DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by bcp

Looks great - love the grey hues to the glass and the wrap around the mall buildings. Interesting mix of brutalist done well, vertical fins, and breaking up the massing. Sucks to lose another alley...

Good discussion of what it would take to get height in Denver. But I'd like to add that I completely agree with bcp's review and rather like the design.

Also, Denver is lacking a good example of a historic façade incorporated into a large new building. The bank/hotel on 17th is close, but this looks to be a better example of how it can be done well. That alone makes this project a winner.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Are you sure? It doesn't seem that height would matter above a certain point- either it's in the shadow on the reference date, or it's not. Width would seem to affect that more. I assume the buildings planned for Block 162 are tall enough to shadow 16th as they are proposed.

That's true, but if we are talking about not being able to maximize the FAR anyway unless you have a full block, the restrictions on form and height on the blocks between 15th & 16th will likely be too restrictive to allow a developer to come close to maximizing FAR (and height) even if they have a full block to develop.

I think the best bet to get Denver's new tallest would be between 14th and 15th, or 16th to 18th.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Good discussion of what it would take to get height in Denver. But I'd like to add that I completely agree with bcp's review and rather like the design.

Also, Denver is lacking a good example of a historic façade incorporated into a large new building. The bank/hotel on 17th is close, but this looks to be a better example of how it can be done well. That alone makes this project a winner.

Regarding the historical facade of the buildings on 16th, I'm still uncertain how they plan to incorporate them into this design. Are they simply going to build over them? It appears there will be a separation between new construction and the older building roof. How is that possible? There has to be some type of support structure to manage the weight. Overall - I kind of like the design.

Wasn't there talk about possibly including a Target or some other type of retailer on the ground floor? If that doesn't come to fruition; where is the next most likely place for a retailer to go in?

[awholeparade]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

Wasn't there talk about possibly including a Target or some other type of retailer on the ground floor? If that doesn't come to fruition; where is the next most likely place for a retailer to go in?

I've been very surprised that this hasn't been the biggest complaint from everyone.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

Regarding the historical facade of the buildings on 16th, I'm still uncertain how they plan to incorporate them into this design. Are they simply going to build over them? It appears there will be a separation between new construction and the older building roof. How is that possible? There has to be some type of support structure to manage the weight. Overall - I kind of like the design.

Wasn't there talk about possibly including a Target or some other type of retailer on the ground floor? If that doesn't come to fruition; where is the next most likely place for a retailer to go in?

It appears to completely cantilever over the old Fontius building, pretty impressive, especially given the weight of the conference space and plaza on the amenity deck above the cantilever. Must be some massive beams, will be interesting to see this one go up.

[The Dirt]

I absolutely love what Toronto has been doing with incorporating historical facades into new buildings. Here are some example of what's possible:



http://taggind.com/projects/bay-adelaide-centre/


http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2013/10/art-deco-concourse-building-coming-down-new-office-tower


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Stock_Exchange

[DenverInfill]

Wow those are crazy awesome!

[bunt_q]

That's funny, Toronto is exactly what I was thinking when I posted that initially. That's exactly the kind of thing I would like an example of in Denver. I think once the city does that well once, they'll never allow a historic building to be wholesale demolished again.

Imagine if 1144 15th was being built with the Central Bank building facade built into the corner at 15th and Arapahoe. That would be super sexy. And look a lot like that first example above.

[EngiNerd]

Those are amazing, thanks for posting!

You know, when I look at the block 162 renderings again, that might be (kind of) what block 162 will do with the McClintock Building at 16th and California

I would bet that since the Fontius building was just restored, they didn't feel the need to retrofit the structure and therefore are just going to cantilever over the Fontius building. But the McClintock, to my knowledge, hasn't been recently restored (was restored somewhat in the 90s from what I recall) and therefore probably was more open to being retrofitted since it likely requires it anyway.

[BG918]

One of my favorite examples of this is in Tulsa, the Mid-Continent Tower. The 16 story structure is the original built in 1918 with 20 stories added in 1984. They are actually cantilevered over the original building but you can barely tell the difference. It looks like something similar is proposed for the McClintock and Fontius buildings.

http://www.flintco.com

[PLANSIT]

Have we seen this project?

HUB | Gensler

[TakeFive]

^ That's nice.

All the new renderings are impressive.


Off Topic
In honor of their new baby girl, Max, Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan are pledging $45 billion to charity. A quick review of bunt and RyanD's first-in-line, joint application received a warm response from Max I'm told.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

. A quick review of bunt and RyanD's first-in-line, joint application received a warm response from Max I'm told.

Weaponized drones are all the rage on fb. Glad to hear Mark and Max were receptive to our proposal.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Weaponized drones are all the rage on fb. Glad to hear Mark and Max were receptive to our proposal.

Pew pew pew!

[corey]

There is a good article on the NYC skyscraper boom in this month's National Geographic.

[corey]

That's awesome of the Zuckerbergs to donate all of that money! Haven't the Gates donated more money than any one in history?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Are you sure? It doesn't seem that height would matter above a certain point- either it's in the shadow on the reference date, or it's not. Width would seem to affect that more. I assume the buildings planned for Block 162 are tall enough to shadow 16th as they are proposed.

Back in the day, the Trango Tower proposal - which was to be built adjoining the Denver Pavilions - was even closer to the 16th Street Mall and passed the Sunlight Preservation Bullshit Act at 1,016' tall.

[comoneymaker]

Originally Posted by corey

That's awesome of the Zuckerbergs to donate all of that money! Haven't the Gates donated more money than any one in history?

Just off the top of my head the Rockefeller's would dominate that when adjusted for inflation and even possibly without. At one point didn't he have 1/3% of all the money in the US but him and his kids still slept on a mat on the floor?

Scrolling real quick on Wiki I found this interesting.

Colorado Fuel and Iron
In 1902, facing cash flow problems, Osgood turned to George Jay Gould a principle stockholder of the Denver and Rio Grande for a loan.[65] Gould, via Frederick Taylor Gates, Rockefeller's financial adviser, brought John D. Rockefeller, creator of the Standard Oil monopoly, in to help finance the loan.[66] Analysis of the company's operations by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. showed a need for substantially more funds which were provided in exchange for acquisition of CF&I's subsidiaries such as the Colorado and Wyoming Railway Company, the Crystal River Railroad Company, and possibly the Rocky Mountain Coal and Iron Company. Control was passed from the Iowa Group[67] to Gould and Rockefeller interests in 1903 with Gould in control and Rockefeller and Gates representing a minority interests. Osgood left the company in 1904 and devoted his efforts to operating competing coal and coke operations.[68]

[mhays]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

In our downtown core we do not have height limits, parking, or setback requirements. It's generally just the market limiting us. (Including market demand for parking.)

What I mean is if the developer decides the site can reasonably handle 500 parking spaces and the ideal ratio is 1.0 spaces per 1,000 sf, the building won't be much higher than 500,000 sf. If they want the ratio to be worse the building might need to be much smaller.

[bunt_q]

Well any site can reasonably handle 1,000 bicycle spaces, so we should should be fine. I'm told nobody will be driving in five years or so, once we build a few more bike lanes. So the time should be right to start entitlements on a parking-free supertall.