Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive
I can candidly acknowledge I lack the intellectual capacity...
However, what I could do is search my memory banks and two distinctive projects came to mind; one is an office building the other a condo building.
Designed by Pelli Clarke Pelli, this 35-story office project is under construction. Trammell Crow is the developer and the building was gobbled up by Google, all 793,883 square feet not counting the ground floor retail.
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/63338684/block185.6.jpg)
Courtesy of Pelli Clarke Pelli Architects / STG Design (Steelblue) via Curbed Austin |
That looks fantastic! I knew Google already has a skyscraper in Austin, but I didn't know about their new planned one until now. I'd love to see something like that in Denver one day. I'm still holding onto the hope that we'll be getting 1900 Lawrence because that's the closest comparable thing we have planned right now... but with the pandemic and the recession and the civil unrest, who knows if that project will ever be realized?
On a side-note, its projects like this that make me wish that 650 17th had gotten built. Yeah, I know it was very much a pie-in-the-sky from the get-go, but I did love its design, and had it been realized, I have no doubt it would have raised architectural standards in this town (both figuratively and literally).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive
|
This one too looks fantastic! I'm picturing something like this with the palm-trees replaced with conifers and the cladding painted to emulate the look of red sandstone stonework (or, hell, even better, use actual sandstone stonework, though that would probably be a little pricier), and that would be perfect for Denver.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dirt
The Golden Triangle is undergoing a major zoning change, which may make these types of projects less feasible in the future. Ultimately, it all boils down to this. If you want an attractive high rise, for better looking high rise office buildings attract large corporations to relocate their HQs to Denver. For better looking high rise residential buildings, find ways for developers to build condos instead of apartments. Many housing developers still have cold feet for building condos due to the condo defects laws, despite the law reform, and lenders much more so. High rises are a big boy game and the big boys are going to be extremely careful and conservative with cost. Apartments are just a much better bet at the moment and aesthetics aren't as important in the rental market.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by laniroj
Your post is spot on, as usual. A couple of specific comments on the GT zoning, being that I am actively trying to make the new zoning work for a mid-rise. I can, with honesty and confidence, state that the new zoning does not seem to accomplish better architecture, point towers, or some of the other social objectives of the rewrite such as affordable housing incentives. Several big drawbacks -
1) Most incentives are negated by the parking FAR manipulation. Instead of making parking maximums, the City is being a chicken and instead not requiring parking but applying parking toward FAR. Current code doesn't count parking toward FAR, so that's a major setback for design in general because 1) the parking will still get built, it will just service smaller projects with fewer # units, but still take the same crappy parking podium form, and 2) Denver won't get any projects financed w/substantially less parking (<0.5:1) unless it's a municipal requirement - the money side will simply adjust, build smaller projects with similar parking ratios as now and stay within the applicable zoning constraints.
2) The point towers the code wants to promote only seems to deal with LARGE LOTS - ironically, the guidelines also inadvertently seem to encourage the parking podium format because the point tower guidelines leave out small lots. Small lots are essentially unable to take advantage of point tower form because their FAR maxes out at (I Believe) 7:!. What good is a height limit if the FAR rules the height of the vast majority of parcels in a zone district? For example, for easy math, a 10,000 SF lot could only get up to a max of 70,000 square feet with incentives, or 7 stories - not sure what you all think but 7 stories can be stick framed and to me, a 2x6 piece of wood does not build a tower!
Anyway, the plan is seemingly going in the wrong direction but I'm hopeful it will morph into something positive.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays
On the small lot, you pretty much need a low parking ratio for any major tower. Parking is geometrically inefficient on small floorplates, especially with a tower's core and big structural elements through the garage. On 10,000 sf, you'd get what, 25 spaces per level if you're lucky, and likely fewer?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kemachs
Also looking forward to the responses on this. One thing I think would go a long way is some simple articulation and setbacks. The most unattractive thing about the Denver box apartments is just that - they are unimaginative boxes. I realize this probably has to do with cramming as many units in as possible, but I wish architects could find a way to efficiently design these buildings to be both profitable for the developer and also be a positive addition to the neighborhood. I'd like to hear the perspective from an architect, and how much the developer dictates even the shape of the building. One of the worst offenders in the basic box trend is 99 South Broadway...what a missed opportunity, and kind of a sad case where the neighborhood pushed back on height, so the architect/developer was like "screw it, how's this clunker for a neighborhood anchor instead?"
