DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by i4isoar

I also noticed that each time someone resurrects the project, it shrinks a little bit more in height. Who knows, at this rate, someone will propose a 3-story low-rise on the site sometime towards the end of this century, and then maybe that will finally get built and break the 2 Tabor curse.

I propose we lobby Mr. Anschutz to buy the Tabor 2 site and resurrect the Tabor Grand Opera house that our lovely DURA destroyed decades ago, though renamed the Anschutz-Tabor House of Pleasure.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by twister244

I actually kinda like "Skyview".... but I guess I am in the minority. It has a bit of a relaxing hook to it that could give the neighborhood a fun theme.

I also think Skyview is perfectly fine.

In fact, I've decided to split my five votes between Skyview and Mosley

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Great news about Shelby's. I'm moving to the suburbs (for ease of pandemic/WFH life) and will miss watching all the construction. But at least I'm getting tf out of Candiland.

Weren't you living in Curtis Park?

In any case the June numbers are in for new home construction and the market is HOT in all regions of country including the NE. Wasn't that long ago an "expert" declared it would be a long time before they matched or exceeded January's numbers. Well they just exceeded those numbers. Speculation is that the WFH crowd is partly responsible especially in the NE.

Rents moderating

Rents dropped a bit in the 2nd quarter for the 1st time since 2010. That said, people are still moving to Denver and the absorption rate was good.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Weren't you living in Curtis Park?

Good memory, that’s true. The very heart of Candiland. Great neighborhood but that 2.5 storey zoning and neighborhood preservation madness drove me away. (Not really, but the exploding unhoused population was the drop that overflowed the cup. Trading tents for trails by living near Morrison.)

[BG918]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Good memory, that’s true. The very heart of Candiland. Great neighborhood but that 2.5 storey zoning and neighborhood preservation madness drove me away. (Not really, but the exploding unhoused population was the drop that overflowed the cup. Trading tents for trails by living near Morrison.)

I don’t blame you, the homeless problem downtown is completely out of hand. Very sad to see our downtown area and Capitol taken over by tent cities. I don’t fault the people living there but rather the city/state which has totally ignored it and has no viable solution except to ship them to the Coliseum parking lot.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by BG918

I don’t blame you, the homeless problem downtown is completely out of hand. Very sad to see our downtown area and Capitol taken over by tent cities. I don’t fault the people living there but rather the city/state which has totally ignored it and has no viable solution except to ship them to the Coliseum parking lot.

Well, love it or hate it, Polis is putting a ton of pressure on the city to sweep up around the Capitol now. I agree with Polis on his polarizing comments he made the other day after that shooting, especially when you have the city voters to back him up with (via mayoral election). Not saying shipping folks off to the coliseum parking lot is the best solution, but letting folks just sprawl out wherever they want, do drugs, etc is no better......

On a side note, I have gone down this crazy rabbit hole tonight, trying to understand Denver zoning in my area, and how things might change with city plans. I've noticed between Jeff Park, Sloan's Lake, and West Colfax, the majority of "Slot Homes" have been built in G-MU-3. There are adjacent neighbhorhoods in West Colfax that are either U-RH-2.5 or U-RH-3, which permits (what I am assuming) are traditional row homes or brownstones. But.... I see very little in the way of new construction in these areas, which I don't understand. Is this simply developers taking advantage of zones specifically under G-MU-3 until all lots are swallowed up as that's what sells right now? I see similar U-RH near the Santa Fe arts district north of 6th, but no new construction has touched that area, even being relatively close to the Golden Triangle, downtown, etc. Anyone have insight on this?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Good memory, that’s true. The very heart of Candiland. Great neighborhood but that 2.5 storey zoning and neighborhood preservation madness drove me away. (Not really, but the exploding unhoused population was the drop that overflowed the cup. Trading tents for trails by living near Morrison.)

I never lived all that close but over the years... whether driving up to one of Everygreen's bars or for a day-hike near Morrison it became my favorite 'direction' to go to get out of the city. Often mused about living in the area for its 'small-town' feel and artsy flavor.

Nice choice; enjoy.

Originally Posted by BG918

I don’t blame you, the homeless problem downtown is completely out of hand. Very sad to see our downtown area and Capitol taken over by tent cities. I don’t fault the people living there but rather the city/state which has totally ignored it and has no viable solution except to ship them to the Coliseum parking lot.

Said the homeless guy to the Mexican family (who has a home, even if modest)

“They will just go by and say, oh Mexican, wetbacks, go back to your country, speak English,” Ruiz Parilla said. “It’s embarrassing, because I have a daughter, and she has to walk with me, and she says, ‘Mom do you hear what he said?'”

Surely the city council in their collective wisdom must be more useful than Mayor Hancock, No? So 8 councilors and others all signed a letter to the Mayor about authorized encampments which he's never been a fan of.

