A new 270-unit apartment development is coming to West 28th Avenue and Vallejo Street in Lower Highland.
Dallas-based The Richman Group (Richman Ascension Development) is planning a three-building multifamily residential project where the Denver Public School District’s Contemporary Learning Academy was formerly located. DPS sold their three parcels on 28th Avenue between Vallejo and Wyandot to Richman in January 2014, and the Contemporary Learning Academy has since moved to a new location at 9th and Sherman. The former school building, constructed in 1979, will be demolished; the other two parcels are surface parking lots. Below is a Google Earth aerial image with the project site outlined:
Richman’s plans call for a five-story building on the larger parcel facing West 27th Avenue (with killer views of the Denver skyline) and two three-story buildings where the parking lots are located. Parking will be provided in partially below-grade structures.
Here is a concept rendering from The Richman Group’s website. In the foreground is West 27th Avenue and the five-story building; on the right edge of the image a bit of the three-story building at 28th and Wyandot is visible. Davis Partnership Architects is the project designer. We hope to provide additional renderings and details in the future as the project advances through the design approval process.
Construction is expected to begin in the first half of 2015.
Meh. Looks extremely suburban. More like an office building. We can do better.
Fantastic urban location. Typical suburban design. That location deserves something LEED-y. Something daring. Something that says Colorado.
With 270 units, any idea how traffic is going to get out during morning rush out? Can’t get out to the west on Zuni. Similarly problems with 15th in the mornings but not as bad a Zuni. Do you think everything will have to funnel through the historic Stoneman’s row down to central?
It will be great for anyone choosing to walk, ride a bike, or take public transportation, given the convenient downtown location.
great project. This is huge for this neighborhood (I am a neighbor who lives 1 block away). In exchange for a bland ugly school office building converted to a charter school and two parking lots, we get 3 separate structures and density.
Big win.
As for traffic, people going downtown shouldn’t be on 15th anyway. They should use Speer. The light at Zuni can be long but I’ve never waited more than 2-3 light cycles and an extra 5-10 minutes and you just need to plan accordingly. That’s how cities are; getting around by car can be a PITA.
In the morning you can’t turn left onto Zuni from 28th and forget about turning left from 27th. The only option is 29th to 15th.
If you live in the this little area like me (which it sounds like you do) then of course yes you would use 15th to go Downtown. For us it doesn’t make sense to shoot over to Speer to go to Lodo. There are lots of people who come from further Northwest Denver, WheatRidge etc. who use 29th/15th and should divert onto Speer at Speer/29th. That is my opinion but we shouldn’t complain about the backed up traffic on 15/29 when people are using it for a highway into/out of downtown which they already have Speer Boulevard which is much larger, has higher speed limits, and specifically for that purpose.
Blah. I suppose it’s better than what is currently there but I’m pretty tired of these suburban-style apartment buildings going up everywhere. I should probably just give up hope of anything interesting being built in Denver in the foreseeable future.
It’s pretty sad that the city and ultimately the neighborhood is letting this be built in the way it appears to be… Sure, density is great—especially for this location—but lets not leave out all of the actually important stuff like street life, massing, connectivity, and as some others have mentioned, traffic.
It’s use by right. Unless the developer looks to rezone or asks for a variance there is very little that the neighborhood can do. Are you calling for design guidelines? That would be nice to have but unlikely the the City would support.
It is obvious the Ramada Inn across Speer from here is going to be torn down and replaced with another hotel or apartments/condos. They have not been spending any money the last few years keeping the place up. That property has truly awesome views of the skyline.
Great location! Looks like the Dallas based company is trying to bring a suburban Dallas look to Colorado. Wished it was a better design, but happy to see a project going where the old DPS space was located. I wonder if anyone bought the old DPS admin building on the corner of 9th and grant. The building is extremely old, but would be a superb location for large project.
I just hope they remove the column from the garage parking drive!
I am confused by what people think can be done to make this less suburban and more urban. This project is limited to five stories so they can’t do anything with height. Beyond adding a retail component, what do people expect here? My only complaint is that all three buildings appear to have the same design. This issue however, is not indicative of a suburban development.
Yeah, I have been having the same reaction to all the cries of “suburban”! What exactly about this building is suburban? The best argument I have heard is the architectural style, and the fact that all 3 buildings match, but I think we could find plenty of other examples of this kind of architecture in and around downtown. Aesthetic tastes aren’t really a valid definition of “urban” vs “suburban” if you ask me. Retail? Okay, perhaps… but there really isn’t any retail in this quadrant of the neighborhood, and 27th doesn’t exactly draw a lot of non-local foot traffic. The only retail in the area right now is on 29th and Zuni, and these streets make much more sense for additional retail in the immediate area than 27th does.
The site layout, to me, looks very urban. No setbacks, structured parking, a classical breakdown of the facade into three parts; bottom, middle, and top. I suppose some may read the pool-deck as suburban since it is exposed to 27th, but I read it more as a classic urban “courtyard” that has simply been opened up to the south because of the amazing view it will have from that location (not to mention the sunlight it will let in facing south).
