Buzz Geller’s 34-story “Bell Tower” was dismissed as “too massive” by the Lower Downtown Design Review Board at their meeting last week.
You may recall the controversy over the proposed tower, located at the corner of Speer and Market on Block 242 in Lower Downtown. Geller obtained the property in a swap with the city for land Geller owned where the city wanted to build (and is currently building) the new Denver Justice Center. After acquiring the creekside property, Geller lobbied for and ultimately received the right, via the creation of a new Special Review District, to construct one of two project designs: “Option A” being a thin 400-foot signature tower with expanded public open space along the creek and a 55-foot high LoDo-esque companion building on the 14th Street side of the creek, or, “Option B” being two LoDo-esque buildings on both sides of the creek that would cover more of the site. Either plan’s final design was dependent upon the approval of the Lower Downtown Design Review Board.
Option A (left) – Option B (right)
Persuing Option A, Geller teamed with Fentress Architects and eventually arrived at this signature design:
This design was panned by the Board as not being “feather-like” enough so, in response, the design was “pinstriped” by Fentress in an attempt to appear a bit thinner:
Personally, I think the original non-pinstriped version was a cleaner and better design. But anyway, the LDDRB still wasn’t sure if the tower met the Special Review District’s guidelines, so they asked the city for a clarification. The city’s response in late September was that even the pinstriped version of the tower wasn’t “vertical and slender” enough and that “minor tweaks” to the building’s design would not meet with approval.
So, as John Rebchook at the Rocky Mountain News reports in his articles of November 4 and November 7, Buzz Geller let his Option A tower go through the LDDRB process one last time, knowing it would get rejected, which is exactly what happened last Thursday. The board found the tower to be too “massive.” For comparison purposes, the rejected Geller tower design had a footprint less than half that of One Lincoln Park.
With the rejection, Geller is now planning on persuing Option B, the two shorter blockish buildings covering more of the site. That in itself isn’t a bad thing. While I would have preferred Option A, two low-rise buildings with active ground-floor uses at that location will still be far superior to the ugly surface parking lots that exist there now.
But, I have to wonder: A developer is willing to build a $300 million archtecturally striking tower in our urban core that has a footprint smaller than just about any residential tower in this city and a site plan that maximizes views and public access to the creek, but it is rejected over what could be described, at best, as a subjective design nuance. Meanwhile, the city allows another developer to slap up not one, but three cheap beige monstrosities in the Golden Triangle that are architecturally offensive and derided by almost everyone. Does this make any sense?
I agree completely, this tower should have been built. It wasn't the City of Denver's land. If they cared so much, they should have ponied up the money to buy it back and resold it to a developer who would have executed their vision. This is a transfer of property rights from the landholder to an amorphous "community." The result is architecture by committee.
While I understand the need for the LoDo review board to prevent the monstrosities that were built during the 60's and 70's, it seems the board is too "Boulderish" these days. Is there anything we can do to influence their decisions?
I agree Ken. I find this frustrating. I'm disappointed in the way the city has take advantage of Mr Geller.
Option A was far superior.
The citizens of Denver are the losers in this one.
Keep pushing the creative envelope Buzz!
Nice, Ken. Especially the Golden Triangle comment. I think since those were around the "first" new construction in that area in what seemed like forever, their architectual style got a pass, unfortunately. Or, the board has no clue what architecture will last. I wonder how many of them have even taken an architecture class.
Ugly? Yes. Massive? Not at all. Even though I didn't like the design, I'm kind of sad to see it go. But why can't the wider buildings be taller? Ten stories at least.
Tyler Gibbs and CPD should be ashamed. Why is he wasting this communities time with 'feather-like' nuances?
Seriously, the tower was a 400-foot skyscraper made of metal, stone, concrete and glass, how 'feather-like' could it get?
LDDRB and CPD leaders should resign.
I have a 'feather-like' idea, why don't we put up a big sign that reads, "Developers, please bring nothing new and exciting to this city, we have everything we could ever want!"
It doesn't make sense, but it does go a long way in explaining why the architecture in this city is, for the most part, boring and bland, and why, as long as that review board remains intact, this city will never stand out architecturally.
Way go to Denver! Go for that cow town, I never want to be taken seriously look. Why don’t we remove our interstates and go back to horse and carriages.
Lol… but really, the 1401 Lawrence project, Trump Tower, Union Station, even the reduction of the Four Seasons, shows Denver is not ready to be anything other than second rate. Denver NEVER takes a chance on building something great, Denver never wants to take a chance.
