Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Four Seasons Nears Final Floor
Downtown Denver's Four Seasons, in this photo from last weekend, was up to floor 44. It looks like today they are pouring the concrete for floor 45, the topmost floor. But don't count that as a topping off yet! After floor 45 is finished, the Four Seasons has 117 more feet of building to go. Floor 45 sits approximately 524 feet above the street. On top of that is a crown of 42 feet and then a 75-foot spire, for a total height of approximately 641 feet above the ground, making it Denver's fourth tallest building. (Denver's third tallest, the Wells Fargo "cash register" building, tops off at 698 feet above grade.)
So what's your prediction for the date the spire will be hoisted into place, officially topping the building off? My guess is September 5, my birthday.
So what's your prediction for the date the spire will be hoisted into place, officially topping the building off? My guess is September 5, my birthday.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
CNU Video Winner: Built to Last
Denver just hosted the 17th Congress for the New Urbanism. We're the first city to ever host the CNU for a second time (cuz we're so awesome). Anyway, they had a video contest for the best "New Urbanism" video. Here's the winner:
The video, entitled Built to Last, was produced by the team of First + Main Media from Julian, CA and Paget Films from Buffalo, NY. Members of the team include John Paget, Dr. Chris Elisara, and Drew Ward.
Great video! Funny yet serious and gets the point across.
The video, entitled Built to Last, was produced by the team of First + Main Media from Julian, CA and Paget Films from Buffalo, NY. Members of the team include John Paget, Dr. Chris Elisara, and Drew Ward.
Great video! Funny yet serious and gets the point across.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Paris Observations, Part 2
Another aspect of the scale of cities that was illuminated to me by my recent trip to Paris is the issue of skyscrapers--or lack thereof--and the vitality of the city. One of the interesting debates that goes on in the comments to this blog, as well as in any urban/architecture/planning-type forum or website, is the matter of density and how it is best distributed across the urban core.
There are some people that want every new building in Downtown Denver to be the tallest it can be, even if it is at the expense of other new infill projects. One 50-story building, they say, is better than five 10-story buildings and certainly better than 10 five-story buildings. The appeal of skyscrapers is strong. As soaring works of engineering and (sometimes) art, they capture our imagination and represent a dramatic example of the prowess and progress of our species. For many people, the skyscraper is what it is all about.
There are other people, however, who believe that the best way to make a great urban environment is the "spread it around" alternative--in other words, assuming a sufficient supply of vacant land, 10 five-story buildings are preferable to a single 50-story skyscraper (as long as the ground floors are engaging, etc.). Philosophically, I support this view over the "skyscraper" approach, although I've certainly cheered virtually every new high-rise proposed in Denver. Generally I'm not about to openly denounce a 40-story building proposed for Downtown Denver if a developer is willing and able to build one.
But, in the end, it really comes down to this: What will give Downtown Denver the best urban environment? To me, it begins with a horizontal intensity of pedestrian-scaled, mixed-use buildings, supported by exceptional public transportation and a well-designed and maintained public realm. If we had a steady, sustainable demand here in Denver for the square footage of uses that require skyscraper development, I'd say let's reach for the sky. But, in reality, the demand for that kind of density in Downtown Denver evolves at a relatively slow pace. Therefore, if the market demand supports the equivalent of only a few skyscrapers per decade, then I would prefer that that demand be met through multiple mid-rise buildings instead. We have hundreds of vacant parcels and surface parking lots in our urban core. If we hold out (as many property owners do) for a skyscraper on every vacant lot, then it will take decades--many of them--before our undeveloped Downtown land is replaced with vibrant urban uses. In the meantime, the remaining vacant parcels perpetuate a stagnant, anti-urban influence to the detriment of Downtown. I prefer that we achieve a great street-level urban environment sooner rather than later by replacing as many empty lots as possible, and worry about adding a "new tallest" to our skyline in the future. I'll take five 10-story buildings over a single 50-story building any day.
Paris is the perfect example of this approach. About three million people live within a three-mile radius of Notre Dame with hardly a skyscraper in sight; yet, the environment is intensely urban and as thriving as can be imagined. That would be like putting the entire population of the Denver-Aurora-Boulder CSA inside the area bounded by Sheridan Boulevard, Colorado Boulevard, Interstate 70, and Mississippi Avenue, with virtually no high-rises.
