DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by enjo13

I’m in town and...

looking for a place to live? We miss your insightful comments.

Originally Posted by enjo13

...walking past 15th and stout you can see the facade going on the new hotel.

The absolute cheapest shit materials you could imagine. It’s a much taller version of the aloft hotel disaster across the street. This corner is just disgusting which is crazy for such a prominent part of the city.

It is a Stonebridge Cos project but it looks to be more of a value-priced combo. They're building this combo in a number of places.

Tru by Hilton Opens First-Ever Dual-Brand Property with Home2 Suites by Hilton
September 19, 2017 MURFREESBORO, Tenn. and MCLEAN, Va.,

Focus on Innovation and Value Creates Ideal Fit for the Two Growing Midscale Brands

The property's modern, forward-thinking design - from large communal spaces to innovative technology offerings, like rapid charging stations - appeals to all generations of savvy business and leisure travelers, seeking a fresh, vibrant experience that's grounded in value.

In other words they want people when they walk by and see the exterior to say "This looks like it should be more reasonable; let's give it a try."

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

looking for a place to live? We miss your insightful comments.


It is a Stonebridge Cos project but it looks to be more of a value-priced combo. They're building this combo in a number of places.

Tru by Hilton Opens First-Ever Dual-Brand Property with Home2 Suites by Hilton
September 19, 2017 MURFREESBORO, Tenn. and MCLEAN, Va.,

In other words they want people when they walk by and see the exterior to say "This looks like it should be more reasonable; let's give it a try."

That's why i love the downtown Holiday Inn - the trashy exterior lets you know all you need to know: CHEAP ROOMS available... few hours use is fine.

[CastleScott]

^ With all that density in the new Broadway Market Place and the nearby Gates site maybe this could be Denver's new mid-town when all said and done.

[CastleScott]

That's why i love the downtown Holiday Inn - the trashy exterior lets you know all you need to know: CHEAP ROOMS available... few hours use is fine.

Well said!!

[DenvertoLA]

block 162 updated it's website and added some new photos.

https://block162.com

[CastleScott]

^ Very nice-man that's a beautiful building-too bad its not 10-15 stories taller but hey its great infill.

[spr8364]

Interesting article HERE in "Architect" magazine about the bane of Pancake buildings and how it is plaguing many other cities around the world as well. They spoke highly of Vancouver BC's approach.

"We can prevent the soul-sucking prospect of mid-rise shadows looming over Starbucks on every corner."

[corey]

The author of the Architect magazine article is off base when he claims that in the 19th Century people moved out of tenement buildings as quickly as they could because they were all 5-8 storeys. Tenements had extremely small apartments, no elevators, often no water, etc. They have nothing in common with the new apartment blocks that he detests other than their general height. He also wrongly claims that stick-built 5-8 storey buildings are poorly constructed. If they are poorly constructed then there is something wrong with the IBC and building inspectors not doing their jobs. I loathe synthetic stucco, but I have no problem with decent quality brick and metal panel exterior finishings. Architectural writers always seem to think that every plot of land warrants an unlimited construction budget. About the only thing I agree with in this article is that a variety of heights should be allowed in urban areas to allow for more variety and optimal land use. However, I don’t have a problem with neighborhoods where all of the buildings are all about the same height.

[LooksLikeForever]

Corey: agreed completely. Uniform building height does not necessarily mean a negative urban experience. Back in my planning days at college I remember reading quite a bit about Paris. If you've ever been, or if you've seen pictures, you know how incredibly dense and active Paris feels despite a lack of what we'd consider 'tall' buildings. Apart from La Defense, the central business district in Paris, it's pretty rare to see a tall apartment or office building. Depending on which statistics you're looking at, Paris is just as dense as New York City with generally uniform building heights (and rather short at that).

[Matt]

Originally Posted by enjo13

I think this is spot-on. I've been banging the drum for universal heights limits in Denver (or at least maybe everywhere but about 4 blocks in the CBD). Height limits are a great way to spur development because it removes a major variable from the process. It also encourages more overall development. The square footage the city requires to function is finite. I'd rather see three buildings providing 300k square feet than one providing a million.