So the Mayor sent a letter to each of the 8 councilors in respect that they know their own districts better than he, to come up with at least one site in each district. The response has been deafening. Crickets!

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/07/...middle-school/

The woman, who asked us not to use her name, lives across the street from Morey Middle School where more than 100 people have set up tents, “I come into my apartment building, which usually feels safe.”

That sense of safety, she says, is now shattered after she says a man tried to rape and kill her as she entered her apartment building.

“I do think there is a sense right now in this neighborhood of lawlessness… and it gives people permission, in a way. I don’t know if he’s a member of this camp or not.”

IIRC, I read that at least one-third of Denver's homeless come from outside the city. They come for the easy-to-find drugs, the free camping and supportive community.

All those recently elected to Denver's City Council know how to ask all the right questions (and complain) but they have zero answers and no clue how to run a city.

[RyanD]

Corner glass at Block 162 looks fire!

[i4isoar]

Originally Posted by laniroj

I propose we lobby Mr. Anschutz to buy the Tabor 2 site and resurrect the Tabor Grand Opera house that our lovely DURA destroyed decades ago, though renamed the Anschutz-Tabor House of Pleasure.

That would actually be a pretty amazing idea. Anyone know Mr. Anschutz's email?

Originally Posted by RyanD

Corner glass at Block 162 looks fire!

Looks fantastic!

Though an honest question: is there any particular reason why the glass extends up past the roofline? (Judging by the size of those panes relative to the floors below, it looks like the glass wall extends at least 20 to 25ft past the top of the roof).

Are they planning to make the rooftop accessible to the public and the glass parapet is a protective barrier? If they're trying to make the building look taller than it actually is, then why not just build out those floors, or better yet, add a spire instead? (Not complaining as I still think it looks great, but was wondering if the parapet is purely aesthetic or if it serves some practical function).

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by i4isoar

That would actually be a pretty amazing idea. Anyone know Mr. Anschutz's email?



Looks fantastic!

Though an honest question: is there any particular reason why the glass extends up past the roofline? (Judging by the size of those panes relative to the floors below, it looks like the glass wall extends at least 20 to 25ft past the top of the roof).

Are they planning to make the rooftop accessible to the public and the glass is a protective barrier? If they're trying to make the building look taller than it actually is, then why not just build out those floors, or better yet, add a spire to the roof? (Not complaining as I still think it looks fantastic, but was wondering if the extra glass is purely aesthetic or if it serves some practical function).

It is just an architectural flourish that doubles as a way of screening the rooftop mechanical.

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by i4isoar

Are they planning to make the rooftop accessible to the public and the glass parapet is a protective barrier? If they're trying to make the building look taller than it actually is, then why not just build out those floors, or better yet, add a spire instead? (Not complaining as I still think it looks great, but was wondering if the parapet is purely aesthetic or if it serves some practical function).

Guessing they're probably hiding mechanicals behind the glass facade. Aka like the Independent in Austin...but uh less fugly.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by twister244

...On a side note, I have gone down this crazy rabbit hole tonight, trying to understand Denver zoning in my area, and how things might change with city plans. I've noticed between Jeff Park, Sloan's Lake, and West Colfax, the majority of "Slot Homes" have been built in G-MU-3. There are adjacent neighbhorhoods in West Colfax that are either U-RH-2.5 or U-RH-3, which permits (what I am assuming) are traditional row homes or brownstones. But.... I see very little in the way of new construction in these areas, which I don't understand. Is this simply developers taking advantage of zones specifically under G-MU-3 until all lots are swallowed up as that's what sells right now? I see similar U-RH near the Santa Fe arts district north of 6th, but no new construction has touched that area, even being relatively close to the Golden Triangle, downtown, etc. Anyone have insight on this?

G-MU-3 is much simpler and allows for better density because it doesn't have a street facing unit requirement. U-RH-2.5 requires all units to be street facing, which limits density to 2 or 3 units on a standard Denver lot vs G-MU-3 where you could get 5-6. A simple change allowing U-RH-2.5 to have alley facing units as well would solve this problem, but that kind of thinking in Denver is RADICAL!

[TakeFive]

But it's a horse race

Originally Posted by twister244

I actually kinda like "Skyview".... but I guess I am in the minority. It has a bit of a relaxing hook to it that could give the neighborhood a fun theme.

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/07/...-central-park/

DENVER (CBS4) — Soon, the Stapleton neighborhood will have a new name. The original list of more than 300 choices has been narrowed down to two finalists: Central Park and Skyview.

-----------------

Originally Posted by RyanD

Corner glass at Block 162 looks fire!

Impressive; both the building and the photo.

Just tilt that back some and let's go schussing.

----------------

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

Guessing they're probably hiding mechanicals behind the glass facade. Aka like the Independent in Austin...but uh less fugly.

