March 2 UPDATE:
We’ve received word from the developer of 2300 Welton that the renderings featured below from the Humphries Poli website are rather old (Summer 2013) and are conceptual in nature. The project’s design has evolved since then. We’ve added captions to these renderings to make that clear as well. The development has a few milestones yet to be completed before the project can move forward, and the developer hopes to share new information about 2300 Welton with us in the near future.
~~~
Great news for the Welton Corridor in the Five Points-Curtis Park neighborhood! A new apartment project is proposed on a half block gravel lot which is, believe it or not, even worse worse than a surface parking lot.
First, let’s start off with an overview of the location with the project site outlined. 2300 Welton will sit between Park Avenue West and 24th Street along Welton Street.
This project will have a huge impact along both Park Avenue West and Welton Street; it activates a part of the Welton Street Corridor that has been barren and desolate for many years along with continuing the street wall along Park Avenue West. Here are three renderings of 2300 Welton courtesy of Humphries Poli Architects.
Back in the Fall, I took some site photos of 2300 Welton. As you can see, this site a sizable crater along a great corridor that’s begging to be built on!
2300 Welton is a workforce housing project and will be providing the Five Points-Curtis Park neighborhood with 223-units. The construction time-frame is still unknown but we will keep you posted when this project moves forward!
I’m all for this parcel being developed- but not with this!! Isn’t this a historic district?
Nope. Welton Street commercial district starts on the other side of 24th, and Curtis Park Historic district is on the other side of Lawson Park (https://www.denvergov.org/cpd/CommunityPlanningandDevelopment/LandmarkPreservation/FindLandmarksDistricts/tabid/442537/Default.aspx).
I agree wholeheartedly! However, it would be a simple gesture if the developer at least tried to respect the surrounding historic architecture instead of trying to create some modern art structure. I suspect that in 10 years, this building will look quite dated. It is interesting to note that those developers who get financial assistance to build workforce housing (this one and 18th and Chestnut St) build at a much smaller scale than the zoning allows and, in this case, not one that is mixed use even though this corridor is zoned that way. Compare that to Evans Station Lofts built by Urban Land Conservancy.
Have you looked around that entire block? This design actually looks a lot like all of the newer projects that are going up on park avenue. Most of the projects over in that area aren’t very attractive.
You have a point, Kyle. If taking design cues from recent Park Avenue infill, this project has many similarities If taking design cues from Welton Street, Curtis Park, San Rafael or the greater Five Points neighborhood – I would argue that this design is not a good fit, and it will not serve as a proud gateway or contributing piece of architecture.
For those who believe the finished product might look better in real life than the renderings we see on our computer screens – go and walk past the “colorful” Park Ave infill and ask yourself if that development would look good on this particular corner, stretching into Welton Street and the Five Points intersection.
Look at the project the same firm completed this year and just won an AIA award a few weeks ago, with the same color pallet.
http://hparch.com/work/lamar-station-crossing/
If they pulled this off in Lakewood, I’m sure they will here
LoHiG… thanks for the link. Recall reading about – and then having no idea how this turned out. Seems like Denver is a leading place for this important niche concept to me.
Which should, in no way drive, direct, or inspire other architects—let alone the city planning dept.—to accept, and conform to such subpar designs.
We have a huge opportunity to transform these inter-urban neighborhoods into connected, pedestrian, multi-transit communities. They should be known for innovation in design, amenities, and their prevailing historic preservation, not shitty, stucco laden buildings that fill entire city blocks.
@ScottD Agreed.
This thing is monstrous. Absolutely no consideration to scale… let alone interest in blending in with surrounding architecture… AND this is sort of supposed to be the gateway to said neighborhood… nice welcome mat.
This needs to be broken into different massings, more entries for units… less angular whatever its supposed to be along the roofline, and maybe a tiny bit of consideration to how it will affect the (currently nonexistent) street life.
I think it looks great! Plus, it will enable a sizeable community to move in with “reduced” rents who will likely work close by – or take the light rail. It’s a good win for the neighborhood. However, some big lefty softball player might take out a window or two with big swings from the ballpark nearby. Small worries, though..
Yes! Definitely a solid double up the middle.
I’m not a huge fan of Humphries Poli Architects, but this is surely their worst building proposal to date.
