DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[mhays]

Aesthetically maybe smaller floorplates are better on average, though I like slabs in some cases. But prepare for higher prices. Smaller floorplates mean elevators, stairs, exterior enclosures, utilities, and other costs are generally substantially higher because you need a set for each tower, and the cumulative total of each will be higher than one set (like 2x2 elevators vs. 3, which also means slower service).

[lumos]

Is there a mechanism whereby a truly stunning design for a prime location such as Union Station could be considered even if it did not meet the planning rules. So if the planning needed inset windows, a bottom, middle and top design etc and they proposed The Shard could an exception be made. I feel that planning rules specifying detailed design elements is a bit Fountainhead. I am not sure that Howard Roark would have submitted Alta City House.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by lumos

Is there a mechanism whereby a truly stunning design for a prime location such as Union Station could be considered even if it did not meet the planning rules. So if the planning needed inset windows, a bottom, middle and top design etc and they proposed The Shard could an exception be made. I feel that planning rules specifying detailed design elements is a bit Fountainhead. I am not sure that Howard Roark would have submitted Alta City House.

The "planning rules" are not anywhere near as prescriptive as you seem to think they are.

There are mechanisms in place for when a building can't meet certain rules - you go to the board of adjustment and request a variance. But the bar is pretty high there, you have to show you can't meet them, not just that you don't want to. (Again, though, the regulations are not as micromanaging as you assume.)

All that said, every planning rule we have was made by the City Council, and can be unmade just the same. So for example, if somebody wanted to make a wholesale change, and come in with a 25 story glass point tower instead of a 10 story plastic oceanliner, even if it wasn't remotely close to the current zoning for a location, the Council could allow it. (They might get tarred and feathered, but that's the process.) The city would also get sued, of course. That's what all of these recent lawsuits of been about. But I haven't seen one yet where a court has ruled the council can't do what councils do - it would have to be pretty damn irrational.

Anyways, buildings suck because developers are cheap. And developers are cheap because they like to keep their money in their own pockets to the extent they can. And who can fault them? There's not a lot of money to be made in the city beautification business.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by lumos

Is there a mechanism whereby a truly stunning design for a prime location such as Union Station could be considered even if it did not meet the planning rules. So if the planning needed inset windows, a bottom, middle and top design etc and they proposed The Shard could an exception be made. I feel that planning rules specifying detailed design elements is a bit Fountainhead. I am not sure that Howard Roark would have submitted Alta City House.

Howard Roark would have sucked down prescription amphetamines, while staying on the government dole and writing about rugged objectivism.

Wait, that was the author.

[EngiNerd]

And on that note, District 1 is proposing setting up a design review board to review all proposals.

Design review proposed for NW Denver
Posted by John Rebchook
May 2, 2016

Design review proposed for District 1.

Design review funding sought by Councilman Espinoza.

Design review in District 1 would be a model for the city.

A city-imposed design review could be coming to Northwest Denver for the first time.

District 1 Councilman Rafael Espinoza, who represents the Northwest Denver area, took the first step for design review for some new developments on Friday.

At a half-day City Council budget retreat, he submitted a request for 16 full-time employees at Community Planning and Development to fund his request, which also would call for an overlay district. CPD had no comment on Friday.

The staff cost for a year would be $1.6 million, he said.

“That is a huge ask,” Espinoza said.

However, he said he would be willing to settle for two additional employees on top of the four already proposed for CPD, at a cost of about $500,000.

If implemented, he said his proposal would “lay the roadmap to improved community and development relations and a more cohesive development plan for Northwest Denver.”

“By being respectful of the past and committed to our future, residents and developers will be able to work together to create a model for stable neighborhoods,” he added.

....

He said one of the goals of his plan is to make District 1 more pedestrian friendly and walkable & expensive.
....

I added a piece of my own in there
http://www.denverrealestatewatch.com/2016/05/02/design-review-proposed-nw-denver/

[Cirrus]

Pretty ironic that today's architectural establishment only accepts modernism as legitimate, and crucifies anyone who tries to design traditional buildings. To write The Fountainhead today, Howard Roark would have to be an unapologetic ornamentalist.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Pretty ironic that today's architectural establishment only accepts modernism as legitimate, and crucifies anyone who tries to design traditional buildings. To write The Fountainhead today, Howard Roark would have to be an unapologetic ornamentalist.

