The next stop on our Union Station neighborhood infill tour is Alta City House. The last time we visited this project, the parking structure was nearly complete and the framing had just started to go vertical. Now, nine months later, this project has made a lot of progress!
At the corner of 18th and Chestnut, the building has topped out and we are starting to see hints of the brick facade. Over on 19th and Chestnut, the framing is up to four complete stories with work starting on the fifth and final floor.
Here is a closer look at some of the elements that are going to be used on the facade. The exterior of the building will be comprised mostly of brick. The inner portion of the building and courtyard facade will have a mix of brick and paneling.
Alta City House is going to providing the Union Station neighborhood with 280 apartment units and should be complete by September of this year.
My impression from these photos and previous blog pages that included sketches, this project has no retail at all. Maybe I missed it, but that is my impression. Is this correct?
This is a very disappointing project. on so many levels. What a shame that THE PREMIER block in Union Station (and also one of the few blocks with a 240- height limit available) is being developed into this. I can do nothing but shake my head when I look at this project.
Yep.. this development would have been great for Arapahoe Square, Uptown, or even the Golden Triangle. But putting it in one of the hottest Transit Oriented Urban developments in the country is a wasted opportunity. They left a lot of scratch on the drawing board. Imagine two 20 story towers surrounded by the 5 story walk up condos/rentals. That would, at the very least, double the density and bring that much more vitality to the neighborhood.
I agree completely. Most of this neighborhood has become a giant disappointment and it has become clear to me that the wrong master developer was chosen. The historic Union Station is arguably the crown jewel of Denver and really the entire region. What they have done with this “crown jewel” is set it in a Hello Kitty belly button ring from Claire’s at Aurora Mall. When I look at these new buildings, I think that it is one of those things where nothing is really wrong with them while at the same time everything is wrong with them. It is such a huge waste of a great opportunity and I feel that this building epitomizes this. If these buildings were going up at Belleview Station or somewhere else in the burbs, I would really have no problem with them. But at this location, I feel like the developers have put a flaming bag of poo on the City’s welcome mat. The architecture of The Platform and the new Triangle building start to show some form of life but the rest are being brought back from the grave where they died 25+ years ago. Heck, the buildings along Commons Park look better and they are pushing 14 years old now.
If you go through the blog’s post on this development, you’ll find that the vast majority of comments express the same sentiment. While it is too late for many of these projects, I would encourage people to email City Councilwoman Judy Montero to let her know how disappointed we are. I know there is little she can do, but she can add a little pressure to East West Partners and Continuum to raise the bar significantly. Conversely, if there are arguments on why this building is exactly what this site needs, I am open to hear them.
Agree very disappointing. Yet another box.
This project is worse than a wasted opportunity — it’s a betrayal of taxpayers, and public officials should answer for it.
It’s what’s known in construction as a cheap job, and because of its prime location, it yields the developer maximum profits. Apartments on this site, adjacent to the central light rail station, bus central, a supermarket, heavy rail and on the edge of Downtown, will rent for maximum market rates.
But because it’s all lumber construction, the cost-per-square-foot is less than half of a tower, requiring concrete and steel. If the builder had put up high-rises, as first indicated in competing for exclusive rights for the Union Station project, more than twice as many units could have been built, up to 23 stories. Most of the units would have rented for about same rate as these will, but their cost-per-unit would have been far higher. So this is a cheap job.
Problem is, in this “public-private” project, millions of taxpayer dollars helped make it happen. This minimum-land-use project brings minimum return to taxpayers, by not maximizing the site’s potential. The builder gets maximum profits, for minimum investment.
The whole process of proposals, plan approvals and building permits for this very high-profile job happened right under the noses of Denver city planners and the mayor’s office, who had to sign off on it. They should be held accountable, for delivering so little to the people of Denver.
Bill Clinton’s expected to be in Denver in June to promote the Public-Private concept — which we’ve already covered him promoting in LA. Union Station is expected to be his backdrop — but will he stand in front of Alta City House, as an example of what works for taxpayers? Will local news media have the real story on this project? Will they start asking city officials tough questions? They will if urbanists inform them.