If you were to cobble together a building out of every bad architecture trend since 2000, you’d end up with this building. It’s gigantic, awkwardly proportioned, frivolously decorative, disjointed, and seemingly made out of shoddy materials. Moreover, its street-level front along Welton is decidedly anti-pedestrian. In my opinion, the only redeeming quality of this building is that—if you take your glasses off—it looks a little bit like several different buildings, which may cause it to feel like less of a landscraper from a pedestrian’s point of view. If this gets built, I’d be stunned if it wasn’t torn down within 30 years.
I am generally an advocate for any and every building getting built, especially on an empty lot, but this one is making me pause.
Let’s hope it gets torn down in 5 years! The thought of looking at this building for 30 years is unbearable.
It definitely has funky appeal. It also fills a big need.
Indeed. It would be considered “post-Soviet,” if the USSR had continued into the 21st Century.
Yehhh! More apartments!
I have to say that generally a building is better than a parking lot, but open space may be better than this building.
Good riddance to that lot. Glad to have something else on such a prominent corner. Oh and I see the birds are running rich today.
I try to stay away from be a critic of architecture, but this is one of the ugliest buildings I have ever seen! I’m all for increased density in the city core, and I’m actually ok with the scale, but I just can’t get my head around this building. With all of the great projects that have popped up over town, like One City Block and The Douglas, this building actually makes us look look like we are going backwards. If the owner of this parcel is reading this blog, please, please get a new architect. You deserve better, and Welton street deserves better!
A warehouse (that at least anchored that corner) was razed in preparation for redevelopment. Then the crash oh 08 happened. The city needs more affordable housing and although it’s not my particular taste in architecture, I guess I’m okay with it, but seriously it has zero appeal on the Welton corridor. The prominent feature seems to be a giant entrance to a parking garage.
That’s not an entrance to the parking garage, that’s the entrance to the building itself.
As a nearby resident and property owner, I’m all for infill of this lot. I am a fan of modern architecture. I’m even open to the “workforce housing” aspect of the project. However, the design, IMO, is not good, to put it lightly. Glad to see I’m not the only one who feels this way. The materials look cheap. The design does not fit and I’m with the others who feel that it will look dated in the near future.
To the developer, who I believe is anxious to develop this parcel and wash his hands of a project he’s been trying to develop for a very long time – please do the right thing. This is not a good design for the corridor or the neighborhood. It does not fit. It does not look good. Please reconsider the design and offer the neighborhood something to be proud of.
The last rendering shows a new building on Park Ave & Glenarm which is currently a sales center…looks similar to the buildings by Humphries Poli – but the site diagram by DI only shows the development on Welton. Is that a separate development or is the site to be developed actually L shaped?
The development is actually two buildings, with a smaller one at the of Park Ave & Glenarm.
The parcel is L shaped. The development is composed of two separate buildings. Something like 200 units in one building and the balance in the other.
Ugly,Ugly, Ugly says it all for this building. Love to see new development in Five Points, but this is a poor design choice. Looks like center city office building.
Why wouldn’t some commercial be put on the ground level i.e. coffee shop etc to make it more of a neighborhood gathering and neighborhood friendly building. It looks so plain and cheap for being the gateway to Curtis park, Five Points where there is so much character. Who approved this cheap looking building in such a prominent location. Is there even one piece of brick on this building?
I feel so mixed about this. On the one hand, a parcel in desperate need of development gets much needed affordable housing. Fantastic! On the other, this is truly one of the ugliest, cheapest looking, most horrible manifestations of bad and already dated architecture in Denver I have ever seen.
I’m confident that the building will turn out well, HumphriesPoli are some of the best designers in town, and all of the details in their buildings are typically outstanding. They have been quietly cleaning up design awards for the past 20+ years. Tons of outstanding buildings.
I agree I don’t love the renderings however…
I think I’ll wait to pass judgment on the overall design too, but they seriously can’t be considering all that yellow on white, can they? Hopefully, that was just someone having fun with the rendering.
It is tough to have an interesting design when the developer wants to max out the site at the lowest possible price… it kills the architectural interest and material choice. It’s an absolute must for both corners to have active use tenants for the area, not just blank walls that do not bring people to the location or interact w the street. This location is critical and needs a cafe and other businesses.