As you know, this is the typical density of Paris:
How do we achieve this in Denver's urban core? One approach would be to downzone the urban core. Yes, I said the "d" word. If dozens of vacant or underdeveloped parcels in Downtown Denver currently have zoning on them that allows for 50-story (or higher) towers, then few property owners will want to sell their vacant land for a price that is anything less than a value commensurate to the development of a 50-story project. That's one reason why we have so many holdouts: landowners who are waiting for the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to strike it rich by selling their crappy parking lot to Donald Trump for his next mega-tower. Meanwhile, generations go by while Downtown Denver suffers all those crappy parking lots. A reasonable downzoning in conjunction with a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program would ensure that the property owners don't lose the economic value of their land under the existing zoning, while providing parcels to the market at land values that actually pencil out for mid-rise projects.
Another approach would be to change our property tax structure for Downtown Denver. Currently, property in Denver is taxed on the value of the land and improvements (i.e. buildings) with the emphasis on the improvements. But a surface parking lot? Not much "improvement" value there. Consequently, relatively low property taxes on vacant parcels discourage their development. But, if we adopted a Land Value Tax approach for Downtown Denver, we'd incentivize property owners to develop their land or sell it to someone who would, and discourage land-banking and speculation. The Land Value Tax approach has worked well in the cities that have tried it, such as Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where significant infill development has occurred in their downtown since implementing the LVT.
Skyscrapers are cool, but I would prefer Downtown Denver to become more like Paris than New York City. Maybe once we've covered 100% of our urban core with buildings and bustling streets, we can justify taking it to the next level. But for now, the best thing we can do for Denver is to achieve Mayor Speer's vision of a "Paris on the Platte".
There are some people that want every new building in Downtown Denver to be the tallest it can be, even if it is at the expense of other new infill projects. One 50-story building, they say, is better than five 10-story buildings and certainly better than 10 five-story buildings. The appeal of skyscrapers is strong. As soaring works of engineering and (sometimes) art, they capture our imagination and represent a dramatic example of the prowess and progress of our species. For many people, the skyscraper is what it is all about.
There are other people, however, who believe that the best way to make a great urban environment is the "spread it around" alternative--in other words, assuming a sufficient supply of vacant land, 10 five-story buildings are preferable to a single 50-story skyscraper (as long as the ground floors are engaging, etc.). Philosophically, I support this view over the "skyscraper" approach, although I've certainly cheered virtually every new high-rise proposed in Denver. Generally I'm not about to openly denounce a 40-story building proposed for Downtown Denver if a developer is willing and able to build one.
But, in the end, it really comes down to this: What will give Downtown Denver the best urban environment? To me, it begins with a horizontal intensity of pedestrian-scaled, mixed-use buildings, supported by exceptional public transportation and a well-designed and maintained public realm. If we had a steady, sustainable demand here in Denver for the square footage of uses that require skyscraper development, I'd say let's reach for the sky. But, in reality, the demand for that kind of density in Downtown Denver evolves at a relatively slow pace. Therefore, if the market demand supports the equivalent of only a few skyscrapers per decade, then I would prefer that that demand be met through multiple mid-rise buildings instead. We have hundreds of vacant parcels and surface parking lots in our urban core. If we hold out (as many property owners do) for a skyscraper on every vacant lot, then it will take decades--many of them--before our undeveloped Downtown land is replaced with vibrant urban uses. In the meantime, the remaining vacant parcels perpetuate a stagnant, anti-urban influence to the detriment of Downtown. I prefer that we achieve a great street-level urban environment sooner rather than later by replacing as many empty lots as possible, and worry about adding a "new tallest" to our skyline in the future. I'll take five 10-story buildings over a single 50-story building any day.
Paris is the perfect example of this approach. About three million people live within a three-mile radius of Notre Dame with hardly a skyscraper in sight; yet, the environment is intensely urban and as thriving as can be imagined. That would be like putting the entire population of the Denver-Aurora-Boulder CSA inside the area bounded by Sheridan Boulevard, Colorado Boulevard, Interstate 70, and Mississippi Avenue, with virtually no high-rises.
