bit as well.

Also all those towers proposed in the performing arts center, if they ever get built.

[The Dirt]

Those are some epic photos, Pablosan! Thanks for sharing!

Originally Posted by DenverPoke

Look to Calgary for a skyline that Denver should strive for. A huge opportunity was missed in Union Station but a couple of 800' glass towers in the CBD and a handful of 400'-500' residential towers around town could quickly give the skyline a much more modern feel. Maybe in the next 10 years??

I don't follow your logic. You're saying that if we hadn't zoned the DUS parcels as low as we did that we'd magically have demand for a couple of 800 foot towers? I just don't see it happening especially since Tabor 2 is still not penciling out at it's truncated height. It took Hines over a decade to pull the trigger on their tower and it's still not a new tallest. We also have projects like Alta City House that built way under the height limit. In your scenario, at best, DUS would have been built out almost exactly as it now. At worst, we would have gotten one tall tower and a bunch of empty lots. I'm glad that we kept DUS at midrise height. Now that we're approaching full built-out, the city can go back to focusing and promoting other neglected areas like Arapahoe Square and Silver Triangle area between the Convention Center and Colfax.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Those are some epic photos, Pablosan! Thanks for sharing!

I don't follow your logic. You're saying that if we hadn't zoned the DUS parcels as low as we did that we'd magically have demand for a couple of 800 foot towers? I just don't see it happening especially since Tabor 2 is still not penciling out at it's truncated height. It took Hines over a decade to pull the trigger on their tower and it's still not a new tallest. We also have projects like Alta City House that built way under the height limit. In your scenario, at best, DUS would have been built out almost exactly as it now. At worst, we would have gotten one tall tower and a bunch of empty lots. I'm glad that we kept DUS at midrise height. Now that we're approaching full built-out, the city can go back to focusing and promoting other neglected areas like Arapahoe Square and Silver Triangle area between the Convention Center and Colfax.

We might have had the office demand. If the difference was made up with residential development. There seems to be no end to the demand for housing in that area. If we could have freed up land for another couple thousand units, and instead of 4*200 foot buildings, had 2x400 foot buildings. Who knows, at the lease rates (and rental rates) they're seeing down there, yes, I think one could argue it might have penciled. We're building at warp speed now. Would it have been so bad if that took an extra two years to build out? At least, I'm not sure it's an irrational argument.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by FunctionForm

I agree that Denver's skyline isn't exciting, but it's not as much a function of the architecture as it is where it's positioned. The CBD is blocks off of any freeway and does not have a "stage" set for itself like the waterfront of many cities like Chicago or Seattle. Even in Los Angeles the freeway runs immediately next to several towers. We have height limits in the Union Station neighborhood and height limits as the buildings step away from 17th street. Our zoning isn't particularly sensible to me and absolutely does not lend itself to a dramatic skyline. People even complain about high rises on Speer Blvd which in my view (for what its worth) is exactly where they belong. We should have no height limits around City Park as far as I'm concerned but I'll get my head bit off for saying that. We have a skyline by committee and REIT and its boring.

If you look at any postcard of Denver, you'll see that we have exactly what you're talking about from City Park and that's precisely because of the viewplane ordinance (not zoning). For what it's worth, I'd like the move the viewplane from it's zigzag border around Lincoln in the heart of upper downtown to something more sensible like Pennsylvania. This would allow for some taller development that'll block out the older towers and give you that updated dramatic skyline, as you say. Personally, I couldn't give two shits about how zoning affects some ideal postcard view of the city unless it still respects what's happening at street level.

[Matt]

Awesome photos. The dark colors really exacerbate the off-putting mood of an extremely tired and run-down skyline.

[bunt_q]

Remind me, other than New York, which cities do you like/think we should emulate?

[transistor]

Is there anything good in Calgary besides the skyline?

Its in Alberta for crying out loud. Dubai has an awesome skyline but I wouldn't want to live there.

I suspect that Canadians also don't want to live in Calgary now that the price of oil has tanked.

First article that comes up is about how terrible their economy is going to do and how net migration has slowed.

http://calgaryherald.com/business/local-...y-of-13-major-canadian-centres-this-year

I would take literally any other city in Canada over this turd. But that skyline though.

[Denver]

A lot of action is occurring on Tennyson St. Two projects recently began construction:

The Streetcar Lofts (4144 Tennyson)- 17 unit condo project with ground floor retail

Source:http://www.streetcarlofts.net

Tennyson Place (39th and Tennyson)- 78 unit apartment complex.