100% agree here. I feel like dogmatic modernism is a big part of the problem with architecture today. On the one hand, you have design review boards (and I would guess clients as well) asking for more traditional aesthetics, and on the other hand you have an entire profession of architects that either A) haven't been properly trained how to design a traditional building (because the modernist establishment largely controls architecture education) or B) are themselves part of the modernist establishment who dogmatically refuse to practice traditional styles of design. This is compounded by the fact that the construction industry favors modernist design elements in everything from facade systems to window frames - anything that can be cheaply mass-produced by a machine. What results is what I've taken to calling "vernacular postmodernism," which is essentially a hodge-podge of modernist and traditionalist design ideas all thrown together; but usually without the kind of thoughtful playfulness seen in a true postmodern structure like the Denver Library.

To expand on what you said... in order to be an unapologetic ornamentalist, it seems an architect would have to essentially "go rouge" and teach themselves traditional design via extensive reading, images, and hours of practice outside the mainstream academic structure. They would then have to find somebody willing to hire them, and figure out how to budget for the materials and structural elements they need to complete a traditional design in today's construction world. This is all a pretty tall order for any one professional to undertake without the help of like-minded individuals.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

And on that note, District 1 is proposing setting up a design review board to review all proposals.

I added a piece of my own in there
http://www.denverrealestatewatch.com/2016/05/02/design-review-proposed-nw-denver/

I'm receptive. The idea could be constructive or not depending on a number of things.

I know I don't want to see the whole area scraped for townhomes etc. any more than I'd want that for Wash Park. They might even add density allowances for certain corridors or areas.


mr1138... Props for the Denver Library. I may not know about all that other stuff you discuss but I know I like that library.

[The Dirt]

I'm not against design review per se but, seeing as this is coming from Espinoza, this is highly suspect. As with everything else he does, this is just another tool to stop all development in West Highland.

[jhwk]

Originally Posted by mr1138

To expand on what you said... in order to be an unapologetic ornamentalist, it seems an architect would have to essentially "go rouge" and teach themselves traditional design via extensive reading, images, and hours of practice outside the mainstream academic structure. They would then have to find somebody willing to hire them, and figure out how to budget for the materials and structural elements they need to complete a traditional design in today's construction world. This is all a pretty tall order for any one professional to undertake without the help of like-minded individuals.

There are very few architects in the US who can adequately detail older architectural styles. You can see the problem in the detailing on a lot of buildings in Lodo that take a traditionalist approach - most of it looks like a cheap reproduction (because it is).

The only large scale architect I've come across that gets it right is David M. Schwarz Architects in DC (with a lot of work in Fort Worth):

http://www.dmsas.com/

They don't have as many of their projects on the website as they used to but are very adept at getting the little details of classical detailing correct and also demonstrate they can work in mid-century and modern design styles. They have some fantastic urban designs as well, and have been instrumental in rebuilding parts of downtown Fort Worth:

https://goo.gl/maps/zyHhrBSawrS2
(use the StreetView time window to see the transformation)

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by jhwk

There are very few architects in the US who can adequately detail older architectural styles. You can see the problem in the detailing on a lot of buildings in Lodo that take a traditionalist approach - most of it looks like a cheap reproduction (because it is).

The only large scale architect I've come across that gets it right is David M. Schwarz Architects in DC (with a lot of work in Fort Worth):

http://www.dmsas.com/

They don't have as many of their projects on the website as they used to but are very adept at getting the little details of classical detailing correct and also demonstrate they can work in mid-century and modern design styles. They have some fantastic urban designs as well, and have been instrumental in rebuilding parts of downtown Fort Worth:

https://goo.gl/maps/zyHhrBSawrS2
(use the StreetView time window to see the transformation)

Thanks, very interesting. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The Smith Center in Las Vegas is actually one of the few modern structures I've seen in person that feels like a true stylistic revival, as opposed to the kind of "vernacular postmodernism" I was talking about that we see here in Denver.

I would love to see this sort of thing turn into a movement. The problem in a place like LoDo isn't that modernists aren't allowed to be modernists; it's that very few projects demonstrate an understanding of historic detailing like the examples from that firm. So instead, most buildings end up being a weird focus-grouped mix of styles. NOBODY has been able to replicate the kind of historic detailing seen in Larimer Square, though props to the designer of 1515 Wynkoop for getting close. Not that this is always bad - sometimes what results is actually quite interesting. But oftentimes it just looks clunky and awkward instead.

[Cirrus]

Notre Dame's architecture school is traditional ornament focused. It's the only big one I know of in the US.

I will say that I think there's a difference between historicism and ornament. I think you can have contemporary ornament and I'd love to see more experimentation with that. It's just that the only architecture schools that teach ornament are the ones that teach historicism, so most of the ornament we're see is historicist.

I'd like to see more experimentation like this. Unmistakably "of our time," but unashamedly ornamented.