Just to be clear… the Union Station master developers are responsible for the development of five parcels: North wing, South wing, Triangle, A Block (Platform/Hotel/Office) and B Block. The site where this project is, Cadence, and all the others in the area behind DUS are owned by various entities who are free to do what they want with their property and have not been directly subsidized by the public. The streets, utilities, and other infrastructure in the DUS area outside of the RTD project proper is paid for by a metropolitan district which is funded by these property owners through their property taxes.
Don’t get me wrong, I think this project is a significant under-utilization of the site, but it’s important to be clear about who owns what and who paid for what.
First, Ken, thank you for the precision on who owns what, and who pays for what. This is why we’re all following your website — because of these details you reveal, as an insider in the Public-Private process.
But all developers, all real estate investors live and die by the core reality of Location, Location, Location. This site’s value, potential and impact on the immediate neighborhood around it is supported by hundreds of millions of dollars of public money in transportation improvements. All to the direct benefit of the owners of these parcels.
How the lines got drawn around Union Station’s master plan, who were the players, who would pay for what, I’m sure are all there in the details of public record, and legal. However, as an urban planner, you’re well aware of how much happens below the radar, especially in the run-up to the official public process.
When we look at all the PR — the fly-over animations, the maps, the renderings (City House highrise) — we know that a lot’s been promised for Denver’s keystone project. What the Denver Planning Office and the Mayor cannot hide from is that every single project in the city goes through a rigorous review and approval process of proposal, detailed plans, and permits. They knew exactly what they were saying Yes to, and they failed to get the best for the people of Denver.
The loans issued for Union Station are paid back, about equally, from two sources. One is from FasTracks. The other is from the property owners around the project. Without these property taxes, the amount of money available to build the Union Station hub would have been reduced by half. It’s a perfect example of a public private partnership. Both are investing significant money. Both are reaping significant benefits.
Also, City House really is going to be a very nice project. 🙂
Hey Ken, any future posts on the grand opening of the new hotel at CNB? There was little to no fan fair about it out there. Just wondered.
Yes, I’d love to. I’m looking forward to my first visit since the opening.
Good point Ken, I didn’t realize this building wasn’t part of the master developers area. Although i would not call the wing buildings good design either. Have you ever been at a bar and there is a really good looking lady surrounded by much less attractive ladies and that somehow makes her look even better? I feel like that is the approach Union Station has taken. The wing buildings look dismal at best but at least they built to the allowed height. Please correct me if I am wrong but didn’t RTD select the master developer? Who then controls the selling of the parcels and sets the guidelines for future development. If so, RTD just got duped or they have no business selecting real estate developers for such a prime piece of property. Inside Real Estate News has an article about this development if you want to know the parties at fault here.
http://insiderealestatenews.com/2012/04/02/62-million-apartment-community-near-union-station/
I think the wing buildings are great. The plan was to make them contemporary yet somewhat muted as to not detract from the historic station. The glass wall on the side of the south wing building reflecting the historic station is awesome. The detailed articulated brick work on both wing buildings is reminiscent of the detailing in brickwork in many LoDo buildings and adds a lot of subtle texture to the facade that changes during the course of the day with the light and shadow. The ground-floor edges to these buildings, particularly the south wing building (which has to be a pedestrian-friendly building on three sides), was executed extremely well, right down to the windows along the 16th Street Mall that lets us see the pantry-area and spice shelves for the Thirsty Lion… a huge home-run in avoiding the long-blank-wall on the back-of-the-house side of the building.
I think The Platform, Triangle, and 1601 Wewatta are all solid, sharp, contemporary buildings, built to their maximum extent, that also will have engaging ground-floor designs for pedestrians. The Kimpton Hotel/Office building on the rest of the A Block (probably breaking ground in June or July) looks like it will also have a high-quality design and great pedestrian presence. Overall, I think the buildings being built by the Union Station Neighborhood Company as master developer on the five parcels they are responsible for (north wing, south wing, triangle, A block, B block) are fantastic.
“Good architectural design” is in the eye of the beholder. I know some of you are not big fans of the buildings around DUS. I think they are very well done and I’ve met a lot of people who agree. Each to his own opinion.
