DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[DenverPoke]

Speaking of crane bases, one has been installed at Alexan Uptown.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by rds70

Some Cherry Creek news:
BMC Investments is proposing an 8 story hotel on Josephine Street between 2nd and 3rd Avenues.

It would be a 154 room Moxy Hotel.

As far as I can tell, this Marriott brand is only found in Europe at this time.

According to this NYT article by Stephanie Rosenbloom the Moxy is a "lifestyle" brand, the new category for next gen/millennials like the AC, both of which are intended to be more affordable. The Moxy is more an industrial design while AC is more clean Euro style; Moxy for comfort and activity while AC is more entrepreneurial & business like, supposedly. Makes some sense given that AC is close to the convention center. Moxy's are currently planned for Manhattan, San Francisco, Seattle, New Orleans and Chicago... and now Denver.

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Whatever, it's the nature of the extractive industries- you cut the fat and go lean during downturns in the market while keeping your institutional knowledge intact. Sucks if you're on the bottom rung of the ladder.

"Whatever" ???

Yeah, I suspect this is being proactive and may not affect the downtown employees a lot but likely some. Fair to say they won't be looking for additional space.

The loss will presumably be mostly to Weld County and NE Colorado and an economic loss for Colorado.

I wouldn't worry for the bottom rung workers as there are plenty of construction jobs available for them.

[Denver]

Rendering for Broadstone at RiNo. This building will be a lot longer than I thought it would be. Not sure how I feel about this one. Thoughts?
Source:http://www.businessden.com/2015/04/07/developer-kicks-off-60m-rino-project/

[EngiNerd]

It's a hell of a lot better than what's there (was there) now.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

There's not much left in the Pavillions and the Civic Center end of the Mall seems to be shaping up as downtown's "fashion" district so other options need to be found. The Cottrell's building seems like an idea candidate to hold a larger fashion retailer- diagonal to the Pavillions with H&M, Forever 21, and (now) UNIQLO makes it a strong location. If would be nice if Gart Properties could acquire control of that building and expand the footprint of the Pavillions further down the Mall as the Mall really needs more of a unified retail plan that can really only be secured via having more contiguous retail ownership.

If Block 162 ever gets off the ground it could provide some great retail locations as well.

I think the opposite end of the mall has very strong potential with regards to retail. REI is a destination, as is Patagonia. Both of those locations are among the strongest locations for those brands.

Larimer Square has solid independent boutiques and Platte St., and Lohi are starting to add more boutique fashion retail. Then there's Rino getting into the game with shops like Topo Design and Winter Session.

Union Station neighborhood will have a lot of retail space. Uniqlo and H&M are discount urban retailers so that's why they fit in the Pavillions. The big dogs, if they come, will no doubt set up shop in Union Station area.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Denver

Rendering for Broadstone at RiNo. This building will be a lot longer than I thought it would be. Not sure how I feel about this one. Thoughts?
Source:http://www.businessden.com/2015/04/07/developer-kicks-off-60m-rino-project/

My guess is that it's intended to be a reflection of Taxi? In that respect I rather like it.

Quite different from what they built across from Coors Field. Do we know how many units?

Edit: Nvm, I found it. It's to be a 270-unit project.

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

I think the opposite end of the mall has very strong potential with regards to retail. REI is a destination, as is Patagonia. Both of those locations are among the strongest locations for those brands.

I still think Wynkoop in front of Union Station will one day be a retail mecca in Denver. The existing buildings are all just begging for high end retail and are mostly filled with tenants that can be fairly easily chased away (realtors, restaurants, small offices).

[mishko27]

Originally Posted by enjo13

I still think Wynkoop in front of Union Station will one day be a retail mecca in Denver. The existing buildings are all just begging for high end retail and are mostly filled with tenants that can be fairly easily chased away (realtors, restaurants, small offices).

That is very true. We need few anchors to make 16th a true high street, anything on Wynkoop would help as well. It's criminal there is no Louis Vuitton / YSL / Coach / D&G downtown. I don't shop there, heh, but rich Asian / Middle Eastern tourists love them and Denver does have enough people to sustain them. Even though I realize that Cherry Creek Mall sorta fills the function of *luxury* shopping destination, but you need these downtown as well.

