DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by mr1138

But I don't think what has been said above is about sustainability or architectural theory. It's about economics. The fact remains that the economics still support cheaper-than-possible buildings, and developers don't give one hoot about all of the other things under discussion here. And as long as there are developers who are pushing for inexpensive, rubber-stamped kind of solutions to their buildings, then there will be architects willing to make those kind of designs for them. If you wish to fix this problem, the architecture community isn't where the blame lies. It is with the economics that lead to that kind of development.

That's all true, and that is the reality of the situation. There are lots reasons ugly buildings get built, and many of them have little to do with who the architect is. But we shouldn't take that truism and ask everyone to ignore the obvious, or worse, to pretend a beast of a building is in fact a beauty.

Unless we think all architects (or developers) are interchangeable cogs, then we should acknowledge that even with the same limited resources, some will get much better results than others.

[TakeFive]

Denverite's David Sachs has a solid piece about CDOT's old HQ taking a step forward in the rezoning process. Otherwise nothing noteworthy.

[mhays]

The six-story apartments sprouting in my city 30 years and 20 years ago are all still there, or at least I can't think of any exceptions other than one that was heavily damaged. I'm guessing it's the same in Denver.

Maybe infill will be stronger going forward and there will be more pressure to replace things in 20 years. But probably not I'd guess.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by mhays

The six-story apartments sprouting in my city 30 years and 20 years ago are all still there, or at least I can't think of any exceptions other than one that was heavily damaged. I'm guessing it's the same in Denver.

Maybe infill will be stronger going forward and there will be more pressure to replace things in 20 years. But probably not I'd guess.

I’d agree with you. There’s no way any of these structures are being torn down within 50 years. There’s a ton of apartment complexes built in the 1960s that are still around and in use.

[HighSt.]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

There’s a ton of apartment complexes built in the 1960s that are still around and in use.

Four years ago, I lived in a very small apartment building in Capitol Hill just off Colfax.

According to the Sanborn Fire Insurance maps over at Denver Public Library, (which should be required reading for people on this forum) it was initially constructed in 1904 and significantly re-built and upgraded in 1945, adding new heating, a paging system, new, larger windows, tiling, fixtures, hardware, etc. The building got an entirely new facade at this time.

One day, my bathroom ceiling collapsed. Turns out a plumber working upstairs didn't know that the toilets in this bldg had ceramic pipes dating to the original 1909 build, joined together with glue and hemp and such, and had inadvertently broken them with a drain cleaning machine.

My point is: I think a lot of the builds we're seeing now will simply be cleverly revised in the future, not scraped and replaced. It's a much more efficient use of capital. Once the nasty spray-on facades on these buildings begin to deteriorate, they'll just be re-executed.

Next problem: figure out what to do with the massive amounts of parking inside buildings being constructed right now in 50+ years. Clever retrofits will have to play a role.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by HighSt.

Four years ago, I lived in a very small apartment building in Capitol Hill just off Colfax.

According to the Sanborn Fire Insurance maps over at Denver Public Library, (which should be required reading for people on this forum) it was initially constructed in 1904 and significantly re-built and upgraded in 1945, adding new heating, a paging system, new, larger windows, tiling, fixtures, hardware, etc. The building got an entirely new facade at this time.

One day, my bathroom ceiling collapsed. Turns out a plumber working upstairs didn't know that the toilets in this bldg had ceramic pipes dating to the original 1909 build, joined together with glue and hemp and such, and had inadvertently broken them with a drain cleaning machine.

My point is: I think a lot of the builds we're seeing now will simply be cleverly revised in the future, not scraped and replaced. It's a much more efficient use of capital. Once the nasty spray-on facades on these buildings begin to deteriorate, they'll just be re-executed.

Next problem: figure out what to do with the massive amounts of parking inside buildings being constructed right now in 50+ years. Clever retrofits will have to play a role.

I totally agree.

[DenvertoLA]

Not sure if this one has been posted, but 10th and Acoma looks nice. The city has 17 stories with 389 units.

https://www.denvergov.org/maps/map/sitedevelopmentplans

http://sararch.com/projects/in-progress/10th-acoma/

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by HighSt.

Next problem: figure out what to do with the massive amounts of parking inside buildings being constructed right now in 50+ years. Clever retrofits will have to play a role.

Tenements for the underclasses.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Tenements for the underclasses.

I once heard a council person from a suburban community say at a planning meeting that their city shouldn't assist low-income homeowners with maintenance and repairs to their homes because "deteriorated housing is affordable housing."

[twister244]

So I noticed lighting on the Confluence last night.....

But..... it didn't look nearly as bright as I remember when they were testing it months ago. Plus, I remember it being bright blue, with patterns of illumination.

Anyone care to comment on this?

