Denver Development Etceteras Thread #5 - Page 58

wong21fr · #**1141** Posted: **Apr 26, 2012, 3:45 PM**

^You're probably right on the Seasons at Cherry Creek being the most recent. It was finished in 2010 and is 14 stories. Solera is 12 stories and 1099 Osage is 10 stories so they are out of the running. Now, the tallest rental project in the last decade would be the conversion of 1600 Glenarm.

DenverInfill · #**1142** Posted: **Apr 26, 2012, 4:50 PM**

Yo:

http://denverinfill.com/blog/2012/04...-chestnut.html

EngiNerd · #**1143** Posted: **Apr 26, 2012, 4:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

What's the tallest purely apartment building to be built in Denver recently? I'm thinking of the one in Cherry Creek built a while back might be it... I realize "purely apartment" is a REALLY specific qualifier which would cut out places like glasshouse, four seasons, spire etc since they are all condo or mixed.

A 19 story apt building though.. that's the stuff nice affordable highrise (it's a highrise right? or is that cut off 20 stories) condo living comes from when it gets converted in a while.

Probably 816 Acoma (16 floors, 2008) in Golden Triangle and the Seasons tower C (13 floors, 2010) in Cherry Creek were the last decently tall all apartment buildings. Could put Solera in there too, though its quite a bit shorter (11 floors, 2010). And before that, probably the other Seasons (15 floors) or the Country Club Towers (21 floor), which were built in like '87.

wong21fr · #**1144** Posted: **Apr 26, 2012, 5:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Yo:

http://denverinfill.com/blog/2012/04...-chestnut.html

Ken, this is why I love you man!

(In an entirely platonic way)

glowrock · #**1145** Posted: **Apr 26, 2012, 5:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Ken, this is why I love you man!

(In an entirely platonic way)

+1

Ken, you're awesome!

Aaron (Glowrock)

Cirrus · #**1146** Posted: **Apr 26, 2012, 6:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Yo: http://denverinfill.com/blog/2012/04...-chestnut.html

Those look great.

jimluk · #**1147** Posted: **Apr 26, 2012, 8:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Yo:

http://denverinfill.com/blog/2012/04...-chestnut.html

The green looks strange, curious what material that will be.

The 28' floor to ceiling height is confusing/concerning, you could probably almost do 3 levels of parking(9' floor to floor is a bit tight, especially with fireproofing). It appears to be handled a bit better on the 20th street side than on 19th, but it is basically a 1 story blank wall/strip mall signage parapet. The super tall 1st bank windows in the render remind me of the bizarre out of scale feeling you get in Towne Centeres, at Southlands they put wrapping paper on the upper 15 feet of windows that are above the drop ceiling. I guess it will all come down to materials and detailing, the proportions just seem awkward.

I tried to think of spaces to compare it to, I am imagining the Ikea parking garage and the downtown Portland Safeway, which I remember as being pretty tall.

http://www.metropolismag.com/story/2...s-green-grocer

Just to be clear, I am excited for that part of town to get a grocery store and I hope it turns out better than I am envisioning. Does a grocery store outweigh bad architecture/poor urban form(no balconies or windows or "eyes on the street" for the first 30 feet). In this case probably so, in the long term I don't know, I guess it beats 6 stories of parking at the Spire. I hope some of Ken's info is wrong, I guess worst case a 28ft parking garage would make good overflow convention space.

Octavian · #**1148** Posted: **Apr 26, 2012, 8:45 PM**

Airport city Denver website - has DIA video from last week

http://airportcitydenver.com/index.html

Fritzdude · #**1149** Posted: **Apr 27, 2012, 12:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Yo:

http://denverinfill.com/blog/2012/04...-chestnut.html

What's the over and under on how many cranes will be in town later this summer? I'm thinking around 10 to 12. Good times my friends..

Brainpathology · #**1150** Posted: **Apr 27, 2012, 1:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Octavian

Airport city Denver website - has DIA video from last week

http://airportcitydenver.com/index.html

I suppose that was a good advertisement for the airport itself. But the hypothetical renderings of the developments around the airport other than the hotel look like the biggest threat to Denver since the original rendering for the Convention Center Hotel.

If there was a choice between the tech center and airport city there wouldn't really be a choice. But that choice has already been made.

balugajames · #**1151** Posted: **Apr 27, 2012, 4:29 PM**

Yeah, this whole airport thing seems odd. We built a connection to downtown and now they want to move everything out there? WTF? Also the weather out there is so much more violent than in Denver. Seems strange... Why would anyone want to live next to an airport with all that polution and noise. Also, I understand maybe having warehouses and such out there. But entertainment? Housing? Business? Hotels? Just odd.
The whole thing seems backwards.

It would seem to me with the rail connection there is no need for an airport city.... Oh no 30 minutes to take train downtown.. I can never get any business done now! I better build my building right next to the airport so that all my employees have to drive an hour and a half or take that extra leg on the train from downtown 'since all lines go downtown first' out to BFE! But hey! If they go on a trip via air, like they do 6 times a month, it will only take 5 minutes! Don't they still have to get to the airport either way? This doesn't improve anything just wastes resources.

So now we have another core that we have to fund. (Streets, schools, sewer, fire, police) so that we can continue urban sprawl in the exurbs! I will certainly vote no on this one.

Cirrus · #**1152** Posted: **Apr 27, 2012, 4:36 PM**

What a great way to get 50,000 people to move to Watkins and Bennett.