There is nothing massive about this tower. The city just screwed him over until they got the land that they wanted, when this occurred they gave him the clearance for the height restriction and the special zoning for his land knowing that they would never ever approve a SKYSCRAPER on this parcel.
If I were Mr. Geller I would not stop until I got the project aproved. Keep redesigning it & keep the height just for the sake of the capital to be gained. We Denverites are hungry for heigth.
MR.GELLER DO NOT GIVE IN OR GIVE UP TO THE CITY KEEP SUBMITTING THEY WILL FALL.
I really liked the Option A design. I thought it would be a striking building buttressing downtown from the Auraria campus across Speer.
Ug. I just feel sick to my stomach that nothing exciting in this city is going to be built with private funds.
Really incredibly unfortunate. I agree with all the comments above. I also agree with you Ken, the first rendering was best (before they striped it up).
Denver needs to take some chances. Denver needed this building.
What can WE do to let these decision makers know how we feel?
I was never a big fan of the proposed building, but this is horseshit. Since when do we allow unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to determine what someone can do with his or her own property? We can't vote these fools out of office or recall them. Geller should be allowed to build whatever the hell he wants provided he complies with the actual laws (zoning, codes, etc.).
If these namby-pamby wastrels want a feather like building, they should have bought the damn land themselves and put up their own money.
He should leave them as surface parking lots.
The tower's distinctive design would had made a significant contribution to an otherwise mostly bland skyline. Also, it would presumably have provided more residential space than Option B, and more residents = greater vibrancy for the LoDo and downtown areas.
I think the LDDRB is making a mistake. I hope there is some way to revive Option A.
well said…except for the 'parking lot' bits.
i know that this board is loaded with talented qualified people, but they CLEARLY are not looking forward.
there's no reason that a talented, experienced planner downtown couldn't replace this elitist review board.
Yes, this is disgusting. How do we let these people know what we think? What can be done to change the way decisions like this are made? How can we hold them accountable for opportunity lost for citizens of Denver? I have had enough! It's time to take a stand. Let's get organized and unseat these fools.
If the board doesn't have all the same people that it did when it approved the golden triangle projects, it's an unfair comparison to make between allowing those and blocking this one.
I think the board should have either let this project fly, or been a little more specific about what changes they need to see. We don't really know what was actually said, though, because we don't have the entire transcript.
I do wonder why many above commenters keep visiting this site and being active on the forums if they are decided in hating Denver so much.
Matt– to clarify: The GT projects were not subject to design review by the LoDo or any board. My point simply was to question the inconsistency of how projects are reviewed (or not) for design in our city.
A general comment to everyone:
Please be respectful of the individuals on the LDDRB. They are design professionals who volunteer for the position and they have specific design guidelines they must follow. Feel free to disagree with the guidelines themselves or the board's interpretation of the guidelines, but please avoid disrespecting them as individuals or their overall intentions. Thanks.
I fully understand the need for the LDDRB and do respect their general intentions. Without them buildings like this https://denverinfill.com/wp-content/uploads/oldimages/elevation/lower_downtown/047/block_047_se.jpg or this https://denverinfill.com/wp-content/uploads/oldimages/elevation/lower_downtown/040/block_040_se.jpg were able to get built. I understand the need for a board to protect the integrity of the only core neighborhood to protect such a large stock of historic structures.
That said however, there must be a way for the public to get involved. Regardless of their intentions, what has just happened is a travesty. It is surely was because of concerned citizens and neighbors that lead to the creation of the board in the first place. But I don't see how any of these neighbors would have a problem with the Bell Tower. Even with the best of intentions, the ultimate veto power of the board is just wrong. There needs to be a way for the citizens to speak out.
This idea that one cannot disagree with decisions made about the future of the city without being told they must “hate Denver” is absurd. This argument is much those where people insist that those if someone sees flaws in this here the United States of America must HATE America, or those who don’t support a specific war must be ANTI military… I find that if people are on here it is because they DO care about Denver, and DO like the city, and therefore are interested in the growth and development of the city. This does not mean, however, that we should have to like EVERY plan that is put forth. And if your reference was to those who claim that we have a lot of bland architecture, again, I don’t think this means they hate Denver. There is a lot to like about Denver besides its architecture, and if they have an interest in development plans of the city that means they are interested in bringing more unique architecture to the city, as well as vibrancy, residents, business, mixed use, you name it.
