Skip to content
 

Jefferson Park: Row Houses at Jefferson Park Update #2

Across the street from Element 47, along Frontview Crescent Drive, the Row Houses at Jefferson Park are starting to take shape with residences starting to move into the north half of the development. As a refresher, this is a 29 unit for-sale project. For site plans and the original renderings, make sure you visit our announcement post.

Frontview Crescent is a very interesting sight. On the south side you have a street wall of new townhomes and on the north side you have a similar row of townhomes with a four-story apartment building in the back. As far as parking goes, residents have access through a driveway part way through the block.

2014-04-22_RowhomesJP-01 2014-04-22_RowhomesJP-04

The south side of the project is still under construction however, we should see this part complete within the next couple of months.

2014-04-22_RowhomesJP-02 2014-04-22_RowhomesJP-03

Most of the for-sale units going up in Denver, at the moment, are townhome developments much like this one and Jefferson Park is seeing a huge influx of these developments much like Lower Highland!

Share This Post


17 Comments

  1. Ty says:

    I was walking through the neighborhood and park on Sunday and could not believe how much it has changed over the last year. In addition to all the new housing, it’s also great to see the redevelopment of the square at 25th and Elliot. Already Sexy Pizza, Jefferson Park Pub, and 2914 Coffer have opened their doors, with a few new places already set to open. It looks like Jefferson Park is set to become LoHi 2.0, and I mean that in a good way!

  2. Bernard says:

    I remember moving into this neighborhood and walking by the vacant location that is now Jefferson Park Pub and thinking, “That is the perfect spot for a pub.”

    Jefferson Park (or, as I’m sure it will become, JeffPa) has been threatening to be “The Next LoHi” for some time now, but I think with continued influx of humans to Denver, all the new housing, and some local action occurring outside of Broncos fans trying to find parking, something just may come of it.

  3. Nathanael says:

    I’m not sure I’ve ever seen anything this ugly.

    But if these are real rowhouses, as time passes individual owners will repaint them, put different siding on, individualize them, and they will become interesting-looking.

    • Jeff says:

      This is the city equivalent of the McMansion in the suburban subdivision. The floor plans on these are awful, and generally they are cheaply built with cheap materials. Then they slap in some stainless appliances. Total garbage.

  4. Steve says:

    Nathanael— if you’ve seen any new construction in Denver in the past five years, this is about on par with the ugliness of 80% of the apartment complexes and in some cases actually for-sale units being put up all around the city. The characterless rectangle buildings looked dated shortly after the first one was built. I have no idea why the hideous concept persists. It’s almost impressive how so much new construction can look so objectively horrible and yet it keeps happening on a daily basis.

    Maybe the next wave of “infill” in Denver will involve knocking down these ridiculous things and putting up something that took more than two minutes to design. These boxy buildings seem like Denver’s confused teenage years, wearing clothes that you think make you look cool and rebellious but you end up looking like everyone else. Perhaps one day Denver will grow up.

    • jss54321 says:

      Steve totally agree. Developers are just boxing out the lots. I feel we are seeing the problem with the overhaul of the zoning codes back in 2010. Eliminating things like the floor-area-ratio area from the zoning code now seems to allow the boxing out of Denver neighborhoods. Seems like everything is now 5 story boxes.

      Nathanael, I don’t think you understand how a HOA work. Owners will not be able to individualize the exterior. We are stuck with what we have.

      • Nathanael says:

        So they aren’t real rowhouses. If it’s got a HOA, it’s worse than renting.

        HOAs should be banned.

        • Nathanael says:

          …traditionally HOAs were used for racial exclusion.

          The core problem with HOAs is that they are very, very hard to get rid of. The only effective way to get rid of bad HOAs is with state-level legislation abolishing them.

          HOAs invent infinite numbers of bad regulations, and the state government generally has to step in to declare such regulations null and void: an infamous example is prohibitions on clotheslines.

    • James says:

      Boxing out lots is a ramification of land prices.. Have you ever been to any major city, ever? Not sure how this is any different than any other townhome development in the world.

