DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[spr8364]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

A city the size of Denver will not be able to turn enough lights off at night to make the stars visible. There really is no point trying to make that happen. The argument is illogical.

Reducing the amount of unnecessary light is one of several parts of Dark Skies. But, a big and easy part of it is making sure that all the lights are full cut off and only shine down. Not up and not to the side. So, basically design lighting scenarios that only light the things that need lighting.

A lot of suburbs are starting to address this. But, to replace all the existing lighting with dark skies fixtures would be difficult if not impossible. I think it would be best to just reign it in at the perimeter. Over time, landowners and communities could replace their lighting with dark sky compliant fixtures.

[TakeFive]

Speaking of healthy lighting

Do you recall when LED's first came out there was a kerfuffle over the impact of the pure white, more of a blue-white glow including their health affects. Some felt they were depressing in comparison to the warm, comfy yellow-white of incandescent bulbs. Fast forward...

I recently picked up an LED desk lamp with one of those bendable 12" necks for the purpose of highlighting one of my art pieces. I love it. It has 3 light modes and 3 brightness levels. It has the original LED blue-white, a traditional warm yellow-white and a 'compromise' setting to pick among. It's only 5 watts but has 240 lumens. I liked it so much that I bought two more lamps. One highlights my Euro-cafe painting, one my wall of 5 southwestern pieces and a larger painting over my couch that's simply bottles of wine and a couple of glasses. At $15 each (Walmart) I 'invested' all of $45 and my mood has been brighter ever since.

[rds70]

It looks like the tower proposal for the old La Loma site at 26th and Alcott is back. A concept plan review has been submitted to the City:

Concept - A 15-story project with a 12-story condo/apartment (blended) tower sitting on a 3-story parking podium which is wrapped with additional apartments. There are 2 courtyards on top of the podium, at the base of the tower, that activate the site and serve as the primary amenity level for all tenants to experience.

[TakeFive]

That's Progress

Denver now thinks nude dancing should be affordable.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by rds70

It looks like the tower proposal for the old La Loma site at 26th and Alcott is back. A concept plan review has been submitted to the City:

It's a monster too, 643 units!

[fleury]

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

A city the size of Denver will not be able to turn enough lights off at night to make the stars visible. There really is no point trying to make that happen. The argument is illogical.

We can agree to disagree. Not illogical at all. I doubt the cities of the future will be anything like the cities we live in today. Excessive lighting is a huge energy drain and causes light pollution, addressing issues now rather than later puts us in a better position for the future.

Maybe a pie in the sky, but Denver is a forward thinking city...so its not too far out there. When I think of Denver in 100 years, I picture the Denver loop, bioswales in our streets, alternative transportation, bright stars, a clean and restored platte river, clean air, and nice tall net zero highrises. What I do not picture is Beijing - polluted, crowded, smog, and bright as the sun in the middle of the night. Not sure why our immediate response to dark sky would be negative. I would imagine anyone who loves the city & state to be pretty supportive.

[UrbanT]

https://www.jirsahedrick.com/portfolio-projects/26th-alcott/

Not sure if these are current but here are some renderings ^

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by fleury

What I do not picture is Beijing - polluted, crowded, smog, and bright as the sun in the middle of the night. Not sure why our immediate response to dark sky would be negative. I would imagine anyone who loves the city & state to be pretty supportive.

With respect to pollution and smog, China is spending amazing amounts to change. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-23/electric-buses-are-hurting-the-oil-industry

China adds a London-sized electric bus fleet every five weeks

The numbers are staggering. China had about 99 percent of the 385,000 electric buses on the roads worldwide in 2017, accounting for 17 percent of the country’s entire fleet. Every five weeks, Chinese cities add 9,500 of the zero-emissions transporters—the equivalent of London’s entire working fleet, according Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

[The Dirt]

Not sure if these have been posted anywhere. SAR's got some renderings of undisclosed projects, but based on the renderings it's clear that they're the two 8 story projects at 18th and Marion.

All images are from (see additional images there):
http://sararch.com/projects/in-progress/undisclosed-project-3/
http://sararch.com/projects/in-progress/undisclosed-project-4/

Broadstone Uptown West (west side of Marion St.):





18th and Marion (east side of Marion St.):





Both projects side by side:

[InfillJunkie]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Great logic. Don't criticize ugly architecture cause it won't be there for more than 30 years. Lol.

I'm glad you got a chuckle out of my comment.

[TakeFive]

Every Day I Learn

Robert.hampton... Eat your heart out (I kid)

https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news...lder-eyes-downtown-phoenix-for-140m.html

High Street Residential... is in escrow to buy a vacant parcel of land in downtown Phoenix with plans to build a $140 million mixed-use project. To be built in two phases, the first phase will include a seven-story, 342-unit apartment complex and 7,000 square feet of ground-floor retail and restaurant space

An urban paseo spanning from Fourth to Sixth avenues will be designed to accommodate walking, biking and vehicle traffic, Tuchin said. It will include shade structures and be heavily landscaped.

