Denver Development Etceteras Thread #5 - Page 104

bcp · #**2061** Posted: **Jul 24, 2012, 9:39 PM**

i was just thinking the same thing...but Lawrence Corut is at 15th and Lawrene...

from CU-denver

14th and Lawerence is the site of the defunct (but awesome) chihlue / canadian developer (sp?) high-rise...

wong21fr · #**2062** Posted: **Jul 24, 2012, 10:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp

i was just thinking the same thing...but Lawrence Corut is at 15th and Lawrene...

14th and Lawerence is the site of the defunct (but awesome) chihlue / canadian developer (sp?) high-rise...

It's this building that CU-Denver is talking about demolishing and replacing (I thought it was called Lawrence Court, my bad):

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=cu+de...9.02,,0,-19.22

bcp · #**2063** Posted: **Jul 24, 2012, 10:39 PM**

that seems like insanity to demo that building..unless they are going much taller? maybe the are just going to demo the courtyard and one-story portion?

DownhomeDenver · #**2064** Posted: **Jul 24, 2012, 11:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

No, that's the new Business School at 15th & Lawrence. This is the one at 14th & Lawrence that fronts 14th and has the plaza going down towards Cherry Creek.

All of the listed projects are being planned for the next five years.

Duh, yeh that one. Thanks Wong!

bunt_q · #**2065** Posted: **Jul 24, 2012, 11:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAM

And, this is not owned by a private developer sitting on it until the market is right. I am of the opinion that it is better to infill around the in town stations rather than the suburban stations.

So you would prefer a non-developer have it when the market is wrong? Hate to break it to you, bud, but if you like things getting built, developers are not the enemy.

Of course it's better to infill around in-town stations. But the sheer presence of a transit station does not a TOD make. There is no shortage of TOD sites now - land is not what's lacking. To take on a massively capital-intensive TOD when there is still ample low-hanging fruit is not the best use of public money.

I'm more sympathetic to the connectivity issues. Not sure reconstructing an interchange to the tune of tens of millions of dollars is the right answer to that particular issue, though.

I'm not saying I like the interchange. I am saying that on the grand list of things I'd like to spend $20 million on in Denver, that's probably Item No. 5,343.

EDIT: I'll add - this isn't exactly an area where the market can support high dollar development. So you're probably looking at development that can barely break-even, might even require a public component. With a site preparation cost in the multiple-millions. It's a big, big deal that will require a ton of public money. So I think it's worth asking whether that's our highest priority, that's all.

PLANSIT · #**2066** Posted: **Jul 25, 2012, 12:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

So you would prefer a non-developer have it when the market is wrong? Hate to break it to you, bud, but if you like things getting built, developers are not the enemy.

Of course it's better to infill around in-town stations. But the sheer presence of a transit station does not a TOD make. There is no shortage of TOD sites now - land is not what's lacking. To take on a massively capital-intensive TOD when there is still ample low-hanging fruit is not the best use of public money.

I'm more sympathetic to the connectivity issues. Not sure reconstructing an interchange to the tune of tens of millions of dollars is the right answer to that particular issue, though.

I'm not saying I like the interchange. I am saying that on the grand list of things I'd like to spend $20 million on in Denver, that's probably Item No. 5,343.

EDIT: I'll add - this isn't exactly an area where the market can support high dollar development. So you're probably looking at development that can barely break-even, might even require a public component. With a site preparation cost in the multiple-millions. It's a big, big deal that will require a ton of public money. So I think it's worth asking whether that's our highest priority, that's all.

No one said the interchange was a priority. That's why it's only a feasibility study. This site is among many that will be fighting for future (way future) infrastructure monies. The City is quite aware of where a project like this would stack up given fiscal constraints and higher priorities. Regardless, it's an important scenario worth looking deeper into.

Re: TOD. This station has a built in advantage much like 10th & Osage. A developer is already at the table.

Oh and congrats on 9000!

BG918 · #**2067** Posted: **Jul 25, 2012, 1:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

If you mean the old building at 8th & Lincoln, that is slated to become the new location for BodyLab Fitness.

Yeah that's the old map store and the gym is already open. I'm talking about the building at 9th. That whole block is pretty grim, it will be nice to see more activity especially if the proposed 17 story apartment tower is built there.

I also noticed they are clearing the parking lot and there is construction fence at 14th & Speer. Anyone know what's planned there?

seventwenty · #**2068** Posted: **Jul 25, 2012, 4:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I was browsing through the implementation plan for the Auraria campus strategic vision

This page? http://www.ahec.edu/CampusPlanning/A...ion%20Plan.pdf

There's a new Auraria Map on page 10.

