DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[tommyboy733]

Here's a few projects. Some were completed in 2018/2019 so maybe stale but I had all the pictures anyway...

6900 Layton.

[IMG]IMG_20200205_095028875_HDR [/IMG]

[IMG]IMG_20200205_094352346_HDR [/IMG]

[IMG]IMG_20200205_094846149_HDR[/IMG]


DTC Union Apartments is under construction (SWC of Union and Niagara)

[IMG]IMG_20200205_094114046 [/IMG]

Here's a rendering from their website. https://daegroupllc.com/project/dtc-union-apartments/

[IMG]NE-CORNER_DTC_17509-1080x720 [/IMG]

The extended stay slated for the hotel/apartment building (?) on the NWC of Chenago and Quebec was fenced off with crews on-site. Demo appears imminent.

[IMG]IMG_20200205_094810467_HDR[/IMG]

One DTC west.

[IMG]IMG_20200205_093415081_HDR [/IMG]

Here are the existing apartments for commentary, which have been finished for several years. Really like these buildings, nice street presence. The retail has been surprisingly successful. Better than many other buildings in the city IMO. More of these please.

[IMG]IMG_20200205_093831254_HDR[/IMG]

Wow look at that streetscape!

[IMG]IMG_20200205_093633540_HDR [/IMG]

Here's some photos on the east side of the I-25. I'm very interested in how "older" suburban areas transition. Most of the originally office buildings had large sites of 5-10 acres. Projects such as these are on smaller sites of 0.5 - 2.0 acres.

50Fifty DTC, completed in 2018. Integrated parking underneath the building. urban form

[IMG]IMG_20200205_095409815_HDR[/IMG]

Here's the hotel between Remax and Syracuse. difficult site. suburban form.

[IMG]IMG_20200205_095252352_HDR[/IMG]

Denver Corporate Center developed retail on their excess surface parking. While more of a typical suburban retail strip, I found this interesting in the context of "older" suburban areas transitioning and evolving.

[IMG]IMG_20200205_110745003_HDR [/IMG]

I've put "older" in quotations because this area was developed in the 70s and 80s, hardly old by city standards.

I've heard the office building proposed on SEC ff Union and Syracuse has been cancelled, so that's out.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Thanks for the photos! While DTC is still far more car-dependent than any of us would probably like, I'm hopeful that the Belleview Station master planned development will be much better than the office park on the east side of the highway. 6900 Layton is shaping up to be one of my favorite buildings in that area.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Upzoning and allowing more density and "scraping all of Denver's history" are completely different things. You don't need to dip a whole neighborhood in amber to preserve history. You can save contributing structures up to whole blocks if you want to. Upzoning relieves the pressure valve across the entire city by allowing project opportunities in more places, building the necessary capacity quicker. If 100 people want to live in Curtis Park, you could scrape 50 houses and build new houses to accommodate them all, or you could scrape a quarter block and built a 4 story condo building to accommodate all of them.

I guess the classic NIMBY response here is: well how do we prevent this upzoning approach from resulting in full on Tennyson fucked-upness (which I think all sides can agree is not a desirable outcome). Is that addressed through design overlay? Or so we just tell them to just with it......your neighborhood will end up like a Tennyson/Sloans Lake hell hole, but its for the greater good of society.

[The Dirt]

Tennyson is fucked up architecture-wise, though, right? It's not a density issue. I agree that the architecture leave a lot to be desired, but design overlays don't necessarily result in results that everyone likes, either. It's tough.

What's this about Sloan's Lake, though? What part of it is a hell hole?

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Does anybody here go to the YIMBY Denver events, such as the happy hour tomorrow?

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Tennyson is fucked up architecture-wise, though, right? It's not a density issue. I agree that the architecture leave a lot to be desired, but design overlays don't necessarily result in results that everyone likes, either. It's tough.

What's this about Sloan's Lake, though? What part of it is a hell hole?

Hell hole might be a bit of a strong word, and it's not about the density. But I think the problem is every bit as much about the urban design as it is about the architecture. This one in particular is case and point for me. The cheap materials I can almost live with but I really don't care for the idea of the front door of my townhome almost literally being in somebody elses' private alley. In this particular case, the building on the right could have simply reversed orientation and shared the access path with their neighbors like the narrow streets humans have put between their buildings for millennia. But instead, it all seems to forget that buildings typically have a discernible front and back side.

This is why I often harp so much on the idea of parceling off alley lots and developing there instead (creating something like a London "mews") - or making the primary historic home into a larger, multi-family kind of structure, or both. Denver's 125' deep lots otherwise encourage this other kind of 🞵🞵🞵🞵 - driveway cuts potentially every 50'-100' on blocks that already have alleys. This might seem like a reasonable way for a single developer to maximize density on their own but there's no way anybody can tell me with a straight face that something like this is an ideal outcome for maximizing density on the scale of a whole block. ESPECIALLY considering that real alleys are two-sided, whereas many of these private alleys are only used on a single side - this creates redundant infrastructure. Logic would suggest that everybody leaves a little developable land on the table this way.