Even the supersonic birds in that last rendering can’t save this building. I suppose anything is better than a gravel and weed lot, but this might qualify as “just barely.”
LOL I noticed the bird contrails.
I really try to keep my cool over the architectural complaints that are written in the comments on some of these posts. But this is absolutely crazy that we are throwing a fit over the design of WORKFORCE HOUSING! Does anyone understand what that means? These aren’t 7 figure condos like in Cherry Creek. These aren’t market rate apartments. This is workforce housing!!! The developer probably applied for credits to be able to get this building started…actually now that I think about it, I believe the developer did do just that. This is why we do not have more affordable apartments in this city…oh because we all want some “starchitect” designing landmarks and high profile gorgeous buildings without taking into consideration the costs that add up to make buildings look pretty to the general public.
And I’m sorry…what architectural cues are we talking about? Do you mean it should take cues from the neoclassic gem of the Ebert School?? Now I wonder how much that would cost? Or maybe you meant it should take cues from the red brick rowhomes on the adjacent block? Or maybe you meant it should take cues from the other empty dirty lots or perhaps even the park? I’m sorry I guess I’m just confused about the whole architectural cue!
Everyone is welcome to their opinion, especially on this blog and opinions really are welcomed. But, come on people, be realistic please. If you guys want to take up a fund to help out the developer to find a new and fabulous architect…well then heck I will donate a few dollars, but I will just be happy to walk down this street and see this block completely developed.
It doesn’t need retail as there are plenty of available buildings with ground floor retail up the street. If you want a cafe or some other retail then get together and buy the lot at 2257 Welton. It’s currently a nasty parking lot and since there isn’t a light rail track right out front, would probably me more welcoming for the pedestrian to walk up and get a coffee or a donut or whatever else you have in mind.
I refer you to Evans Station Lofts across from the Evans light rail station. That was built by the Urban Land Conservancy as workforce housing with no assistance from the city, if I recall correctly. Now this building here does not have to be all brick or look like a converted warehouse, but it does not have too look like overly colorful, asymmetric landscraper either. Others commenters are correct in that the architect has done some good work. The same attention can be applied here, as well.
Jerry G – you will find no bigger fan of Evans Station Lofts than me. Its one of my favorite developments in all of Denver. And the developer, Medici Communities (not Urban Land Convervancy) did an amazing job with the architecture and finish and deserves to be recognized for it. But Evans Station lofts was built with a different and deeper subsdidy program that does not work for deals this size (Evans station has 50 units vs Welton at 223). Evans Station was also built at a time when construction pricing was a bit more reasonable than it is today, and unlike Welton, Evans Station does not have the burden of providing structured parking. On top of all that, without knowing all the details, I’m guessing the cost basis in land along Park Ave near downtown is quite a bit higher than at Evans and Santa Fe. Urban Land Conservancy did have an important role to play in that regard by purchasing the land where Evans Station Lofts was built and locking in a low cost basis for Medici.
And for those of you clamoring for One City Block, another great development, compare the asking rents between One City Block and the maximum rents that 2300 will be allowed to charge and you will find they equate to about 2X. Developers of affordable housing don’t benefit from abundant (if any) cash flow at their properties, nor can they turn around and sell the property for a profit in five years. Its purely a fee driven model, and my guess is that the developer on this deal is deferring a subsantial portion of its fee for several years in order to make the sources & uses work.
I’m not saying that affordable housing developers should be held to a lower standard or immune to criticism, but I am saying that those providing such criticism at least understand the contraints with which they must operate. So while you may not love the architecture, color, design, features, etc., remember that 223 households who otherwise could not afford to live in decent, safe affordable housing with transit access near a major job center will soon be able to do so. In Denver.
With all the talk of the Evans Station Lofts, I just wanted to mention that Parikh Stevens Architects was the architect for that project. Medici chose a great direction for that development.
Nah, it should just take clues from aesthetics. Is there some reason why affordable housing has to look like already stereotyped people live there? Even the term, “workforce” is marginalizing and demeaning. And btw, the condos in Cherry Creek are no great shakes either. The perceptual world of humans is remarkably pliant.