I'm sorry Ken but I would care to authentically express and exercise my first amendment right here on this particular issue since this one really hurts! And I'll do so gratefully anonymous. I don't know any of these review board officials and frankly I wonder why I don't. Show yourselves. For someone to take part in decisions that shape the city I grew up in and believe in to wield such civic power. I've always found growth and change inspiring to learn how to accept and be part of the change that's been Denver for decades. It's like I want to wake up from someone else's dream here, or nightmare for that matter. Is it the dream police? I can appreciate the BOULDERISH comment by one blogger and I agree, yet I always used the word 'BOULDERIZED'. Often times I wonder if Boulder isn't the real competitive envelope for Denver. Wasn't Boulder always cooler with it's anti-anti-anti – growth/height/population control? Soooo-whoa green isn't it? Yet hardly any post 1970 monarch to the architectural prow there. Whoops off track a bit…I could understand if the tower looked like a penis or something but for crying out loud maybe we should waterboard Mr. Geller. as well. For years and years and years, well since big oil changed Denver forever by ripping out the trolleys, nothing about an over abundance of review or zoning has ever been exciting or progressive. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. So review on and on and critique yourselves into a twirling frenzie of vapor as nothing will matter…nothing (no matter) results from non-action. Aren't we always getting ready to…'get ready'. It's like a perfectionist's obsession disorder or something. Then in the end do we really believe we built the perfect building and for who, as it only satisfies a handful of dignitary's own perspectives? Hey I have a brand new idea, lets take it to a vote of the 'people' now that's a scary thought…If we Denverites gravitate mostly toward the historic appeal, then ponder this, what ever happened to the simpler times of yesterday when wow it was up to the landowner, developer and architect to realize their vision. Leave the vision to the visionaries, right? The rest of the chatter is just high dollar gossip. Not overly cautious to LIVE. Deep thanks,
COWPANZIE
Ken,
Do you think this project will have any future in a different location? I'm fairly upset that the design didnt get approved at Speer and Market do you think there are any other locations this could end up? Denver has plenty of parking lots…
"Please be respectful of the individuals on the LDDRB."
Fair enough, and I apologize to any board members who may be reading. So how do we go about undoing or improving this review board system? Has it served its purpose at this point? It's totally arbitrary that a building on one side of the block can be subject to these capricious restrictions, and one across the street isn't.
The fact that in this economic climate we have someone (apparently) willing to invest a large amount of money to erect a big building, and we have told him "no thanks" is just not right. Especially given the backstory here, where the city sure looks to have taken this guy for a ride to get themselves a parcel they really, really wanted.
Rules may be rules, but there's a time for flexibility too.
Lest somebody drag the ACLU into this and sue poor Ken, let us acknowledge an indisputable point: the 1st Amendment does not give you any right to post anonymous comments on a privately owned and operated website blog. Now back to the bitchin'…
🙂
he should put this project where 1401 Lawrence was going too be, that be the perfect site.
I am really disappointed. I thought Denver was starting to grow up and become cosmopolitan. What is wrong with Denver? Why does this city embrace the bland and reject the innovative. You can't build anything anywhere near downtown without submitting it to some board so they can make sure it's bland first. I doubt the board was following any guideline. They spelled out the rules and Geller followed them. If the design was shorter and not so innovative would they still have rejected it? No.
We can say this Ken because it happens over and over again. Boring, square buildings get approved; innovative ones don't.
^^ not too much to worry about there…1st amendment rights only apply to protection from the fed. gov't…ken can do as he pleases folks!
lol
Sorry.
I think Freddie is a little cranky today. I tried to come up with a list of examples of the innovative buildings getting rejected and didn't get very far.
But one thing is for certain; Denver does have a standard that is not very high when it comes to architecture. I've been disappointed too many times by the promise of a great building that just never comes about, or morphs into a flat-roofed cube by the time it gets built.
"TOO MASSIVE" It's a joke, right!
>While I understand the need for the LoDo review board to prevent the monstrosities that were built during the 60's and 70's
Respectfully, this tower design was extremely faddish. I'll remind everyone that what we call monstrosities now were considered in the 60s and 70s the very height of good design. If the LoDo review board is charged with preventing history from repeating itself, then they absolutely are doing the right thing by toning down "here and now" architecture.
>the city allows another developer to slap up not one, but three cheap beige monstrosities in the Golden Triangle that are architecturally offensive
I agree; they suck. But my mother taught me pretty early on that two (or four) wrongs don't make a right.
>Since when do we allow unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to determine what someone can do with his or her own property?
Since always. Design review is legal. It is not a property rights issue. This property owner is still being permitted to use his land for profit. There isn't a judge in the country that would rule this a taking.
>How do we let these people know what we think? What can be done to change the way decisions like this are made?