The way you would maximize density on a block, not to mention create a better human experience, would almost surely look more like this one, just a few blocks from the other. Granted, the developer had control of the whole block here, but I also believe this kind of outcome could be planned for.

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Does anybody here go to the YIMBY Denver events, such as the happy hour tomorrow?

I've gone a few times. I've seen Mr. Denver Infill there a few times, as well.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Tennyson is fucked up architecture-wise, though, right? It's not a density issue. I agree that the architecture leave a lot to be desired, but design overlays don't necessarily result in results that everyone likes, either. It's tough.

What's this about Sloan's Lake, though? What part of it is a hell hole?

As noted above its not just poor architecture, its poor urban design. I have sympathy for the argument that upzoning and density ruined what was once a very nice, walkable, and enjoyable neighborhood. And I guess I haven't seen a convincing argument to push back on the NIMBYs that say 'Density will just turn (Park Hill, Curtis Park, Mayfair, Wash Park) into the next Tennyson'. Though I do think some of the proposals in the neighborhood plans (preserving building facades when adding units, enhanced design overlay, etc) take steps towards addressing what happened to Tennyson.

Sloans lake from 16th-19th and Federal-Tennyson is nearly as awful as Tennyson.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

As noted above its not just poor architecture, its poor urban design. I have sympathy for the argument that upzoning and density ruined what was once a very nice, walkable, and enjoyable neighborhood. And I guess I haven't seen a convincing argument to push back on the NIMBYs that say 'Density will just turn (Park Hill, Curtis Park, Mayfair, Wash Park) into the next Tennyson'. Though I do think some of the proposals in the neighborhood plans (preserving building facades when adding units, enhanced design overlay, etc) take steps towards addressing what happened to Tennyson.

Sloans lake from 16th-19th and Federal-Tennyson is nearly as awful as Tennyson.

This is what happens when you move from an over-arching zoning theory down to street level reality.

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Curtis Park - why not? Why can't we allow the building of 3-5 story apartments, condos, townhomes across the neighborhood? It doesn't mean that it'll happen on every block. In fact, more more areas that we allow development, the more spread out the impact will be.

I made this exact argument when this was all debated months ago. Except in that discussion the hyper-focus was on the 'missing middle'.

When the discussion moved over to Curtis Park I recall specifically suggesting that if you were to scrape less historically significant homes or existing commercial, why not allow mid-level density apartments instead of just 'missing middle' units. While I was hesitant to make blanket zoning changes I saw plenty of opportunity for more density in Curtis Park.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

...Though I do think some of the proposals in the neighborhood plans (preserving building facades when adding units, enhanced design overlay, etc) take steps towards addressing what happened to Tennyson.

Sloans lake from 16th-19th and Federal-Tennyson is nearly as awful as Tennyson.

Am I the only one that doesn't think Tennyson is that bad? I know every building doesn't have great street frontage, but I mean... expecting 100% wonderful super-smart, perfectly-designed architecture is a bit much. It's denser and has more walkable retail than it did before, so I would count that as a win. I feel like people focus on the bad examples and then paint the entire neighborhood as "terrible" to discourage further development. "Did you see that one apartment on the corner that looks like a turd? Yeah, we shouldn't build anything ever again anywhere near it because it might maybe turn out just as bad." I'd rather use the bad example to get better development down the road.


And the worst part of the east side of Sloans Lake/Jefferson Park/West Colfax is not the architecture or localized urban design, but that the city's zoning updates did not really consider how to turn a car-centric city into a walkable urban area. Some areas were upzoned or overlaid allowing denser development, but the entire area from 23rd to Colfax, Federal to Perry is more or less devoid of non-residential uses. There was opportunity to encourage mixed-use or retail on certain corners and definitely along 17th, so that all those people moving into new townhomes could walk somewhere, but that didn't happen. Instead you have a huge neighborhood that people have to drive out of to go to work, eat, or shop.