As you know, this is the typical density of Paris:
How do we achieve this in Denver's urban core? One approach would be to downzone the urban core. Yes, I said the "d" word. If dozens of vacant or underdeveloped parcels in Downtown Denver currently have zoning on them that allows for 50-story (or higher) towers, then few property owners will want to sell their vacant land for a price that is anything less than a value commensurate to the development of a 50-story project. That's one reason why we have so many holdouts: landowners who are waiting for the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to strike it rich by selling their crappy parking lot to Donald Trump for his next mega-tower. Meanwhile, generations go by while Downtown Denver suffers all those crappy parking lots. A reasonable downzoning in conjunction with a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program would ensure that the property owners don't lose the economic value of their land under the existing zoning, while providing parcels to the market at land values that actually pencil out for mid-rise projects.
Another approach would be to change our property tax structure for Downtown Denver. Currently, property in Denver is taxed on the value of the land and improvements (i.e. buildings) with the emphasis on the improvements. But a surface parking lot? Not much "improvement" value there. Consequently, relatively low property taxes on vacant parcels discourage their development. But, if we adopted a Land Value Tax approach for Downtown Denver, we'd incentivize property owners to develop their land or sell it to someone who would, and discourage land-banking and speculation. The Land Value Tax approach has worked well in the cities that have tried it, such as Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, where significant infill development has occurred in their downtown since implementing the LVT.
Skyscrapers are cool, but I would prefer Downtown Denver to become more like Paris than New York City. Maybe once we've covered 100% of our urban core with buildings and bustling streets, we can justify taking it to the next level. But for now, the best thing we can do for Denver is to achieve Mayor Speer's vision of a "Paris on the Platte".
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Final 18th Street Ped Bridge Rendering
You may recall a few weeks ago I mentioned that the 18th Street Pedestrian Bridge is now under construction in the Central Platte Valley. Chad at OZ Architecture, who designed the new bridge, was kind enough to send me a rendering of the bridge's final design. Back in May 2007 I posted some early design renderings of the bridge.
Here's what is being built:
The bridge design features switch-back stairs and elevators at each end, and some high quality materials, such as elevator components clad in copper. The bridge will also have some nighttime illumination. Of course, this bridge is not meant to compete with the iconic Millennium Bridge, but it still looks pretty nice to me.
Next up: construction of the relocated Union Station light rail platform should begin this summer. The extended end of that platform will tie in with the base of this new 18th Street pedestrian bridge.
Here's what is being built:
The bridge design features switch-back stairs and elevators at each end, and some high quality materials, such as elevator components clad in copper. The bridge will also have some nighttime illumination. Of course, this bridge is not meant to compete with the iconic Millennium Bridge, but it still looks pretty nice to me.
Next up: construction of the relocated Union Station light rail platform should begin this summer. The extended end of that platform will tie in with the base of this new 18th Street pedestrian bridge.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Paris Observations, Part 1
I'm back! I hope you'll forgive me for the dearth of posts lately, but the past six weeks have been crazy with a bunch of work and other professional events and trips one right after another, followed immediately by a 15-day vacation in Europe. My travels took me to Paris, Amsterdam, and a few other cities in the Netherlands. Of course, I can't wander around cities like those (or any city for that matter) without viewing my surroundings through an urban planning and development prism. So as usual, I'll share with you my observations (and a few photos) of these cities and maybe how Denver could improve from being a bit more like them.
Let's start with Paris. Wow. Where to begin? What an incredible city! I can see why many people consider Paris to be the grandest city in the world. The combination of a built environment so perfectly suited to the pedestrian, public transit that can take you anywhere with ease, an intense and fine-grained mix of uses, a ubiquitous spirit of history and culture, and a mass of humanity energized by all of the above... is a combination that makes for an exceptional urban place. The French are known for their cooking. I'd say they have the recipe for a city down perfect.
For this Part 1 of my observations of Paris, I'll focus on the organization of space. What struck me about Paris is that it's a city scaled around two extremes: the monumental and the intimate. There are dozens of buildings in Paris that can only be described as monumental. In American cities, we typically achieve monumentality by going vertical (in the form of skyscrapers); in Paris they achieve monumental buildings by going horizontal. A 1000-foot-long building in the middle of the city? In the US, we may look negatively on such a building, saying that it creates a "superblock". In Paris, it seems to work just fine. In part, it is because those monumental Parisian buildings are usually organized around monumental public spaces that not only give one room enough to comprehend and appreciate the monumental scale of the building, but also room for some relief from it. Fifty-acre parks and half-mile-long plazas sprinkled throughout the Parisian urban core create open spaces that are both a luxury and a necessity and the perfect complement to the city's monumental buildings.
