DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[bunt_q]

Can you imagine if they weren't providing parking? For a project that huge? Good baby Jesus, that would be a mess.

[seventwenty]

BURNHAM RAILROAD REPAIR YARD REACHES END OF THE LINE, OPENING 70 ACRES IN DENVER

After more than a century as a repair and storage yard for locomotives, Burnham Shop, a mass of tracks and buildings in central Denver just east of I-25 between Sixth and Eighth avenues, closed on February 14.

Omaha-based Union Pacific shut the facility, citing the decline in coal production and train-transport demands; the railroad still has a repair yard in north Denver, just off West 48th Avenue.

. . .

“Loaded coal trains originating in Colorado have decreased 80 percent since 2005,” Union Pacific spokeswoman Calli Hite notes in an e-mail.

The productivity of Colorado coal mines has dropped almost 30 percent since 2001; the announcement of Burnham’s closing came just two months before the federal government halted new land leases for such mines.

. . .

At the same time coal is in decline, the demand for property in the heart of Denver has been increasing rapidly — and the closure of Burnham Shop opens up seventy acres to possible development.

. . .

Union Pacific has yet to announce its plans for the property; Hite says a decision will be made in the third quarter of 2016.

Also, the story of historical train cars, intentionally set aside into its own quote block:

The repair area was created during the 1870s, and in its heyday, the site was a self-contained city that housed a foundry, blacksmith, upholsterer and multiple workshops capable of creating a train car from the ground up. Those cars would travel to every corner of the state and beyond.

Now some of those original historic cars and engines, many of which have been stored in Burnham for two decades, will again grace Colorado’s rails as they move to new homes.

. . .

Dan Quiat, the owner of 25 historic cars and an engine, spent a few months agonizing over where he would move them.

"I'm feeling a lot of stress," he said as he led a tour of the cars late last month.

In November, when Union Pacific announced that Burnham would be closing, "they kind of said, basically, if the cars aren't out, they're gonna scrap them," he recalled.

. . .

Quiat hopes to one day open an interactive exhibit where he can display his riveted chrome coaches, cast cranes and hand-painted engines.

But for now, the priceless history under his stewardship just needs a temporary home.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Can you imagine if they weren't providing parking? For a project that huge? Good baby Jesus, that would be a mess.

Psshhh... they'd be significantly cheaper and the poor people would be complaining about parking. But, since this is 'merica, f**k the poor- including the middle class. If you want decent parking, commute times, and housing then you need to make more than the AMI. A lot more.

[PLANSIT]

Not a fan of Streetsblog's tactic for finding the one or two bad (perceived or otherwise) things in a mostly good infill project. But there is some truth in the parking debate for these new projects - both residential and commercial. Recently, there have been several projects that have over-parked their fully-leased buildings - putting them in an interesting spot of having to come back to the table on how to best use that unused space. And for the most part, adapting an unused parking level is pretty limited. Parking ratios are set by the money backers and from what I understand, capping parking ratios (maximums) is an almost impossible fight. Continued PPPs and developers willing to take a big risk are the only two mechanisms fighting the market trend. So, expect more of the same.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Recently, there have been several projects that have over-parked their fully-leased buildings - putting them in an interesting spot of having to come back to the table on how to best use that unused space. And for the most part, adapting an unused parking level is pretty limited.

My answer to this is simple - the City should be stepping in with a program to help these developers utilize excess parking for public use. As more surface lots disappear, street parking goes away as we attempt to re-purpose streets for more productive uses, and development pressures increase in select activity nodes across the city, that parking will be needed. The City could be helpful both from a regulatory standpoint, and from the standpoint of coordinating information and communicating parking availability to the public. It might also have the added benefit of helping to alleviate NIMBY pressures that are caused, in part, by a lack of parking.

I mean, who doesn't think that if/when that lot at 16th and Boulder in LoHi gets developed, some excess parking wouldn't be a godsend? Please, overpark that project. Big time.

[transistor]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I mean, who doesn't think that if/when that lot at 16th and Boulder in LoHi gets developed, some excess parking wouldn't be a godsend? Please, overpark that project. Big time.

I thought viewplane protection prohibited any sort of decent construction there.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by transistor

I thought viewplane protection prohibited any sort of decent construction there.