As a final note - upzone it all. Every city-center or city-close neighborhood should have dense development. 100 story towers in West Highland to block the light. 500 foot walls to obstruct precious mountain views. If you live close enough to downtown to spend less than 20 minutes getting there by bus you shouldn't be able to fight dense development. Age does not equal "historic" either. Just because your hovel was built in 1900 doesn't mean we have to save it. Is it architecturally significant or can you document how it contributed to the history of Denver? Then save it. Is it just 100 years old, full of lead pipes and aluminum wiring and you just thought that the city would never grow or mature beyond some rose-colored past and you don't want to live next to apartments? TEAR IT DOWN. Do you want a single-family home with a nice yard and quiet streets? Move to the suburbs, tolerate the drive. You want equitable housing and equal opportunity for everyone? Dense apartments are a way to build affordably - let them be built in neighborhoods that are really really close to where good jobs are. Let them be built with no parking to save money. Assuming somewhere else nearby can take all the development so your picture perfect little suburban life within spitting distance of the CBD can continue is absurd.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

As noted above its not just poor architecture, its poor urban design. I have sympathy for the argument that upzoning and density ruined what was once a very nice, walkable, and enjoyable neighborhood. And I guess I haven't seen a convincing argument to push back on the NIMBYs that say 'Density will just turn (Park Hill, Curtis Park, Mayfair, Wash Park) into the next Tennyson'. Though I do think some of the proposals in the neighborhood plans (preserving building facades when adding units, enhanced design overlay, etc) take steps towards addressing what happened to Tennyson.

Sloans lake from 16th-19th and Federal-Tennyson is nearly as awful as Tennyson.

The whining about Tennyson is tiresome. It's two freakin' blocks on the west side and the corner of 44th and Tennyson where the slot home wave was centered and where a particularly egregious project was slapped up. Two blocks of questionable development does not ruin a neighborhood. Especially when said two blocks replaced a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 mix of pre-WW2 dilapidated 🞵🞵🞵🞵 and 1950's era ranch 🞵🞵🞵🞵. 🞵🞵🞵🞵 that wiped out 1920's era and earlier 🞵🞵🞵🞵.

The same goes for the Sloan's Lake area, but the T-Alley's with the garden plot centers made for a poor upzoning area without the ability to mass condemn and replot the land. Chalk one up to organic upzoning that doesn't mesh well with the current infrastructure.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that what was lost was of no consequence and what replaced it was of no consequence. Grandma Hernandaz''s house sucked and no one missed it. But what matters was that old and tired 🞵🞵🞵🞵 that has been replaced has been allowed by zoning to gain a sense of permanence and our feeble minds cannot process incremental change any longer because of this. Short of offering frontal lobotomy's to NIMBY's and the old so that they can maintain their Mayfield-esque sense of permanence I'd say an upzoning of the entire city is the prescription.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

I guess the classic NIMBY response here is: well how do we prevent this upzoning approach from resulting in full on Tennyson fucked-upness (which I think all sides can agree is not a desirable outcome). Is that addressed through design overlay? Or so we just tell them to just with it......your neighborhood will end up like a Tennyson/Sloans Lake hell hole, but its for the greater good of society.

Personally, I do think building homes for people is far more important than aesthetics. I don’t believe design overlays or review boards are the answer either; they’ll add more costs, delays, and will end up meaning less housing built overall. That’s great for the already wealthy who want to live in a museum city and can afford to, but that’s not a city I want to live in. I’d rather live in a dense, walkable city where the middle and working classes can afford to live in a complete neighborhood. I can’t find it now, but a while back I came across an old ad from the 1920s in a Seattle newspaper about the menace of craftsman bungalows taking over the city. Nothing new under the sun. Give me a dense, concrete filled Japanese city where living a physically healthy and environmentally responsible lifestyle is achievable for everyone, rather than a city of South Park Hills where the plebeians get to enjoy driving through once a year to ogle the architecture overladen with Christmas lights, and then return to tract homes 40 miles away in Weld County.

Part of what makes Sloans/Jeff Park so horrific is that it’s ALL slot homes. And what makes slot homes so damn ugly is *parking*. The need for everyone to have a two car garage along with our extremely prescriptive zoning is what resulted in the Slot Home Horror Show. I don’t blame developers, I blame federal and local policies over decades that have resulted in poor urban design. We’re still holding on to a bizarre, modernist, racist, utopian vision of city living from the 1930s when we now know how exclusionary and harmful that vision is for the planet and for our society.

If the zoning in the city were more permissive and flexible and if developers/homeowners could decide for themselves how much parking they’d like to consume, I am sure we’d have a wider diversity of housing types. As The Dirt was mentioning, if we built midrise condo/apartment buildings in walkable neighborhoods, we wouldn’t need to scrape every single SFH. Look at Cap Hill as an example. Despite a midcentury boom of missing middle housing, the vast majority of pre-war brick buildings were left standing. We need to start with addressing the disastrous policy mistakes in the housing market (both on the supply and demand side) before we get to the extraordinarily privileged point of telling people what their homes are allowed to look like.

[TakeFive]

Not according to Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval

Originally Posted by mojiferous

It's denser and has more walkable retail than it did before, so I would count that as a win.

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/01/31/denver-development-tennyson-apartments-business/

Sandoval said as a result, the corridor that once thrived on retail is now forcing many businesses out.

“They can turn it all into residential, which I think is an unintended consequence of that zone district- in my personal opinion,” Sandovol continued, “as retail, you pay higher property tax than you do as a residential.”