It's something that has worked in a bunch of cities (Vancouver BC, Washington DC, etc..). As you've pointed out it's worked in Denver already. I think we should take it city-wide.

So... just playing Devil's Advocate here and thinking long-term. Let's say the universal height limits are successful at eliminating nearly every single surface parking lot in Denver. Yay! Mission Accomplished! Then what?

How does the city develop from there? Do we start tearing down buildings that (at some hypothetical date in the future) will only be 20 years old to 30 years old to accomodate continued growth? Do we start tearing down the single-family homes? Or do we just give up on developing Central Denver altogether and focus on building new tract subdivisions in South Highlands Ranch and Castle Rock North?

I can certainly understand the short-term desire to incentivize more infill at a greater pace using a universal height limit, but can't help but ponder the consequences once the short-term "sugar high" wears off. At that point, very few parking lots will be available to develop, and residents of every (relatively recently-built) mid-rise develoment will fight tooth and nail to prevent their buildings from being torn down to accomodate the next "notch up" in height limits required for Denver to continue to grow. Will a notoriously NIMBY city like Denver even support a "notch up" in height limits, citing mountain views or that the "character of the city has now been firmly established"?

Or do we just resign ourselves to being Boulder at that point?

I'm not certain the "Manhattan Effect" would even work in a city like Denver. There are enormous sums of money and financial investment driving real estate deals in New York - a degree that Denver can't even fathom. Denver also tends to cling to the notion that every existing structure is somehow a cherished reflection of our history and character, whereas in places like Manhattan it's just a part of ongoing development and urban renewal that many New Yorkers are just plain accustomed to (and expect, and actually get excited for). Denver does not have that type of mentality; every building demo in this city causes a PTSD-like reflex among residents who are still traumatized by the DURA debacle of the 1980s. I don't see them making way to "notch up".

How does Denver continue to develop after reaching the point of a becoming a fully-developed mid-rise utopia? Will we be hamstrung and will the suburbs benefit at our expense?

[DenverInfill]

My comments are not an endorsement of height limits, they are just responses to Matt's points.

Originally Posted by Matt

How does the city develop from there? Do we start tearing down buildings that (at some hypothetical date in the future) will only be 20 years old to 30 years old to accomodate continued growth? Do we start tearing down the single-family homes?

Based on the number of surface parking lots remaining in downtown (Upper/Central/Lower Downtown, Arapahoe Square, Golden Triangle), and based on the rate of their removal during this current real estate cycle, I'd say we have probably three to four real estate cycles left to go before the surface lots are mostly gone. That could be 30-40 years. And that doesn't count the redevelopment of sites that are not parking lots but have scrapeable buildings on them. And by the time we get 40 years into the future, newish buildings today like the Aloft Hotel, the Denver Pavilions, downtown Target, etc. would easily be scrapeable if the demand were strong enough. So looking long-term, I think there's at least a half-century of steady development opportunities for tall towers in downtown before we start to run out of room. Beyond that, if there's still strong demand for high-rise development in Denver's urban core, then downtown's footprint will spread and places like RiNo, Prospect, Uptown, could become places for downtown-scale towers. Frankly, any 5-story stick-built apartment building built this cycle could be scraped if demand and land values warranted. Investors will have likely received their return on investment by then.

Originally Posted by Matt

At that point, very few parking lots will be available to develop, and residents of every (relatively recently-built) mid-rise develoment will fight tooth and nail to prevent their buildings from being torn down to accomodate the next "notch up" in height limits required for Denver to continue to grow.

This would only apply to condominiums where hundreds of individual residents' ownership interests would need to be secured before demolition could take place. Apartment buildings, hotels, and office buildings typically have single ownership and if the owner wants to sell or tear their building down for redevelopment, they just do it after leases have expired. Given that there are few condo towers in downtown overall and virtually none were built this cycle, this isn't an issue.