[bunt_q]

I like that a lot. Completely agree with your desire for more contemporary ornament.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Notre Dame's architecture school is traditional ornament focused. It's the only big one I know of in the US.

I will say that I think there's a difference between historicism and ornament. I think you can have contemporary ornament and I'd love to see more experimentation with that. It's just that the only architecture schools that teach ornament are the ones that teach historicism, so most of the ornament we're see is historicist.

I'd like to see more experimentation like this. Unmistakably "of our time," but unashamedly ornamented.

Good points - Art Deco was also, in its day, a type of ornament that was fresh and new as opposed to historicist. I think there's definitely room in this world for an exploration of both historic and new styles.

I didn't know that about Notre Dame, though I suppose it makes sense that ornament is still being taught somewhere. My family once hired an architect who specializes in Craftsman, and supposedly once taught a course on the Craftsman style at CU-Boulder. When I attended that program a few years ago though, I learned pretty quickly that I wouldn't be learning anything about ornamental detailing or "styles" such as craftsman. In fact, my architecture history class lumped a whole set of early 20th century styles as varied as Art Deco and Classical all together under the umbrella of "Countermodernism." It was as if to say that any early 20th century ornamental style that didn't subscribe to the new modernist ideology could simply be dismissed as "not modern," and therefore not worth studying in much detail. Hogwash if you ask me. After 4 years of architecture school, the little that I do actually know about ornament has come almost exclusively from books or discussions on websites like this one.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Notre Dame's architecture school is traditional ornament focused. It's the only big one I know of in the US.

I could be mistaken, but I thought the University of Miami had a classical architecture program. I remember researching it during my 'let's change careers and become an architect' phase.

Side note. Two of my favorite post-war buildings in Denver (so far--still exploring) are a couple of modest structures with nice classical proportions. 16 Market Square is one I would have expected to come out cheesy, but it's classy as hell: https://goo.gl/EhdCL8

The other is this simple but elegant brick condo building in Uptown at 16th and Clarkson: https://goo.gl/PHNZU8

I wish Denver had more of these sturdy, well proportioned buildings to balance out the Colotecture and cheap modernism.

[LAM]

One other challenge to adding ornamentation in either modern or historicist styles, is that architects and designers are told time and time again - don't add anything that isn't necessary because it will just be stripped off during "value engineering". So, we try and do decorative things that are tightly integrated into the structure and building envelope. But, in my opinion, they simply never look as good as quality detailing and even well placed ornamentation. That is why it is so important to have a client with a vested financial interest in creating quality projects they are willing to put money behind.

Also, another thing is that modern people will will only build with modern technologies. No owner wants to pay for a massive brick bearing wall than has lots of depth and character to it. But, those old building technologies are some of the things that make the old buildings look great. You can fake it, but that adds cost.

[lumos]

Thank you so much for your responses; and also for Cirrus's link to some refreshingly wonderful examples of good contemporary work. Unless the City were to hang on to parcels and invite submissions to build arresting or interesting structures we are going to get more of the same. By selling the plots to the highest bidder it is relinquishing the majority of the leverage and planning becomes the only line of defence.

I appreciate, Bunt_q, your taking the time explaining it to me.

[Robert.hampton]

Medical offices at 16th and Humboldt are down now. Looks like 110 unit apartment building is going in there.

[LAM]

Originally Posted by bcp

You can fake it....but then you're faking it...and we all know how good the zales diamond architecture looks

You are correct. It takes a lot of talent to fake it well. That's why I don't even try. But, anyone doing classical architecture today is faking it -- and Zales just does it really bad.

[mr1138]

LAM, your point about faking certain details is an interesting one, and I feel like it's where my own artistic mind hits a wall. I feel like the trick is in how you fake it, and in principle, that shouldn't be a barrier. I often return to the fact that much of classical architecture was essentially "faked" from very early on. The fluting and proportions of a column are based on wood and faked with marble. Later, the Romans built with brick and would add a marble veneer or stucco to fake the look of a pure marble structure. Not to mention carvings which are essentially just pure ornament with no structural purpose. With new technologies, architects should come up with new techniques of faking old ornamentation, as well as exploring new forms based on the new materials. In today's world of digital fabrication, I can't help but think that architects and builders should be able to figure out a way to do this that looks both modern and high quality.

I also feel a bit self-conscious about my last post and want to add that I'm not badmouthing CU in any way. I really respect my professors I had there and definitely walked away with a good education. It was eye-opening though to see the mentality of the architecture establishment toward ornamental styles. I'm also basing my statements a bit on knowledge of how many of the Bauhaus architects and early modernists ended up heading up major American university architecture programs around the middle of the century and helped spread the modernist ideology in this way.