“From 44th north to 46th, a lot of the retail has been wiped out and so what I’ve been working on with the Regis Berkley United Neighbors, which is the registered neighborhood organization for this area, is what’s called an active street use overlay, which would require retail or active street use along the Tennyson corridor.”

When Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval took office in July, she knew part of her mission was to do something about the rapid development on Tennyson.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Short of offering frontal lobotomy's to NIMBY's and the old so that they can maintain their Mayfield-esque sense of permanence I'd say an upzoning of the entire city is the prescription.

Rabble-rouser!

[DenvertoLA]

Does anyone have the new jailbreak for bizjournals ? Mine stopped working when trying to read this article.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2020/02/06/denver-condo-development-rebound.html

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

Does anyone have the new jailbreak for bizjournals ? Mine stopped working when trying to read this article.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2020/02/06/denver-condo-development-rebound.html

If you're using the same one I posted some time ago, I'm suffering the same fate. The good news is that only occasionally do they use this format for feature articles; otherwise the work-around still works fine.

[tommyboy733]

I'm lean towards agreeing with mojiferous and wong21fr.

I think there could be some improvements to vehicle circulation using the alleys. I don't like have 5-10 driveways crossing the sidewalk one one block, but I'm fine with the architecture and certainly like the density.

As for Sandoval "They can turn it all into residential.... From 44th north to 46th, a lot of the retail has been wiped out"

That's just simply not true, here's an aerial image from 2013 vs. September 2019.... the commercial is in red, none of the buildings have been removed, can't speak for the businesses/tenants themselves. Maybe some vacated. But only shitting old houses have demolished for these new new buildings.

[IMG]before and after[/IMG]

"and so what I’ve been working on with the Regis Berkley United Neighbors, which is the registered neighborhood organization for this area, is what’s called an active street use overlay, which would require retail or active street use along the Tennyson corridor.”

Doesn't Main Street MS zoning require ground floor retail vs general MX - Mixed use? I would have preferred more ground floor retail, seems this entire corridor should have been MS instead of MX.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Not according to Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval

You don't know this are very well do you? Probably a bit hard to walk it on Google Maps from Arizona.

mojiferous is absolutely correct that there is more walkable retail along the Tennyson corridor now than there was 10-15 years ago. Councilwoman Sandoval is correct that several retail spots closed down along 44th to 46th over the same period. But, the retail center of gravity of Tennyson is from 38th to 42nd and the retail that Sandoval is referring too wasn't quite as glamorous (i.e. yuppie white) and was more service oriented. But it certainly isn't as if dozens of retailers along this two-block stretch are gone and replaced by dozens of slot homes. More like a dozen houses and a half dozen businesses have been replaced by dozens of slot homes.

She has a valid point on whether development should have been required to have ground-floor retail. It would have benefited Tennyson more to extend the retail corridor along with adding more residents and would have also have prevented all of the slot homes from popping up there. But that was a zoning decision and I bet there was probably some old fogies bitching about potential new retail and losing their god-given street parking. So instead they ended up with slot home heaven.

[twister244]

As a Jeff Park resident, I have mixed feelings about "slot homes". Not all of them look horrific.... Some in my neighborhood don't look half bad. Others? Yeah, they look like 🞵🞵🞵🞵. I think it just depends on the developer. I do like what is happening near 25th/Elliot. There's a new development that has slots, but ground floor mixed used facing the street. The building looks absolutely horrendous, but it will offer the neighborhood new options for retail/restaurants/etc. There's a new development across the street (behind my building) that just broke ground that accomplishes the same goals but looks nicer per the renderings.

I totally get wanting to make sure we ensure quality to a degree. But... as others have said, we continue to maintain a housing shortage... so we kinda need to also make sure we accommodate that demand. There's no reason to suggest Denver won't continue to be a very attractive place to live for all walks of life.

[DenvertoLA]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

If you're using the same one I posted some time ago, I'm suffering the same fate. The good news is that only occasionally do they use this format for feature articles; otherwise the work-around still works fine.

I am, that was clutch

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

You don't know this are very well do you? Probably a bit hard to walk it on Google Maps from Arizona.

I resemble that and I'm happy to rely on the person that both grew up in the neighborhood and is now raising her own family there.

You do a drive-by and suddenly you're an expert.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Councilwoman Sandoval is correct that several retail spots closed down along 44th to 46th over the same period. But the retail that Sandoval is referring too wasn't quite as glamorous (i.e. yuppie white) and was more service oriented.

Yes, I can easily recall this area being a fun place to stop and shop. Did so many times. I also realize that change is happening.

For the record, the last time we cycled through this topic, I specifically called for the area between Sheridan and a street or two east of Tennyson should allow mid-rise development as apposed to restricting it to 'missing middle' units - just as I did for Curtis Park (with qualifications).