DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[DownhomeDenver]

Originally Posted by Matt

Haha! Ken, you would applaud an ISIS compound if it meant development for another surface parking lot in downtown Denver. Your standards for this city are incredibly low; you accept anything for the sake of "infill development" with total disregard for the growing monotony of a single architectural aesthetic. Can't you think outside of the brown box? (pun intended)

True, buildings have (and always will) feature materials from the earth since the "dawn of civilization". But on that same token, we're also no longer using rocks to carve drawings on cave walls. We have Facebook and Twitter now.

I wrote out four paragraphs. And then, I realized, I know who this guy is and I'm not going to waste precious energy.

I love Denver!!!

[bunt_q]

Matt's a legit forumer, not a Warren or Eeyore or anything. All you youngin' forumers who think I'm a perpetual a-hole weren't around in the good old days. When men were men, we typed uphill both ways through five feet of snow (or in computer labs on ergonomic keyboards), and I was considered middle-of-the-road opinionated. You've all gotten weak in this soft-blue-Colorado era of Obama-aloha and "can't we all just get along."

[comoneymaker]

Hate it. The hotel one is so ugly I would rather a McDonalds go in its place. And since the observation tower is tied in with this ugly building I am sure it looks just as awful. Rather this not get built. It is so awful I was compelled to email them and told them even the 70's wouldn't throw up something that awful. All your designs are awful and you should find new career's.

[Cirrus]

Denver can have both eventually, but Denver cannot have both right away, because there's only so much development demand, and there's still plenty of undeveloped parcels. If someone builds a 100 story glassy office building, that saps up the demand to build ten 10 story office buildings. It's a single market.

Residential is different right now. There's probably unlimited residential demand, at least if you make it affordable. But cheap residential towers aren't what Matt wants.

This is why a corporate headquarters is the only real bet for Matt's skyscraper hopes. A purpose-built corporate headquarters is a windfall that doesn't take away market demand from other buildings, and is thus the only way to "have both." Fine. That's all well and good.

But we don't work very hard at finding a corporation to come build a headquarters like that because a) those types of corporations don't move all that often, and when they do Denver is not well-positioned to lure them, and b) we just don't care very much; having a trophy skyscraper does not impact our lives enough to rise above #3945848 on our priority list of things to advocate for, even as urbanists.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by Matt

Haha! Ken, you would applaud an ISIS compound if it meant development for another surface parking lot in downtown Denver. Your standards for this city are incredibly low; you accept anything for the sake of "infill development" with total disregard for the growing monotony of a single architectural aesthetic. Can't you think outside of the brown box? (pun intended)

True, buildings have (and always will) feature materials from the earth since the "dawn of civilization". But on that same token, we're also no longer using rocks to carve drawings on cave walls. We have Facebook and Twitter now.

I certainly like seeing parking lots replaced by new buildings. That is true. However, I do not have a "total disregard for the growing monotony of a single architectural aesthetic." Simply not true.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I certainly like seeing parking lots replaced by new buildings. That is true. However, I do not have a "total disregard for the growing monotony of a single architectural aesthetic." Simply not true.

No denial on the ISIS compound? CNBC might take that as tacit approval. (Joking.)

If I were any good at this internets thing, I'd set up a poll asking folks what priority #3945847 should be.

This is fun.

[mr1138]

It feels like Matt just wishes Denver were about 100-200 years ahead of where it is. Fair enough to want a city like that, but then move to New York, or Boston, or San Francisco. We're just not there yet. Much of our "Colotecture crap" will be torn down by then and replaced (the Colotecture not-crap with good materials, as Cirrus eloquently described, is just fine - nothing wrong with earth tones and good materials). Mark me down as a supporter of Ken's "infill at any cost" philosophy (if you want to call it that). This is all a process. If we can tear down great historic buildings, and rebuilt those lots in less than 50 years, then we can certainly replace bad modern buildings again when the economics allow.

I'm sorry if some people are disgruntled that they may not be alive to see this. Perhaps consider attaching yourself to a city much further along in its development? I kinda like the opportunity and sense of possibility that comes along with a city as young as Denver.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Matt's a legit forumer, not a Warren or Eeyore or anything. All you youngin' forumers who think I'm a perpetual a-hole weren't around in the good old days. When men were men, we typed uphill both ways through five feet of snow (or in computer labs on ergonomic keyboards), and I was considered middle-of-the-road opinionated. You've all gotten weak in this soft-blue-Colorado era of Obama-aloha and "can't we all just get along."

Can't I at least get a nice fist bump?

[Matt]

Let me tell you all about the importance of numerous global corporate headquarters in a city...

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by Matt

This is the primary reason we have no trophy towers. In comparison, Charlotte's skyline of nothing but trophy towers resulted from a "skyline war" between First Union and Wachovia. Amazing what a corporate headquarters can do!

So what? I could give two shits about trophy towers. I care about the overall urban experience.

Have you been to downtown Charlotte? Sure, there are some pretty towers and a light rail, but the overall urban experience is lacking.

The place feels like DTC with taller towers.


Edit: realized I am beating a dead horse here after reading the rest of this thread.