As it happens, I drive through/park in that neighborhood at least once a week. The extant architectural examples are indeed, a woeful polyglot of past poor decisions but based on a “development” first mindset. The architectural and development firms that made it through the Great Recession may not have been the most creative nor the most enduring. There should be more pressure placed upon the remaining design crowd to innovate or else.
Very disappointed in this development. Housing is needed but keep in mind this is a key lot at the entrance to historic area. More importantly it is right across the street from Sonny Lawson park which currently has all the traffic that came over from triangle park. The reason no one uses the park but the drug dealers and prostitutes is there isn’t any eyes on the park. So this development certainly wont help with noone looking out their balconies to the park nor will their be activities that would engage people to be along the street. Yes work force housing is needed but this lot needs to be a step above. The owner should sale and let a developer come in and do the lot justice based on its location. There is plenty of space along the Welton corridor to create worforce housing but not at this location.
Kathy, as you can see from the renderings, once this development is completed, the park will no longer be a haven for drug dealers and prostitutes, and there’ll be hordes of preppy white people everywhere.
After reading all the vitrol about the look of this building, I have to sheepishly admit I like the design, and I love the yellow and white combination, as well as the black and orange on another portion of the building, and I think this building will be a nice addition to that spot. I tend to like color. If you want drab, brownish-looking buildings, there are lots of those in the suburbs.
Ha…do you own a power washing company, or something? I don’t mind bold color choices, but white and yellow just seem impractical to me as an exterior surface. Yellow is also a color that fades very quickly, and it’s disappointing when these adventures aren’t maintained very well.
Whew! Does the Mayor look at these project renderings? Anybody know about his input?
About a month ago, I heard him speaking about the project on a CPR segment related to high rents in Denver. He was promoting this project as part of the city’s efforts to help. It sounds like he’s bought into the project for political reasons.
Really Kathy? – Perhaps there are no balconies, but doesn’t a hundred or so giant windows with residents behind them count for something? Eyes hardly need balconies to see the park right below you.
Nice windows; park view; works for me.
Look at the affordable housing recently built at Evans Station. Simple but timeless brick architecture that would look 10x better than what has been bro proposed here. You can build qualify workforce housing you just have to hire the right architect.
I am not a fan of this particular style of architecture, but it seems incredibly wrong-headed to me to either wish for it to be torn down quickly, or else wish that it was still a dirt lot. This building, no matter how it looks, will be superior to a dirt lot.
I agree with the sentiment expressed by so many people already that this is an ugly building. I mean, it is frickin hideous. But he biggest problem, as far as I’m concerned, is the lack of any kind of retail presence along Welton…along a corridor with a light rail line 5 steps from the building!
How is this even possible?? I’m shocked that this area is not zoned to mandate retail fronting Welton.
That is a crime.
There is not much to say here that hasn’t already been said because I wholeheartedly agree with the majority of comments above. But the one thing I will say for the seemingly millionth time: there is a reason so many brick buildings are still standing 100 years after they were built; brick is not only sturdier than the ugly “modern” paneling that is plaguing the new buildings of Denver but it really is a timeless look. The brick buildings that are old and historic look just as amazing as many of the newer brick buildings (i.e. One City Block). In every aspect of life it is always better to be classic than to be trendy. Architecture is no exception. Everyone is right to say that this building will look foolishly outdated in just a few years, along with many of the buildings that have been built in Denver in the past decade.
Also, if we are looking at “workforce” housing that is subsidized, would it not be more efficient and cost effective if a building was built to last instead of throwing together the ugliest and cheapest thing we can manage?
Well said. Not sure how realistic but certainly I’ve always been a huge fan of Denver’s classic brick.
Just as a point re: brick. Yes, brick construction is sturdy. But One City Block is not brick construction. It is engineered wood frame construction with brick veneer. It may stand the test of time if it was built well (I like how it looks, so I hope the bricks don’t start falling off). But it will be easy to knock down in 30 or 40 years if someone decides to do that. And there is plenty of pseudo-brick-and-masonry construction from the last 15 years around town that I think looks hideous. Now that we’ve heard these are preliminary renderings, perhaps the actual project will be more appealing.
im happy the lot will be developed. Sad that this was the best the developer can do. Awful. Big,Ugly, Square, cheap looking box. Wish they had taken a note from 1CityBlock who did an awesome job fitting in with the area.