This is why we have planning departments. LoDo's design review board is legally required to follow design review guidelines, which are adopted by the City Council as part of the zoning ordinance. If we want to change how projects in LoDo are reviewed, then the process is to change the design review guidelines.
… But be careful what you ask for, because in the world of city planning, given enough time, you will get it.
>I'm sorry Ken but I would care to authentically express and exercise my first amendment right here on this particular issue
DenverInfill is Ken's property, not a public place. First amendment rights do not extend here. Ken is under absolutely no legal obligation to allow any comment he doesn't want to allow, and you have absolutely no legal recourse if he chooses to moderate you.
It looks like the board doesn't realize the biggest risk is not taking one. This was a perfect opportunity to move the neighborhood forward without compromising what the city and private developers have built so far. It is a shame that it doesn't fit into the myopic vision of what the board is trying to accomplish. It's time to push the vision forward.
You all need to get a grip! Just because Denver lacks innovative architecture, doesn't mean that its not a great city! Listen to yourselves! We are the ones who make this city truly a wonderful place to live. We may not be on the list of "worlds most livable cities", but Denver is still a great place, shaped by its people, not its buildings! And just because this 'tower' isn't getting built, doesn't mean anything to a vast majority of Denverites. Here is one thing you need to ask yourselves: how will getting this tower built improve my life? Why does it matter? Can anyone answer that without sounding ignorant?
beyond dc,
this is not an attack on you brother just me anon expressing myself.
and i believe you are the most qualified for the explanaition.
you seem to have all the answers except why the city sook him out in a land swap for there purpose of a new "JAIL" sorry justice center in the middle of downtown where no one wanted it!
The review board allowed the zoninig to be changed for his new parcel to 400'for his visioned "skyscraper" so that it appeared to be a fair & honest deal & then had his designs shot down everytime he submitted them, with the changes they asked for. I think i speak for most of us hear that we would like an explanation or something, this was a very expressive building that would of brought some pazzaz
to the neighborhood, it had a" buzz" about it.
Thanks bro im better now.
& ken can we get a long awaited big picture update homie
every body else just stop hating on ken -k-
To be completely fair, while it is sad that this tower has been shut down, the LDDRB has nothing to do with architecture in the rest of the city. Architecture in LoDo is all that they have review ability over. If a developer wanted to pony up the money for a top tier architect and design in the CBD, they would absolutely be able to.
This is a singular case of a city department stifling architecture. If you feel that the rest of Denver lacks innovative architecture, you can blame the developers for that, not the city itself. I would hope that this proposal is evidence that certain developers are beginning to see the light. As Denver becomes a more and more attractive place to live, I'd like to think that we will start to see some very nice proposals elsewhere.
Yes mymilehi,
first off you can only speak for yourself not the majority of denverites, because you have no clue what most of them would like about dt buildings,
secondly, i say, i say INNOVATION SON,INNOVATION
If not here, where?
If not now, when?
i love lodo's low-rise historic buildings and lofts, but this tower would have been nice. especially to bridge the gap between the main highrises downtown and the central platte valley.
I thought I would write in to clear up a few things so that those of you who love this city as I do can form a more accurate opinion on the subject at hand.
To begin with, it is not the people on the boards who make the decisions that are to blame, but it is the process. The board members are given guidelines to follow. The main two groups are Landmark and the Lower Downtown Design Review Board. Since they sit in the postion that they do, no one other than the planning department may have dicussions with them. That means only the city staff has their ears. The city can direct them anyway they see fit. Who has the power over the city planning department? The City Councilperson who represets the district and the City's Administration.
Going back to the beginning may help you understand what happened. I felt that to block the views into and out of Larimer Square was not in the best interest of the people of the city. Therefore, I proposed massing the density into a tall tower-like struture which would leave a vast amount of open space plus a public park. In showing different people and boards what the concept would look like a prototype model was made to illustrate how the site would look. You know some people (very few) did not like the tower concept because they said it would block there view. They lost when City Council voted 12 to 1 to allow the tower concept.
I went to the most iconic archeticual firm in Denver and commisioned Curtis Fentress to design the building. Three consecutive designs were shown to the board over an ten month period. They felt they were too massive.
After about ten months the City decided that the building was too massive because it had too many void spaces (two story aspects) within the design, thereby making it too massive. They asked for an entire redesign of the structure. This came to late. If they would have told me of their feelings intially we would have complied with their wishes.
Going back to the people who didn't like the tower–they complained that the new design wasn't what they were promised. They wanted exactly what was shown in the prototype model. I leave you to figure out the rest of the story.
One highly respected member of the Board realized what was happening and voted for the tower. I applaude his courage.