Agreed; for as 'interesting' as that is, it just doesn't do much for me.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by laniroj

G-MU-3 is much simpler and allows for better density because it doesn't have a street facing unit requirement. U-RH-2.5 requires all units to be street facing, which limits density to 2 or 3 units on a standard Denver lot vs G-MU-3 where you could get 5-6. A simple change allowing U-RH-2.5 to have alley facing units as well would solve this problem, but that kind of thinking in Denver is RADICAL!

Ahh, that makes total sense.... Thanks for the explanation. Yeah, one has to wonder if we will be forced to have that conversation during the next wave. However, if any upzoning occurs, this may just become a mute point.

Also, happy to see Skyview is one of the two finalists for Stapleton! Telling ya..... airport themed bars and clubs.

[The Dirt]

That's really more a function of the form, though. RH zoning only allows for the rowhome building form, which oddly and idiotically still has large side setbacks. MU zoning allows for many other building forms. If your lot is too narrow and deep, you're kind of likely to want to do townhomes, but the anti-slot-home rules means that all of the units have to face forward. You can do an apartment form, which means that you only provide one entrance, but, again, on lots that are narrow and don't have alleys, you're stuck with onerous parking rules that means you have to try to cram a bunch of cars in there and provide adequate access. Over a certain size and you also have ADU compliance and different building code regulations to consider (IRC vs IBC) and have to do things like use union labor.

The bottom line is that MU is better than SU, TU, or RH, but with form based zoning, you also have to learn what's allowable with each form (single, duplex, rowhome, townhome, garden court, apartment). Each has different setback requirements and restrictions on access and shape. My personal take is that RH zoning is still too restrictive to make projects pencil out unless you can assemble larger lots.

Also, the area plans will not change zoning, they'll just less gently and more specifically make zoning change recommendations than Bluprint or Comp Plan. It's still up to each individual property owner to request a zoning change and see how city council feels the day of the vote.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by twister244

Also, happy to see Skyview is one of the two finalists for Stapleton! Telling ya..... airport themed bars and clubs.

Ugh.... for the mob to win on Skyview while Mosley didn't carry the day is a tough pill to swallow. Plus the dude who proposed the name (originally as Skyfield) was soooo annoying in his push.

Deep down, it's growing on me like a benign cyst, but I'll never admit that to my neighbors. Instead I'm going to go launch some new conspiracy theories to further cause derision and anger.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Ugh.... for the mob to win on Skyview while Mosley didn't carry the day is a tough pill to swallow.

I've got a crazy but good idea. There has to be a way to dedicate something to John Mosley.

From what I understand, the iconic Stapleton Air-Traffic-Control Tower was meticulously renovated. Why not create a City-owned non-profit to purchase the historic control tower and create a quasi-museum and restaurant (which could be leased out). Call it "Moser's Place"

Perhaps they could commission the Denver Botanic Gardens to create/maintain some of the exterior space - which could also promote the Botanic Gardens. The only hitch would be the necessary cost to add an elevator up to the tower which could be used as a bar or rentable meeting space. On the plus side $millions have already been spent on the existing renovation.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Ugh.... for the mob to win on Skyview while Mosley didn't carry the day is a tough pill to swallow. Plus the dude who proposed the name (originally as Skyfield) was soooo annoying in his push.

Deep down, it's growing on me like a benign cyst, but I'll never admit that to my neighbors. Instead I'm going to go launch some new conspiracy theories to further cause derision and anger.

I think we should honor Mosley. But I don’t want to live in Mosley.

Central Park is about as non contentious as you can get. It’s a welcome change. Central Park Blvd runs right through the middle of the neighborhood and is how motorists enter from I-70. The A-line stop is already called “Central Park”. And to top it off, we have a massive park situated in the middle of the neighborhood named “Central Park”. This is a no brainer. People in City Park love their association with the park. So, eventually, will Central Park.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

I think we should honor Mosley. But I don’t want to live in Mosley.

Central Park is about as non contentious as you can get. It’s a welcome change. Central Park Blvd runs right through the middle of the neighborhood and is how motorists enter from I-70. The A-line stop is already called “Central Park”. And to top it off, we have a massive park situated in the middle of the neighborhood named “Central Park”. This is a no brainer. People in City Park love their association with the park. So, eventually, will Central Park.

There are already sub-neighborhoods called Central Park West and Central Park North. The park really is the center of the neighborhood. I think most people agree that Northfield is its own thing and should go by that name.

[The Dirt]

Stapleton is a massive neighborhood. I'm surprised Northfield hasn't been split off already. Split in two, they would still be pretty large neighborhoods.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by BG918

There are already sub-neighborhoods called Central Park West and Central Park North. The park really is the center of the neighborhood. I think most people agree that Northfield is its own thing and should go by that name.

That would work for me- southsiders suck anyway . Though there’s probably some issues with splitting the RNO while keeping the overarching MCA to manage the parks, events, and pools for the area as a whole.