Total development cost for both phases is estimated between $140 million and $145 million, he said.

And who is High Street Residential?

I recalled reading about High Street Residential in the Dallas Business Journal but had no idea they were a wholly owned subsidiary of Dallas-based Trammell Crow Co. In contrast to TRC or Trammell Crow Residential, High Street seems to focus on urban centers and is more of a project by project creation including mixed-use as opposed to the cookie cutter approach taken by TCR with their more pedestrian Alexan brand.

I have no idea why Trammell Crow Co has not pursued Denver projects with their more upscale, unique High Street Residential subsidiary? But at least they sure love Denver for their more pedestrian Alexan branded projects.

[mhays]

I understand that Trammell Crow Co. has no relationship to Trammell Crow Residential.

[SnyderBock]

That's a Phoenix development ^

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

I understand that Trammell Crow Co. has no relationship to Trammell Crow Residential.

Ah, so that's what I missed. I kept doing searches and couldn't figure out the difference but that would make sense. Thanks.

[DenvertoLA]

So, thinking in terms of Two Tabor getting off the ground, 1144 only has leased 10/26 floors. Partials may be gone on others.

To those with knowledge on what demand is needed for a building like Two Tabor to start construction, on what side does this information give weight? Starting construction, or stalling out

http://1144fifteenth.com/availabilities/

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

So, thinking in terms of Two Tabor getting off the ground, 1144 only has leased 10/26 floors. Partials may be gone on others.

To those with knowledge on what demand is needed for a building like Two Tabor to start construction, on what side does this information give weight? Starting construction, or stalling out

http://1144fifteenth.com/availabilities/

According to an August DBJ article they were 86% leased with only 37, 31, 27 and 26 available https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2018/08/09/1144-fifteenth-leases.html

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Chucolo

Did a tour of the Confluence during last month's Doors Open, and I asked the person conducting the tour about the lights. His response is that the building's developers were still working with the neighborhood to come to some sort of accommodation with the lighting; that the building received a number of complaints when it initially tested the outside illumination. Not sure what the building was doing the other night, but the tour guide said the building's lighting was sophisticated; it could do a number of patterns, including waterfalls. Whatever was being displayed may be the best of what the Confluence can muster in light of neighborhood concerns.

The developers of buildings like the Confluence and 1144 Fifteenth simply need to STOP capitulating to this NIMBY contingent opposed to exterior architectural illumination - it comes at the expense of making our city look dull and less engaging. What these neighborhood groups don't understand is that living in the epicenter of a major city involves lights and accent illumination to enhance the aesthetics of your skyline; this is commonplace in virtualy every city I can think of. The only way to convince those who are so offended by exterior illumination is by not giving them a say in how YOU choose to illuminate YOUR building, especially when it is not out of character with lighting designs that are common in our counterpart cities. The anti-lighting contingent is Denver is becoming increasingly ridiculous and unreasonable, as their efforts have been boosted by developers who so easily bend to their every wish.

[InfillJunkie]

Originally Posted by Matt

The developers of buildings like the Confluence and 1144 Fifteenth simply need to STOP capitulating to this NIMBY contingent opposed to exterior architectural illumination - it comes at the expense of making our city look dull and less engaging. What these neighborhood groups don't understand is that living in the epicenter of a major city involves lights and accent illumination to enhance the aesthetics of your skyline; this is commonplace in virtualy every city I can think of. The only way to convince those who are so offended by exterior illumination is by not giving them a say in how YOU choose to illuminate YOUR building, especially when it is not out of character with lighting designs that are common in our counterpart cities. The anti-lighting contingent is Denver is becoming increasingly ridiculous and unreasonable, as their efforts have been boosted by developers who so easily bend to their every wish.

I find it funny that for a city like Denver, who has never leaned toward the glitz of architectural illumination, still manages to pull out the stops and garner top spots in magazines and newspapers nationwide for being a "best place to live".

[CONative]

Originally Posted by InfillJunkie

I find it funny that for a city like Denver, who has never leaned toward the glitz of architectural illumination, still manages to pull out the stops and garner top spots in magazines and newspapers nationwide for being a "best place to live".

Ha! Skyscrapers and illuminated buildings is hardly the care of most folks on what they believe is important to live happy in life.

[DenverInfill]

Exterior illumination is something that must be submitted to the city as part of the building's design and construction documents that are reviewed and approved before getting a building permit. Presumably, the city wouldn't approve exterior illumination that does not meet code or would be considered to have unacceptable negative impacts to those nearby. Therefore, if the city approved it, the developer should build it and turn the lights on.