DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I don't disagree with the developer's decision to build parking there. I do wish underground penciled out in Denver more often, though.

Eh, I'd say the bigger reason is lack of adequate retail options downtown. There are plenty of jobs accessible on foot or transit from there, so it's not that unreasonable to expect some people living there to commute without a car (especially given adequate TDM measures). But it is still asking a lot, probably too much, to think the average person will buy groceries or toilet paper in Denver without a car.

As you probably are aware, there will be two grocery stores within 2 blocks of this location. All of Riverfront and Union Station are very walkable to these grocery stores, large format Supermarkets.

I would assert that to drive to said stores would actually be more inconvenient from these neighborhoods (Riverfront + Union Station), knowing what parking lots are like at city grocery stores. Plus it would be almost ridiculous to drive 2 blocks even if you were the laziest person in the world.

Fashion retail and furniture will mostly be located in Cherry Creek for the foreseeable future.

As far as parking, if they're doing what, .85/unit or something, then that is progress, no? If you're a husband/wife or unmarried couple,maybe you have 1 car. You don't need the car on a daily basis, or maybe you do if 1 works in the 'burbs, but you sure won't need it to get TP or groceries from this location.

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_26614927/new-denver-apartment-projects-come-much-less-parking

[seventwenty]

E. Colfax streetscape study

Originally Posted by Business Den

The recently formed Colfax Mayfair Business Improvement District – which covers the stretch of Colfax between Eudora Street and Monaco Parkway – is paying $85,000 for a streetscape design project headed up by Denver-based Design Workshop.

“It’s a very nondescript area; it’s not very interesting,” said Hilarie Portell, the executive director of the Colfax Mayfair BID. “There’s no sense of identity, and it’s not comfortable for a pedestrian to walk from one end of the district to the next.”

Portell said the Colfax Mayfair BID, founded in late 2014, aims to change that, starting with improvements that could include new bike racks, pedestrian-friendly curb cuts and repairs to crumbling medians.

The district will pay for the bulk of the $85,000 streetscape design project using part of a $153,000 grant it received from the Denver Office of Economic Development.

Actual construction work won’t begin until Design Workshop concludes its study in December. The business improvement district is working on tracking down more cash to pay for the actual improvements.

“The immediate improvement might be bike racks in key locations,” Portell said.

. . .

The organization is funded through a special property tax assessment paid by the businesses in the district equal to 7.5 cents multiplied by the square footage of a property owner’s lot (capped at 40,000 square feet), multiplied by the square footage of any buildings on-site.

Portell said the district expects to bring in about $117,000 per year. Each property owner on average will pony up $1,800, Portell said.

[lumos]

Originally Posted by Denver

Not so fast! There still is one smaller dirt lot in CPV at 19th and Little Raven that still needs to e developed. Nothing has been announced yet for the lot at 19th and Wewatta next to King Soopers. Lastly, there is the Dirt Lot next to 19th and Chestnut. In other words, 19th St. still has a little ways to go.

I did, however, see a crew taking core samples from 19 th and Little Raven St for the first three days of this week so we may yet have three concurrent developments in the street.

[DenvertoLA]

Has anyone seen if 1401 Lawrence has gone vertical yet?

[pablosan]

It's on its second floor.

[DenvertoLA]

awesome thanks

[PLANSIT]

Update to 9th + Colorado

A few new renderings of the NW residential blocks and a schedule of demolition. Too lazy to pull and post the images.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Appropriate to the recent discussion on bad design and bad architecture...

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

http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/...cture-why-you-should-email-jeff-sheppard

Mr. Sheppard in his editorial:
As downtown Denver has become increasingly densified with block after block of repetitive five-story, stick-framed rental apartments stacked on top of (or connected to) massive concrete parking structures, banality has begun to quietly replace the well-designed historic buildings that once populated our urban core. Meaningless, uninspiring structures that feature mere surface variation rather than genuine innovation seem to be the zeitgeist of the day.

Interesting to me is that in the second Post article, they mention "Lumina" as good design. I like that it looks different, with its artistic metal screens on the balconies, and its yoga room and other amenties du jour, but at its core its a 5 story, stick-built, white stucco rental stacked on top of a massive concrete parking structure.

