DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[corey]

The lay out and scale of the Commons West apartments are fine. Aesthetically, they are ugly and cheap looking. They look like a cheap version of a Vail condo building. Too bad they weren’t built with higher quality exterior finish materials. I don’t care that they are stick built, but the almost exclusive use of EIFS is horrible. Oh well, it’s not like they will ever re-skin the buildings so no use worrying about them.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by corey

The lay out and scale of the Commons West apartments are fine. Aesthetically, they are ugly and cheap looking. They look like a cheap version of a Vail condo building. Too bad they weren’t built with higher quality exterior finish materials. I don’t care that they are stick built, but the almost exclusive use of EIFS is horrible. Oh well, it’s not like they will ever re-skin the buildings so no use worrying about them.

100% Agree. There's plenty of "stick built" apartments that look MUCH nicer than Commons West, including virtually everything built at Riverfront Park.

My point is that this is a premier spot in the city and a really well well done site (even a stick built one) would have been nice. I get that the vintage of this development makes it a little unfair (maybe) to compare with what's being built in Riverfront today (some very good stick builds!). I grade on a curve - the same building in Glendale is a solid B-. But this is a prime location. (Speaking of Glendale, the "stick built" apartments that replaced the original build that was destroyed in that massive fire a few years back look quite nice).

[DenverInfill]

Agreed that there's too much EIFS but the ground-floor is all brick, which is a key reason for the success of the building at the sidewalk level.

[spr8364]

Originally Posted by corey

The lay out and scale of the Commons West apartments are fine. Aesthetically, they are ugly and cheap looking. They look like a cheap version of a Vail condo building. Too bad they weren’t built with higher quality exterior finish materials. I don’t care that they are stick built, but the almost exclusive use of EIFS is horrible. Oh well, it’s not like they will ever re-skin the buildings so no use worrying about them.

I agree 100% with Corey. I could care less how it was built or when it was built. It's exterior is just a low-quality building. There are a lot of better looking background buildings. And, when this was built is was the main foreground building which made it even worse. I agree that the 16th street area is well used and the retail areas seem to be a success. I also think the massing is just right and they hid the parking well. I actually prefer modern architecture to fake historic architecture. But, a well crafted historicist building can also be quite elegant. I don't think that any one style is right. But, if you plan to do a style, you should do it right. Maybe in 10 or 20 years, they can remove the exterior skin and make it right.

[Cirrus]

Commons West:

• The scale is great. European feeling. Very urbane.
• The facade is under par but passable for a background building. Problem is, this is not a background location. This is a prominent showcase location that deserves a better-than-background building.
• The EIFS and general "cheap Vail" (funny bc true) aesthetic are terrible. It's not just the materials; there also should've been more differentiation & detail along the facade.
• I don't care what the frame was built out of. Wood's fine.
• Ground level along Platte Street is nice, but ground level along 16th Street is bad. It's OK that there's no retail (you can't support it everywhere and Platte was the right choice), but it looks like the back side of a garden apartment complex in Superior. The 16th Street facade should've at least looked like the front of a building. Or preferably more than one building. There should've been more entrances, ideally set a couple of feet higher via stoops. In short they should've either lined it with rowhouses, or made it look like it was lined with rowhouses.
• There should've been a focal point to the plaza space (a gazebo or a little fountain or something, it wouldn't need much), the utility boxes and pipes should have been screened from view, and there should not have been any haphazardly leftover suburban-setback-style mulch patches.
• The steps down to the river trail are nice, although there should've been something at the top and bottom to fill the empty concrete spaces, even if just a community bullet board or something.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

to compare with what's being built in Riverfront today (some very good stick builds!).

I'd be curious what has been built in Riverfront Park that you think is aesthetically better. Seems to be there is a lot of 🞵🞵🞵🞵 in there. But then, I do not know how to compare generic brick Colotecture against faux Vail. To me they are exactly the same. Cheap over-large brick (that might as well be cinder block, and sometimes is) is no better than EIFS to me.

[TakeFive]

#protestcheapexteriors

4 rules for making a protest work, according to experts

The Art Of Protesting: How To Organize A Protest That Brings Results .

