DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/07/25/denver-council-take-aim-modern-townhomes/

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/07/25/denver-council-take-aim-modern-townhomes/

For once, I actually see slightly eye-to-eye with these councilmen. I've always thought this "garden court" townhome arrangement is a bastardization of good urban site planning. I'm all for breaking up a monotonous American block pattern into smaller blocks, but if a developer is going to put a private walk through the block, then it should be handed over as a new public ROW (and ideally coordinated with a matching walkway across the alley). Realistically, this is never going to happen, and this is simply a design loophole in the form-based code that should be closed as soon as possible... It's too bad that they aren't targeting the garages-down-the-middle arrangement as well, which is arguably even worse urban design than the garden-court arrangement.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

It's disingenuous to even use the term garden court, except for a few examples like Tejon 34 and Framework Sloan's Lake.

But it's ridiculous to go after this one particular development and not the ones with a drive aisle, since 97% of all of these townhome developments have a center drive aisle...

[bunt_q]

Except what this is doing is allowing us to build a lot of townhomes on not a lot of land. And since we can't do condos, it is critical that we cram in as many townhomes as we can. if you want them all to face the street, then plan on losing whole blocks of single family homes. (Which this same Councilman also screams about. NIMBY is NIMBY is NIMBY.)

[Zmapper]

Does Denver have an organized enough YIMBY coalition to fight back against the building blockers?

[corey]

How are these townhouses with the front doors facing one another any different than a condominium building? If people buy them and enjoy living in them who cares, other than a Nimby, what they look like from the street? They are better than townhouses with garage doors facing one other, IMO. At those complexes the owners drive into their garages, close the doors, and never have the opportunity to meet their neighbors unless they make the effort.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by rds70

An update to the Colorado Center residential project:

The tower is 20 stories, with a height of 243 feet, will be the tallest building in the project to date. It will include 316 units in the low- and high-rise sections. The ground floor will also have an additional 23,000 square feet of retail space. The building permit for the project is currently under review by the City. Here is the latest rendering:

Denver's sole architect strikes again. Man, he must be so swamped with all these new projects that you'd almost expect the development companies to bring somebody else on board, perhaps to shake things up and diversify our architectural landscape with some newer and exciting design styles.

I really doubt the new 22-story tower shown above, which was obviously designed for the CPV, is intended for Colorado Center. The original towers really established an ambiance unto their own - light beige facade with green glass, complemented by green crowns and decorative rooftop elements. Their elegance lay in the simplicity and clean aesthetics of their timeless design, while avoiding becoming visually oppressive or weighed down by deep earth-tone colors. Colorado Center was extremely attractive. The never-built Tower 3, with its curving curtain-wall glass facade fronting I-25, was set to further complement the sleek aura of Colorado Center.

Now, suddenly, we have to make it look like the CPV with this brown and red Colotechture garbage? Nah... this has to be a prank. I mean, surely our town can support more than one architectural style... one would hope. Granted, Denver isn't exactly known for its diversity (on nearly every single metric for which you can measure diversity), but our one-track mind when it comes architecture has reached the levels of outright absurdity.

[Cirrus]

Well, one of those is residential and the other is an office. Anyway I'll take the one with the halfway decent sidewalk presence.

[TakeFive]

"RTD considering plan to tear up 16th Street Mall"

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Well, one of those is residential and the other is an office. Anyway I'll take the one with the halfway decent sidewalk presence.

Well, yes, but there's no reason a residential building couldn't be designed in the same color scheme, using the same (or similar) materials, as the towers already existing in the development. I was unaware of any codified law stipulating that all residential towers had to be red, brown, and beige.

As for "street presence", it's a false equivalency argument. We're talking about the architectural aesthetics here, not how many multi-cultural people are crowding the sidewalks in the rendering. Great architecture and a vibrant streetscape are not mutually exclusive. Is a brown, red, and beige tower that defiles the clean design aesthetic of Colorado Center required for a vibrant streetscape? Or couldn't they simply match the existing complex with similar colors and materials and accomplish the same thing?

