DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

This looks like a good project, and very good density for that type of site.

I tend to be skeptical of swoopy lined in a site plan, which can look better in a drawing than in reality, but in this case it seems to work.

The amount of open space seems to be a little much, but might be required by the land use code? I suspect that short of a festival the actual usage would be far less than the renderings, as is the case with every rendering that's ever existed.

That area is rather isolated with few amenities so the green space seems highly appropriate not unlike a larger (suburban) apartment complex providing green space for its residents, especially kids to play Those munchkins need space to get their exercise and be healthy. Yes, zoning could also be a factor; don't know.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

Those first 2 numbers look about right. But this last one looks a little strange. typo?

(Not that it matters. I'm just bored.)

The best number to use is the Denver MSA plus Boulder MSA total. It slightly undercounts the metro area total because we would be missing the SW Weld County cities but that's probably better than using the CSA number which over counts by including all of Weld County.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

The best number to use is the Denver MSA plus Boulder MSA total. It slightly undercounts the metro area total because we would be missing the SW Weld County cities but that's probably better than using the CSA number which over counts by including all of Weld County.

I assumed that first figure he came up with for the Metro was an estimation of where he thinks MSA is going to be in 2020. That last figure, judging by the fact that he said something about counting Greeley and it being slightly behind Minneapolis-St. Paul, I assumed was his estimation of CSA in 2020 (which would be more like 3,700,000 instead of 3,100,000).

And again, it doesn't matter to me. I just have too much time on my hands apparently so I'm cluttering up this thread for no reason, lol.

Anyway, I agree with you. I like the way you tally it up every year on Denver Urbanism.

[CastleScott]

I assumed that first figure he came up with for the Metro was an estimation of where he thinks MSA is going to be in 2020. That last figure, judging by the fact that he said something about counting Greeley and it being slightly behind Minneapolis-St. Paul, I assumed was his estimation of CSA in 2020 (which would be more like 3,700,000 instead of 3,100,000).

Yeah Sam Hill Minneapolis/St Paul MSA will likely be closer to 3,750,000-3,800,000 by 2020-probably a closer match to Denver metro would be St Louis MO/IL or Baltimore-Columbia-Towson MD (if the sustained growth would have been around what the Denver metro experinced in 2014-15 then the numbers would have been higher of course)..

[rct]

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/30/jacquard-cherry-creek-open-2018/

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Alchemist

Tryba Architects is working on site planning with the owners of the old Denver Post plant and surrounding area. Looks pretty go to me.
https://www.trybaarchitects.com/portfolio/fox-north

A site plan is under review with the city and the (possible?) number of units is 2,950.
In addition, some of parcels near the station have already been rezoned to C-MX-12/20 just like in the station area plan. That area could eventually become quite dense.

The renderings seem to have been created in the early 1970s. Seriously, why does nearly everything proposed in Denver have such a heavy 1970s-vintage ambiance inherent in its architectural aesthetic? The renderings make the development appear to be run-down and blighted simply by the form and design style of the buildings.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by rct

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/05/30/jacquard-cherry-creek-open-2018/

Love the rooftop pic in the Post.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.businessden.com/2017/05/30/dp...b1506f0c-99732d589b-147998669#newsletter

[Curtis Park]

I heard a rumor that the Rossonian is once again being considered for a boutique hotel. The most recent development plan was canceled.
After more than 20 years of hearing rumors about this building, I'm quite skeptical, but hopeful. I guess I'm just fishing to see if anyone has any credible sources on this.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Love the rooftop pic in the Post.

Where are the umbrellas? I'd sit out there only in very specific weather...cloudy, not windy, wind chill of 68-70F...

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

http://www.businessden.com/2017/05/30/dp...b1506f0c-99732d589b-147998669#newsletter

Found the part I was looking for.

DPS’ Board of Education approved the sale in September after the city designated the site as a local landmark.
....
Several of the buildings have been declared historic by Denver’s Landmark Preservation Commission and cannot be demolished. A structure fronting Glenarm, however, can be razed, according to DPS.

[Denver]

Originally Posted by Curtis Park

I heard a rumor that the Rossonian is once again being considered for a boutique hotel. The most recent development plan was canceled.
After more than 20 years of hearing rumors about this building, I'm quite skeptical, but hopeful. I guess I'm just fishing to see if anyone has any credible sources on this.

The area the developer is running into difficulty is the land assemblage. I can't same more than that right now however.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Found the part I was looking for.

I saw that too, but I wonder if anything substantial can be built there. I'm guessing 12th and Glenarm would have some serious height restrictions (view plane?). Does anybody know? I looked up the zoning for "1251 Glenarm" here: https://denvergov.org/maps/map/zoning

D-C , UO-1 Whatever that means.

(There's a PDF that outlines it all but it's about 1250 pages long. I scoured it for about 10 minutes but wasn't able to decipher their nomenclature well enough to come up with an answer.)