IIRC, it butts right up to the viewplane, which would be in the alley, so you can still build the usual LoHi 5-story apartment building on that lot.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Can you imagine if they weren't providing parking? For a project that huge? Good baby Jesus, that would be a mess.

My guess is it would work more like no-parking buildings in other cities. Most residents wouldn't have cars. Those who did would find places to stash them. And they'd love the substantially cheaper rents.

None of this is experimental except in a "but we're Denver" sense, a difference I don't understand.

PS, it can be very hard to repurpose a garage, or a floor of a garage. Even if your building can be retrofitted for other uses, the floor-to-ceiling heights are often too low for anything else, particularly once you add under-ceiling systems, floor coverings, etc. And that's if it's flat vs. sloping. Worse yet are the "wrapped" garages common in sunbelt cities, where the garage doesn't even have street frontage so there's almost literally no potential use.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mhays

Most residents wouldn't have cars.

I simply do not believe that you are going to find hundreds upon hundreds of residents who can afford luxury rents who are making the wonderful altruistic decision to live without a car. For one, not many would be making that kind of salary if they had the time to live without a car in this city. It's absolute nonsense. However, if they are willing to covenant by contract that they won't own a car, waive any rights to a resident permit in perpetuity, and agree to pay the City a "liar liar pants on fire" fee of $25,000 upon the purchase of a private automobile. Then fine. Until then, so long as it is a pain in the ass to get around Denver without a car, I am going to assume that most rational human beings who can afford a car in Denver are more likely than not to own one.

[mhays]

That would make sense except people in Denver's peers like Seattle and Portland routinely do exactly that. To say nothing of the truly urban cities. Most people have cars here too of course, and most buildings have parking, but a building full of $2,500 apartments will have a lot fewer spaces than units. And a building full of $1,250 studios will often have no parking at all.

Are they being altruistic? Of course not, for the most part. People make choices for their own lifestyles. It's a common refrain here that a car isn't particularly helpful or necessary, despite the same hiking/skiing/boating opportunities nearby along with the ability to day-trip to Vancouver or Portland. Our commute mode splits aren't that much different from Denver's.

[enjo13]

So awhile back we derided the Torchy's location, but I think it turned out pretty well. The ended up building all the way to the sidewalk and it's a huge improvement over the Arby's that was there. Still parking lots on both sides, but the building itself is solid.



It's really interesting. There have been some pretty good reclamation projects all within about a block of each other. The Arby's is now Torchy's (Texans rejoice), the old awful hotel has been converted into a really cool set of small retail/office spaces complete with one really nice coffee shop, and the old liquor store on 12/Broadway has been transformed into three good fast casual spots.

If we could get Sports Authority to do ANYTHING about the ugliest parking garage on earth, that stretch of Broadway would be in relatively decent shape.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_29...hotel-proposed-busy-lower-highland-block

[mr1138]

Looks like a huge improvement over the monstrosity that is currently on the site. I just hope that the parcel footprint map in the Post article is correct... the three single family homes on 16th street strike me as the kind that actually ARE appropriate for historic designation. Particularly the blue one next to Amato's. If anybody remembers from Ken's Series on Denver's Single-Family Homes, there are only 25 homes left from the 1870's in Denver (all three of these homes appear to be the same architectural plan, though it looks from Ken's map like only the blue one is actually from the 1870s - I'm guessing all three must have been built right around 1880). Unlike other decades and/or styles, these ones really are both rare and special, in my opinion, and saving them would only take a negligible amount of land out of the running for future development.

Hopefully this is just a pointless rant and the homes really are safe. But these are the kind of homes where I could see a landmarking process used for the right reason to designate them ahead of an active development proposal. If they are currently at risk, then I would say shame on the so-called preservationists for wasting their time and energy with stuff like the "Anderson House."

[transistor]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Looks like a huge improvement over the monstrosity that is currently on the site. I just hope that the parcel footprint map in the Post article is correct... the three single family homes on 16th street strike me as the kind that actually ARE appropriate for historic designation. Particularly the blue one next to Amato's. If anybody remembers from Ken's Series on Denver's Single-Family Homes, there are only 25 homes left from the 1870's in Denver (all three of these homes appear to be the same architectural plan, though it looks from Ken's map like only the blue one is actually from the 1870s - I'm guessing all three must have been built right around 1880). Unlike other decades and/or styles, these ones really are both rare and special, in my opinion, and saving them would only take a negligible amount of land out of the running for future development.