Source: http://www.allanteproperties.com/tennyson-place.html

There is also another project going up at the corner of 44th and Tennyson although I could not find any info on it.

Additionally, the following has been proposed:
Colewood Apartment (Tennyson between 38th and 39th)

Source: http://www.crainearch.com/portfolio/the-colewood/

[Denver]

Info on the new Rocky Mountain PBS complex in Arapahoe Square. The current proposal is pretty extensive and would do wonders for AS if it comes to fruition. The project include a 500-seat performance theater, 80,000 square feet of office space and street level broadcast studios. The RMPBS project is proposed to feature a mixed-income apartment building and room for a charter middle school and possibly CU Denver's College of Arts and Media. RMPBS is planning on beginning construction in spring 2017.
http://bento.cdn.pbs.org/hostedbento-pro...%20for%20Owners%20Rep%2011%2024.2015.pdf

Here are some preliminary renderings (although I am betting they will change).




Sources: http://www.confluence-denver.com/features/event_recap_inclusive_development_120215.aspx

[FunctionForm]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

If you look at any postcard of Denver, you'll see that we have exactly what you're talking about from City Park and that's precisely because of the viewplane ordinance (not zoning). For what it's worth, I'd like the move the viewplane from it's zigzag border around Lincoln in the heart of upper downtown to something more sensible like Pennsylvania. This would allow for some taller development that'll block out the older towers and give you that updated dramatic skyline, as you say. Personally, I couldn't give two shits about how zoning affects some ideal postcard view of the city unless it still respects what's happening at street level.

I was responding to the previous post. But I would think anyone on this forum would give three shits. We have a skyline by committee. It is what it is but one thing its not is dramatic. That's all.

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by Denver

Info on the new Rocky Mountain PBS complex in Arapahoe Square. The current proposal is pretty extensive and would do wonders for AS if it comes to fruition. The project include a 500-seat performance theater, 80,000 square feet of office space and street level broadcast studios. The RMPBS project is proposed to feature a mixed-income apartment building and room for a charter middle school and possibly CU Denver's College of Arts and Media. RMPBS is planning on beginning construction in spring 2017.
http://bento.cdn.pbs.org/hostedbento-pro...%20for%20Owners%20Rep%2011%2024.2015.pdf

Here are some preliminary renderings (although I am betting they will change).




Sources: http://www.confluence-denver.com/features/event_recap_inclusive_development_120215.aspx

This is incredible for arapahoe square!

How likely is this to come to fruition?

[The Dirt]

Not bad - especially the residential. I bet that cantilever will probably be the first thing to get cut from the design. I'm glad they're keeping the two lowrises along 22nd intact. It even looks like the Lobby will keep their little outdoor patio area intact.

It's also nice to see the Tennyson streetscape improvements start to pay off.

[The Dirt]

Anyone know what the project at Mariposa and Kalamath is? It's just a block northeast of Lumina and appears to be a lowrise apartment project. I just can't find anything out there about it and it's not on DI's map.'

EDIT: Never mind! It's called the Triangle Apartments LoHi.

[corey]

I worked in Calgary for a couple of months in 2013. the skyline is rather large for a city with a metro area 1/2 the size of Denver and there are a couple of nice new skyscrapers, but their downtown is still very dull. Calgary doesn't have a suburban office cluster like the tech center so all of their tall buildings are downtown. Denver has a MUCH more thriving restaurant and nightlife scene and much more historic buildings and neighborhoods. there is a large mall in downtown Calgary, so there is more downtown retail there. But, it is another generic mall and nothing worth going out of our way for. Actually, Calgary is very boring and goes to show that a pretty skyline does not make an engaging city. Calgary is MUCH further away from the Rockies than Denver is and sits out on the plains at the confluence of a couple of rivers. Honestly, I would NEVER live there. Don't expect any new skyscrapers in Calgary for a long time with oil prices so low. Alberta oil sands are about the most expensive to refine that there is so they need very high oil prices to make it profitable.

I LOVE that PBS is moving to Arapahoe Square! With the theater and other public amenities it is just the kind of development that area needs.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by transistor

Is there anything good in Calgary besides the skyline?

Its in Alberta for crying out loud. Dubai has an awesome skyline but I wouldn't want to live there.

I suspect that Canadians also don't want to live in Calgary now that the price of oil has tanked.

First article that comes up is about how terrible their economy is going to do and how net migration has slowed.

http://calgaryherald.com/business/local-...y-of-13-major-canadian-centres-this-year

I would take literally any other city in Canada over this turd. But that skyline though.