Sadly, "architecture" for urban enthusiasts in Denver ends at the second floor. I'm sure everyone would be thrilled if Denver was comprised of nothing but life-sized gray massing models, provided there was a streetscape, bike lanes, and plenty of pedestrian buzz. While I admire the push for pedestrianism, TOD, and streetscape vibrancy, Denver's approach disregards architectural merit in the process, and this mentality is exactly how we end up planting a CPV-style building where it visually does not belong, and with no sense of context for the surrounding site. Just as extending neighborhoods or creating new neighborhoods to achieve good urban design depends on context and adjacency, so does architecture.

All I'm asking for is to tone it down with the earth-toned Colotechture buildings, and give our city and metro area a fighting chance to avoid the appearance of being a master-planned community designed by one architect. Is that really such an unreasonable expectation?

[mojiferous]

I know most of the board either doesn't live in Denver proper or doesn't even live in Colorado, but is anyone else on here a Denveright Community Think Tank member? I was one of the 60 chosen and it would be really nice if there was more than one YIMBY...

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

I know most of the board either doesn't live in Denver proper or doesn't even live in Colorado, but is anyone else on here a Denveright Community Think Tank member? I was one of the 60 chosen and it would be really nice if there was more than one YIMBY...

I am! I just got the email last night. But, sorry, I'm a full-blown, raging NIMBY. Somebody's gotta be there to make sure my precious street parking isn't threatened by blocky, modernist development.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

I am! I just got the email last night. But, sorry, I'm a full-blown, raging NIMBY. Somebody's gotta be there to make sure my precious street parking isn't threatened by blocky, modernist development.

Together we can ensure nothing over 2 stories ever gets built again!

[ddvmke]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Except what this is doing is allowing us to build a lot of townhomes on not a lot of land. And since we can't do condos, it is critical that we cram in as many townhomes as we can. if you want them all to face the street, then plan on losing whole blocks of single family homes. (Which this same Councilman also screams about. NIMBY is NIMBY is NIMBY.)

Couldn't agree more. Make them face the street and you'll see huge swaths of existing housing disappear, which would be a tragedy. My concern would be more focused on the quality of these developments rather than the way they face. We rented one last year in Jeff Park that was on the market for more than $600k and could hear the toilets flushing through pipes in the walls. For that kind of money I wouldn't expect to have to listen my feces racing around the building.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Matt

Well, yes, but there's no reason a residential building couldn't be designed in the same color scheme, using the same (or similar) materials, as the towers already existing in the development.

True enough, but it does mean you have to include things like balconies, and it does mean the floor plates have to be shaped differently to provide more windows. You're not going to get the gleaming glass curtain wall with a residential building. You'll get Vancouver and Vancouver is great, but you won't get DTC architecture.

We're talking about the architectural aesthetics here, not how many multi-cultural people are crowding the sidewalks in the rendering. Great architecture and a vibrant streetscape are not mutually exclusive.

Maybe you're talking about mere aesthetics. I'm talking about how to build a good city. You're right that glassy architecture and good urbanism aren't mutually exclusive, but the specific example you showed us for what you want sucks at the sidewalk.

All I'm asking for is to tone it down with the earth-toned Colotechture buildings, and give our city and metro area a fighting chance to avoid the appearance of being a master-planned community designed by one architect.

Be honest with us here, Matt. You don't care about diversity. You just want glass. If Denver had predominantly glassy buildings instead of earthtone ones, you would not be calling for less glass and more earthtone. That's exactly the case in the southeast corridor, but here your argument is "stick with the (glassy) color scheme and materials of the existing development." Literally in the span of one post you just said that architectural diversity isn't desirable if a development is predominantly glass.