5 Important Insights About Successful Protest Movements - NYMag


Can't protest without having a good theme song.

• Video Link

[HighSt.]

A prominent part of Denver's largest parking crater changes hands...to a "Canadian Developer"...

https://businessden.com/2018/04/05/canadian-developer-pays-9m-half-acre-downtown/

Should I be running down to Shelby's to get in my last few impossibly cheap well drinks, or no?

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by HighSt.

A prominent part of Denver's largest parking crater changes hands...to a "Canadian Developer"...

https://businessden.com/2018/04/05/canadian-developer-pays-9m-half-acre-downtown/

Should I be running down to Shelby's to get in my last few impossibly cheap well drinks, or no?

I dont know, but I will say it is nice to see company with actual experience (albeit not in the Denver market) building quality 20-30 story towers grab a downtown infill lot. Maybe those New Yorkers can sell their plans to these guys.

[TakeFive]

What a total clustermess response to Zocalo's proposed Sloan Lake development.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

What a total clustermess response to Zocalo's proposed Sloan Lake development.

Let me get this right——the neighborhood associations are concerned that a development that is 50% affordable housing is going to gentrify the (already gentrified) neighborhood? And at the same time believe the building needs MORE amenities AND more parking. THATS RICH.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

What a total clustermess response to Zocalo's proposed Sloan Lake development.

No surprise. It's gotten to the point where every single neighborhood is against every single development (and in the case of this particular development, the neighborhood has been fiercely against it all along).

Increasing density in Denver is an uphill battle from here on. And I have a feeling the party will be over soon. From here on out, every time an incumbent, pro-development council member faces off against an anti-development challenger, the challenger will win in a landslide (anti-development candidates swept the last election). It's only a matter of time before we have an anti-development council that starts zoning for the "preservation" of Denver's urban neighborhoods IMO.

[twister244]

I can see things going either direction. On one hand, yes, we hear more and more from the anti-development crowd. But is it a growing sentiment in Denver, or simply a vocal minority? Also, one has to look at where this outrage is coming from. From my observations, it's coming from the fringes of gentrification, in neighborhoods just starting to turn over (Five Points, Globeville/Swansea, areas west of Federal. However, in other areas, such as Rino Union Station, Arapahoe Square, and maybe even the upcoming River Mile area, there isn't a ton of "outrage" about new development in those areas.

Maybe I am way out of touch, but that's how I feel. Plus, I think when push comes to shove at the ballot (1% cap - if it makes it to the ballot), various industries (construction, real estate, hospitality) will push back way hard as they have a lot to miss if these policies become real.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by twister244

From my observations, it's coming from the fringes of gentrification, in neighborhoods just starting to turn over (Five Points, Globeville/Swansea, areas west of Federal. However, in other areas, such as Rino Union Station, Arapahoe Square, and maybe even the upcoming River Mile area, there isn't a ton of "outrage" about new development in those areas.

I think you’re right that the until-recently-industrial-wasteland neighborhoods are good places for density. But if we are actually going to grow as a city and meet the great demand for urban living, density will need to occur in all neighborhoods. The Five Pointses, Overlands, Hilltops, and Berkleys. These days it seems that all established residential neighborhoods, whether rich, poor, or recently gentrified, are opposing new development. Arapahoe Square and River Mile can’t absorb anywhere near enough residents to meet demand.

I like the proposal in Minneapolis to allow four plexes by-right throughout the city limits. That and abolishing parking minimums would be a good start. But probably completely impossible to achieve.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

No surprise. It's gotten to the point where every single neighborhood is against every single development (and in the case of this particular development, the neighborhood has been fiercely against it all along).

Increasing density in Denver is an uphill battle from here on. And I have a feeling the party will be over soon. From here on out, every time an incumbent, pro-development council member faces off against an anti-development challenger, the challenger will win in a landslide (anti-development candidates swept the last election). It's only a matter of time before we have an anti-development council that starts zoning for the "preservation" of Denver's urban neighborhoods IMO.