Calgary's the capital city of central Canada and is probably the 3rd most important city after Toronto and Vancouver. It's got plenty going for it: awesome transit system, downtown centered (no huge suburban office parks), strong corporate presence, good growth (it's been and is projected to be the fastest growing city in Canada for the last ten years and the next five), etc. Calgary is Denver 20 years ago if the Tech Center had never happened.

What it doesn't have is enough population for a good dining scene, and a sense of history. That the University of Calgary is so new means that there was a missed opportunity for Calagary to develop a historical university district with the associated urban fabric. The city was to small prior to 1950 to have an extensive urban fabric in comparison to Denver.

[transistor]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Calgary's the capital city of central Canada and is probably the 3rd most important city after Toronto and Vancouver. It's got plenty going for it: awesome transit system, downtown centered (no huge suburban office parks), strong corporate presence, good growth (it's been and is projected to be the fastest growing city in Canada for the last ten years and the next five), etc.

What it doesn't have is enough population for a good dining scene, and a sense of history. That the University of Calgary is so new means that there was a missed opportunity for Calagary to develop a historical university district with the associated urban fabric.

Well according to the article I posted, that good growth part is no longer accurate.

I just don't understand why Calgary keeps getting brought up like its a model city for Denver to aspire to. Then, whenever someone points out that its downtown is nowhere near as vibrant as Denver's, the skyline argument gets made like that is the ultimate city defining characteristic.

Calgary has an awesome downtown because of the oil companies, same as Dubai or Houston, neither of which are particularly interesting cities to live in.

[wong21fr]

PBS' Arapahoe Square proposal is awesome! I love the proposed mixed-uses and the idea of building a middle school with a mixed-income residential tower above it. It's interesting the CU-Denver's College of Arts & Media might be in the mix. Does this mean that the proposed redo of the Larimer Street building might not happen?

[RyanD]

I have some pictures of that saucy luffing jib hanging out at SkyHouse!

Upper Downtown: SkyHouse Denver Update #4

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by transistor

I just don't understand why Calgary keeps getting brought up like its a model city for Denver to aspire to. Then, whenever someone points out that its downtown is nowhere near as vibrant as Denver's, the skyline argument gets made like that is the ultimate city defining characteristic.

They have twin towers of literally every tower. Having a couple of Four Seasons towers and a couple of Cash registers wouldn't be so bad, but imagine literally every single tower having a smaller twin right next to it. If I saw Calgary in a TV show, I'd just assume they had a small CGI budget. I'm sure it's a lovely city but, by no means should it be held up as something for Denver to aspire to.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by transistor

Well according to the article I posted, that good growth part is no longer accurate.

Sure it is, here's what another part of the article says:

"Looking forward, the board expects Calgary’s economy to be third best in the country between 2016-2019, averaging growth of 2.5 per cent a year — behind only Vancouver at 3 per cent and Toronto at 2.7 per cent. "

Calgary continues to be Canada's #3 city.

I just don't understand why Calgary keeps getting brought up like its a model city for Denver to aspire to. Then, whenever someone points out that its downtown is nowhere near as vibrant as Denver's, the skyline argument gets made like that is the ultimate city defining characteristic.

I'd say that Calgary was the city that Denver should have inspired to be 20 years ago it we wanted a strong downtown at the sacrifice of the suburbs. The similarities between Denver and Calgary are strong given that both were large natural resource cities that diversified after the 1980's oil crash. Calgary certainly isn't as diversified as Denver, but it's in a hell of lot better position than it used to be; look at the projections of roughly 2-3 quarters of economic contraction followed by a turnaround in 2016 as an example of their diversification. But Denver is way to big with competing suburban interests to look to Calgary for inspiration- unless someone nukes the south I-25 corridor.

Calgary has an awesome downtown because of the oil companies, same as Dubai or Houston, neither of which are particularly interesting cities to live in.

Calgary has an awesome downtown because a) oil companies and related activitives (such as banking, legal, etc.), b) restricted parking requirements, c) strong center city neighborhoods, and d) a transit system that makes Denver's look like the Wichita, KS. Calgary didn't have the massive hollowing out the center like Denver, but it also doesn't have the extra 2M people on the outsides that has permitted the dining and entertainment scene to explode in Denver and has contributed to the core's resurgence.

My argument is that Calgary is not the turd that you're portraying. Would it be my first choice in Canada? No. Toronto would be that. But it would probably be the the second with Vancouver as the third.