I agree with Ken–the wing buildings accomplish a lot, in a very understated way. Yet I’ve spoken to a number of people who just don’t like them. I don’t know if they don’t understand how many constraints the architects were under, or if they’re just not fans of well-executed, subtly elegant contemporary architecture. But these two buildings will age well, and in time, I believe people will come to embrace their dignified presence, and the third walls they provide to the two flanking plazas.
While I agree that Alta City House is a poor use of that valuable land, so far it’s the only built project in the neighborhood that fits that description. On the grand opening day for the bus station, I walked the entire length underground, and then rode the escalators up through the Chestnut Pavilion. The visual effect was breathtaking, and I was proud of what the city and various developers have accomplished so far. In the 1990s I worked at the Tattered Cover LoDo, and I remember how desolate it was behind the train station and Terminal Annex, with only temporary parking lots filling the space. It was hard to imagine then that this land would ever be developed as it has been.
Yes, I agree that beautiful architecture is in the eye of the beholder and these are just my opinions.
As for the wing building, I can appreciate subtle details. These buildings mirror the central portion of the station (the latest renovation) in the size and massing, which forms three “blocks” connected by a spine of the original station wings. The brick detailing also reflects back to the central portion of the station where there is a horizontal notch approximately every 12″. The setbacks seem appropriate and the low slung horizontal eves on the 1st floor also reflect the historic station. The glass facade reflecting the station is also a must have and the window spacing mimics the windows of the neighborhood. However, I feel that this is basic detailing that most college architecture students would have done in their first studio. I probably hold the architectural standard for these buildings higher than anywhere else in the world because this location means so much to me. I truly wanted to see innovative and unique buildings, not basic design principles. To design a building that respects the historic station but also is innovative and leading edge would require a very special architect. They got very well respected architects but I think the architects played it a little too safe with these buildings. Just my opinion though.
My hope for the Union Station neighborhood was that people would go there and say “wow!”. It would reflect the latest designs and standards and set a precedent for all other urban infill projects, not just of Denver but the country as well. I’ve walked the new bus concourse but when I came up and looked around, i was wondering how I ended up in the Denver Tech Center. It felt like a nice suburban infill project. In fact, if this was in the burbs i would be singing their praises. However, this is the heart of Denver and while visitors will say this is nice, they won’t be blown away by it. Look at what other cities are doing. These are cities that Denver’s politicians say are on our level now.
Washington D.C.
http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=6186
Los Angeles
http://www.bustler.net/index.php/article_image/unstudio_and_eek_present_vision_for_los_angeles_union_station/image/7144
London
http://batterseapowerstation.co.uk/
There are others popping up all over and I recommend people Google search them. My point is that many people complain on this blog about the quality of Denver’s architecture, especially compared to other cities. This is our chance to showcase something really special and I think we are blowing it. Ken, you may have a better pulse on people’s opinions but from what I’ve heard from locals and visitors is that this project is nice but are disappointed that this is the best we could do. This feeling of being let down is embodied by the Alta City House.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Kyle. Excluding Alta City House, I’d say the general feedback I’m hearing from people about the architectural designs of the buildings in the DUS area is mostly positive, although few think they are “world-class” or “cutting edge.” For Alta City House, I’d say most people think the look is fine—for a five-story building—but it’s the huge mismatch between the allowable density vs. the built density that upsets most people.
So can anyone provide insite as to why city house went from this:
https://denverinfill.com/2007/01/yet-another-city-house-design-update.html
to what we are now seeing?
You can keep telling yourself that it’s a “very nice project”, but the originally proposed project that was billed as the GH on steroids as far as finishes, amenities, etc could have been much nicer.
Cash-crunch on the part of E/W and the total implosion of the condo market. You can also take a look at the co-developer of City House, Woods Partners, and see that there development model has shifted almost entirely to the 4-6 story, stick-built projects that are the standard for multi-family development in the nation. City House is a result of lower risk tolerance in development and reduced equity. Think of it as the project that was sacrificed/reduced so that E/W could survive and do the larger projects that are now in the pipeline.