On the other side of the spatial coin are the city's thousands of buildings and spaces that exist at an intimate scale. The typical Parisian building can't be more than 20 or 30 feet wide, with each offering a cozy space internally and a unique facade and storefront externally. Stitch all those narrow buildings together and you get two things: solid blocks of buildings that form the walls that enclose the streets, sidewalks, parks, plazas, and courtyards of the public realm; and a street wall with a pattern and rhythm to it that is cohesive but distinct, predictable but interesting, and engageable only at a pedestrian pace. The narrowness of so many of the city's streets make them intimate places too and, therefore, pleasant, even when sharing the space with a crush of cars, bicycles, busses, scooters, and humanity. It seems that every square inch of the public realm in Paris is used in a thoughtful way, resulting in thousands of intimate public spaces. Even the occasional wide spot in the sidewalk or the odd notch out of a building has been outfitted with a tree or a bench or a fountain, making it a small but appreciated place for people to pause.
Finally, there is the ratio between these monumental spaces and these intimate spaces. Too many monumental places would make the city too difficult to traverse by foot, too open and exposed, too intimidating and impersonal. Too few monumental places would make the city too claustrophobic, too monotonous, too uninspiring. But, disperse within a tight fabric of intimate buildings and spaces just the right amount of spatial monumentality, and you get an exceptional urban environment. This is Paris.
Let's start with Paris. Wow. Where to begin? What an incredible city! I can see why many people consider Paris to be the grandest city in the world. The combination of a built environment so perfectly suited to the pedestrian, public transit that can take you anywhere with ease, an intense and fine-grained mix of uses, a ubiquitous spirit of history and culture, and a mass of humanity energized by all of the above... is a combination that makes for an exceptional urban place. The French are known for their cooking. I'd say they have the recipe for a city down perfect.
For this Part 1 of my observations of Paris, I'll focus on the organization of space. What struck me about Paris is that it's a city scaled around two extremes: the monumental and the intimate. There are dozens of buildings in Paris that can only be described as monumental. In American cities, we typically achieve monumentality by going vertical (in the form of skyscrapers); in Paris they achieve monumental buildings by going horizontal. A 1000-foot-long building in the middle of the city? In the US, we may look negatively on such a building, saying that it creates a "superblock". In Paris, it seems to work just fine. In part, it is because those monumental Parisian buildings are usually organized around monumental public spaces that not only give one room enough to comprehend and appreciate the monumental scale of the building, but also room for some relief from it. Fifty-acre parks and half-mile-long plazas sprinkled throughout the Parisian urban core create open spaces that are both a luxury and a necessity and the perfect complement to the city's monumental buildings.
On the other side of the spatial coin are the city's thousands of buildings and spaces that exist at an intimate scale. The typical Parisian building can't be more than 20 or 30 feet wide, with each offering a cozy space internally and a unique facade and storefront externally. Stitch all those narrow buildings together and you get two things: solid blocks of buildings that form the walls that enclose the streets, sidewalks, parks, plazas, and courtyards of the public realm; and a street wall with a pattern and rhythm to it that is cohesive but distinct, predictable but interesting, and engageable only at a pedestrian pace. The narrowness of so many of the city's streets make them intimate places too and, therefore, pleasant, even when sharing the space with a crush of cars, bicycles, busses, scooters, and humanity. It seems that every square inch of the public realm in Paris is used in a thoughtful way, resulting in thousands of intimate public spaces. Even the occasional wide spot in the sidewalk or the odd notch out of a building has been outfitted with a tree or a bench or a fountain, making it a small but appreciated place for people to pause.
