DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[CharlesCO]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

mr1138... For me Context is Everything.

If you want to provide more, better options for lower income housing, then build more freeways. The land next to freeways (typically) being less desirable would do just that. My point would be to let lower income peeps choose where they wish to live but do provide them with good health insurance and access to care. It's more important to pick your battles. There's little point to having an endless circular chicken-egg debate.

With all due respect, that sounds like a horrible idea. Let's build more freeways so there's more undesirable land on which to build lower income housing? That sounds like destroying the village in order to save it. That also doesn't take into consideration the higher personal costs involved with owning a private automobile.

If you actually care about low income housing, then let's build it at high density near good public transit and in a walkable neighborhood. Phoenix should not be our model for what our transit and housing policies should be.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

That's probably a coat of paint due to those beams being exposed to the elements.

It's temporary paneling installed on the inside to protect the windows during interior floorplate construction. Looks like foam core. They've been installing it and then removing it on every floor as the tower progressed upwards, usually 3 to 4 contiguous floorplates had the striping at any given time.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

With all due respect, that sounds like a horrible idea. Let's build more freeways so there's more undesirable land on which to build lower income housing? That sounds like destroying the village in order to save it. That also doesn't take into consideration the higher personal costs involved with owning a private automobile.

If you actually care about low income housing, then let's build it at high density near good public transit and in a walkable neighborhood. Phoenix should not be our model for what our transit and housing policies should be.

My apologies but this site doesn't have a sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek font. I'm not srsly advocating for building more freeways.

Over the decades as freeways were built it's true they were sited in less desirable often industrial areas. Whether before or after being built it's also true that lower income people choose to live nearby as it was a more affordable option. People aren't forced to live adjacent to freeways etc but they should have the right to do so if it provides a more affordable option. That's all.

I'm fairly familiar with those who specialize in subsidized/affordable housing including the use of LIHTC's and fully support their efforts.

With respect to Phoenix they are a great FUNDING model for transportation. Denver is a totally different type of metro area so what works for Phoenix isn't appropriate for Denver and vice versa. Each city/metro area must determine what is best for themselves but it all boils down to having the necessary funding. I would point out that the (now) 26 miles of light rail in Phoenix has a ridership per mile that is right up there next to Portland's ridership so perhaps they have done this right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_light_rail_systems_by_ridership

[comoneymaker]

http://www.uhnc.org/neighborhood-issues/colorado-and-evans-development

Project for Colorado and Evans.

Woah can someone resize that for me. lol

[CharlesCO]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

My apologies but this site doesn't have a sarcasm or tongue-in-cheek font. I'm not srsly advocating for building more freeways.

Oh! I am a king of sarcasm so I am surprised I did not pick that up.

With respect to Phoenix they are a great FUNDING model for transportation. Denver is a totally different type of metro area so what works for Phoenix isn't appropriate for Denver and vice versa. Each city/metro area must determine what is best for themselves but it all boils down to having the necessary funding. I would point out that the (now) 26 miles of light rail in Phoenix has a ridership per mile that is right up there next to Portland's ridership so perhaps they have done this right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_American_light_rail_systems_by_ridership

Okay, that is most certainly a valid point. This was abundantly clear when I was trying to explain to someone last night why the B line won't reach Boulder until 2056.

As for the City Park thing, I, too, have only been paying peripheral attention to it. But as a reference, my sister and her husband are Park Hill residents and play golf at City Park. They claim that not only will the detention pond be empty most of the time, but the course will also be shortened from a par 72 course to par 54. I am all for reclaiming land from golf courses and putting them to better use, but I think it may be fair to reconsider big plans for one of the city's oldest and classically-designed course. If you're going to shorten it to par 54, then you might as well not have the course at all. That's like trying to play water polo in a four foot deep pool.

But yeah, there are tons of NIMBYs up there too. My sister has gotten involved in some of those causes since moving up there — by involved, I mean "signing petitions." There's one woman up there who was so extreme that she was banned from Nextdoor. She also claims that the city of Denver employs people to make fake accounts on there and post pro-development comments on it.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by comoneymaker

Project for Colorado and Evans.