All it would take is a single skyscraper south of 14th St to dramatically alter the skyline from many angles. I've been hoping for such a thing for a long time. Hopefully that Next Stage vision comes to fruition.

[CastleScott]

^ If I recall the height steps down a bit to just under 300ft in that spot (it really gets lower south of Colfax). Just a side note there's potentially some tall stuff planned for the area near the Performing Arts parking garage (possibly from 400-650ft).

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by CastleScott

^ If I recall the height steps down a bit to just under 300ft in that spot (it really gets lower south of Colfax). Just a side note there's potentially some tall stuff planned for the area near the Performing Arts parking garage (possibly from 400-650ft).

I don't believe that parcel has any height restriction on ~75% of it (though the 12th and Glenarm corner is in the State Capitol view corridor) , but it does have a 12:1 FAR ratio. With a 100K sq ft lot, the view corridor, and the landmarked building(s), you might be able to get something of a decent height there.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

I saw that too, but I wonder if anything substantial can be built there. I'm guessing 12th and Glenarm would have some serious height restrictions (view plane?). Does anybody know? I looked up the zoning for "1251 Glenarm" here: https://denvergov.org/maps/map/zoning

D-C , UO-1 Whatever that means.

(There's a PDF that outlines it all but it's about 1250 pages long. I scoured it for about 10 minutes but wasn't able to decipher their nomenclature well enough to come up with an answer.)

All it would take is a single skyscraper south of 14th St to dramatically alter the skyline from many angles. I've been hoping for such a thing for a long time. Hopefully that Next Stage vision comes to fruition.

Ken can correct me, but I believe:

No height limit, except small portion dictated by State Capitol view plane. FAR is 12:1, but could be increased to 17:1 with residential.

Parcel is ~106,000 sqft. 12:1 gets you to 1.27 million sqft pretty quick. You could go pretty tall here.


Note: A Hotel Development company just paid $26 million for a parcel downtown. They want to make money.

[PLANSIT]

Originally Posted by PLANSIT

Ken can correct me, but I believe:

No height limit, except small portion dictated by State Capitol view plane. FAR is 12:1, but could be increased to 17:1 with residential.

Parcel is ~106,000 sqft. 12:1 gets you to 1.27 million sqft pretty quick. You could go pretty tall here.


Note: A Hotel Development company just paid $26 million for a parcel downtown. They want to make money.

As an example, the Hyatt CCH is 996,000 sqft on exact same parcel size (106,000 sqft) with same zoning.

[TakeFive]

^ That would be soo covfefe.

[DenverInfill]

Plansit and Wong are correct on their zoning analysis. IIRC, the preservation agreement allows for the entire Glenarm side to be redeveloped and on the Welton side, the historic buildings are to be preserved, although the Welton buildings don't all go all the way back to the alley--particularly the 13th Street side, so I think they can go vertical in the rear of the lot on the Welton side for part of the block.

This is a strong candidate for a second Convention HQ hotel that some have said we may need in the near/mid-term future.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

I looked up the zoning for "1251 Glenarm" here: https://denvergov.org/maps/map/zoning

D-C , UO-1 Whatever that means.

(There's a PDF that outlines it all but it's about 1250 pages long. I scoured it for about 10 minutes but wasn't able to decipher their nomenclature well enough to come up with an answer.)

Let's help you out a bit. Start here:

https://www.denvergov.org/content/denver...velopment/zoning/denver-zoning-code.html

You'll notice there are six "contexts" in the city:

S - Suburban
E - Urban Edge
U - Urban
G - General Urban
C - Urban Center
D - Downtown

Every parcel in the city with a new zoning code designation on it will have a zoning district on it that starts with one of those six letters. So first, start there and open only the PDF for the context you need. That will eliminate about 95% of the pages. (The Downtown "D" section is only 74 pages).

The next set of letters designates the building form/use. Then, when applicable, the last part of the code indicates building height in floors.

For example: G-MU-12 = General Urban Neighborhood Context, Multi-Unit Residential, 12 Floors Max

Within the applicable "context" document, scroll down to the specific section you're interested in and you'll find pretty much what you need to know.

For Downtown, things are a little different, as the second set of letters indicates the geographic subarea and not the building form/use. For example: D-AS = Arapahoe Square, D-GT = Golden Triangle, etc.

The Downtown districts don't have the last set of numbers indicating floor height, because Downtown still uses the old FAR (Floor Area Ratio) zoning approach where gross building square footage rather than height is regulated (except for the areas with height restrictions).

In the case of the "UO-1" part of the hotel site's zoning, you have to go to the "Special Contexts and Districts" PDF where you'll see that UO means a "Use Overlay" district where certain uses are permitted or restricted in addition to the base zoning. Here, UO-1 applies to Adult uses, where they are permitted.

This is a handy "how to use the code" document:

https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/de...nver_Zoning_Code_Article2_Using_Code.pdf

I hope that helps.