DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[Robert.hampton]

Anyone have renderings for the projects at 601 e 17th and 1717 Washington? Looks like they’ve both been making steady progress through permitting and design review

[UrbanT]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Anyone have renderings for the projects at 601 e 17th and 1717 Washington? Looks like they’ve both been making steady progress through permitting and design review

I was right there yesterday. They have the lot fenced for 1717 Washington and the site is being cleared as well.

[Denver]

Here are some renderings of the new tower U/C at Belleview Station (4885 S Quebec Street)

The Beck Group has begun construction on its design-build project, the upscale high-rise tower in Denver’s tech center. The project uniquely blends hospitality services with residential urban living.

The firm broke ground on the North Tower in mid-September; it is the first of two planned high-rises on a three ½-acre site in the eastern corner of Belleview Station. Beck designed both towers.

The 609,000 SF, 20-story North Tower and its three levels of below-grade parking will be the first of its kind in Denver’s Tech Center, both from design and amenities standpoints.

Slated for completion in Spring 2025, the hi-rise will offer a soft-branded 175-room Residence Inn hotel and 189 luxury for-rent apartments. It offers expansive views of the city’s prominent skyline of mid- and high-rise buildings and the surrounding mountainous landscape.

The developer, Stonebridge Companies, and Beck envision the tower elegantly combining high-end hospitality services and luxury apartments into one building.

Designed with a nearly all-glass façade, the tower sits near a stretch of northbound I-25, providing high visibility of the building to passing traffic.

Building Offers Residents More Space, Flexibility and Lavish Amenities

The building’s apartments will provide more space, flexibility and top-notch amenities than neighboring residential towers. The apartments will have an average size of 1,300 SF, providing tenants with larger-than-normal living and storage spaces. Also, the building’s nine penthouses will have expanded layouts.

Most units will have balconies that enable tenants to enjoy Denver’s mountain views and access natural ventilation.

As for amenities, the building’s top level will feature an interior lounge for social gatherings. There is also an enhanced fitness center, concierge services, and an outdoor pool and spa. The building will also feature an ornamental staircase leading to a rooftop viewing deck.

The lobby will include a business center and a fitness facility for hotel guests. The other lower levels will also include hospitality-type amenities like a “grab-and-go” market and a bar. Next to the mailroom will be lockers for packages and a temperature-controlled storage area for hot and cold food deliveries.

[rds70]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

Anyone have renderings for the projects at 601 e 17th and 1717 Washington? Looks like they’ve both been making steady progress through permitting and design review

1717 Washington:

[rds70]

Here is a final rendering of the Parq II project at 10th and Cherokee:

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Is Parq II close to starting? This building will have pretty good street presence from Speer.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by rds70

1717 Washington:

Thx - looks like the same investor for the project across the alley at 601 e 17th, but different owner. Both are condo projects which is nice, and those two lots have always been pretty atrocious, will be nice to have a couple small projects weave the fabric of 17th back together.

[mishko27]

Originally Posted by Denver

Here are some renderings of the new tower U/C at Belleview Station (4885 S Quebec Street)

I honestly vastly prefer this to the initial Stonebridge project, which would have included a hotel and a LOT of office space, 11 floors to be exact. Considering the WFH shift, I think a stable population base of the apartments will serve the area better than offices (potentially) sitting empty.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by i4isoar

Interesting, and thanks for the info. I'm glad my hunch turned out to be correct, though I wonder where the 489' "official" figure cited by SSP and CTBUH came from.


Good point. There's a lot of properties and site-developments missing from that map. Though I wonder if there is an archive somewhere where the City keeps all of its architectural plans from over the years, and where we could do a Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request to see any site-development plans missing from the online map.

There is a place. Go to the clerk and recorder's office, they should be able to grab the recorded mylars for the site development plan or they'll already have them available electronically for you to look at.

[TakeFive]

The People Have Spoken

and 75% of da people want an immediate moratorium on all growth.




https://www.9news.com/article/news/local.../73-4661937c-b7a4-433e-866f-1df03612a7d8

Citing increased traffic, the loss of open space, and a strain on the water supply, 75% of Coloradans surveyed said urban sprawl .. is making Colorado a worse place to live. Of those surveyed, 70% said water should not be diverted away from agriculture in favor of supporting further urban development.

Rebecca Mitchell, Director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, said even with a stable or reduced population, there still may not be enough water.

“We as a society, and the Western world in general, have got to find ways to have long-term sustainable prosperity that doesn’t depend on population growth,” said Leon Kolankiewicz, the science director for NumbersUSA

Coloradoans are NOT drought happy.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

The People Have Spoken

and 75% of da people want an immediate moratorium on all growth.