Now, I do have a hard time believing that City House is a $60M project instead of the $40M standard that you see for these wrap project. Maybe the finishes, including the exterior, and amenities are of such a high quality that it does raise the price. We’ll see.
BTW, if anyone wants to see what the losing Union Station team has done go check out the Gates site. Cherokee hasn’t done a project in nearly a decade and if anyone thinks that they would have met the timeline to purchase the parcels that have provided the private portion of the funding for Union Station than I have some excellent subprime MBS’s to sell you.
4-6 story stick-built stuff is, frankly, junk, so you won’t have to live with it for long: it’ll be structurally unsound in 20 years and be torn down. (It’s not so bad with antique hardwood construction, but with modern cheap lumber, it’s bad.)
I grew up in a 4-story single-family house which was built on a steel frame with foot-thick masonry walls. That thing is going to last forever. That’s overkill, but there’s a quality level somewhere between that and using el cheapo wood framing for 5-story buildings.
Chris is right. (For those who don’t know, I’m part of the East West team.) But sacrifice is wrong. We have to do deals. Quite frankly, our deal made Cadence possible. Still, as I truly believe our work in Riverfront Park and at DUS proves, we take urbanism and design quality very, very seriously. There is a lot of good thought behind City House. It is a very nice project.
One thing I’ve learned about development is that you can’t judge a building until it’s finished. See Platform. That thing is killer, but in its current guts on the table state, some people are criticizing it. Give it time. Give City House time. It will never be a high rise, but it will feel great at the street level, have a real urban pattern, and be a wonderful place for people to live.
Chris, thanks for engaging with so many of us, who don’t actually put real money into projects, that always involve risks. Putting Alta City House aside — as a probably savvy business decision, helping cash flow — the EW overall project looks classy, and classic. There’s a whole world of urbanists waiting to praise your next accomplishment. We’re all trusting EW to deliver both the best framework for Union Station — in the five flanking parcels — as well as strong architecture in the adjacent lots — especially along the northeast side of 17th. And thanks, again, for your patience with people who are eager to help you spend your investors’ money.
You’re nice to say. Engaging here and at Skyscraper is important because I get real time feedback on how we are doing, how others are doing, and what opportunities are out there for improvement.
“City House” has no retail, therefore, for this area, it will not “feel great” at street level.
I should note that I’m different from the Chris who responded above.
How does Western Development do for-sale condos in Cherry Creek yet there is not one condo development in Union Station? They advertised that they presold 30% in a short amount of time too. Obviously there is the well-documented construction defect law, but clearly there are some developers still able to offer “for-sale” condo projects. Too bad Western Development isn’t involved in Union Station.
It is also a shame that we cannot transfer air rights form one site to another. Since Alta (which is derived form the Latin word for “high”) is so undersized height-wise, it would be great if another parcel could pick up that height. Varying heights adds interest to a city and neighborhood.
When you fly into DIA or approach the airport on Pena, you think, “wow, what an incredible and unique airport.” Then you come downtown and see some pockets of nice historic preservation in Lodo, but are entirely underwhelmed otherwise.
By selling condos that start at over $600/sf. That’s a price point that’s hard for places like LoDo and Union Station to match.
Wasn’t 4 Seasons over $600/ft average too? How is that different?
Union Station is a nicer location than Cherry Creek, or at any rate it will be a nicer location in a few years. Why do you think developers would have to charge less?
The building is disappointing to be sure. In defense of architects however; they are designing according to the needs and wants of the client. While it would be nice to imagine we have more control than that, we don’t. Regarding the underutilization of the site; developers want to make money, and had the numbers penciled out, you could be sure that they would try to stuff as many units on their property, and jam thousands of square feet of retail to boot. For whatever reason, they don’t believe the market can bare anymore than what they’ve offered. If I recall correctly, sales at the Glass House or whatever it’s called, were very slow. No developer wants to hold a half-sold building.
Jeffrey-
I believe you recall incorrectly as I am pretty sure GH was pre sold out well before it was completed. The Spire on the other hand did not. I believe both instances were due mainly to their timing w the economic meltdown of 2008.
And, just to be clear, I’m not the same Jeffrey as this Jeffrey.