DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[RyanD]

Also... The core is rising!!

Central Downtown: 1144 Fifteenth Update #10

[corey]

I certainly hope the LOHI hotel looks a lot better than that rendering. That is horrible! Please let it be just a preliminary rendering. I understand that location is now suited for a better and higher use than those 3 little houses, but at this point there are so few old buildings in that area of LOHI it really doesn't have any historic character any longer. I know the old buildings that were originally there were small cheap homes since it was a poor neighborhood so I guess it's not a tremendous loss. Maybe they could move the best one of the houses and make everyone happy. What I really want to see is that triangular block just north of Hirshorn Park with three non-historic houses be redeveloped. If done right, a really awesome development could be built there.

[CherryCreek]

With the uptick in vacancies and some really big apartment projects slated for completion over the next 6-24 months, it will be interesting to see if some of the more recently announced big apartment projects end up being delayed.

As we saw in 2008, boom can turn to bust pretty quickly and plans can be put in a drawer not to be pulled out again for many years. Lot's of talk by the "experts" of a potential global recession on the horizon. Of course, if the "experts" were always right about things like that they'd be retired with their riches instead of employed as "experts."

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

With the uptick in vacancies and some really big apartment projects slated for completion over the next 6-24 months, it will be interesting to see if some of the more recently announced big apartment projects end up being delayed.

As we saw in 2008, boom can turn to bust pretty quickly and plans can be put in a drawer not to be pulled out again for many years. Lot's of talk by the "experts" of a potential global recession on the horizon. Of course, if the "experts" were always right about things like that they'd be retired with their riches instead of employed as "experts."

I say, if apartments are going to start slowing down (which I think they will), pull the plug on 1709 Chestnut, make it condos with the Coloradan. As good of a project as it is, condos would be so prime right there.

[DenverInfill]

Those little houses are across the street from my condo.

Generally they're not in great shape and one for sure, possible two, have been remodeled in a manner that has eliminated many of the original historic features.

[mr1138]

Interesting comments. I suppose the houses aren't THAT special, certainly nothing to get overly upset over. It just seems, at least to me, that this raises an interesting question about when and why we ever preserve anything at all. Preservationists, I think correctly, raise the point that our historic structures link us to the past. I have been as critical as anyone about the notion that preservation should attempt to save EVERYTHING - i.e. that the character of a street or neighborhood should be preserved in its entirety with no alterations. But the presence of more than a handful of historic structures absolutely does make a place richer and more interesting. It bothers me a bit to see a neighborhood so close to scraping every last remaining home; and preservation efforts that seem to be almost exclusively re-active and intended to throw sand in the gears of the development industry.

Perhaps these aren't the best candidates anymore given their condition and alterations. But shouldn't that just prove a point about being pro-active about preservation? I don't want to live in a city that saves every single last home in an attempt to block density. But I don't really feel that proud about a city that unapologetically scrapes the last remaining examples of a certain period or style of architecture either. If not these homes, then surely at least a few of the remaining 1870s homes are architecturally "pure" enough to be landmarked and preserved. Compared to the thousands of remaining homes from the 1880s, and increasingly more in each decade after that, having only 25 remaining homes from the 1870s feels to me like the very definition of rarity.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Perhaps these aren't the best candidates anymore given their condition and alterations. But shouldn't that just prove a point about being pro-active about preservation? I don't want to live in a city that saves every single last home in an attempt to block density. But I don't really feel that proud about a city that unapologetically scrapes the last remaining examples of a certain period or style of architecture either. If not these homes, then surely at least a few of the remaining 1870s homes are architecturally "pure" enough to be landmarked and preserved. Compared to the thousands of remaining homes from the 1880s, and increasingly more in each decade after that, having only 25 remaining homes from the 1870s feels to me like the very definition of rarity.

I tend to agree with this. I think there is merit to saving one of the last 1870s homes around town - even in garbage condition and irreversibly altered on the interior - versus preserving yet another generic 1880s Victorian just because it is bigger and prettier. Also, the context matters. I know this runs against prevailing attitude in that part of Denver, where context is apparently everything. But having a few old houses on that block provides valuable texture to the urban fabric. Versus the usual situation, where somebody wants to tear down single-family houses on a block of single-family houses to build something denser, which "ruins" the context, but is generally, I think, an improvement to diversifying the urban fabric. If context requires us tear down those houses to build yet another building that looks like Ken's, then I support any architect who shamelessly rejects blending in.

And then there are architects like Espinoza, who want nothing more than to blend in. But just aren't quite talented enough to do it.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bcp

Those houses are goners....if worthy, maybe one could be moved to 4th street on auraria? Could be a good dumping ground for 1870s homes and add to the collection / context.

Haha, brilliant. We can start infilling in between large lot suburban homes in Lone Tree with little 1870s homes. "Densification, preservation, diversification" can be some suburb's new motto. And they can take everything Denver wants to demo.