If one wants to appeal the vote they must first go to Landmark and then to court. The courts seldom actually overturns their decision. Instead they ask them to rethink their decision. It can go on for years.
Here is how to fix this persistent problem in short order. City Council ,through an ordinance, created both Boards. They should also be able to override their decisions. As of now they don't have that right. Change that and you will have fixed 70% of the problem.
Some of you have suggested that we build it on the Great Gulf site. The Tower is much too small for that site. Remember the Great Gulf was to be 800 ft tall covering the whole site. Our tower would only cover a third of the site and half as tall.
What I've heard is that this issue was about the size of each floor's square footage being outside the permitted zoning, that Geller wrote when he rezoned the land.
If that's the case, why have we not read about it in this blog or in the paper or anywhere in the public discourse???
It's always good to hear from the developer on these issues. Thank you Buzz for your perspective.
Anon 12:11,
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, and in any event can't speak to the city's intentions as I am not involved in this process in any way. But until 3 months ago I was the staff liaison for an architectural review board in a different jurisdiction, so I do know how such boards function.
Putting aside my personal dislike for the tower design, it sounds to me like the City Council and the LoDo review board weren't on the same page.
Buzzgeller is right that the City Council should have appeal authority over the design review board. That's how it works in most cities, and would solve this problem.
He is also right that taking the decision to *court* would accomplish nothing. Courts can't overturn design decisions, they can only rule on the legality of the process. If the LoDo board acted legally (and it seems to me they did), no court can overturn their decision no matter how much the judge may like one design over another.
Hope that helps.
PS: I want to stress again that the LoDo review board was just doing its job here. They are specifically tasked with preventing "here and now" architecture from overcoming the historic district, which is exactly what they did. It should be the City Council's prerogative to overturn board decisions, yes, but given the task to which they are assigned, the board made the right call.
So the Great Gulf site might not be economical but there are plenty of lots where this tower would work. I think it would compliment and contrast OLP nicely.
Wait, wait, wait…what's going on here? That's the LAST thing we need is people who actually know what their talking about posting comments here. The world is running out of places for me to post nonsensical rants backed up by made-up facts. Ignorance is bliss I tells ya!
And thanks for the insight Geller!
I really appreciate the commentary. Buzz commenting here is like the ultimate real estate clinic, online! First off, I actually liked the original building.. esp for that location. It would have been stunning, for a while… the reason I belive it might age badly in about 10 years is not due to the design so much, but the fact of the starkness of the building, without surrounding/supporting mass. That 'plaza look' is going to be so 20th century in a few years. We need juxtaposition! And that's not necessarily the developers fault.. What I don't understand is why building a low rise building is such a bad thing. Why is that looked down upon? My problem with high rises is the fact there are generally 'plazas', or 'parks' or some kind of parking built into it. The location along speer is itself a massive setback. Why would we need more setback? In short, I realize that the market can only handle so much more 'space' at one time. I honestly think if its a shorter building, that we will be better for the added urban tapestry that our city needs more than a 'skyline'
Wow!
I am very impressed with Buzz! Thanks for offering your point of view. I hope you keep trying. I like both options. I would enjoyed the taller tower but there is beauty in a smaller building too. Keep coming up with these great ideas and they deny good ideas. People like you will help change Denver into something very special. I just hope you dont get discouraged from a raw process. The building would look great in a lot of areas too…
I can understand both sides to this. Honestly, I wanted to see this thing built, but the area covered by the LoDo design Review Board is not huge – is it so much to ask that we preserve the historic look and feel of one small part of our city? One of the reasons the land is so valuable and this project is (theoretically) economically feasible there, is that this area was preserved, and is "charming" and desireable to people that can afford to buy into these high-end developments. People probably aren't going to pay quite as much to live next to the glass boxes in the CBD.
looks like Spire's E shafts are toping out today?!
I don't understand why the reveiw board(s) consider this as part of the LODO district? I mean, it's between the river and Auraria. What historical significance does the Auraria campus offer, other than the Tivoli, a few churches, and 9th street? It's all "modern" low rise bland institutional buildings. The tower fit's in fine and actually helps lift the area with something special.
It does not impact LODO. How about all the 70s/80s butt ugly condo towers built after DURA destroyed much of the LODO district?
I am in complete sympathy with the developer and feel that the Mayor should stand up for him and go to City Council and override this decision, but based upon the mayors track record it will never happen.
Thank you Geller for your post! It was wonderful reading about this from your perspective!
I'll echo so many other people in here and encourage you to keep up the good work! Denver is lucky to have your vision and your commitment.