As many of you may have already heard or noticed, yet another residential project has broken ground in the RiNo area. Since there have been bits and pieces of information regarding “RiNo Center”, it’s time to present a quick rundown on the highlights of the project. Located at 32nd and Brighton Boulevard, RiNo Center is the latest project in that part of town to throw up a chain link fence and start pushing around the fresh spring soil. The 4-story building will include 205 units and 262 parking spaces. Also notable, the development will include a clubhouse and a 15,000 square foot courtyard.
Though the project is located in a section of the city that most would consider cut-off, or lacking in amenities, future residents may beg to differ. Those new to RiNo Center may actually find that they have lifestyle options which are unavailable in most other neighborhoods throughout the city. As a TOD (Transit-oriented Development), RiNo Center will be within walking distance from a commuter rail stop, offering alternative transportation options for its residents. In addition, the one-of-a-kind urban market “The Source” will be literally next door to offer a variety of services sure to boost quality of life in the neighborhood.
Paired with Denargo Market a mile or so down the street, these projects are helping to form a critical mass northeast of downtown. As services, residences and support functions continue to fill into the neighborhood, it will only become more livable and energetic.
(Renderings provided by developer Scott McFadden, who is principal of Prospect, LLC.)
That parking lot is horrible.
I hope to see the city scaling back parking as TODs are implemented and density continues to build. Time.
I am profoundly disappointed with this low-rise. I am glad that the lot is getting developed, but that lot was zoned C-MX-12 in the most recent zoning changes. The developers missed out on an opportunity to put in a higher-density, more urban-like development. They could even have developed that lot in phases.
Yes that parking lot is atrocious. They couldnt have placed that in back??? Why even have it at all if it’s supposed to be so TOD! argh.
Everybody’s cashing in on high rental rates. Living on Brighton Blvd is going to be rather grim for quite a few years still, unless they can bridge the train tracks and make it more accessible to the rest of downtown. I’d rather see them develop that whole corridor into relatively affordable art, studio & light industrial space, now that RiNo proper is more or less priced out of that market. Those huge, unleaseable distribution warehouses would be perfect subdivided into smaller spaces.
Dead on, Scott! Great potential being wasted. They’re trying to craft RiNo as Denver’s art neighborhood, yet there’s nothing available that fledgling artists that make such neighborhoods can afford.
They can do both. There are a few old warehouses there that would be great to repurpose like you recommend. There are also alot of scrap yards and crappy buildings that are just an eyesore. I am sure they will at least build a pedestrian bridge over the tracks at the light rail station.
notwithstanding that it is a gross under-utilization of the land, i actually like the building, but the orientation on the land is completely wrong – it needs to be flipped 180 degrees so that the ‘wall’ of the building fronts the main street, not railroad tracks.
swing and a miss..who is the architect?
Underwhelmed, but hopeful this will turn out better than it looks. Very disappointed that they have decided to set back a good percentage of the buildings off the sidewalks with parking in front.
Most disappointing is retaining the highway style billboard!! Talk about an eyesore for future residents – This monstrosity next to CityBark should have been taken down during construction. I truly hope they reconsider.
I’ve got to agree. The parking is terrible and the layout of the building is backwards for an “urban” project. Too bad they already started construction without really looking at the situation critically.
Also, I’m not too sure that much of RiNo is really near to a commuter rail station. The closest station is across the wall of railroad tracks and quite a distance. I think that RiNo is one of those places that we will look back on some day when it is partially developed and going back down hill and ask why anyone thought it had potential (or I will be looking back and saying, I can’t believe I didn’t see the potential 😉
I thought Denver’s new zoning code had more teeth than this… I’ll add to the choir that this is fairly disappointing. I am a bit of an eternal optimist… but the best I can say for this one is “planned obsolescence.”
I suppose it will add some needed “density” to the area in terms of # of residential units. But the best we can hope is that someday the neighborhood will turn around and this cheap building can be torn down and redeveloped again. Even the worlds greatest cities have throw-away buildings that represent redevelopment sites. NYC for example has so few parking lots that most new skyscrapers are built when old, unremarkable, throw-away buildings are torn down.
But let’s not pretend that this represents good urban planning. In today’s architectural world, it seems that cheap stucco (EIFS) facades are par for the course if you want to keep occupancy costs reasonable. But we don’t need to settle for this kind of thoughtless, suburban, auto-oriented site layout. Apparently that tiny little sliver of the building that comes all the way to the sidewalk is enough to satisfy the zoning code requirement that the building must meet the street?
This sort of development is what the Elyria Swansea Globeville Business Association and its leaders have been pushing for, with regards to size and land utilization. There are others who own land along Brighton and the immediately surrounding blocks who likewise want to see low-rise along the Brighton strip. It’s an approach that has been pushed by certain leaders for over a decade.
It’s great to complain about the land utilization or the design, but Scott McFadden is actually developing a project on Brighton Boulevard (no one else can say that – it’s all just plans as of now). A number of the commenters above appear to have forgotten that Brighton is still a long way from having the infrastructure that would demand many of the ideas being mentioned. Why not set the building back from a road that is essentially a highway? Who cares about the sidewalk, when the sidewalk will only span the length of the lot, and dead-end into dirt shoulder? It’s great to plan for the future, but with no commitment from the city to make change, such planning is at one’s own detriment.