Streetscapes on 33-43

Timelines 52-59

Timeline of parking lot decommissioning 60-63

DenverInfill · #**2069** Posted: **Jul 25, 2012, 1:07 PM**

The option to demo the entire complex at 1250 14th was listed as the most "aggressive" and required a PPP and lots of money. I very much doubt that will happen. We (the College of Architecture and Planning) are currently renovating floors in the main 8-story building as the School of Business moves out. I'd say the most optimistic scenario is to demolish the Annex at the corner of 14th and Larimer and build a second tower at the corner... probably in the 5-8 story range.

By the way, the consultants who put together that Auraria Plan 2012 Update kept on calling it the "School of Architecture" instead of the "College of Architecture and Planning." How no one from Auraria caught that is beyond me.

wong21fr · #**2070** Posted: **Jul 25, 2012, 2:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

By the way, the consultants who put together that Auraria Plan 2012 Update kept on calling it the "School of Architecture" instead of the "College of Architecture and Planning." How no one from Auraria caught that is beyond me.

Damn, you guys have been demoted. It's probably some passive-aggressive attempt by some CU-Boulder Environmental Design graduates to demean the Denver program.

mr1138 · #**2071** Posted: **Jul 25, 2012, 3:45 PM**

Speaking of which, does anybody know the status of the College of Architecture and Planning's plan to offer an architecture undergraduate degree on the Denver campus? Since the divorce between Denver and Boulder is theoretically going through as of this fall, I'd imagine the Denver college will need to get some undergraduate $$$ flowing in sooner than later. The college's website still makes no mention of the new undergrad degree though.

bcp · #**2072** Posted: **Jul 25, 2012, 4:33 PM**

wow..that masterplan is an impressive piece of work.

wong21fr · #**2073** Posted: **Jul 25, 2012, 4:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcp

wow..that masterplan is an impressive piece of work.

Now we'll see if the institutions can find the funding to build it out. AHEC has admitted that they won't be able to get any kind of funding from the state, hence why the campus has been split up to a greater degree than originally envisioned.

I'm very eager to see the development of on campus housing for students. If CU-Denver and MSU Denver can capture just 10% of their combined student population that would result in nearly 3,000 students living on campus. Capture 20% and we're looking at 6,000. Suddenly the dynamic nature of DT Denver is extended almost to I-25.

bunt_q · #**2074** Posted: **Jul 25, 2012, 5:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Damn, you guys have been demoted. It's probably some passive-aggressive attempt by some CU-Boulder Environmental Design graduates to demean the Denver program.

Of course, that's it. Denver may know a thing or two about architecture, but planning? What's to learn in Denver? All of the innovative planning happens in Boulder.

Fritzdude · #**2075** Posted: **Jul 25, 2012, 5:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventwenty

This page? http://www.ahec.edu/CampusPlanning/A...ion%20Plan.pdf

There's a new Auraria Map on page 10.

Streetscapes on 33-43

Timelines 52-59

Timeline of parking lot decommissioning 60-63

wow... that's one hell of a master plan. No one can say that they didn't put in due diligence with coming out with a detailed analysis for future growth.

Filling out the entire area with high density buildings and several thousand student residents would be a shot in the arm for Denver.

bcp · #**2076** Posted: **Jul 25, 2012, 5:56 PM**

was hoping to learn more about the Larimer streetcar / trolley (as they call it...)...but we did learn that it would go all the way to 40th / 40th (somebody at UHEC is a little behind on their RTD FT stations...)

nevertheless - this has been a long dream - having a streetcar back on Larimer, connecting Auraria all the way to 38th / blake would be amazing! larimer at that point could truly become the perpendicular axis to 16th.

bunt_q · #**2077** Posted: **Jul 25, 2012, 6:24 PM**

I still wonder if Brighton Blvd wouldn't be a better streetcar route to 38th & Blake (better than Larimer north of Broadway, I mean, which is quite low density, and can only pull as far as maybe Curtis/Champa without sucking ridership from the Welton/Downing route).

seventwenty · #**2078** Posted: **Jul 25, 2012, 6:52 PM**

More documents concerning Auraria: http://www.ahec.edu/CampusPlanning/2...n%20Update.pdf

This document examines the differences b/w the 2012 master plan and the 2007 master plan.

It also has more in depth analysis of transportation options.

bcp · #**2079** Posted: **Jul 25, 2012, 6:52 PM**

I'd hope that Brighton will warrant its own one day...and it would connect nicely with park, broadway, or larimer.

mr1138 · #**2080** Posted: **Jul 25, 2012, 8:18 PM**

These Auraria plans look great, the only thing I'm bummed about is that it looks like the Blake st. axis terminating at the Tivoli tower will be broken by new development on the former athletic fields. I suppose there are plenty of good practical reasons to do it this way, but it seems at face value that simply arranging the building sites differently could have maintained this view corridor without necessarily loosing any square footage of usable space. The 2007 master plan showed a pedestrian path maintaining this corridor. Not the end of the world I suppose, but it will be sad to see one of my favorite quirks of Denver's street grid destroyed.