It's fine that you like glass. You're entitled to whatever aesthetic preferences you want. But don't BS us.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by ddvmke

Couldn't agree more. Make them face the street and you'll see huge swaths of existing housing disappear, which would be a tragedy. My concern would be more focused on the quality of these developments rather than the way they face. We rented one last year in Jeff Park that was on the market for more than $600k and could hear the toilets flushing through pipes in the walls. For that kind of money I wouldn't expect to have to listen my feces racing around the building.

Welcome to the beloved urban lifestyle. It clearly comes at a 'pretty' price with the ambience to match.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by ddvmke

Couldn't agree more. Make them face the street and you'll see huge swaths of existing housing disappear, which would be a tragedy. My concern would be more focused on the quality of these developments rather than the way they face. We rented one last year in Jeff Park that was on the market for more than $600k and could hear the toilets flushing through pipes in the walls. For that kind of money I wouldn't expect to have to listen my feces racing around the building.

I see what you guys are saying here (though I'm not sure it isn't already a foregone conclusion that the vast majority of single-family homes in areas with higher density zoning aren't already toast), and from a policy standpoint I don't necessarily disagree. But I'm not sure I buy that just because the lots in many of Denver's older neighborhoods are 125' deep means that density can only be achieved through a one-size-fits-all site plan. That feels to me like nothing more than lazy, un-examined geometric/architectural thinking.

What about simply building another row of townhomes along the alley and slowly convert the alleys into something more like Kensing Ct or Central Ct? Lots were originally platted at 125' deep to provide room for things like tool sheds, chicken coops, and outdoor work space - which made since in the 1870s. Later on, it appears that streets like Kensing Ct were created by adding rowhomes and other structures to the backside of certain properties, and re-imagining the alley as a Lane or Court. Umatilla St. south of 32nd, and the pattern of blocks and alleys to its west also suggests that the line between an alley and a street has been blurry throughout this neighborhood's history.

Today, there seems to be an unexplained assumption that the street grid is locked in place, for better or for worse, and cannot be changed. Any subdivision of the block that is necessary for building access happens exclusively on private property, with little to no effort to find win-win design solutions with neighboring properties or the planning dept. New alleys can never be created (only vacated of course), and the use of existing alleys cannot be changed (except, perhaps, if a landowner controls the whole block like some of the current projects in LoDo). It's like we have taken the very worst design ideas of suburban super-block planning - primary building access from privately controlled land, a deliberate dis-connectivity of midblock pathways, etc. - and allowed them to infiltrate the kind of historic urban fabric found in the Highlands.

[balugajames]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Today, there seems to be an unexplained assumption that the street grid is locked in place, for better or for worse, and cannot be changed. Any subdivision of the block that is necessary for building access happens exclusively on private property, with little to no effort to find win-win design solutions with neighboring properties or the planning dept. New alleys can never be created (only vacated of course), and the use of existing alleys cannot be changed (except, perhaps, if a landowner controls the whole block like some of the current projects in LoDo). It's like we have taken the very worst design ideas of suburban super-block planning - primary building access from privately controlled land, a deliberate dis-connectivity of midblock pathways, etc. - and allowed them to infiltrate the kind of historic urban fabric found in the Highlands.

In regards to the paths in between houses. I really don't understand your problem with that and why you want to walk down them so much and have them connect to things. I agree if a full line (2 parcels on opposite sides of the alley) were available, it would be cool to create walking connection if that's all your proposing

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

True enough, but it does mean you have to include things like balconies, and it does mean the floor plates have to be shaped differently to provide more windows. You're not going to get the gleaming glass curtain wall with a residential building. You'll get Vancouver and Vancouver is great, but you won't get DTC architecture.


Maybe you're talking about mere aesthetics. I'm talking about how to build a good city. You're right that glassy architecture and good urbanism aren't mutually exclusive, but the specific example you showed us for what you want sucks at the sidewalk.