      Go to google and type in ‘townhome’… Its pretty much what they are.. Im not sure what your complaining about, or expecting?

      In my mind they look fine and are extremely utilitarian.. With some landscaping, in a few years they will fit right in.. At least they are for sale and not rentals.. Lastly if they are as bad as you say, eventually they will be our affordable housing.. What would be better, 4 mc-mansions? A lot of people are moving/live in the front range.. Lets keep the range open by sharing a little… So we all can find a place to breath near by…

      • Steve says:

        When the best thing you can say about a place is that it’s “fine” and “extremely utilitarian,” you might want to reconsider the design. Especially when that design comprises the bulk of new construction. Not everyone enjoys that East Berlin aesthetic.

      • Nathanael says:

        You know what? There’s nothing wrong with “boxing out” the lot, if you decorate it correctly.

        Look at the grand 19th century brick apartment buildings in various cities. They’re giant cubes, basically. But they have pretty arched windows and lots of decoration on the surface. Everyone likes ‘em.

        19th century rowhouses are quite similar.

        These, on the other hand, are ugly junk.

  5. Lady K says:

    In the last 5-10 years, I’ve seen a lot of this style of housing going up, up, up all around the downtown and city center areas. I think they’re just hideous, and all I can think of is, what will become of their edginess 20-30 years from now as things change and these become run down monstrosities?

    The speed at which they’re being built also calls into question the quality of construction. Sometimes I have concerns about structural problems down the road. To me, they don’t look edgy, hip, and urban. They look like pre-blight junk.

    One really cool thing I’ve seen recently is several cargo containers being repurposed as living spaces or art studios. They have character and may be easy to relocate or recycle if they fall into disrepair and become an eyesore.

    Also, does anyone have any clue about what realistically affordable housing is in these neighborhoods? It disturbs me that large numbers of upwardly mobile people claim to be revitalizing neighborhoods, yet most of the people of color and of lower socioeconomic status are leaving in droves because economically privileged folk’s ideas of affordable housing are anything but.

    Do these wonderful new housing projects have units for people using Section 8 vouchers? Are the “affordable” units reflecting the reality of the income of a minimum wage worker? Absolutely not. It’s not impossible to include everyone in this amazing progress we all keep talking about. I’d like to see a lot more realism when it comes to discussions on improvements and revitalization. Who are we supposedly helping? Most of the time, it’s just people with economic and racial privilege.

    I know you all love the convenience of your little bike and bus commutes, but I don’t see anyone crowing about their hour long bus ride to their minimum wage service job so you can have your favorite cup of coffee or enter a clean bathroom at your workplace or highrise live/work/play center.

    • Bryan says:

      Lady K….what do you propose the city require developers do to meet what you describe above?

      • Nathanael says:

        It is highly effective urban policy to require an apartment building which has more than a certain number of units (say, 50) to reserve some percentage of units within the building (say, 5% or 10%) for lower-income housing.

  6. Lady K says:

    My comment was one of general social concern regarding the impact of development. I am not capable of engaging you in a discussion on policy as I have no expertise in that area and very little non-work time to be as well informed as you. Nor do I think I need to be deeply involved or knowledgeable in the workings of municipal government and development to have a valid opinion regarding the marginalization of under-represented populations in the neighborhoods described.

    It is my opinion that developers and local government lack empathy and a true understanding of the impact of their actions on the demographics, culture, and vibrancy of these neighborhoods. It is my opinion that the needs of the existing residents of any neighborhood should be one of the top, if not the top consideration when planning development.

    I’m not so foolish as to believe that any of these things matter, though. What matters is return on investment and success of the overall vision of a new neighborhood that looks different than the old. And, in my opinion, the boxes are ugly, but as one person so aptly put it, they are future affordable housing. As soon as they’re run down and lose enough value, then there will be affordable housing in the neighborhood. In my opinion, that way of thinking about revitalization is backward.

  7. Bryan says:

    Im simply asking for ideas…not expertise or generalities of an affordable utopia…the fact is that affordable and new construction do not naturally go together unless sacrifices are made – less optimal size, finishes, views, parking, location and basement units are the real.sources of affordability.