[seventwenty]

Thanks Stonemans. Some interesting solutions to the "ugly building" problem.

Originally Posted by Denver Post

A few suggestions:

1. Create a real design review board at the municipal level with the authority to review proposed buildings of a certain size or budget and recommend ways to make into projects better neighbors and genuine contributors to the city's aesthetic style. . . .

2. Rewrite the city's rules that require 1 percent of the budget of public building projects to be spent on art so that it can be spent on better design. . . .

3. Deal with this as the consumer issue it really is. People wouldn't build ugly apartments if other people didn't rent them. . . .

4. Similar to LEED certification, which recognizes buildings for environmental sensitivity, create a certification program that recognizes buildings that demonstrate, as Sheppard put it, "an embrace of the concepts of outdoor living and social interaction while responding thoughtfully to context."

5. Offer some form of tax incentive for buildings that demonstrate good design.

To those of you who know building costs, if easily and predictably calculable, how much would implementing these solutions cost? Would there even be a signifcant cost?

[mhays]

For item #1, it depends on how much time is involved (carrying costs), how much design/redesign work is involved (fees), and how much uncertainty the process introduces either by potentially having veto power or causing projects to miss their market windows (not just booms but trends in costs/rents/etc.). Collectively these can mean substantial added cost, and uncertainty part can result in a developer losing their whole investment, and less getting built, which translates to a scarcity premium on rents. Like any bet, if you can lose everything, you only go for it if the potential payoff (rents) is huge.

2 and 4 depend on the details. 5 also. Are they mandating the inclusion of expensive stuff at ground level, like unwarranted retail that has to be subsidized by the higher rents upstairs? Is the "tax incentive" worth the paperwork and loss of control? Does it all add more uncertainty?

3 is true. The factors that SSPers care about aren't necessarily what drives renters. Location, floorplan, amenities, countertops, and an overall sense of pride of place can take precedence over exterior architectural interest. Some factors are even directly counter to what renters want...for example, people want to live near bars but not 50 feet from them.

[bcp]

the land at 32 and lowell / meade is a prime example...the project simply stopped pencilling out.

some form of these are fine ideas...but most will add delays and costs to the consumer. I think the "LEED" idea is a good one, so long as it's voluntary and does not include the words "engage / collaborate / synergy"... . Good design on it's own will achieve all the ideals people can write about as declarations.

#5 is probably too complex for 95% of projects...plus, the taxes that really hurt are on capital gains / profits...local authorities won't be able to help there. At the local level, the city can help with tap fees and wastewater fees. zoning and building permit fees are not that bad in denver, but they can always help there too in exchange for better design.

[TakeFive]

I'm in love...


totally in love with everything that has been and is being built in Denver.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

Appropriate to the recent discussion on bad design and bad architecture...

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

http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/...cture-why-you-should-email-jeff-sheppard

Mr. Sheppard in his editorial:
As downtown Denver has become increasingly densified with block after block of repetitive five-story, stick-framed rental apartments stacked on top of (or connected to) massive concrete parking structures, banality has begun to quietly replace the well-designed historic buildings that once populated our urban core. Meaningless, uninspiring structures that feature mere surface variation rather than genuine innovation seem to be the zeitgeist of the day.

Well designed historic buildings that once populated our historic core, and were destroyed, by the city, leaving vast empty spaces filled with nothing which are now filled with people. And now I'm imploring the same city who destroyed all those buildings to get in the way of what's happening now, because the city should fix this.

Was EVERY poor building which tragically lost its existence in Denver well designed? Or were they small? And not meant for cars (which is now the hallmark of bad design obviously), or just made with the resources that were available at the time. OR made over the course of 100 years instead of 10-15 and more diverse than what we have now - because of the above mentioned destruction of most of downtown by the exact same set of people who are now shouting BANAL!!!! BANAL!!!! EVERYTHING IS BANAL!!!!!

[DownhomeDenver]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

Well designed historic buildings that once populated our historic core, and were destroyed, by the city, leaving vast empty spaces filled with nothing which are now filled with people. And now I'm imploring the same city who destroyed all those buildings to get in the way of what's happening now, because the city should fix this.