Finally, there is the ratio between these monumental spaces and these intimate spaces. Too many monumental places would make the city too difficult to traverse by foot, too open and exposed, too intimidating and impersonal. Too few monumental places would make the city too claustrophobic, too monotonous, too uninspiring. But, disperse within a tight fabric of intimate buildings and spaces just the right amount of spatial monumentality, and you get an exceptional urban environment. This is Paris.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Solera
The details about Solera, the infill project currently under construction at 20th and Lawrence on Block 079, are now available. Solera is the latest project by Zocolo Development, the firm that brought the Zocolo Condos and RiverClay to the Jefferson Park district.
Solera is a 120-unit, 11-story residential rental development that will be LEED Gold certified. Solera also includes two ground-floor retail spaces. Here's a high-resolution rendering of the project, courtesy of Zocalo Development and the project architect, John Gagnon of JG Architects:
The project is planned to be completed by June 2010. For more information on Solera, here's a link to a PDF fact sheet on the project. Solera's website is SoleraLiving.com.
Solera is a 120-unit, 11-story residential rental development that will be LEED Gold certified. Solera also includes two ground-floor retail spaces. Here's a high-resolution rendering of the project, courtesy of Zocalo Development and the project architect, John Gagnon of JG Architects:
The project is planned to be completed by June 2010. For more information on Solera, here's a link to a PDF fact sheet on the project. Solera's website is SoleraLiving.com.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Baseball Stadium District: We Need More Parking Lots!
Remember back in 2007 when, for a few months, there was a controversy over the old Light Bulb Supply Building site at 21st and Delgany behind Coors Field? The owners at the time, Bill and Paula Leake, wanted to rezone their property to RMU-30, which would have allowed their underutilized property to be developed with a building up to 140 feet in height. A few neighborhood groups and the Denver Metropolitan Major League Baseball Stadium District (owner of Coors Field) objected to the plan, saying that it would block the view of the mountains from Coors Field.
In response, a view plane ordinance was proposed that would have originated at a point in Section 222 Club Level of Coors Field, limiting new buildings within the view to a height of 72 feet. The problem with a 72-foot height limit was that, with the elevated I-25 HOV lanes soaring 40 feet above ground past the property, not enough of a 72-foot tall building would rise above the flyover to make the project profitable. Also, there was some debate as to the degree to which a 140-foot tall building at the site would really block mountain views anyway. Here's a rendering, prepared by Buchanan Yonushewski Group (which represented the Leakes at the time) of the view from Section 222 Club Level with a 140-foot building at 21st and Delgany, as well as the Commons (Central Platte Valley) approved bulk plane behind it:
For more background on the issue, here's a Rocky Mountain News article and editorial from 2007. Anyway, the view plane issue was put on hold so that it wouldn't detract from the Rockies' historic World Series run at the time, and since then there's been no news on the matter... until now.
Jared Jacang Maher has the latest at Westword: The Denver Metropolitan Major League Baseball Stadium District bought the property from the Leakes for about $2.4 million. You may conclude that this is a win-win for everybody: the Leakes get the value out of their property and Coors Field gets to protect its view. I'm not so sure.
The Stadium District plans to turn the 21st and Delgany site into a surface parking lot after they lose some of their surface parking along upper Blake Street to RTD for a FasTracks transit line. Even that may seem reasonable. But what bothers me is the Stadium District's viewpoint, as expressed by District director Ray Baker: "There's just not enough [parking] currently with what we have and what will be taken."
That's right, there isn't enough parking around Coors Field, and that's a damn good thing. The point of placing Coors Field in a Downtown location without nearly the number of parking spaces that it normally would have if it were in a suburban location, was to force people to either a.) take transit, or b.) park throughout the Downtown area and walk/mall shuttle to the stadium, thereby filling the sidewalks with pedestrians and making Downtown a better, more urban place. A place will never become more urban by making it easier to get there by automobile. Let me repeat that: A place will never become more urban by making it easier to get there by automobile! Until we learn that lesson in Denver, we'll never have the Downtown we strive to have.
"We can’t simultaneously promote walking and bicycling while continuing to facilitate driving." – Albert Einstein
And, need I remind the Stadium District that Coors Field is located two blocks from what will be the largest multi-modal transit hub in the entire region?! Why does the District feel that they will need to replace the parking spaces they lose to RTD for transit construction, when those very same transit lines will put millions of people throughout the Denver region within a few miles of a transit line that will conveniently drop them off two blocks away from Coors Field?! Did the Stadium District ever consider that when all the FasTrack lines are up and running that fewer people might, you know, drive to the stadium?