Be honest with us here, Matt. You don't care about diversity. You just want glass. If Denver had predominantly glassy buildings instead of earthtone ones, you would not be calling for less glass and more earthtone. That's exactly the case in the southeast corridor, but here your argument is "stick with the (glassy) color scheme and materials of the existing development." Literally in the span of one post you just said that architectural diversity isn't desirable if a development is predominantly glass.

It's fine that you like glass. You're entitled to whatever aesthetic preferences you want. But don't BS us.

Funny, all I'm doing is expressing concern that Denver is drowning in a monotonous urban fabric of architectural homogeneity, and witnessing the same "template design" (earth-toned Tetris Boxes) continuously being recycled during the last 15 years of our development. Now, when I see that same template being imported into the Colorado Center, it only solidifies my point. I obviously don't expect office architecture to substitute for residential architecture, but at least for the Colorado Center site - I would have liked to see a new residential tower designed in the same spirit as the original towers; for no other reason than simply creating a neighborhood in our metro area that stands out by offering a different design aesthetic.

Eventually, the one-trick pony "Colotechture" template we are employing for most of our developments will fade out of style. Perhaps its downfall will ironically stem from the fact we used it way too much for nearly everything we build, and it overwhelmed the metro area to the point of becoming banal, stale, and non-stimulating. Those certainly aren't qualities you'd want in a city trying to create a pedestrian-oriented environment that encourages vibrancy and strikes a chord of excitement at the street level.

So yes, I'm in full support of introducing greater architectural diversity into Denver's cityscape - using more glass and aluminum; employing lighter and more uplifting colors; massing that emphasizes verticality and even encouraging recessed (not protruding) balconies. And that's just for starters. Let's start emulating buildings we see in (as you mentioned) Vancouver, or Minneapolis, or Toronto. There's certainly no shortage of great examples there.

I've held this view for the past 16(?) years that you've known me, and never once have I wavered in my assertion that Denver needs to shake things up in the architecture department. I've often pondered why we've become so addicted to the Colotechture template. Is it because we lack creativity? Is it because this design has now come to define us, and we have a sense of obligation in employing it for nearly everything we build? Is it a concerted effort to create a homogenous urban fabric? Is it that architects feel they won't "win the job" if they offer something that is a radical departure from the status quo? Whatever the case, it was fun while it lasted, but we needed to change course at least 5 years ago and furnish Denver with some different and interesting vibes.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by balugajames

In regards to the paths in between houses. I really don't understand your problem with that and why you want to walk down them so much and have them connect to things. I agree if a full line (2 parcels on opposite sides of the alley) were available, it would be cool to create walking connection if that's all your proposing

If these paths were along the lines of what we see in Stapleton, then I wouldn't have as big a problem with it. Trouble is, not only are these walks poorly designed and disconnected, but they also aren't truly public.

I don't have the time or energy to launch into a full dissertation about the topic, but it stems from my general distaste for Privately Owned Public Spaces. Part of what I have always loved about good urban neighborhoods is that the line between public and private spaces is well defined by the built environment and the zero-lot-line. In other words, if there is space between the buildings that isn't an obvious courtyard or loading dock, then it's public and anyone is welcome there.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/...-owned-public-space-cities-direct-action is a decent place to start on this subject. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/nyregi...-privately-owned-public-spaces.html?_r=0 as well. There's certainly a lot more out there on this subject too, I just don't particularly feel like digging for it right now.

In the case of these residential neighborhoods, I wouldn't so much be concerned about security guards kicking people out, as much as I would be concerned about the opposite... a lack of eyes on the street as a result of far too many private walks. I also dislike the inefficiency of redundant walks that oftentimes only serve one half of one property, often with a privacy fence and ANOTHER property's private walk right next to it (this is certainly not an efficient way to stack townhomes into a block). Not to mention it takes pedestrian activity and active edges off the streets we all share. If I wanted my neighborhood to be carved into little private gated Bantustans, I would just go live in Rock Creek or Highlands Ranch. That's not what makes an urban neighborhood so attractive (at least to me).