DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Why would that be? Are we talking about setback requirements, or are we talking about (subjectively) inadequate design review? Sorry, I clearly need to research Denver zoning code.

Setbacks are what we don't require, IIRC. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong. I remember we were talking about this a couple months ago.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Why would that be? Are we talking about setback requirements, or are we talking about (subjectively) inadequate design review? Sorry, I clearly need to research Denver zoning code.

Half block identically scaled monoliths. Exactly what the form based zoning code calls for, it's just a really shitty form.

Hopefully changing, though.

[The Dirt]

Basically, Arapahoe Square will look like a sea of this if no new rules get introduced:

http://denverinfill.com/blog/2015/08/arapahoe-square-alexan-arapahoe-square-project-update-1.html

[DenverInfill]

You can check out the proposed zoning and urban form here:

https://www.denvergov.org/content/denver...p-amendments/arapahoe-square-zoning.html

[mr1138]

It seems like the simplest answer to the land ships from a form perspective would be to limit the the maximum size of a building footprint in order to force more, smaller buildings rather than a single large one. I'm sure the development community would push back against this, but it seems like a fairly simple code change. Would this kind of restriction violate the law in any way?

[The Dirt]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, after staring at this:

http://denverurbanism.com/2016/03/census-update-2016.html

it seems that it's going to be virtually impossible to fill in those little gaps along 15th and behind Sugar Cubed due to parking requirements. You can't fit a parking structure at or below grade on such small lots so, the only way to fill these in is to gather as many of the surrounding properties and demolish enough of them to fit a parking structure. Then you're going to want to maximize your square footage so, you'll build a box that goes to the edge of the property and high but, not particularly high. What you end up with in AS is developments like 2020 Lawrence and Alexan Arapahoe Square. In LoDo, you can't build particularly high and the land is more expensive so, the chances of any development penciling out are pretty slim.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by mr1138

It seems like the simplest answer to the land ships from a form perspective would be to limit the the maximum size of a building footprint in order to force more, smaller buildings rather than a single large one. I'm sure the development community would push back against this, but it seems like a fairly simple code change. Would this kind of restriction violate the law in any way?

Through zoning, the city could force alleys remain as a right-of-way, but that would only limit buildings to 1/2 block landscrapers. It would eliminate buildings like the Douglas from going through though.

Architectural review committee would be another step, but I am vehemently opposed to having those citywide because of the unnecessary burden it puts on the permitting process. I have dealt with them several times on some of the projects I have been involved in, and it always ends up a shit show because you get retired architects, lawyers, etc. on these committees who think have their own vision for how that building should look which limits creativity and unnecessarily adds a lot of time on to the permitting process.

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

In LoDo, you can't build particularly high and the land is more expensive so, the chances of any development penciling out are pretty slim.

Until the other larger lots are developed. At some point the economics will work as the value of the area becomes so great that even small developments make a lot of sense. If you've paid attention to Portland or Seattle over the last decade or so you've seen exactly that scenario play out.

[transistor]

Originally Posted by balugajames

I agree that block is not too bad architecturally. It reminds me of the 2 30 store towers near Cherry Creek we are getting.

It is crazy how different a world it is there. Here is the rest of Saint Petersburg for perspective. I believe you can see the construction of the commi block above from this photo.

Uhhh I grew up in Russia and the outskirts of the cities are really depressing. They are like 95%of why Russia is considered dangerous to visit. At least post some pictures of the parts of St Petersburg that are amazing, like the metro or the dense walkable and retail filled city center. There's no commie blocks there.

[corey]

The above picture is what the dorms at Arizona State University are going to look like as large as that school is becoming.

I'm kind of surprised there is such a massive amount of high rise apartment blocks in St. Petersburg and probably many Russian cities. I don't think Russia ever went through a period of huge population growth or immigration. I guess it mostly had to do with people migrating to the cities from the country and those relocated from old deteriorating neighborhoods. I can understand neighborhoods like that near the factories that sprung up during the USSR's massive industrialization.

[transistor]

Originally Posted by corey

I'm kind of surprised there is such a massive amount of high rise apartment blocks in St. Petersburg and probably many Russian cities. I don't think Russia ever went through a period of huge population growth or immigration. I guess it mostly had to do with people migrating to the cities from the country and those relocated from old deteriorating neighborhoods. I can understand neighborhoods like that near the factories that sprung up during the USSR's massive industrialization.

World War II also left a lot of the older housing stock destroyed. Entire swaths of smaller buildings were so thoroughly demolished that the party decided that it would be cheaper to build massive housing blocks rather than smaller apartments buildings. It is important to note, that following WWII, housing the massive displaced population whose older homes were gone was considered more important than aesthetics, design, or city planning. That's why so many of the cities where substantial fighting took place will be interspersed with seeming out of place concrete blocks. Its a shame because prior to all the destruction Russian cities were far more dynamic, interesting, and historic. As an example, compare the old town of Talinn, which was somewhat spared from the whole sale destruction, to the center of Minsk, which was almost entirely leveled.