Brainpathology · #**1153** Posted: **Apr 27, 2012, 4:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by balugajames

Yeah, this whole airport thing seems odd. We built a connection to downtown and now they want to move everything out there? WTF? Also the weather out there is so much more violent than in Denver. Seems strange... Why would anyone want to live next to an airport with all that polution and noise. Also, I understand maybe having warehouses and such out there. But entertainment? Housing? Business? Hotels? Just odd.
The whole thing seems backwards.

It would seem to me with the rail connection there is no need for an airport city.... Oh no 30 minutes to take train downtown.. I can never get any business done now! I better build my building right next to the airport so that all my employees have to drive an hour and a half or take that extra leg on the train from downtown 'since all lines go downtown first' out to BFE! But hey! If they go on a trip via air, like they do 6 times a month, it will only take 5 minutes! Don't they still have to get to the airport either way? This doesn't improve anything just wastes resources.

So now we have another core that we have to fund. (Streets, schools, sewer, fire, police) so that we can continue urban sprawl in the exurbs! I will certainly vote no on this one.

I suppose this is what you get when you elect a suburban guy for mayor. I don't really expect it to become anything like that video envisions anyway. And if we want to gaurantee it won't we can always award the whole project to Union Station patners now.. then we won't have anything to worry about.

bunt_q · #**1154** Posted: **Apr 27, 2012, 4:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimluk

Does a grocery store outweigh bad architecture/poor urban form(no balconies or windows or "eyes on the street" for the first 30 feet). In this case probably so, in the long term I don't know, I guess it beats 6 stories of parking at the Spire. I hope some of Ken's info is wrong, I guess worst case a 28ft parking garage would make good overflow convention space.

I guess I am really not following your criticism here. Bad architecture, okay, I don't really have an opinion either way. But bad urban form? How so? I'm really not sure how I could improve on the urban form here; this is exactly what we need.

Are you just concerned about the ceiling height? Why? I'm not sure eyes on the street are that critical (relative to the eyes on the ground - and feet- a grocery store will pull in), and even so, what's the difference between eyes at 20' and eyes at 30'?

Retail spaces are better with high ceilings. The higher, the better. And also the more versatile that space will be in the future if it's ever not a grocery store anymore. I don't see any downside at all to this.

DenverInfill · #**1155** Posted: **Apr 27, 2012, 5:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I guess I am really not following your criticism here. Bad architecture, okay, I don't really have an opinion either way. But bad urban form? How so? I'm really not sure how I could improve on the urban form here; this is exactly what we need.

Are you just concerned about the ceiling height? Why? I'm not sure eyes on the street are that critical (relative to the eyes on the ground - and feet- a grocery store will pull in), and even so, what's the difference between eyes at 20' and eyes at 30'?

Retail spaces are better with high ceilings. The higher, the better. And also the more versatile that space will be in the future if it's ever not a grocery store anymore. I don't see any downside at all to this.

I completely agree. Only good news.

balugajames · #**1156** Posted: **Apr 27, 2012, 6:19 PM**

Mayors Thought Process: Hey, lets increase the cities foot print and spread the funding across more land! Actually..... How much would it cost to move downtown Denver, intact, to the airport guys? Do you think this is feasible? I have to get on a plane like 12 times a year! Its so annoying! Why should I have to take a stupid train all the way over there. You know..... it would have been nice if we had built an airport nearer the city. Wonder why they didn't do that in the past!

doh! Fail!

Sorry, im just perturbed by this idea. Airport city..... argh! Once Denver is connected to DIA via light rail. IT WILL BE THE AIRPORT CITY!!

bunt_q · #**1157** Posted: **Apr 27, 2012, 6:46 PM**

Gentlemen, gentlemen. Hold the blasphemy. Don't you get it?

You heard me.

The Dirt · #**1158** Posted: **Apr 27, 2012, 7:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Gentlemen, gentlemen. Hold the blasphemy. Don't you get it?

You heard me.

See quote from the Airport city website:

"Airport City Denver and the aerotropolis around it, built with regional cooperation, will enable us to all succeed together."
- Denver Mayor Michael Hancock

1Post2 · #**1159** Posted: **Apr 27, 2012, 8:41 PM**

Interesting how much that Airport City video focuses on the rail connection to downtown. This is, unfortunately, an example of a commuter rail line becoming a sprawl generator much in the same way that a new highway can be one. Any time you improve access to the undeveloped land at the periphery of the city... (after all, our earliest suburbs grew up around streetcars).

Of course, DIA itself and I-70 are much bigger factors, but this is another reason why our next wave of rail investment should be focused on central Denver and not the suburbs & exurbs.

The Dirt · #**1160** Posted: **Apr 27, 2012, 9:21 PM**

Honestly, I'm not too worried about any of this. This development is mostly focusing on light industrial and manufacturing uses - something that's already well represented in this area by Aurora. All of the non-manufacturing plans are really just expansions of existing uses, meant to support the larger workforce and growing blue collar populations. The recent demographic shift in Montbello and Green Valley Ranch means that the workforce is already close by so commute times may actually decrease.

I doubt that the mayor will have any significant luck with development happening north and east of airport. What we'll mostly see is greenfield manufacturing infill along Pena with the bulk of the tennants being existing metro-area employers who move or expand into the area. Sure, this is sprawl but, there might be a silver lining. We may end up vacating more industrial-use buildings along the Platte and I-70 and retain the businesses within city limits. This will allow further residential infill and cleanup along the most significant channel of water in the state.