There's another important argument for the use of higher quality materials, but people will always bring it back to cost and developers have much more ability to value engineer in this arena (even though companies that build trash developments like Trammell Crow are LOADED, and would easily turn a profit in the Denver market with less value engineering). I think with the right approach and design though, even a structure with low-cost exterior cladding can be visually interesting. Either of the examples that TakeFive showcased above show that, while quality materials will certainly make a project shine, the form of the building has a bigger impact on its contribution to the cityscape.
I think one of the main issues we have today is that architects have become more and more removed from the neighborhood or even the city they are creating a proposal for - when a firm in Austin is churning out these millenial mills for Arapahoe Square/River North/etc. in Denver, I don't think they care about what the neighborhood will look/feel like in 10, 20 years. And to put a fine point on it... I don't think Mayor Hancock gives a sh*t either, or he would've given the planning department more power to both shape new development and preserve what made Denver's older 'hoods unique (case in point, the ongoing sterilization of Tennyson St).
|
Thanks to everyone for explaining the city regulations and their direct impact on a lot of these projects a little better to me. I've seen the zoning and building codes brought up time and time again here and on DenverInfill, and I've never quite understood them or taken the time to study them in any great detail (but then again, have most people?).
With that said, this raises two additional questions from me:
(1) How do these building codes and regulations in Denver compare to those in other cities, say, for example, Austin? Why is it that Austin is pushing forward with projects like the aforementioned Google skyscraper, but Denver is still stuck with unimaginative boxes? What do other cities do differently from us (and
better than us) that we can learn from and apply here?
(2) What can ordinary people like most of us on this forum do about it? Do we write a letter to the City Council? Start a petition? Vote? Those of us who live here are affected (either directly or indirectly) by these building regulations, and I'd like to know what recourse we, as ordinary but concerned citizens, have in trying to address our grievances with this current state of affairs.
Appreciate all feedback and suggestions.
Now, on a more positive note, and to go back to my initial post about improving an existing design: in general, I think most of the proposed mid-rise and high-rise projects currently in the works would benefit from incorporating more setbacks and rooftop features (like slopes, pointy roofs, and spires) to make these buildings look more architecturally interesting and also more "Colorado-like". Whenever I go skiing, I notice that a lot of buildings up in the mountain towns have sloped roofs, so I thought it would make a lot of apartment buildings in Denver look a little more visually interesting if they tried to incorporate that design feature (though I don't know how possible this is with the new "green roofs" requirement).
As for a specific example, the proposed apartment building on
11th and Bannock:
(1) incorporate a setback at around the bottom third, and then again at the two-thirds mark (which would make it somewhat resemble the Country Club Towers if the gap between them was filled in). The setbacks can be used to provide terraces, rooftop gardens, or other outdoor space for the apartments directly adjacent to them (thereby elevating the value of those apartments).
(2) raise the building's height from 19-storeys up to 24 (in order to make up for the loss of rentable floorspace due to the setbacks). Not quite a skyscraper, but at least it adds to the shape and form of the city's skyline. (I don't know if there are any height restrictions on that particular lot, so right now I'm operating off the assumption that there aren't).
(3) add a sloped roof in order to house the mechanical functions like the elevator mechanisms, HVAC, etc. (otherwise housed in two ugly and jarring blocks just sitting on top of the building's flat roof in the current proposed design). The added benefit of the sloped roof is that it looks a little more like the Evans School building right next to it (instead of just being a big ugly grey block that towers over the smaller and nicer-looking older building).
(4) repaint the building in a red sandstone color (again, to mesh up better with the Evans School building), instead of the ugly grey in the current rendering. Doesn't have to use actual sandstone in its construction, just paint the cladding to look nicer. And I doubt red paint really costs that much more than grey, so why not?
Prev
...
Linear Mode