Originally Posted by Matt

Denver also tends to cling to the notion that every existing structure is somehow a cherished reflection of our history and character, whereas in places like Manhattan it's just a part of ongoing development and urban renewal that many New Yorkers are just plain accustomed to (and expect, and actually get excited for). Denver does not have that type of mentality; every building demo in this city causes a PTSD-like reflex among residents who are still traumatized by the DURA debacle of the 1980s.

No, this isn't the case. The Motor Hotel Garage was demo'ed for the Embassy Suites; Davis & Shaw Furniture was demo'ed for Spire; a small office/retail building was demo'ed for 1800 Larimer; two buildings were demo'ed for Dairy Block; the Office Depot was demo'ed for 16M, a small building was demo'ed for 1755 Blake; an old warehouse was demo'ed for Verve; an old warehouse was demo'ed for Confluence; Vitamin Cottage was demo'ed for Fifteen Platte; two small buildings demo'ed for Circa Building; the old staple factory was demo'ed for Riverview at 1700 Platte; a brick building was demo'ed for Galvanize 2.0; three buildings were demo'ed for Block 162; an auto garage was demo'ed for the Element Hotel; a bunch of old bail bond houses were demo'ed for the Delaware Lofts; the state courthouse and history museum were demo'ed for the Ralph Carr Judicial Center; the old Rocky Mountain News building was demo'ed for the Denver Justice Center; an apartment building and two small houses were demo'ed for the 17th & Pearl Apartments; an old Burger King was demo'ed for the Aloft Hotel; an office building was demo'ed for Modera Capitol Hill; an old brick building was demo'ed for the Point 21 Apartments; two small buildings were demo'ed for 2020 Lawrence; two small buildings were demo'ed for Joule; two small buildings were demo'ed for Parq on Speer; a 7-11 was demo'ed for the Via Apartments; and an office building was just demo'ed for Modera LoHi. I'm tired so I'll stop there, but if I recall correctly, there wasn't much of a public fuss about any of these demo'ed buildings.

[Cirrus]

"What happens when you build everything up to the limit" is a good question. Even if that time is decades away, it'll happen eventually and at best it's passing the buck on a known problem to say "they'll figure out a solution then."

But it is a solvable problem. Once a place is full to its zoning envelope, you can either expand outwardly or upwardly. Both are practical.

"Outwardly" in a situation like this would mean expanding downtown to include places like Auraria and the industrial parts of Lincoln Park. Downtown gets a blanket level of density, but the definition of "downtown" is constantly changing, as downtown expands to take over adjacent areas. This would probably work in Denver for at least a century.

"Upwardly" obviously means raising the height limit enough for redevelopment to pencil, and to keep up with demand. Just adding a couple of floors wouldn't be enough of an incentive, so the increase would have to be substantial.

I can think of real-life US examples of both strategies. They're both doable. But the former seems a lot more likely in Denver given the politics of mountain views and the availability of industrial land near downtown. It's the path of least resistance in a hypothetical universe where Denver's empty lots are all filled in.

The big problem with either is just that making either change is hard and depends on politicians saying "yes" at the right time and place. This too is doable, but it's more doable with prior planning and expectations that are set to understand in advance that the change will be necessary. It's most doable with binding legal agreements in place decades in advance, when policy-makers can think about the problem more dispassionately.

[mhays]

They key is having A LOT of developable land left, like 20+ years worth...because land gets geometrically more expensive with scarcity, and many properties won't be available at any price in any given period.

Typically cities upzone in phases. By the time you cross whatever threshold (like 20 years) land prices and lack of development make the city really expensive, and the local governments tend to upzone incrementally.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

That could be 30-40 years.

I don't like that; quite frankly I don't have 30-40 more years.

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

a bunch of old bail bond houses were demo'ed for the Delaware Lofts;

At least they were there when I needed them.

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I'd say we have probably three to four real estate cycles left to go before the surface lots are mostly gone.