The Stadium District should be working hand in hand with the City and the Downtown Denver Partnership to steadily, strategically, replace the surface parking lots around Coors Field with dense, mixed-use development and, if we must, structured parking. The more Coors Field is surrounded by an intensity of shops, restaurants, housing, hotels, offices, and sidewalks teeming with people, the more exciting it will be to go to a game. We want Coors Field to be in the center of it all, immersed in a pedestrian-scaled urban domain, not surrounded by a sea of asphalt like the Pepsi Center is.
In the Rocky article, Mr. Baker is quoted as saying: "We have an obligation to protect the ambience of the experience of going to Coors Field and protecting that view. I think it would be detrimental to taxpayers not to do so." You want to protect--enhance--the ambience of the experience of going to Coors Field? Make the experience more urban, more walkable, more engaging. You want to benefit the taxpayers? Make the Coors Field experience more sustainable by discouraging driving to the stadium and by invigorating the streets of Downtown with economy-stimulating pedestrians. Seems to work just fine for Yankee Stadium, Wrigley Field, and Fenway Park.
"If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places." - Fred Kent
So, the Leakes get their money but Downtown gets a new surface parking lot. I'm happy for the Leakes, but I'm disappointed in the Stadium District's parochial perspective. I expect more enlighted, progressive thinking from the owners of our Downtown ballpark. But, I'll make the Stadium District a deal: Develop Block C into a dense, mixed-use project, and I'll support your parking lot at 21st and Delgany.
In response, a view plane ordinance was proposed that would have originated at a point in Section 222 Club Level of Coors Field, limiting new buildings within the view to a height of 72 feet. The problem with a 72-foot height limit was that, with the elevated I-25 HOV lanes soaring 40 feet above ground past the property, not enough of a 72-foot tall building would rise above the flyover to make the project profitable. Also, there was some debate as to the degree to which a 140-foot tall building at the site would really block mountain views anyway. Here's a rendering, prepared by Buchanan Yonushewski Group (which represented the Leakes at the time) of the view from Section 222 Club Level with a 140-foot building at 21st and Delgany, as well as the Commons (Central Platte Valley) approved bulk plane behind it:
For more background on the issue, here's a Rocky Mountain News article and editorial from 2007. Anyway, the view plane issue was put on hold so that it wouldn't detract from the Rockies' historic World Series run at the time, and since then there's been no news on the matter... until now.
Jared Jacang Maher has the latest at Westword: The Denver Metropolitan Major League Baseball Stadium District bought the property from the Leakes for about $2.4 million. You may conclude that this is a win-win for everybody: the Leakes get the value out of their property and Coors Field gets to protect its view. I'm not so sure.
The Stadium District plans to turn the 21st and Delgany site into a surface parking lot after they lose some of their surface parking along upper Blake Street to RTD for a FasTracks transit line. Even that may seem reasonable. But what bothers me is the Stadium District's viewpoint, as expressed by District director Ray Baker: "There's just not enough [parking] currently with what we have and what will be taken."
That's right, there isn't enough parking around Coors Field, and that's a damn good thing. The point of placing Coors Field in a Downtown location without nearly the number of parking spaces that it normally would have if it were in a suburban location, was to force people to either a.) take transit, or b.) park throughout the Downtown area and walk/mall shuttle to the stadium, thereby filling the sidewalks with pedestrians and making Downtown a better, more urban place. A place will never become more urban by making it easier to get there by automobile. Let me repeat that: A place will never become more urban by making it easier to get there by automobile! Until we learn that lesson in Denver, we'll never have the Downtown we strive to have.
"We can’t simultaneously promote walking and bicycling while continuing to facilitate driving." – Albert Einstein
And, need I remind the Stadium District that Coors Field is located two blocks from what will be the largest multi-modal transit hub in the entire region?! Why does the District feel that they will need to replace the parking spaces they lose to RTD for transit construction, when those very same transit lines will put millions of people throughout the Denver region within a few miles of a transit line that will conveniently drop them off two blocks away from Coors Field?! Did the Stadium District ever consider that when all the FasTrack lines are up and running that fewer people might, you know, drive to the stadium?