However, while this plays a role, it is important to remember that most of Russia was very rural prior to the revolution and that mass urbanization only happened in Soviet times, leading to large swaths of hastily built concrete monstrosities on the outskirts of the cities.

Although they still keep building these things so who knows what the hell is happening over there.

[CastleScott]

^ Those red brick ones would fit in perhaps in Arapahoe Squire since the ball park neighborhood is right next door.

Btw with the huge population growth of Denver, it could be a good bet of 709,800 by the 2020 census..

[mhays]

Originally Posted by enjo13

Until the other larger lots are developed. At some point the economics will work as the value of the area becomes so great that even small developments make a lot of sense. If you've paid attention to Portland or Seattle over the last decade or so you've seen exactly that scenario play out.

Yes, and having much less parking, or none, is a big part of that. That was true decades ago but it's especially true now. Amazing what you can fit onto a tight lot when parking isn't included.

[balugajames]

Originally Posted by transistor

Uhhh I grew up in Russia and the outskirts of the cities are really depressing. They are like 95%of why Russia is considered dangerous to visit. At least post some pictures of the parts of St Petersburg that are amazing, like the metro or the dense walkable and retail filled city center. There's no commie blocks there.

Not sure why your upset. If you have some photos that would be great. If the cores is anything like Prague I bet its amazing!

But remember the discussion was related to Commie Blocks. This wasn't intended as an anti Russia bash, unless posting photos of a place implies bashing it... Merely a perspective builder.

[DenverInfill]

The small LoDo lots will be developed in time. Parking is an issue since the parcel sizes won't allow underground parking. But you can meet your parking requirement off site, so we'll likely see these develop as office or hotel uses--maybe apartments, but probably not condos.

[transistor]

Originally Posted by balugajames

Not sure why your upset. If you have some photos that would be great. If the cores is anything like Prague I bet its amazing!

But remember the discussion was related to Commie Blocks. This wasn't intended as an anti Russia bash, unless posting photos of a place implies bashing it... Merely a perspective builder.

Im not upset or implying that it was a bash, I also despise the aesthetics of these buildings. However, out of all the Russian cities to pick to show commie blocks St. Petersburg is probably the worst one. It is as European of a city as they come for the most part.

I don't have my own photos of the city because the last time I was there I had not developed my current appreciation for urbanism.

Here is a link that shows off the street level of St. Petersburg. Its really something else as far as cities in Russia go.

http://www.saint-petersburg.com/streets/

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by balugajames

Yep:

I'm not sure if anybody else is following this. But the Guardian is doing a 50-day series on the stories of cities - featuring the history of one per day. Day 8, earlier this week, was St. Petersburg.

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/m...-city-built-on-bones-starting-to-crumble

[enjo13]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

The small LoDo lots will be developed in time. Parking is an issue since the parcel sizes won't allow underground parking. But you can meet your parking requirement off site, so we'll likely see these develop as office or hotel uses--maybe apartments, but probably not condos.

Honest question: There have been a couple of small format office buildings on Platte St., are the dynamics really that different in LoDo?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by rds70

July 1, 2015:

Denver: 682,545, an 18,542 person increase from 2014.

The Denver CSA was at 3,418,876, a 72,777 person increase from 2014.

Originally Posted by The Dirt

EnginNerd, looks like we gained 328,002 people (10.6% increase) in 5 years, which is pretty crazy. That's the equivalent of a 2nd Aurora being added to the metro.

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

From earlier this morning:

http://denverurbanism.com/2016/03/census-update-2016.html

That's very impressive as Ken nicely articulates in his linked update:

Not only did Denver lead the state in numeric population gain from 2014-2015, but its one-year increase of 18,582 is higher than the previous three years, which averaged around 15,000 each. This indicates that Denver’s growth actually accelerated in 2014-2015 compared to the previous three years.

What's also interesting (to me) is that Denver's apartment vacancy ticked higher in the 2nd half of last year which was after the 18,542 population increase had already occurred. Plus there's a whole crap pile of apartment buildings/units still under construction.

It also appears that population growth may have decelerated in the 2nd half of the year although not dramatically. On the positive side the unemployment percentages remain very strong.

For this calendar year it will be interesting to try to follow both the apartment absorption and vacancy rates for a sense of continued apartment construction demand.

[Denver Dweller]

http://www.businessden.com/2016/03/25/30-new-apartments-on-tap-for-cap-hill/