Sounds fine, patience is a virtue as architectural styles change anyway. Plus, it's not like if you happen to walk across a (still existing) parking lot 10 years from now that you will catch the plague.

While familiar with 'cycles' as well as the risk of saying "This time it's different" I do wonder if downtown Denver isn't relatively immune from cycles? There's been such a paradigm shift that it may be that a recession would actually benefit downtown by bringing down the construction costs etc.

In any case, other than possibly revisiting how sacred some of the view planes are, I think the existing zoning is on the whole just fine and dandy. I certainly wouldn't care to limit height anymore than it already is in those areas intended for development.

[Robert.hampton]

The Sherman re-zoning proposal is interesting and relevant to the maximum height discussion. Recent presentation available: http://www.cityparkwest.org/wp-conte...ntation-Sm.pdf

It proposes some of the same tools from RiNO to increase density if more affordable housing is built and includes up to ~2 mill in streetscape improvements (assuming redevelopment actually happens otherwise much less). It all seems good and fine, but will upzoning just ensure these lots are sat on for another 30 years until something pencils out?

[DenvertoLA]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

The Sherman re-zoning proposal is interesting and relevant to the maximum height discussion. Recent presentation available: http://www.cityparkwest.org/wp-conte...ntation-Sm.pdf

It proposes some of the same tools from RiNO to increase density if more affordable housing is built and includes up to ~2 mill in streetscape improvements (assuming redevelopment actually happens otherwise much less). It all seems good and fine, but will upzoning just ensure these lots are sat on for another 30 years until something pencils out?

I'm all for this up zoning, but their pitch of $600,000 in immediate streetscape improvements sounds pretty skimpy.

The land owners here are going to make baaank if this goes though. I hope the city plays hard ball and delivers more to the public than just upgraded lighting and a few new trees.

[InfillJunkie]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

And by the time we get 40 years into the future, newish buildings today like the Aloft Hotel, the Denver Pavilions, downtown Target, etc. would easily be scrapeable if the demand were strong enough.

Hence why I simply smile now when I read your blog comments where the armchair architects are throwing a hissy fit about another 5 story stick build being ugly...it's like, child that shit prolly won't be there in 20-30 years. Get over yourself.

[BG918]

I noticed Modera LoHi has started construction at 16th & Boulder. This will make a big visual impact on the retail/restaurant cluster in that area, and one of my favorite views in Denver:

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by InfillJunkie

Hence why I simply smile now when I read your blog comments where the armchair architects are throwing a hissy fit about another 5 story stick build being ugly...it's like, child that shit prolly won't be there in 20-30 years. Get over yourself.

Great logic. Don't criticize ugly architecture cause it won't be there for more than 30 years. Lol.

Personally, I think the persons who need to "get over themselves" are architects and developers who build total crap and then get their panties in a wad because people criticize their crap for being crap. Just because there's a fair chance their crap won't last for more than 30 years doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out for it.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Great logic. Don't criticize ugly architecture cause it won't be there for more than 30 years. Lol.

Personally, I think the persons who need to "get over themselves" are architects and developers who build total crap and then get their panties in a wad because people criticize their crap for being crap. Just because there's a fair chance their crap won't last for more than 30 years doesn't mean they shouldn't be called out for it.

We're wading into a much bigger conversation here, but I know that there are plenty of architects who fully believe, and have good philosophical arguments, that all modern buildings should be seen purely as temporary structures. The logic goes that the statistical chance that a building will be the next Pantheon, or even the next run-of-the-mill apartment block in a great city like Paris or New York is almost 0, so why even try? Why not just build in the ultimate demise of the structure into the original plan? And edit: I should be clear that I don't necessarily share this view.

Of course, being academic about this stance would require using RADICALLY different construction techniques, and thinking about the sustainability of the full life-cycle of the structure. Simply tearing down stick-built "Texas donut" apartments in 30 years is not sustainable, considering all of the energy and resources that go into them in the first place. So you're right, these buildings would still be "crap" even by those standards.

But I don't think what has been said above on this thread 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.