[corey]

Well, A lot of cities do have "dumping grounds" for historic buildings. Preservation Park in Oakland, CA or Lakewood's history museum. I think moving one of the houses to 4th Street at Auraria is a great idea if feasible. After all there are only 25 1870's buildings left in Denver. There is also a vacant lot on nearby Stoneman's Row where this house would be a great addition since those blocks have only Victorian houses. Probably won't happen though.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I tend to agree with this. I think there is merit to saving one of the last 1870s homes around town - even in garbage condition and irreversibly altered on the interior - versus preserving yet another generic 1880s Victorian just because it is bigger and prettier. Also, the context matters. I know this runs against prevailing attitude in that part of Denver, where context is apparently everything. But having a few old houses on that block provides valuable texture to the urban fabric. Versus the usual situation, where somebody wants to tear down single-family houses on a block of single-family houses to build something denser, which "ruins" the context, but is generally, I think, an improvement to diversifying the urban fabric. If context requires us tear down those houses to build yet another building that looks like Ken's, then I support any architect who shamelessly rejects blending in.

And then there are architects like Espinoza, who want nothing more than to blend in. But just aren't quite talented enough to do it.

Well said, and this is very much what I'm trying to say too. I think the best streets, not only in Denver but just about anywhere, are the ones with the kind of texture you describe. Just imagine the 1700 block of Tremont St. without The Navarre; or many other downtown blocks without the Downtown Denver Historic District buildings. Having one or two older structures, even if they aren't maxing out their FAR, greatly improves the look and feel of a block of buildings. Not only does it add quirk and character and history, but it also helps break up land ownership patterns creating smaller newer buildings and a more fine-grained urban pattern.

Like you, I would agree that the goal in an urban neighborhood should be a diversity of structures and styles from different eras. On some blocks this requires changes, and on other blocks it requires preservation. The reality may be that these homes really are goners, but I for one am not jumping with glee at the idea of this stretch of 16th street loosing every bit of its history except for the building at the corner of Boulder St. Honestly I'd rather loose that building than any of these homes. Especially the blue one. Hell even develop the backyards. Or turn the homes into businesses. But I can't help but feel it's wrong to just quickly and guiltlessly demolish them. It actually reminds me a bit of the attitude in Denver during DURA, to be honest. And I'm certainly not the kind of person who usually argues for preservation over development.

[mr1138]

Fair enough, but I've never interpreted "area of change" to mean "wipe the slate clean of all its history." It just means the area is ripe for change. It doesn't mean that some nuggets of historic architecture can't still contribute. In fact they still very much can.

Downtown is basically the most substantial "area of change" we have (I don't know if it's officially designated that way, but let's be honest... it's where the biggest and most modern structures are supposed to go). That doesn't mean that the Downtown Denver Historic District should be scrapped. In fact, those structures contribute greatly to the neighborhood.

[enjo13]

Denver in 3 years

[derek.berardi]

Well, it's a win for Colorado, but still waiting on my W Hotel Denver. http://www.aspentimes.com/news/20314082-113/a-peek-at-the-future-w-hotel-aspen

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by enjo13

Denver in 3 years

This is great. Maybe we can help fill in a few of the missing links. For instance, there are a few more projects in pipeline for Arapahoe Square that aren't accounted for.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bcp

This is a designated area of change

This is the stupidest black and white distinction ever included in the history of comprehensive plans.

Preserving the odd house or two in an "area of change" is no different than approving the odd project (e.g. 32nd and Lowell) in an "area of stability." Both are allowed and contemplated. You know this.

[RyanD]

Being first on the story is always a great feeling. But having more details and releasing the same story plus much more a couple days later is even better!

That being said, here are some additional Legacy on Speer renderings:

[Head over to the post for higher resolution since I'm fitting them for comfortable viewing here]

New Golden Triangle Project: Legacy on Speer

Here's an aerial courtesy of me



And a not-so-dark-and-ominous rendering:



OH! And two more renderings!







In other news... The Museum Center / Art Hotel came out so nice!

Golden Triangle: Museum Center + The Art Hotel Final Update

[Cirrus]

Those houses are nice and we should absolutely find a way to save them, but they're also at far too good a location to remain in place as-is.

What about incorporating them into the facade of a larger building?

[DenverInfill]

A word of caution on the "only 25 homes left from the 1870s" thing. The dating of when historic buildings were built in the city's database is notoriously questionable before the 1890s or so. Not that these little homes shouldn't be moved to allow them to be preserved, but they may be from the 1870s or they could be from the 1880s and there could be dozens more 1870s homes in the city than 25, or not.

[BG918]

I like the Art Hotel but man it would've been awesome if that same glass wrapped around the entire building instead of just being at the corners with stucco in between.

I went to Torchy's Tacos at 11th & Broadway last night. It was great but I wondered why they didn't just tear that down and build something denser. They completely renovated the old Arby's and kept the adjacent surface lots. This is an area that is gaining a significant amount of density. You could've had Torchy's at the corner and several other Broadway-fronting retail spaces with apartments or offices above. Just surprised to see that lot not being maximized.

[Interzen]

WORLD TRADE CENTER DENVER SELECTS SITE AND DEVELOPMENT TEAM FOR NEW GLOBAL CAMPUS

To be located at 38th and Blake. Sorry for the large image, I don't know how to re-size in the link.