Generally... I'm in favor of preserving the character of neighborhoods. Didn't care for those crappy slot homes for example.

Context... The Sloan Lake area and specifically along (the east side of) Sheridan should be an 'area of change.' Similarly, the area between Colfax and Sloan's should also be an area of change. This site is just SW of an already existing commercial use and in the same area as as the Saint Anthony's redevelopment. Additionally, it's a fricken parking lot; no history is being lost.

The elections should be very interesting. My fave Council President Albus Brooks is being challenged. If he goes I'll give up.

Originally Posted by twister244

However, in other areas, such as Rino Union Station, Arapahoe Square, and maybe even the upcoming River Mile area, there isn't a ton of "outrage" about new development in those areas.

Uhh, those areas aren't "neighborhoods" with any kind of residential history. RiNO was (mostly) an industrial area. No reason for controversy in these places.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

But if we are actually going to grow as a city and meet the great demand for urban living, density will need to occur in all neighborhoods. The Five Pointses, Overlands, Hilltops, and Berkleys. These days it seems that all established residential neighborhoods, whether rich, poor, or recently gentrified, are opposing new development. Arapahoe Square and River Mile can’t absorb anywhere near enough residents to meet demand.

Hold 'er there, partner


Source

A good number of builders haven't even built to the density allowed. I'd assert that there's plenty of room for added density w/o destroying historically significant neighborhoods.

At the margin or more precisely the edge of neighborhoods, like along Federal or Sheridan for example... sure, fine. Berkeley is a bit sacred to me but there has been some change along Tennyson Street. Hilltop is a no-hoper and it's not about me, rather it's a matter of 'picking your battles.' Overland which straddles Sante Fe makes sense I'd think.

Five points is already changing rapidly and the 'new RiNo' area including Lawrence to Blake and from Broadway to Downing is a yuge area of change. The whole Sun Valley area is also a target of yuge change.

Thinking a little further outside the box there's no reason the Leetsdale corridor couldn't add a lot of density. There's no shortage of land to go vertical on.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

I got a good chuckle out of adding density in Hilltop But Agent Orange: Point well-taken. Overland is scrape central right now with new build duplex's everywhere.

Anyone know of any lots for sale in East Colfax with MU zoning?

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Hold 'er there, partner


Source

A good number of builders haven't even built to the density allowed. I'd assert that there's plenty of room for added density w/o destroying historically significant neighborhoods.

At the margin or more precisely the edge of neighborhoods, like along Federal or Sheridan for example... sure, fine. Berkeley is a bit sacred to me but there has been some change along Tennyson Street. Hilltop is a no-hoper and it's not about me, rather it's a matter of 'picking your battles.' Overland which straddles Sante Fe makes sense I'd think.

Five points is already changing rapidly and the 'new RiNo' area including Lawrence to Blake and from Broadway to Downing is a yuge area of change. The whole Sun Valley area is also a target of yuge change.

Thinking a little further outside the box there's no reason the Leetsdale corridor couldn't add a lot of density. There's no shortage of land to go vertical on.

The Leetsdale corridor and east/southeast is exactly where not to density. It’s far and incredibly slow to get around/into the city, crappy transit access, no highway access. Getting across Cherry Creek takes forever. It’s nobody’s first choice of where to live.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The Leetsdale corridor and east/southeast is exactly where not to density. It’s far and incredibly slow to get around/into the city, crappy transit access, no highway access. Getting across Cherry Creek takes forever. It’s nobody’s first choice of where to live.

That's why So Broadway/Speer/Leetsdale should be the next light rail corridor.

Aside from the obvious close-in areas, there's no reason that other parts of Denver couldn't densify as well. How 'bout So Colorado Blvd, especially the area from Evans south to Yale and Colorado Blvd east to I-25 for example? Not sure if being in two different counties makes a diff or not.

[twister244]

Now I finally know what's under construction tucked away back behind that Midtown industrial building (which is now being demoed) on Brighton....

https://theknow.denverpost.com/2018/04/0...room-new-rino-venue-opening-2018/181610/

This is a pretty cool looking project actually. What's even cooler is it came out of left field and went straight to construction.