[semiurban]

Originally Posted by twister244

So I noticed lighting on the Confluence last night.....

But..... it didn't look nearly as bright as I remember when they were testing it months ago. Plus, I remember it being bright blue, with patterns of illumination.

Anyone care to comment on this?

My comment is where are the pics?!

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I once heard a council person from a suburban community say at a planning meeting that their city shouldn't assist low-income homeowners with maintenance and repairs to their homes because "deteriorated housing is affordable housing."

Sound like every argument against every project ever that asserts the public investment/improvements will cause gentrification and ruin the neighborhood. So, would you prefer your government not invest in the neighborhood, then?

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Sound like every argument against every project ever that asserts the public investment/improvements will cause gentrification and ruin the neighborhood. So, would you prefer your government not invest in the neighborhood, then?

I'm not sure if you were asking that rhetorically or not but I found the council person's comment offensive.

[Chucolo]

Did a tour of the Confluence during last month's Doors Open, and I asked the person conducting the tour about the lights. His response is that the building's developers were still working with the neighborhood to come to some sort of accommodation with the lighting; that the building received a number of complaints when it initially tested the outside illumination. Not sure what the building was doing the other night, but the tour guide said the building's lighting was sophisticated; it could do a number of patterns, including waterfalls. Whatever was being displayed may be the best of what the Confluence can muster in light of neighborhood concerns.

[Denvergotback]

I swear some people are just skim milk. I mean seriously, you move to a big city and lights bother you? They shouldn't have to accommodate anyone, if someone can't handle big city stuff then they really shouldn't be living in a big city period.

[fleury]

Originally Posted by Denvergotback

I swear some people are just skim milk. I mean seriously, you move to a big city and lights bother you? They shouldn't have to accommodate anyone, if someone can't handle big city stuff then they really shouldn't be living in a big city period.

I've said it before and i'll say it again. Love big city lighting, and have no problem with it...but think it would be cool to have dark sky requirements in Denver. We are the only major metropolis in a very large area, and it would set us apart to be the big city in the wilderness. Metropolis + Wilderness = unique. Screw the lights, turn them all off!

Also...I feel like people in Denver are so sensitive about Denver being a "big city" that they fail to recognize what sets us apart from other cities. We should be focusing more on ways to capitalize on the unique qualities of Denver rather than have the very typical response of "more lighting" "bigger skyscrapers".

And off topic. We should repave all of our lodo streets in brick. That would be icing on the lodo cake. Would certainly help define it as a district.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by Chucolo

Did a tour of the Confluence during last month's Doors Open, and I asked the person conducting the tour about the lights. His response is that the building's developers were still working with the neighborhood to come to some sort of accommodation with the lighting; that the building received a number of complaints when it initially tested the outside illumination. Not sure what the building was doing the other night, but the tour guide said the building's lighting was sophisticated; it could do a number of patterns, including waterfalls. Whatever was being displayed may be the best of what the Confluence can muster in light of neighborhood concerns.

Yeah.... it just looked.... not as cool as the first time I saw them testing it. Sorry I didn't get pics, I was driving home. Plus, it didn't look awesome enough for me to justify going back and taking pics.....

I distinctly remember the first time I saw them testing the lighting, and it looked pretty cool from what I remember. Last night was.... not the same..... Still better than nothing though.

[SnyderBock]

Originally Posted by fleury

I've said it before and i'll say it again. Love big city lighting, and have no problem with it...but think it would be cool to have dark sky requirements in Denver. We are the only major metropolis in a very large area, and it would set us apart to be the big city in the wilderness. Metropolis + Wilderness = unique. Screw the lights, turn them all off!

Also...I feel like people in Denver are so sensitive about Denver being a "big city" that they fail to recognize what sets us apart from other cities. We should be focusing more on ways to capitalize on the unique qualities of Denver rather than have the very typical response of "more lighting" "bigger skyscrapers".

And off topic. We should repave all of our lodo streets in brick. That would be icing on the lodo cake. Would certainly help define it as a district.

A city the size of Denver will not be able to turn enough lights off at night to make the stars visible. There really is no point trying to make that happen. The argument is illogical.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I'm not sure if you were asking that rhetorically or not but I found the council person's comment offensive.

I read Bunt's statement as saying that the suburban councilperson's logic has a lot in common with typical anti-gentrification arguments by urbanites. People are selfish and shortsighted across both the urban-suburban and woke-xenophobic spectrums.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

I read Bunt's statement as saying that the suburban councilperson's logic has a lot in common with typical anti-gentrification arguments by urbanites. People are selfish and shortsighted across both the urban-suburban and woke-xenophobic spectrums.

Yes. It is offensive. But in some ways it's the inappropriately blunt flipside of the same coin.