DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

At least the Norman is still there. That's one of my favorite old apartment buildings in town and it still looks great on the outside, even if the inside isn't kept up so well from what I've heard.

Soo agree with this

[RyanD]

Here are some more photos. Agreed on the width, but I think they are impressive nonetheless. Also, they're much cheaper than the new apartments Downtown and my wife and I are seriously considering moving into these.

Country Club Towers

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by RyanD

my wife and I are seriously considering moving into these.

Photos are awesome.

That would be so cool if you two could live there.

[RyanD]

^It would be pretty fantastic, we are touring them tomorrow!

Also, look what's visible from Cherry Creek now!

[The Dirt]

I love that smooth tapered look! That's gotta be a first for downtown, no?

[RyanD]

These are sharp looking buildings and architecturally, I think they are a great win for Denver whether you agree with the massing / scale of the project or not. Just remember, they had the potential to be blah but came out nice.

[trubador]

So I was driving down I-25 from the north and the construction downtown is just absolutely incredible right now.

Here are some thoughts I had: 1144 15th is absolutely stunning. It is in a great position to dominate the skyline from the west. I can wait to see what the skyline looks like when unions station is fully built out.

This may be an unpopular opinion, but I think the confluence looks terrible from a distance, but looks much better as it gets closer. Maybe once it is finished it will look better, but it is hard to get the material textural elements from a distance.

Also the country club towers look awesome from the highway. They really stand out in that area and it has a nice little pocket of density. What I don't like is the 4 identical towers that are south of the country club towers. They look very soviet.

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7017161,...itch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

[CastleScott]

What I don't like is the 4 identical towers that are south of the country club towers. They look very soviet.

Those are the ones on the north end of Washington Park where the historic 14 story Park Lane Hotel once stood (demoed sometime back around 1967 or so as to make way for those 4 soviet looking towers).

Btw I can't wait to head down I-25 and look over downtown and those new high rises when I return hopefully sometime later this year..

[twister244]

I agree with the opinion on 1144. I know I am not the only one twisting my neck every time I drive by/through downtown to see the latest impact it is having on the skyline. It is truly incredible to see the sea of cranes in downtown right now.

[corey]

The Coloradan looks very nice. The glazed terra cotta tile is in my favorite color. Along with the Triangle Building it is probably the best building in Union Station.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by bcp

ugh, those buildings have a pretty good chance of becoming a planning / design no-no poster child

up close it has some really nice elements.. but..there are so many issues (it's like it was designed by a calculus derivative...)

From some angles they are really colossal. Sort of reminds me of the Ryugyong Hotel in Pyongyang though rectangular instead of a big triangle.

That being said, I am fan of creating density in that area and hopeful it will be a node on a future rail transit route from downtown to Cherry Creek.

[mhays]

Liking Country Club Towers.

[DenverPoke]

Update on WTC Denver:

I don't have a sub to DBJ but it looks like NREL and UCAR have inked agreements. Sounds as if the project is moving forward, great news if true.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2...ional-research-labs-will-be-part-of.html

[rds70]

Building permit applications have been submitted to the City for 1800 Market.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by bcp

ugh, those buildings have a pretty good chance of becoming a planning / design no-no poster child

up close it has some really nice elements.. but..there are so many issues (it's like it was designed by a calculus derivative...)

I agree. They immediately remind me of some run down 70's condos in the Miraflores district of Lima. Someone else said it hearkened back to buildings in North Korea. Neither is a good sign.............

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bcp

ugh, those buildings have a pretty good chance of becoming a planning / design no-no poster child

up close it has some really nice elements.. but..there are so many issues (it's like it was designed by a calculus derivative...)

I wholeheartedly disagree about the design on country club towers.

As for the calculus derivative form... welcome to Denver. We have cubes plopped on cubes. Cruise ships. Not much different from the zoning-code-driven wedding cake towers of old New York. Except that our forms generally 🞵🞵🞵🞵.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I wholeheartedly disagree about the design on country club towers.

As for the calculus derivative form... welcome to Denver. We have cubes plopped on cubes. Cruise ships. Not much different from the zoning-code-driven wedding cake towers of old New York. Except that our forms generally 🞵🞵🞵🞵.

Good point about the zoning. Same can be said of Haussmann's code in 19th century Paris "creating" the commonly used Mansard roofs. I think that Denver won some (the city got an up-zoning in many neighborhoods that needed it, and is getting much better building setbacks and site planning now), and lost some (BOXY buildings) with its new code, and it might now be time to take a look at what results the code is delivering and whether it could be tweaked.

As hard as I try, I cannot think of any way to stop the cruise ships using only zoning - short of implementing a maximum floor-plate size, which seems a bit too anti-capitalist for a place like Colorado and would drive up the cost of living even more.

I have wondered though - what about simply bringing back the concept of F.A.R. and always setting it just SLIGHTLY lower than what would otherwise be achievable under the allowable number of floors. For example, a site with zoning of C-MX-5 (5 stories allowed) could be given an F.A.R of 4.75. This way, it would be possible to bring back building forms like pitched roofs and terraces within the allowed building-envelope, but without making the developers feel like they MUST maximize all 5 floor plates to an F.A.R of nearly 5.0, which results in a boxy building form.

I also happen to quite like these new towers, and personally think the area between 1st and Bayaud could use a lot more towers. I am also quite curious if the new zoning code is flexible enough to allow re-zoning from MU to MX in a neighborhood like this which DESPERATELY needs more ground-floor retail.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mr1138

As hard as I try, I cannot think of any way to stop the cruise ships using only zoning - short of implementing a maximum floor-plate size, which seems a bit too anti-capitalist for a place like Colorado and would drive up the cost of living even more.

Easy. Lots of cities have requirements for facade break-up/visual division of building frontages. Combine that with setbacks, and you're done.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Easy. Lots of cities have requirements for facade break-up/visual division of building frontages. Combine that with setbacks, and you're done.

Facade break-up would be a good place to start. It's fundamentally different from actually having small buildings though, which I think should be the real goal.

[Scottk]

A target will be opening at 16th and California next year!


http://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/16/target-downtown-denver-summer-2018/