The Stadium District should be working hand in hand with the City and the Downtown Denver Partnership to steadily, strategically, replace the surface parking lots around Coors Field with dense, mixed-use development and, if we must, structured parking. The more Coors Field is surrounded by an intensity of shops, restaurants, housing, hotels, offices, and sidewalks teeming with people, the more exciting it will be to go to a game. We want Coors Field to be in the center of it all, immersed in a pedestrian-scaled urban domain, not surrounded by a sea of asphalt like the Pepsi Center is.
In the Rocky article, Mr. Baker is quoted as saying: "We have an obligation to protect the ambience of the experience of going to Coors Field and protecting that view. I think it would be detrimental to taxpayers not to do so." You want to protect--enhance--the ambience of the experience of going to Coors Field? Make the experience more urban, more walkable, more engaging. You want to benefit the taxpayers? Make the Coors Field experience more sustainable by discouraging driving to the stadium and by invigorating the streets of Downtown with economy-stimulating pedestrians. Seems to work just fine for Yankee Stadium, Wrigley Field, and Fenway Park.
"If you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places." - Fred Kent
So, the Leakes get their money but Downtown gets a new surface parking lot. I'm happy for the Leakes, but I'm disappointed in the Stadium District's parochial perspective. I expect more enlighted, progressive thinking from the owners of our Downtown ballpark. But, I'll make the Stadium District a deal: Develop Block C into a dense, mixed-use project, and I'll support your parking lot at 21st and Delgany.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Design Element Caps New Parking Garage
Trammell Crow's 17-story 1900 16th Street office tower in the Union Station district has topped off and is on track for its opening later this year. Included in the project is a parking garage at 15th and Delgany featuring ground-floor retail spaces and a newly installed design element meant to complement the Museum of Contemporary Art building across the street.
Perhaps you noticed in the past couple of weeks large brackets being installed on the garage's 15th and Delgany corner? Those brackets now support large panels that collectively create a subtle design gesture to the MCA's strong cubic form. Take a look:
Tryba Architects designed the 1900 16th Street project, including the parking garage design element. I think the silvery panels are a good addition to the corner. What do you think?
Perhaps you noticed in the past couple of weeks large brackets being installed on the garage's 15th and Delgany corner? Those brackets now support large panels that collectively create a subtle design gesture to the MCA's strong cubic form. Take a look:
Tryba Architects designed the 1900 16th Street project, including the parking garage design element. I think the silvery panels are a good addition to the corner. What do you think?
18th Street Ped Bridge Under Construction
Good news in the Central Platte Valley. It looks like the long-awaited 18th Street Pedestrian Bridge is under construction.
For the past several weeks, utility work has been taking place within the 18th Street right-of-way in advance of work on the bridge itself. While that effort appears to be continuing, I noticed today what looks like a concrete form or something that is going vertical, which I assume is for the bridge itself. Here's a pic:
There's also a new sign on the Riverfront Park side of the tracks about the new bridge too.
What's the bridge going to look like? Here's one image from my blog on this topic from May 2007. I'm not sure if this is still the latest design, but it's probably pretty close:
I'll update this post if I get newer images of the bridge.
Construction on the first component of the big Union Station project--relocation of the light rail station to along the CML at the end of 17th Street--is still supposed to begin soon, as in May or June.
For the past several weeks, utility work has been taking place within the 18th Street right-of-way in advance of work on the bridge itself. While that effort appears to be continuing, I noticed today what looks like a concrete form or something that is going vertical, which I assume is for the bridge itself. Here's a pic:
There's also a new sign on the Riverfront Park side of the tracks about the new bridge too.
What's the bridge going to look like? Here's one image from my blog on this topic from May 2007. I'm not sure if this is still the latest design, but it's probably pretty close:
I'll update this post if I get newer images of the bridge.
Construction on the first component of the big Union Station project--relocation of the light rail station to along the CML at the end of 17th Street--is still supposed to begin soon, as in May or June.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
More on Writer Square
About three weeks ago I blogged about the planned redo of the plaza areas in Writer Square, which was reported to include a glass pyramid and a moat, of all things. Today I'm happy to be able to post a few more renderings of the proposed design. These images are scans of a handout that was provided to Writer Square residents and business owners at a recent meeting with the developer. All images are copyright DHR Architecture / Blue Architects.