[CharlesCO]

What's with all those buildings named the Taxi and all those other buildings around it having Soviet-style massing? Seeing how long that they are and with their weird window placement, they really would fit in well in some post-Soviet bloc country like Latvia or something.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

What's with all those buildings named the Taxi and all those other buildings around it having Soviet-style massing? Seeing how long that they are and with their weird window placement, they really would fit in well in some post-Soviet bloc country like Latvia or something.

Must be why they've won numerous awards then.
http://www.dbarchitect.com/project_detail/54/taxi.html
http://brsarch.com/projects/drive-at-taxi

[CharlesCO]

Yeah, I know they've won like a billion awards or something, and they admittedly do have some nice features to them when I walked through one of them a while ago. Though I just don't understand the hype when they still are more or less business parks removed from anything with a slightly cultish/apocalyptic feel to them.

[chickenbone]

Originally Posted by mishko27

It's criminal there is no Louis Vuitton / YSL / Coach / D&G downtown. I don't shop there, heh, but rich Asian / Middle Eastern tourists love them and Denver does have enough people to sustain them. Even though I realize that Cherry Creek Mall sorta fills the function of *luxury* shopping destination, but you need these downtown as well.

I think it will be decades before there is a Louis Vuitton, YSL, Gucci or anything else like that downtown. Denver doesn't have the sort of wealth that Dallas or Houston or Chicago does. And it doesn't have the number of tourists to support it either like Las Vegas does. I guess that could be changing with legal marijuana, but somehow I don't think pot tourists are the sort of people who will shop at high end retailers.

That being said, I definitely DO think that the lower downtown area could support more retail, but it would be places like J Crew, Ann Taylor, North Face, Brooks Brothers, etc.

[DenvertoLA]

Very interesting report for city advocates. Check out the graph on page 8, Denver is one of the top Transport-related energy consumers

http://thecostofsprawl.com/report/SP_SuburbanSprawl_Oct2013_opt.pdf

"Sprawl provides various benefits, but these are mostly direct benefits to sprawled community residents, while many costs are external, imposed on non-residents. This analysis indicates that sprawl imposes more than $400 billion dollars in external costs and $625 billion in internal costs annually in the U.S."

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

I think the opposite end of the mall has very strong potential with regards to retail. REI is a destination, as is Patagonia. Both of those locations are among the strongest locations for those brands.

Larimer Square has solid independent boutiques and Platte St., and Lohi are starting to add more boutique fashion retail. Then there's Rino getting into the game with shops like Topo Design and Winter Session.

Union Station neighborhood will have a lot of retail space. Uniqlo and H&M are discount urban retailers so that's why they fit in the Pavillions. The big dogs, if they come, will no doubt set up shop in Union Station area.

"If they come" is the key phrase. I think that the Pavillions captures where downtown retail is going to flourish, the so-called discount retailers that are trendy enough for the Millenials while still being affordable and local shops. Cherry Creek is Denver's high-end shopping district and downtown is not going to be able to compete with that. But the trendy but cheap and trendy and not-so-cheap categories are ripe.

It would be nice if North Face would set up shop at Union Station to compliment REI and Patagonia, though I don't consider REI as an enabler of additional retail due to it's relative isolation.

[rds70]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

Very interesting report for city advocates. Check out the graph on page 8, Denver is one of the top Transport-related energy consumers

http://thecostofsprawl.com/report/SP_SuburbanSprawl_Oct2013_opt.pdf

"Sprawl provides various benefits, but these are mostly direct benefits to sprawled community residents, while many costs are external, imposed on non-residents. This analysis indicates that sprawl imposes more than $400 billion dollars in external costs and $625 billion in internal costs annually in the U.S."

That graph represents the data from a 26 year old study. I don't know how much better Denver is doing, but using a study that old is bad and lazy research.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by Denver Dweller

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/r...bqOBYu5F%2FO7W7Amf&t=1428374728&page=all

Little more info here:

http://insiderealestatenews.com/2015/04/07/glendale-180-175-million-project-2200-jobs/

This quote kind of cracks me up "Global 180 will include 2,20 parking spaces, through a mix of underground and multi-story parking structures, to accommodate the demand.