Woah can someone resize that for me. lol

You'll have to do the editing but I did find this although not as sexy.
https://i0.wp.com/www.uhnc.org/_/rsrc/14...zoom=0.8999999761581421&resize=640%2C344
The source is http://www.letsmovedenver.com/blog-post/...ormation-development-building-and-sales/
Okay, you'll have to click on and then copy the url

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

There's one woman up there who was so extreme that she was banned from Nextdoor. She also claims that the city of Denver employs people to make fake accounts on there and post pro-development comments on it.

That is waaay too funny.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Matt

It's temporary paneling installed on the inside to protect the windows during interior floorplate construction. Looks like foam core. They've been installing it and then removing it on every floor as the tower progressed upwards, usually 3 to 4 contiguous floorplates had the striping at any given time.

Oh, I misunderstood. I thought the question was about the structural steel for the crown portion of the building. Didn't even notice the paneling on the lower floors.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Oh, I misunderstood. I thought the question was about the structural steel for the crown portion of the building. Didn't even notice the paneling on the lower floors.

I noticed that too, regarding the crown. I was just assuming they're using a different type of steel given the lighter structural forces needed to support the crown. As soon as I saw the white beams appear, I knew it was the crown in the making. Such a breathtaking building...

[Matt]

I normally wouldn't do something like this, but... I really... I just really can't resist. I can't decide whether or not to chuckle, laugh hysterically, or just cry...

[The Dirt]

Denver FUGLY is like a cancer that will one day metastasize into something horrible like an Espinoza mayorship.

[The Dirt]

On another note, does anyone have any updates on the following projects:
- 18th & Sherman El Jebel tower
- Benedict Fountain Park tower (the one on the NE side)
- Makovsky block hotel and office towers
- Stout & 15th St. dual-brand hotel

[JR_xox]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

They claim that not only will the detention pond be empty most of the time, but the course will also be shortened from a par 72 course to par 54. I am all for reclaiming land from golf courses and putting them to better use, but I think it may be fair to reconsider big plans for one of the city's oldest and classically-designed course. If you're going to shorten it to par 54, then you might as well not have the course at all. That's like trying to play water polo in a four foot deep pool.

Sorry, that is 100% untrue. Denver hasn't officially selected a design-builder for this project yet, so no one knows the official Par yet. But the technical spec for the course demands an 18-hole regulation course, so the minimum Par is 70. Additionally, they are trying to sneak in a few 80-100 yard kiddie holes as well.

And the detention? It's not a giant crater like the NIMBY's claim. It's more like a meandering stream and spread out bays.

The amount of mis-information out there regarding this project is sickening.

I have seen a proposed plan for the replacement, dated just a week ago, and it's impressive.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by JR_xox

Sorry, that is 100% untrue. Denver hasn't officially selected a design-builder for this project yet, so no one knows the official Par yet. But the technical spec for the course demands an 18-hole regulation course, so the minimum Par is 70. Additionally, they are trying to sneak in a few 80-100 yard kiddie holes as well.

And the detention? It's not a giant crater like the NIMBY's claim. It's more like a meandering stream and spread out bays.

The amount of mis-information out there regarding this project is sickening.

I have seen a proposed plan for the replacement, dated just a week ago, and it's impressive.

This is exactly right!! Detention ponds are all over our built environment, and many people don't even realize it. We certainly aren't talking about a giant hole-in-the-ground with a fence around it. Not every detention pond looks like this:


When designed with thought, they can also be active use spaces that people don't even recognize as detention ponds. Like this:

On something the scale of the City Park Golf Course, we could be talking about something so large that it can handle the stormwater without even needing to dig down very far at all. I have not personally seen the plans, but there is absolutely no reason to think that the golf course par needs to be changed. The only thing that may need to happen is trees would need to be re-planted, and new turf installed after the topography has been changed. It is correct though that the detention pond will be empty the vast majority of the time - parks uses are actually ideal for co-locating on top of a floodwater detention pond, because nobody will be golfing or using the park during a large deluge (which is the only time that it will fill). Anybody telling you that the golf course will be irreparably harmed by this is, quite simply, talking out of their ass.