First of all, the wording of that survey question is idiotic. “Recent studies have found that population growth causes nothing but problems for Colorado. Do you think more population growth will be good for Colorado?”

Secondly, there was no mention of an “immediate moratorium,” so that’s quite the misleading leap you took there.

On a side note, this simplistic “piece” is not the first time I’ve seen a seemingly intelligent person say something along the lines of “there’s got to be a way we can have economic growth and prosperity without the population growth,” without providing any suggestions for how that might somehow be possible. And yet I can sense the chorus of enthusiastic agreement from the credulous mob.

[DenverInfill]

Shame on 9News for publicizing this garbage.

The organization that conducted this study is NumbersUSA. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about NumbersUSA:

"NumbersUSA is an anti-immigration advocacy organization that seeks to reduce both legal and illegal immigration to the United States. It advocates for immigration reduction through user-generated fax, email, and direct mail campaigns. Roy Beck is the founder and president of the organization, which was conceived by white nationalist John Tanton as the "grassroots arm for the anti-immigrant movement" according to the Southern Poverty Law Center."

[DenverInfill]

Additionally, the best way to stop sprawl is through increased density in already urbanized areas.

[bunt_q]

Not sure I disagree, with nuance.

The barely-managed race to the bottom spread out farm-and-water-sucking growth we have is bad for Colorado. Every house that goes up in Weld County or Elbert County is bad for Colorado.

Growth without infrastructure investment to support it is bad for Colorado. Or rather, the cognitive disconnect between the type of growth our state leadership wishes we had (dense) and the infrastructure that our leadership is willing to support (mobility hubs and buses), versus the type of growth we actually have (seas of sprawl) and the infrastructure needed to support the growth we actually have (roads)… that naive disconnect and the resulting gridlock is bad for Colorado.

So.. Would I put a moratorium on growth? Nah. Would I put a moratorium on locally controlled zoning? Possibly. Would I impose an urban growth boundary and forcibly limit sprawl? For sure. Is any of that realistic? Nope. Do I like every bit of growth in Central Denver? Definitely. Do I think the growth Denver proper is seeing moves the needle on a statewide basis? Nope. Do I think maybe some credible Republican competition would be good all around for these issues, and especially transportation? Yep. Do I think that is happening anytime soon? Nope. Do I think Democratic leadership without that credible threat will ever invest in roads ever again? Probably not. So given the realities we face, and the combination of type of growth we allow and the infrastructure we will support, would I maybe grudgingly support a moratorium on growth? Probably. Would that perpetuate affordability problems? Absolutely. Do I think liberal Colorado actually cares about affordability more than saving the planet? Definitely not. Do I already have mine? I do. So does a growth moratorium make sense? Probably yes. And does that answer make sense to me? Nope. But that’s why I hate the new Boulder-minded Colorado. The place we are creating sucks. So would I vote for a moratorium, even if probably not legal, and even if it goes against everything I believe in? Yeah, I probably would. Because it would be better than what we are doing now. And I don’t see a political path to doing better in this giant rectangle we call Boulde…I mean…Colorado.

To be clear, I could probably be okay if we decided to become a road happy Texas city… or a dense and transit rich eastern City. My worst nightmare is that we choose neither - we become crowded and remain car dependent, without roads to support, and no accessible affordable housing left (because we make ‘drive til you qualify’ impossible but also don’t allow transit supportive (and affordability supportive) density)… but hey, we have a populace that “votes correctly” and therefore is comfortable with all of that hypocrisy. In other words, California. And that’s our current path.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

...Would I impose an urban growth boundary and forcibly limit sprawl? For sure. Is any of that realistic? Nope...

I'm not so sure this is a hard no. I think a couple rounds of serious money for state imposed growth boundaries and big dollars to fund greenbelts might just pass in our increasingly left leaning hippie state.

As to the water issue, people seriously need to study this. Urban growth is such a small portion of water use in the west, I really don't see why this is an ongoing conversation. Most estimates put urban and commercial water supply use at 10% - 20% - THAT'S IT!

Federal and state governments could very easily buy out existing farmers for the sole purpose of securing their water rights. Buying just 10%-15% of agricultural water rights would solve the urban growth water issue in the west.

Would this devastate some rural communities? Yep but it would also enrich (relatively speaking) the latest generation of farmers who are barely hanging on and it would restore our natural areas to pre-settlement norms. It may very well put the nail in the coffin of many decaying agricultural towns that are barely hanging on - I'm ok with that because the path we've taken with agriculture in the west is absolute insanity. We should not be growing water intensive crops like almonds, alfalfa, and citrus in deserts. Do folks have a right to grow those things if they own water rights? Absolutely, but rich urban centers also have the right (and responsibility) to buy those water rights for use in population centers.