First, here's the site plan:
In the initial phase, the corner at 16th and Lawrence will be a sunken plaza with a small water feature. Reportedly, the pyramid and underground commercial space for that corner would be a future phase only if the right high-profile retailer was found. The wall that runs along Larimer from the corner at 15th Street that separates the plaza from the sidewalk will be removed. I support that idea as it will improve pedestrian circulation, particularly when the city removes a drive lane from Larimer and consequently widens the sidewalk on the Writer Square side of the block next year. Also to be removed is the large triangular planter at the corner of 16th and Larimer, which should also improve pedestrian movement at that intersection.
The site plan also shows, however, that the pedestrian areas will be barren except for pedestrian lighting. The green trees shown on the site plan are on the landscaped upper level residential patios. There appear to be no trees planned for the public plazas themselves. Here are two images showing the proposed sunken plaza at 16th and Lawrence (left) and the plaza at 15th and Larimer (right):
I don't know about you, but neither space seems particularly inviting. No seating, no flowers or trees, no public art, no shade. Really, who is going to want to sit on a folding chair and play the guitar in a sun-baked concrete plaza in the middle of the summer? In Downtown, we need more trees, more shady areas to provide shelter and refuse from the sun. What will be removed to make way for this sunken plaza? Mature trees. Also, these two images appear to show that the plaza surface will be--concrete squares? How interesting. Other improvements include updating the retail storefronts and signs, which seem appropriate to me.
Finally, here's a night-time shot showing proposed new signage at 15th and Lawrence:
The project is supposed to begin later this spring and be finished before the end of the year, and will occur in five stages so that the whole site is not impacted at the same time.
Overall, I'm underwhelmed. I fully support the idea of making improvements to Writer Square in general. The existing plaza surfaces are in poor condition, and a general sprucing up of the pedestrian areas and storefronts is a welcome investment. But getting rid of all seating and landscaping seems unwise to me. Writer Square currently provides a pleasant place to sit and relax for a few minutes, set back a bit from the busy streets that surround it. Under the proposed plan, it looks like it will be not a place to dwell, but simply to pass through. Does that really make for a great public space?
First, here's the site plan:
In the initial phase, the corner at 16th and Lawrence will be a sunken plaza with a small water feature. Reportedly, the pyramid and underground commercial space for that corner would be a future phase only if the right high-profile retailer was found. The wall that runs along Larimer from the corner at 15th Street that separates the plaza from the sidewalk will be removed. I support that idea as it will improve pedestrian circulation, particularly when the city removes a drive lane from Larimer and consequently widens the sidewalk on the Writer Square side of the block next year. Also to be removed is the large triangular planter at the corner of 16th and Larimer, which should also improve pedestrian movement at that intersection.
The site plan also shows, however, that the pedestrian areas will be barren except for pedestrian lighting. The green trees shown on the site plan are on the landscaped upper level residential patios. There appear to be no trees planned for the public plazas themselves. Here are two images showing the proposed sunken plaza at 16th and Lawrence (left) and the plaza at 15th and Larimer (right):
I don't know about you, but neither space seems particularly inviting. No seating, no flowers or trees, no public art, no shade. Really, who is going to want to sit on a folding chair and play the guitar in a sun-baked concrete plaza in the middle of the summer? In Downtown, we need more trees, more shady areas to provide shelter and refuse from the sun. What will be removed to make way for this sunken plaza? Mature trees. Also, these two images appear to show that the plaza surface will be--concrete squares? How interesting. Other improvements include updating the retail storefronts and signs, which seem appropriate to me.
Finally, here's a night-time shot showing proposed new signage at 15th and Lawrence:
The project is supposed to begin later this spring and be finished before the end of the year, and will occur in five stages so that the whole site is not impacted at the same time.
Overall, I'm underwhelmed. I fully support the idea of making improvements to Writer Square in general. The existing plaza surfaces are in poor condition, and a general sprucing up of the pedestrian areas and storefronts is a welcome investment. But getting rid of all seating and landscaping seems unwise to me. Writer Square currently provides a pleasant place to sit and relax for a few minutes, set back a bit from the busy streets that surround it. Under the proposed plan, it looks like it will be not a place to dwell, but simply to pass through. Does that really make for a great public space?