[CharlesCO]

^^^

Thanks for those explanations. I honestly did not know, and I didn't really care enough to really research it myself. I don't live there anymore, and I grew up in the parts of the city farther south. But now that makes me question even more my sister's recent anti-gentrification kick. It wouldn't surprise me at all if she also voted for Jill Stein...

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

On another note, does anyone have any updates on the following projects:
- 18th & Sherman El Jebel tower
As far as I know, this is dead. At least for the time being.
- Benedict Fountain Park tower (the one on the NE side)
I saw them taking soil samples the other week on this site.
Would be nice to see go up!
- Makovsky block hotel and office towers
This is moving along. It's now on the development map with the city at 32-stories.
- Stout & 15th St. dual-brand hotel
Possibly moving along as well. I know the developer is working on updated renderings, etc.

^

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by JR_xox

Sorry, that is 100% untrue. Denver hasn't officially selected a design-builder for this project yet, so no one knows the official Par yet. But the technical spec for the course demands an 18-hole regulation course, so the minimum Par is 70. Additionally, they are trying to sneak in a few 80-100 yard kiddie holes as well.

And the detention? It's not a giant crater like the NIMBY's claim. It's more like a meandering stream and spread out bays.

The amount of mis-information out there regarding this project is sickening.

I have seen a proposed plan for the replacement, dated just a week ago, and it's impressive.

Thank you so much. I'm one who enjoys trying to set the record straight but with this project I knew (essentially) nothing.

mr1138... Aurora being much newer grew up installing greenbelt open space for this purpose. But in at least one case at Utah Park NEC of Jewell and Peoria it was I assume a similar retrofit, Over 20 years ago I used to take my toddler son up there to play. Maybe once a year a part of the park would flood and be unusable for maybe a day. Twas no big deal and in fact a bit curious or nifty to see when it happened.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Over 20 years ago I used to take my toddler son up there to play.

TakeFive... Were we neighbors? Utah Park was my go-to park growing up.

[seventwenty]

He's your long lost father. Join him and you can rule the galaxy Phoenix metroplex.

[twister244]

So I have noticed activity has picked up recently at the HUB site in RiNo (http://denverinfill.com/blog/2016/10/new-river-north-project-hub.html). I thought I had spotted excavation the other day, and last night I thought I had spotted a construction crane of sorts on the site. It's hard to tell if it's related to this project, or some other road construction nearby. I know some other dev company bought the site out earlier this year and Homeadvisers was still wanting to move into the area.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

mr1138... Aurora being much newer grew up installing greenbelt open space for this purpose. But in at least one case at Utah Park NEC of Jewell and Peoria it was I assume a similar retrofit, Over 20 years ago I used to take my toddler son up there to play. Maybe once a year a part of the park would flood and be unusable for maybe a day. Twas no big deal and in fact a bit curious or nifty to see when it happened.

I lived for quite a long time in suburban Longmont, and had one of these right behind my house that doubled as a community green space. I walked my dog by this one almost daily, and there were oftentimes kids having little-league sports practice on the turf. I would give it a 6 out of 10 from a design creativity standpoint. You're right that they tend to be standard features in newer urban areas - I think this actually resulted from federal legislation in the mid-late 20th century (possibly the Clean Water Act?). If you look at the current maps of flood potential and storm sewers in the area north of City Park, it is a disaster waiting to happen. This is a very worthwhile project, and people will probably end up golfing right IN the detention pond without even realizing it.

My dad has worked in flood/water engineering my whole life, but it wasn't until I went through the ENVD program at CU that I really learned what these structures are for and why they are important. The concept is actually quite simple, and one of the few ways that modern urban design is superior to traditional design, which usually paid no attention to water quality and thought nothing of turning small creeks into underground sewers (a practice dating back to the ancient Romans). We often see these ponds as a kind of AWFUL afterthought, usually behind the loading dock of a big-box store to handle the runoff from the enormous paved area. But there's no reason that they can't also be designed in a thoughtful, urban context - either integrated into a park, plaza, or even a series of street-tree rain gardens - and still achieve their purpose from an engineering standpoint. The design possibilities are actually as limitless as an architect's imagination. Boulder is also currently planning series of flood detention ponds for the east side of town - one on a natural prairie, another on a middle school soccer field, and a third on the city's golf course.