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by mr1138

It feels like Matt just wishes Denver were about 100-200 years ahead of where it is. Fair enough to want a city like that, but then move to New York, or Boston, or San Francisco.

It's funny you mention San Francisco. Until VERY recently the good people of San Francisco complained about EXACTLY the same thing... constantly.

[navyweaxguy]

I love signature towers. Gives me something to look at from afar because no matter how exciting the urban experience is the fact of the matter is I can't afford to live in city to really enjoy that experience. I only make it down into downtown Seattle about once a month or so. It's an amazing city, but I'm barely able to afford the far suburbs. I looked at moving back to Denver but it's not much different. Besides I'm looking at more having more kids, downtowns just don't offer enough family friendly choices. Dragging my 3 year old down 16th is not enjoyable at all.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by DenverPoke

This is my view as well, I think Denver can (and eventually will) have both. Add a Bank of America Tower (NYC) and something along the lines of Devon in OKC and the "Big 3" won't stick out so much. Buildings like the Confluence and 1144 15th are a step in the right direction.

If only 1144 15th was about 200 ft taller. It is very similar to Devon in OKC, same architect and developer. Either way it will be a skyline-changing tower.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by enjo13

It's funny you mention San Francisco. Until VERY recently the good people of San Francisco complained about EXACTLY the same thing... constantly.

Fair enough. And I was thinking after I made that quote that San Francisco is actually only slightly older than Denver anyway - and got its amazing urban cityscape in a very short amount of time. But it was late and I get grumpy with endless pessimism. San Francisco is a pretty unique and special place anyway. I stand by my point though that Denver is very young, and expecting it to do things like much older and more established cities in a short amount of time, or that current patterns will define the city forever, is kinda ridiculous.

[Mulligan]

Originally Posted by Matt

Haha! Ken, you would applaud an ISIS compound if it meant development for another surface parking lot in downtown Denver. Your standards for this city are incredibly low; you accept anything for the sake of "infill development" with total disregard for the growing monotony of a single architectural aesthetic. Can't you think outside of the brown box? (pun intended)

True, buildings have (and always will) feature materials from the earth since the "dawn of civilization". But on that same token, we're also no longer using rocks to carve drawings on cave walls. We have Facebook and Twitter now.

Nice dickish comment.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Fair enough. And I was thinking after I made that quote that San Francisco is actually only slightly older than Denver anyway - and got its amazing urban cityscape in a very short amount of time. But it was late and I get grumpy with endless pessimism. San Francisco is a pretty unique and special place anyway. I stand by my point though that Denver is very young, and expecting it to do things like much older and more established cities in a short amount of time, or that current patterns will define the city forever, is kinda ridiculous.

San Francisco benefits from having not torn down half its central city, too.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Matt

Let me tell you all about the importance of numerous global corporate headquarters in a city...

Trophy towers, corporate giving, critical mass of talent, etc.?

Yep. But that's not something that a city can do a terrible amount about except provide the foundations to support such companies such as infrastructure, educated labor pool, city amenities, desirable neighborhoods, etc. Denver's case is more one of bad timing and luck when it comes to big companies.

Denver has had an issue of not having a critical mass of homegrown companies from which the hometown global behemoth can sprout from. The 1980's energy crash wiped out a good number potential companies that could have been the next Anadrako, Encana, Mobile, etc. that would have been trophy tower candidates. Likewise for the telecom bust of the 1990's, though that had the issue of having a decidedly suburban office complex philosophy. We don't have any national banks that are large enough to have trophy tower aspirations, let alone regional ones. There's a couple of large engineering firms (a Denver strength) that could relocate downtown from the 'burbs, but that's not going to result in a trophy tower.

The two companies that are out there in the'burbs that would benefit from a downtown move, and could build a downtown tower, would be Liberty Media and IHS. But neither of them seem at all interested, though Liberty Global moving downtown could bode well.

Matt, you're mostly preaching to the choir on this. It's just that what you want: shiny, majestic, awe-inspiring commercial towers; are the purveyance of the private sector- specifically the private sector with jaw-dropping bottom lines with revenues in in the billions and profit margins above 20%. We need more of these that are home-grown and proud of Denver in order to get the trophy towers. Making a vibrant downtown, which we were kind of are just starting to do since the last 25 years was merely damage control following Skyline, and city is probably the first step to encourage the next Amazon to build a trophy tower here.

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Fair enough. And I was thinking after I made that quote that San Francisco is actually only slightly older than Denver anyway - and got its amazing urban cityscape in a very short amount of time. But it was late and I get grumpy with endless pessimism. San Francisco is a pretty unique and special place anyway. I stand by my point though that Denver is very young, and expecting it to do things like much older and more established cities in a short amount of time, or that current patterns will define the city forever, is kinda ridiculous.

I meant that in a "I agree with you" kind of way

[DUPio]

Love the rendering Open Studio Architecture has for 1500 Market! (14th and Larimer looks cool too).

Little quality infill projects like this can go a long way in improving the quality of the urban experience as others have said.

[BG918]

Surprised no one has posted about the Market Station redevelopment. Apartments, office space and lots of retail/restaurant space including an activated alley-scape similar to what they're doing with Z/Dairy Block. Renderings on Denver Cityscape.



http://denver-cityscape.com/