Hopefully this is just a pointless rant and the homes really are safe. But these are the kind of homes where I could see a landmarking process used for the right reason to designate them ahead of an active development proposal. If they are currently at risk, then I would say shame on the so-called preservationists for wasting their time and energy with stuff like the "Anderson House."

What about simply relocating them? I remember an article in the post about an old house that was relocated to a new location due to a Colorado School of Mines Construction Project.

Here it is.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/fro...s-in-golden-going-to-real-estate-company

[mr1138]

I personally have no problem with re-locations, though I know some hardcore preservationists think this should only be used as a last-resort. Boulder recently moved two homes from the CU-owned Grandview neighborhood to nearby 9th street. I know that it took a TON of public money, and many other special accommodations. They allowed the new owner to subdivide his large corner-lot property to create two new lots; a special exception in return for his accepting the structures. They also had to take down streetlights and stuff to move them down the street. Obviously the further they have to go, the more expensive and complicated it gets.

If it's just a 25' lot mid-block, I would almost prefer it stay in place and break up the potential for a developer to accumulate lots and build another monolithic land-ship. It's all hypothetical though I suppose. If somebody had a realistic proposal to move the homes, that might work just fine.

[rds70]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Looks like a huge improvement over the monstrosity that is currently on the site. I just hope that the parcel footprint map in the Post article is correct... the three single family homes on 16th street strike me as the kind that actually ARE appropriate for historic designation. Particularly the blue one next to Amato's. If anybody remembers from Ken's Series on Denver's Single-Family Homes, there are only 25 homes left from the 1870's in Denver (all three of these homes appear to be the same architectural plan, though it looks from Ken's map like only the blue one is actually from the 1870s - I'm guessing all three must have been built right around 1880). Unlike other decades and/or styles, these ones really are both rare and special, in my opinion, and saving them would only take a negligible amount of land out of the running for future development.

Hopefully this is just a pointless rant and the homes really are safe. But these are the kind of homes where I could see a landmarking process used for the right reason to designate them ahead of an active development proposal. If they are currently at risk, then I would say shame on the so-called preservationists for wasting their time and energy with stuff like the "Anderson House."

It looks like the hotel will butt up against the Amato Ale House, per this rendering:

[EngiNerd]

Home relocations happen all the time in Boulder, haven't heard about it as much in Denver but I'm sure it happens. I know of a couple more in Boulder that are slated to be relocated as well.

[mr1138]

^ That's what I was worried about. The Post article also included this graphic:

But the rendering looks too large to just be the site they outline in red, and the version of the rendering you post seems to confirm this. Sort of a shame if you ask me.

Though, for the record, I'm not sure how I would feel about a forced-landmarking at this point. As I have said before, that's something that should have been done YEARS ago. Just imagine if instead of attempting to landmark the "Anderson Home," they had targeted their energy toward homes like these. Instead, they are attempting a futile game of whack-a-mole that only creates an adversarial relationship with developers, and will likely result in fewer historic homes (and probably the wrong ones) being saved. Good job Rafael!

[RyanD]

Le Meridien / AC new tower crane:

Central Downtown: Le Meridien/AC Hotel Update #3

[mojiferous]

Their website says

St Charles Town Company has assembled four parcels of land totaling just over an acre on 16th Street between Central and Boulder Streets in the heart of Lower Highlands (LoHi).

I would guess that the little square the Post has in their graphic is only one parcel (the office building). The other three are probably the houses.

While it is kind of crappy to lose three old homes, I don't know if they're worth crying over - all are similar poor-man's-italianate shacks, look like they were built without an architect and oddly designed (like a lot of the little pre-Silver Boom shotgun shacks), most had been considerably changed from their original state (the stucco, bleh), and none of them have historical residents or associated events.

2516 16th st. was built in 1876 according to the Assessor (and definitely owned by "2525 16th st. LLC") and represents one of a handful of single-family homes from the decade, but is definitely one of the less-interesting examples. And let's be honest - in most of the rest of the world a two-room house from 1876 with no meaningful historical tie or significant architecture is probably barely worth the land it sits on...