It looks about the same as a lot of other 5 story apartment buildings being constructed- no better or no worse.
If the materials used and cost savings allow the rents to be more affordable then I am ok with it.
This is a bit off topic, but I read the recent op-ed by Greg Kerwin in the Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/guestcommentary/ci_27610607/guest-commentary-its-time-take-our-city-back?source=infinite), and I was curious if any of the contributors would be building up a response, perhaps even as an op-ed itself or a letter to the editor.
Kerwin seems to be ranting on the same sorts of anti-growth NIMBY attitudes that pop up in reaction to development everywhere across the country, and it seems like a point-by-point rebuttal of the claims would be useful. This sort of attitude is prevalent across the wealthier neighborhoods in town, and anti-growth advocates have succeeded in torpedoing projects in the past (CityLoop comes to mind).
That said, concerns about transit and traffic planning are valid within the framework of growth, and the urbanist and development-oriented groups might need to communicate better to convey our viewpoints on these issues. Allowing to discussion to be hijacked by angry reactionaries is a problem. Any thoughts/discussion would be appreciated.
Wholeheartedly agree that a response is warranted. That Op-Ed was pretty ridiculous in my opinion. That being said I will leave that work up to someone else.
Thanks for the link. Great article! I glad to know other see the problem.
I agree that this article could be a new blog post. I see it get circulated around a lot on the internet and is stirring up a lot of emotions from people. I feel like this article sort of draws a line in the sand and it would make for a good debate.
The only reality-based “problem” that Kerwin brings up is the possibility of increased congestion. However, he does not provide any realistic solutions (i.e. improved, more attractive transit options). Halting development is not realistic and, with the exception of the potential for congestion, the rationales for doing so (e.g. new apartments/condos destroy affordable housing and increase housing prices while lowering property values) are nonsensical. I agree, a well-reasoned response/rebuttal is necessary.
I also liked the article a lot. I seemed to make a lot of sense. After reading the article I think the City needs to do something to stop the developers from running a muck. It seems like the City is allow anything to be built and developers are build just because they can. No consideration for fitting in or updates to support the traffic load. I also don’t believe that people are just going to stop driving. I also think I read an article recently that we are removing all of these surface lots but have actually increased total available spaces. So we are not seeing a reduction in traffic (cars) but an increase in traffic (cars).
Apologies upfront to anyone I may offend, but that article is the worst kind of NIMBYist drivel I have ever read. It lacks in substance and perpetuates all sorts of myths. You can’t stop growth. CAN’T. You can somewhat direct where growth happens, but I assure you that pushing all those people out to low density homes in Castle Rock isn’t the solution to our traffic troubles.
To be fair, I think Kerwin has a legitimate beef with Denver not honoring the zoning code in certain situations. But that’s no excuse for stirring up the pot with scare tactics such as “We’re turning into NYC!!!”, and insinuating that density is going to be our ruin.
If anything density is repairing the city. The urban fabric is being restored. People ARE moving into these high density apartments (they’re certainly not vacant). Young professionals are jumping at the opportunity to move into an active and alive city!
End Rant.
I find it interesting that the anti-development crowd always talks about “infrastructure improvements to support higher traffic loads” or something like that… but can rarely say what those improvements actually are.
Are they talking about more buses or something like a streetcar, or even a subway? Somehow I doubt it. Are they talking about widening roads and adding lanes? Again I highly doubt it. The subtext of such statements seem to actually be that “the roads can’t handle any more cars, so let’s stop building entirely.”
Yet, somehow, cities all over the world seem to get along just fine with narrower streets and higher population densities than us, and in those places (many of them right here in the good old USA) people really DO walk in large numbers. And things like streetcars and subways end up getting funded and built. Funny how that works huh?
It’s not exactly a response to Kerwin’s article, but I wrote about the other side of this issue for the Post a couple years ago. Here’s a link if you’re interested:http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2012/09/26/high-prices-high-rises/25985/. Seems that its thesis–opposition to development won’t preserve the character of a neighborhood because price and exclusivity are just as much components of character as is the built environment–has held up pretty well.