The above feedback against the developer is largely misdirected. Anyone who cares about developments like this along Brighton should be contacting Denver City Council and demanding that the tax revenue paid by the businesses in the area be reinvested and basic services such as curb, gutter, and street lights be provided. McFadden is taking a risk building a $30+ million project. The City has only promised a $100,000 study on curbs and gutters for all Brighton Boulevard. Once the city makes the long over-due commitment to improve Brighton, we then can expect and demand that developers create more pedestrian-friendly, urban focused developments. We can only hope that McFadden’s development brings greater attention to these needs.
For those who want to participate in the change along Brighton Boulevard, please join us at the following meetings:
River North RNO
April 17th, 6-7pm at The Laundry on Lawrence
2701 Lawrence Street
Elyria Swansea Globeville Business Association
April 18th, 9-10:30 at the Forney Museum
4303 Brighton Boulevard
I don’t think that anyone is indicating that having development here is a bad idea. In fact, this developer in their rendering does provide a proper sidewalk, street parking, and street trees where the building fronts the street. The main issue is that they put all the parking at the front of the site instead of the rear of the site. Parking at the front is not pedestrian friendly if this area does eventually develop.
Couldn’t agree more. It’s frustrating that the city hasn’t been able to do *anything* to a major artery and the future “gateway to downtown”. I’ve tried several times to get more information, but haven’t gotten much other that ‘we’re leaning on developers’. I’m shocked any developer would build in an area lacking such basic amenities, so kodos to RiNo Center developers and financiers. I believe the owner of the now defunct Beleza also owns and operates the MMJ growers co-op next door. Lovely. The new residents of RiNo Center will get to look out at a 10 foot barbed wired chainlink fence protecting a rundown old automotive parts building with broken and plastic lined windows. They should rename RiNo Center, Skunky Acres. I noticed the empty old Beleza lot has been cleaned up, and the barbed wire taken off the fence next door. Maybe he got hassled by the city. I can’t imagine the 10 foot chain link fence meets code, but on a street with no sidewalks, gutters, storm drains, curbs, or lights, does it really matter much? Let’s keep hassling district 9 to get Brighton Blvd up to snuff. If you build it, they will come.
Arkins court could have huge potential as a river promenade. Too bad the mayor has focused his development energy and resources on “aerotropolis.”
Hmm..it kinda sounds like the neighborhood group failed to request proper (no-brainer) urban design elements for this project…did anybody from the RNO request a reconfiguration of the site when the time was right? The excuses
That said, the city absolutely needs to invest in Brighton Blvd…but sidewalks / curb-n-gutter and street trees is a burden that EVERY developer in Denver has to bear.
Also, it is odd logic to say, in essence that because the area feels like a wasteland now, we should lower the bar for good development 1/2 mile from the very center of our town? I think not…each new project should meet good standards and over time the patchwork becomes knitted into a great urban street.
The saddes and biggest mistake I am hearing is that the RNO is pushing for “low-rise”…why? This is a WIDE urban corridor that is downtown. With an 80 foot ROW street, dotting it with 4-story buildings will lower land values, maintain the emphasis on the street (or on parking / cars as this project does) and not attract dense / intense use commercial space which will be needed.
I absolutely wish the developer success, but the configuration for this site is a failure and the blame doesn’t go to the city – it’s on the architect, developer and the RNO.
What is the status of the Beleza condominium project planned for 31st Ave. and Brighton Blvd? Is it dead, a victim of the real estate bust? The building was a very nice design that would have stood out againt all of the similarly looking apartment blocks being built.
For my work I am constantly traveling. I have been to every major city in the U.S. I must say the apartment construction boom in Denver is unlike anything happening in any other city. Denver is definitely attracting a huge amount of young adults straight out of college and other transplants. Hopefully the commercial sector will start heating up soon. It seems like the construction boom around Union Station is starting this year and it looks like buildings are planned for all of the lots around the station (which is truly amazing considering it was a lowly railyard only a few years ago). I would love to see some high rises being built now in central downtown.
You know, if I were a developer, I would think twice about giving Ken any information about upcoming projects, for fear he will post about them on his blog, only to have a bunch of laypeople and armchair architects bash every detail about them, and effectively give them bad publicity.
Brighton Blvd isn’t the CPV; it’s, well, Brighton Blvd. This project is remarkably dense, aesthetic, and pedestrian-friendly compared to literally every other building on that oh-so-ugly stretch of telephone poles, giant billboards, gas stations, docked trailers, and decrepit, weed-laden stretches of asphalt surrounded by chain link fence.
This project isn’t THAT bad. It’s a start. It’s infinitely better than nothing. One must remember that these things have to be economically feasible. If I were an investor, I can’t imagine I would consider financing a high-rise with poor vehicle access in that location at this point in time. I think that area has decades worth of growing up to do before we can understandably freak out about a project being set back 30 feet from the street.
I’m going to continue to fantasize about a future when this street is lined with beautiful transit-oriented mid-rises and bustling with pedestrian activity. I really think my fantasy will become a reality when the time is right, and I don’t see this project getting in the way of that.
I agree with you Freddie. I apllaud the developer for being one of the first to build new residences in this transitional area. I can’t imagine living right next to Brighton Boulevard; so I understand placing much of the parking on or near the street, giving residents a bit of a buffer from all the noisy trucks etc. I appreciate the Solar Garden and the way the overall project relates to the current area conditions. This building gives us a taste of the contemporary architecture that may redefine the area in future developments. The height and density feels right for the location and current market conditions. Having more residents in the area will bring more businesses and hopefully the city will improve the infrastructure and access.