[DenvertoLA]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

The People Have Spoken

and 75% of da people want an immediate moratorium on all growth.




https://www.9news.com/article/news/local.../73-4661937c-b7a4-433e-866f-1df03612a7d8

Coloradoans are NOT drought happy.

as someone who grew up in Parker and saw it become the sprawling hell hole that it is, the state NEEDS a land use bill. A land use bill is not antigrowth, it's pro strategic growth. Smart growth

[mr1138]

This is such a complicated issue. My first reaction was that saying population growth in urban centers is responsible for the depletion of open space is a bit like when the Denver Post claimed that increased land coverage on private lots was destroying "Green space" in Denver.

But if I'm honest with myself, we still DO have a lot of sprawl in Colorado, and it worries me too. I'm not even as concerned with Metro Denver sprawl as I am with what I see in some of our mountain communities. Grand County is STILL trying to build a second connection between Fraser and Tabernash that will allow that entire valley to fill with vacation homes Summit County-style.

All I can say is I would echo what everyone else is saying about the need for some urban growth boundaries. I would personally still vote no to an anti-growth proposition out of principle (though I otherwise largely agree with bunt_q). But a robust land use proposition as DenvertoLA that would set up some growth boundaries? Yes - I would absolutely support that.

[TakeFive]

Very Interesting

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Shame on 9News for publicizing this garbage.

The organization that conducted this study is NumbersUSA. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about NumbersUSA:

"NumbersUSA is an anti-immigration advocacy organization that seeks to reduce both legal and illegal immigration to the United States. It advocates for immigration reduction through user-generated fax, email, and direct mail campaigns. Roy Beck is the founder and president of the organization, which was conceived by white nationalist John Tanton as the "grassroots arm for the anti-immigrant movement" according to the Southern Poverty Law Center."

So they're a Kris Koback-friendly crowd; well Kansas still loves him.

I did take note of this:

The study includes a scientific survey of 1,024 Colorado residents conducted by the Rasmussen research group. It focuses on several environmental issues, including water.

It seems they've found a mainstream way of pushing their agenda, no?

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Additionally, the best way to stop sprawl is through increased density in already urbanized areas.

Another good example of 'strange bedfellows.'

FWIW, I do like Senator Kyrsten Sinema's bi-partisan effort to fix immigration. Problem has always been that Republicans don't want to give up their politically base-friendly propaganda but maybe this time?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Not sure I disagree, with nuance.

Growth without infrastructure investment to support it is bad for Colorado. .

Nicely stated - with nuance.

This speaks volumes to the transportation conundrum.

Originally Posted by laniroj

As to the water issue, people seriously need to study this. Urban growth is such a small portion of water use in the west, I really don't see why this is an ongoing conversation. Most estimates put urban and commercial water supply use at 10% - 20% - THAT'S IT!

Federal and state governments could very easily buy out existing farmers for the sole purpose of securing their water rights. Buying just 10%-15% of agricultural water rights would solve the urban growth water issue in the west.

I would NOT be any crazy 'environmentalist' but I am fond of Mother Nature. Be careful what you ask for and the unintended consequences. Farm to table is a lot more complex than most appreciate.

FWIW, the Inflation Reduction Act, thanks to my Senator Kyrsten Sinema did secure $4 billion earmarked to 'fight' the drought in the Southwest and Colorado's own Senators are part of a push out of the SW to secure even more from the $billions allocated to promote better farming practices and efficiency.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

...I would NOT be any crazy 'environmentalist' but I am fond of Mother Nature. Be careful what you ask for and the unintended consequences. Farm to table is a lot more complex than most appreciate.

FWIW, the Inflation Reduction Act, thanks to my Senator Kyrsten Sinema did secure $4 billion earmarked to 'fight' the drought in the Southwest and Colorado's own Senators are part of a push out of the SW to secure even more from the $billions allocated to promote better farming practices and efficiency.

I'm not crazy environmentalist either, but I'd vote for a significant state income tax increase if it meant a Boulder-esque greenbelt acquisition opportunity for the entire front range. I'll gladly leave behind the associated Boulder planning/zoning/growth/density catastrophe, but they've been enormously successful with the greenbelt dollars they've had since 1967.

The IRA is mainly a band-aid to the problem of Lake Meade going dry. It doesn't do much to solve actual problems (like most money we spend in this country). What WOULD have been valuable is funding for 10 desalination plants on the California coast to serve the central valley agriculture.