The parking also will minimize traffic in the center, making it more walkable and pedestrian-friendly."

Isn't that like saying Park Meadows putting the parking around the perimeter of the mall made it more walkable and pedestrian friendly inside? It's just a dumb statement.

[Denverite]

I didn't see this posted here yet. (includes some comments by our own Mr. Infill):

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_27843517/great-city-bad-buildings

"Denver's planning department, developers, investors, builders and architects must begin asking whether the economic success of repetitive, five-story wood apartment boxes is enough. Housing solutions that enhance our environment, strengthen our urban condition and bring a sense of permanence and longevity to our collective future must be seriously pursued before it's too late." - Jeffrey Sheppard

I couldn't agree more. Not all infill is good infill and most of these matchstick Eastern Bloc like buildings are just hideous to me. Even most of the higher structures are just awful. I've long been annoyed with and a critic of the seemingly endless Lego-block like structures in Denver, but it's worse than ever now. I don't expect these all to be super strong, perfect, decked-out structures, but what we are seeing is just awful. Time after time.

In the last two years, I've had several out-of-towners stay with me. I love giving them a city tour. Almost all of them, without anyone bringing it up, commented on the ugly wood apartment buildings. It's disappointing and depressing.

On that note. Just how tall can these matchstick boxes get? I drove by the Alameda & Santa Fe apartment project (which looks like everything else) and from the distance it looked like the structure was 6 stories. I didn't see the ground level. I assume there's ground level retail with probably a concrete deck between the retail and the first floor of apartments. But, you know, I couldn't live in that. This is tornado country. How will these timber structures survive in a direct hit with a tornado when it's all timber-based? I would assume survivability in a tornado event is increased the less tall a structure is. These things don't stand a chance.

As for the awards that some of these "architects" are getting, most of them seem to be local to the project. It's not like these apartments are nationally recognized projects. If an award is made, it has to go to one of those monstrosities. Besides, they're almost all the same looking when observing as a casual urban visitor. There isn't much to choose from when comparing.

There isn't any fix to this other than a mandatory independent (or City sponsored third-party) architectural review board with a little bit of an attitude and demands in hopes it would result in something different than feeling like we're living in post-war Russia. Right now, these projects, with respect to their exterior architectural design, appear to be rubber-stamped in.

We deserve better.

D.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by Denverite

I didn't see this posted here yet. (includes some comments by our own Mr. Infill):

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_27843517/great-city-bad-buildings

"Denver's planning department, developers, investors, builders and architects must begin asking whether the economic success of repetitive, five-story wood apartment boxes is enough. Housing solutions that enhance our environment, strengthen our urban condition and bring a sense of permanence and longevity to our collective future must be seriously pursued before it's too late." - Jeffrey Sheppard

I couldn't agree more. Not all infill is good infill and most of these matchstick Eastern Bloc like buildings are just hideous to me. Even most of the higher structures are just awful. I've long been annoyed with and a critic of the seemingly endless Lego-block like structures in Denver, but it's worse than ever now. I don't expect these all to be super strong, perfect, decked-out structures, but what we are seeing is just awful. Time after time.

In the last two years, I've had several out-of-towners stay with me. I love giving them a city tour. Almost all of them, without anyone bringing it up, commented on the ugly wood apartment buildings. It's disappointing and depressing.

On that note. Just how tall can these matchstick boxes get? I drove by the Alameda & Santa Fe apartment project (which looks like everything else) and from the distance it looked like the structure was 6 stories. I didn't see the ground level. I assume there's ground level retail with probably a concrete deck between the retail and the first floor of apartments. But, you know, I couldn't live in that. This is tornado country. How will these timber structures survive in a direct hit with a tornado when it's all timber-based? I would assume survivability in a tornado event is increased the less tall a structure is. These things don't stand a chance.