Was EVERY poor building which tragically lost its existence in Denver well designed? Or were they small? And not meant for cars (which is now the hallmark of bad design obviously), or just made with the resources that were available at the time. OR made over the course of 100 years instead of 10-15 and more diverse than what we have now - because of the above mentioned destruction of most of downtown by the exact same set of people who are now shouting BANAL!!!! BANAL!!!! EVERYTHING IS BANAL!!!!!

THANK YOU! Thank you! Thank you!! It wasn't too long ago when those people thought downtown was too crowded, too old, too stuck in the past and then came the wrecking ball. Let downtown grow the way it is supposed to.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

Well designed historic buildings that once populated our historic core, and were destroyed, by the city, leaving vast empty spaces filled with nothing which are now filled with people. And now I'm imploring the same city who destroyed all those buildings to get in the way of what's happening now, because the city should fix this.

Was EVERY poor building which tragically lost its existence in Denver well designed? Or were they small? And not meant for cars (which is now the hallmark of bad design obviously), or just made with the resources that were available at the time. OR made over the course of 100 years instead of 10-15 and more diverse than what we have now - because of the above mentioned destruction of most of downtown by the exact same set of people who are now shouting BANAL!!!! BANAL!!!! EVERYTHING IS BANAL!!!!!

A web comment from the article...




Are pocket projects going to get us the tens of thousands of units we need? The new project at the Taxi site is marketed towards families, called Freight 2, and is 2 bedrooms starting at $2300 or $2400. That's not affordable for most people. Cool design? yes.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

A web comment from the article...




Are pocket projects going to get us the tens of thousands of units we need? The new project at the Taxi site is marketed towards families, called Freight 2, and is 2 bedrooms starting at $2300 or $2400. That's not affordable for most people. Cool design? yes.

Maybe the architect who hasn't done a singe project that had integrated parking can explain how they would do creative design while having the parking component included in the budget. It's easy to do a creative design on the cheap when you don't have to do structured parking. The one project where Zeppelin did structured parking was the Greenhouse in CC and that's you're typical EIFS exterior project. Now Zeppelin is trumpeting a development for families, with surface parking, that's priced just about the same as something at Union Station. Right, let's highlight that.

Which does go back to the zoning parking requirements and whether or not they should be adjusted. Less focus on cars by developers, more money for design elements (assuming the market doesn't demand parking).

[Stonemans_rowJ]

Taxi, The Source, and Industry all have a very suburban feel to the sites- massive surface parking lots. That's one thing I hate about the Source. I rode my bike over there. First off, its an inhospitable environment along Brighton for bikes but I know that is changing. There were 5 bikes locked up at the Source and about 200 cars. I wonder how many people walked? Probably not too many...

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Stonemans_rowJ

Taxi, The Source, and Industry all have a very suburban feel to the sites- massive surface parking lots. That's one thing I hate about the Source. I rode my bike over there. First off, its an inhospitable environment along Brighton for bikes but I know that is changing. There were 5 bikes locked up at the Source and about 200 cars. I wonder how many people walked? Probably not too many...

Considering how few residences there are within walking distance and the lack of inter connectivity with other neighborhoods I would be surprised if more than 2 people walked there.

[mr1138]

I find it hard to take architects seriously when they propose that we need to re-invent the wheel when it comes to site layout in order to design for the modern world. This is basically what Corbusier was saying when he designed the "Radiant City," and the kind of thinking that gave us Pruitt-Igoe. A couple months ago somebody posted an article on here by an architect who was trying to claim that "innovative" modern structures should all include at-grade parking courtyards.

Claiming that Taxi is the answer to all our urban design problems is similarly ridiculous. As Stonemans_rowJ points out, it's surrounded by a sea of private surface parking lots. And it's actually a super-block with only one, poorly defined public street frontage.

I do agree with the criticism that structured parking can have a negative effect on the massing of urban structures. But short of putting it all underground, or simply eliminating parking entirely (which may be possible someday, but not now), I haven't seen any solution that works better from an urban context. I'm convinced that the correct answer is NOT to throw away classic urban design principals of density, lot coverage, and a public ROW that's well defined by a street-wall of buildings.

[RyanD]

I think we know the status on this project...

Union Station: 16th & Wewatta Hotel/Office Complex Update #1
via DenverInfill