DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[Curtis Park]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I'm happy to take the other side of this argument. I'll start here:

I don't necessarily agree that this is the right project for the neighborhood. But your example of the process in Curtis Park is different. In CP they had LPC design review to give them some leverage. And the building is still going in. The RNO did not try to revoke a permit.
In City Park West they want to stop it entirely. I know the developer won't work with them and they don't have LPC to review it. So they want to revoke a permit, which I think is very risky for the city. I think they just need to suck it up and get ready for a bunch of new neighbors.
My biggest beef with the neighbors is that this whole thing started because they are afraid of losing their free parking. Why should the expect the developer to pay for parking when they are not willing to do the same?

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

I'm for smart development. Not density at all cost.

Except that it's never been about density at all cost. It's been about pushing as little development as close to approaching zero as possible. Don't give me the "we're all NIMBYs" argument. NIMBYs don't care about their neighborhood at all. They only care because it impacts them and their perfect little world.

You know what, I think I will take the density at all cost stance, though. We need to keep up with demand if we want the middle class to be able to afford to live in the city (something that's already fairly difficult).

TakeFive, if you think that a 79 unit TWO story project was a threat to the "historic" nature of this neighborhood, so much so they had to knock it down to 29 units in a one story is so great, you must be out of your damn mind. This is exactly what we were all afraid of back when the West Highland loonies came out. No project was ever small enough for them, and they'll argue tooth and nail to get it stopped.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Except that it's never been about density at all cost. It's been about pushing as little development as close to approaching zero as possible. Don't give me the "we're all NIMBYs" argument. NIMBYs don't care about their neighborhood at all. They only care because it impacts them and their perfect little world.

You know what, I think I will take the density at all cost stance, though. We need to keep up with demand if we want the middle class to be able to afford to live in the city (something that's already fairly difficult).

TakeFive, if you think that a 79 unit TWO story project was a threat to the "historic" nature of this neighborhood, so much so they had to knock it down to 29 units in a one story is so great, you must be out of your damn mind. This is exactly what we were all afraid of back when the West Highland loonies came out. No project was ever small enough for them, and they'll argue tooth and nail to get it stopped.

I'll also add that if anyone else shares The Dirt's zeal about this project (pro or con), there is a hearing on it next Tuesday, the 11th. You can be sure a lot of anti-micro apartment people will be there.

[The Dirt]

I'm there, man! Anyone else, PM me if you want to go. The more the merrier.

[Curtis Park]

The anti-micro group also has a growing number of yard signs popping in the blocks surrounding the development site. Of course, many of them are illegally placed in the tree lawn so I assume they've "liter" and dispose of them just like other trash I find. Feel free to pitch in.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Curtis Park

But your example of the process in Curtis Park is different. In CP they had LPC design review to give them some leverage. And the building is still going in.

I appreciate your candor in how you describe the blatant abuse of the landmark preservation ordinance that Curtis Park (and every other neighborhood) exercises. "Leverage" - nice. Anybody who actually cares about historic preservation just vomited in their mouths a little.

[Curtis Park]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I appreciate your candor in how you describe the blatant abuse of the landmark preservation ordinance that Curtis Park (and every other neighborhood) exercises. "Leverage" - nice. Anybody who actually cares about historic preservation just vomited in their mouths a little.

Except for me.

[bunt_q]

Oh, I'm a pragmatist too, I get it. It just makes it hard to contemplate adding additional processes (e.g. design review) that a person might otherwise support, knowing how they'll be used and abused by opponents.

[RyanD]

Two major projects are making it through another round of design review at the LDDRB.

1600 Market Hotel

This one is up for approval, which means this is pretty close to what we will get. I like it!









14 Wynkoop

This one is up for approval with conditions which are:

-That the corner column at the ground floor on Wazee Street be replaced with a rectilinear pier in plane with the glazing above.

-That the storefront and garage/loading doors at the ground floor on Wazee Street be recessed no more than 5’-0” from the building façade.

-That the projecting balconies on the south elevation be inset balconies.

So, pretty close to what we see here minus the balconies and a couple of minor fixes. FYI, there is a lot of NIMBY-ism on this one; just take a look at the DenverInfill comments for the announcement post.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Two major projects are making it through another round of design review at the LDDRB.

1600 Market Hotel

This one is up for approval, which means this is pretty close to what we will get. I like it!









14 Wynkoop

This one is up for approval with conditions which are:



So, pretty close to what we see here minus the balconies and a couple of minor fixes. FYI, there is a lot of NIMBY-ism on this one; just take a look at the DenverInfill comments for the announcement post.

Originally Posted by kevin

It is reasonable to expect that the location would be developed the disappointing fact is that the building is much taller than those around it and the creek corridor will one day be lined with 8 story buildings. i don’t believe that is a great use of a natural resource not very eye appealing from my standpoint…..

Am I the only one who thinks a corridor like Cherry Creek, buttressing downtown, being lined by 8-story buildings would be aesthetically very appealing?

[twister244]

I love the designs for these two LoDo projects. I think it's great every last bit of space is being squeezed out there. I completely agree that having the Cherry Creek corridor built out like that would look great.

On a side not, the official "ground breaking" ceremony for the Brighton Blvd reconstruction in RiNo in slated for next Thursday around 11 AM at Great Divide.

[corey]

Lining all of Speer from Lower Highland to Cherry Creek Country Club would make it a fantastic boulevard that would be very aesthetically pleasing. The building height would then pick back up in Cherry Creek along 1st Avenue. It would be a lot like Peachtree Blvd in Atlanta or Blvds in Madrid, Paris, Barcelona, Buenos Aires and other cities. A street car connecting Cherry Creek and downtown is LONG overdue. That would be like the vintage street car from downtown into north-northeast Dallas. Such a no brainer.

[RyanD]

^

I completely agree but our NIMBY friends don't. It took twelve years to get the Country Club Towers off the ground. There was also a huge compromise with the Cherry Creek zoning only allowing roughly 8-12 stories max. I wish Speer / CC would look like Midtown Atlanta, and have some great transit but it's just never going to happen. (Maybe the transit part will, just not the high high density)

[DenverPoke]

-That the projecting balconies on the south elevation be inset balconies.

Interesting when the building next to it(I belive this is where Coohills is located) doesn't have inset balconies. Anyway, really like both of these projects. Can't wait for these and Market Station to begin.

[Riverfront Park]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

Interesting that he says he reviews comments on Skyscraperpage.com

Haha.. Hi Chris!

Hey, Fritz.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Am I the only one who thinks a corridor like Cherry Creek, buttressing downtown, being lined by 8-story buildings would be aesthetically very appealing?

No; you're not the only one. I wish anyone who has a vested interest in development along the creek would take a visit to Amsterdam to witness how a canal can be a huge asset for the city.

If we valued our river 1/10th as much as they do; I'd be happy.

[comoneymaker]

Only thing is there is barely any water cause it is a creek not a river and the water stinks to hell. It would fail horribly.

[Cirrus]

Eh, a creek is enough. Salt Lake City does it with much much less. And the smell can be cleaned up easily enough.

The only real problem is political.

[LAM]

Originally Posted by comoneymaker

Only thing is there is barely any water cause it is a creek not a river and the water stinks to hell. It would fail horribly.

Not only that, the canal in Amsterdam is not a river either.

[bunt_q]

Exactly, Cherry Creek works fine. The canals in Amsterdam don't go from 25cfs to 30,000 cfs when it rains. That sort of building wall that close to the creek isn't smart here, no matter how pretty our planner brains might find it.