As for the awards that some of these "architects" are getting, most of them seem to be local to the project. It's not like these apartments are nationally recognized projects. If an award is made, it has to go to one of those monstrosities. Besides, they're almost all the same looking when observing as a casual urban visitor. There isn't much to choose from when comparing.

There isn't any fix to this other than a mandatory independent (or City sponsored third-party) architectural review board with a little bit of an attitude and demands in hopes it would result in something different than feeling like we're living in post-war Russia. Right now, these projects, with respect to their exterior architectural design, appear to be rubber-stamped in.

We deserve better.

D.

I don't know who your friends are but if people come in from other cities and without prompting can comment on how ugly Denver's new building environment is then you need to get more friends. Seriously.. that's all your visitors can muster in Downtown Denver is depression and disappointment? The people I've gone to town with comment on how vibrant and new most of downtown looks.

This is on the same editorial page as the pack of morons who endorsed Cory Booker for the Senate .. so I think you and everyone else can pretty safely assume that everything on there is probably as useful to any argument as fresh dog excrement.

Quick infill is fine when all you have is barren waste, which is all you had in Denver since before the 90's. So much of it in fact that you still have plenty of it to fill. I'd take all of what you have there now.. just copy and paste it onto all the empty lots that are left. Let them fill and then let the city continue to evolve without empty space begging for something cheap. When a developer has to justify demolition in addition to a new project then you'll see more permanent, architecturally unique and also more expensive (which is what EVERYONE wants for downtown now!) buildings.

[enjo13]

I think Brain is spot on. We're not even in the vicinity of anything being "too late". I bet I can come up with more than 50 vacant lots that I'd consider to be prime spots just off the top of my head.

Right now we're in the land-grab stage of our urban development. I'm actually quite pleased with the quality of the buildings in general. We're not seeing a lot of flashy development, but we're seeing relatively dense buildings that generally contain a bit of useful retail and contribute nicely to street presence. I think it's great.

[Denverite]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

I don't know who your friends are but if people come in from other cities and without prompting can comment on how ugly Denver's new building environment is then you need to get more friends. Seriously.. that's all your visitors can muster in Downtown Denver is depression and disappointment? The people I've gone to town with comment on how vibrant and new most of downtown looks.

A bit brash, aren't you? And, really, you're going to go all grade school on me and tell me I need better friends? Indeed, out-of-towners comment on how vibrant downtown is. Denver is vibrant. It has a lot going for it and that is fantastic. Has nothing to do with critique of the current architecture though.

These people who have 100% commented negatively on the Ballpark area condo projects come from Dallas, Minneapolis, and the Bay Area. Denver architecture can't hold up to any of those cities so, if you want to go deep into this you could argue that it's unfair for people in these cities to comment or compare the inner city architecture... I guess. I think it's more independent, knee-jerk, in the moment judgment by these visitors, but now you're getting into psychology. I don't think this is a complicated issue. It's all right there in front of our eyes. Maybe partly subjective, but no question there is a lot of banal sameness in Denver apartment and some high rise projects.

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

This is on the same editorial page as the pack of morons who endorsed Cory Booker for the Senate .. so I think you and everyone else can pretty safely assume that everything on there is probably as useful to any argument as fresh dog excrement.

LOL, You're bringing rightwingnut politics into this? And call people "morons" for supporting a person based on their own political beliefs? Man, I hope you're not ever operating on me.

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

Quick infill is fine when all you have is barren waste, which is all you had in Denver since before the 90's. So much of it in fact that you still have plenty of it to fill. I'd take all of what you have there now.. just copy and paste it onto all the empty lots that are left. Let them fill and then let the city continue to evolve without empty space begging for something cheap. When a developer has to justify demolition in addition to a new project then you'll see more permanent, architecturally unique and also more expensive (which is what EVERYONE wants for downtown now!) buildings.

I disagree with your statement that "Quick infill is fine when all you have is barren waste". Perhaps most of the time but not always. Seems to me developers are taking advantage of Denver - which itself isn't a bad thing, but the product sure looks like crap. If the upside is simply infill, then sure, I get it. I do like and want infill. But at what expense? I don't think enough people are considering the long term conditions, let alone the architectural appearance, of these structures.

D.