The “connectivity” and “street life” look just fine to me, they are respecting the classic urban street and alley pattern of the neighborhood. And the “traffic concerns” cited smack of suburban thinking. Attempting to limit density, in a vain effort to prioritize private automobiles at the expense of the creation of real pedestrian-scale density (generally at least 18-24 DU per Acre), is what is “suburban.” Trying to argue that allowing an increase in neighborhood traffic is evidence of “suburban style planning” is, no offense, just completely backwards if you ask me. I suggest a closer reading of urbanist theory; Green Metropolis by David Owen would be a good place to start.
The easiest change would be the choice of materials. More brick and less EIFS or whatever the wall paneling is. Second, construct the buildings so that they come up to the property line with entrances that connect the sidewalk. The best example in recent history would be the ‘One City Block’ development in Uptown along the 18th Ave edge. No retail there, but a obviously more urban look:https://denverinfill.com/2014/04/uptown-ascent-uptown-final-update.html
Since that image is still just a concept rendering, there is sill hope that the design can be improved.
The design her looks a lot like “my block wash park.” That building looks great in the urban context. Brick doesn’t make something look more or less urban. Additionally, how do you know the building does not come up to the property line with entrances connected tot he’s sidewalk. I do not see any of the entrances in the rendering. It seems like your issue here is with the landscaping which I highly doubt is representative of what the final landscaping will look like.
Your comparison so ‘My Block Wash Park’ is only apt in terms of the color scheme. Yes, ‘My Block Wash Park’ used masonry instead of white EIFS panels but more importantly, that development had ground floor activation on all street-fronting edges. The lobby and community amenity areas faced out onto Speer and entrances to ground floor apartments faced Washington. That sort of engagement with the street is not evident in this concept design. However, as I suggested at the end of my comment, I am sure that the design will (I hope) improve since what we have seen is a only a concept design.
I am sorry but who do you know what material this project is going to utilize? Also, I do not think “MBWP” did use masonry. Further, the rendering to this project shows the rear. Your praise of MBWP is based on the lobby and community amenity features- none of which are shown on this rendering. I guess what I am saying is that you are making a lot of assumption about this project that we have no information about.
Well, since I started this, lemme address your comments. Just look at the facades. Who lives inside? Is there any aesthetic statement being made other than profit? And you ask yourself. “would you live in something that doesn’t look like anything?” There are easily a gazillion office parks around the country that are all virtually identical. I asked for LEED. I asked for daring. I would hope we all ask for the daring, something Rocky Mountain and not tired, recycled aesthetic FAILs.
Well thank you for the clarification. That makes perfect sense.
You’re welcome. This is all rectangles and boring facades. The Museum District is daring. The developers know this place will sell because access and views. But if the developers wanted to leave a legacy with integrity then, leave the inner CBD ring with a gem and not fool’s gold.
I agree with the comments about the traffic concerns. How are they going to get all of the cars in and out of this area. It would be great if people walked but I don’t believe people paying high $$ per sq ft. are walkers. In the morning I see a lot of cars leaving these new apartment building and not a lot of people walking. Does anybody know if they have to do a traffic study before the plans get approved?
Does Charles Schwab plan on living there… Really, for those of you who defend crap like this, does that look like it has ANY character at all? C
that could be anywhere tech center USA–not overlooking a city that is emerging as one of America’s great potential urban centers. If you only want to fill parking lots with whatever sticks—get ready for quick profit and thoughtlessness.
Where is a development critic with a voice in this town? Who is standing up for standards? I find none.
It’s flatly ridiculous to assert every new structure built within a city has to be some sort of architectural masterpiece. Let’s not forget that buildings should, first and foremost, succeed in function; and this building, however it looks, will provide significantly more usefulness to the city than what is currently standing there.
And, really, the only way we are going to see real estate developers take bigger chances with designs is if investments in properties like this one continue to be successful. Fiercer competition for empty lots and abandoned buildings will inevitably allow city planners to approve more ambitious architecture instead of what is just merely functional. We’re not there yet — still way too much space to develop and too much demand for inner-city housing.
In the meantime, Denver is going to see some unassuming designs that are still very valuable to its urban development. Let’s not get too worked up here.
Ryan, while it’s unrealistic to expect inspiration from every development or brilliance from every designer, this blog’s dear readership aims a little higher for our city’s structures than merely banal utilitarian functionality. If not, pray tell, what’s the point of this blog? Is it to highlight and reward exciting projects for their creative use of space, materials, and design, or just to serve as an outsourced PR engine for developers of functionally adequate property?
If we ignored uninspired design and incongruous aesthetics, we could all content ourselves with backslapping each other about how that lame new apartment complex creates tax revenues for the city. We could disregard the sheer underachievement of potential by congratulating ourselves that it could have been worse. This perspective seems like the opposite of why people are drawn to architecture or urban design.
You seem to put forth the argument that unless some people are willing to consume the tripe of hackneyed design, we can’t expect our beneficent real estate developing overlords to come up with something novel. That’s an argument that doesn’t hold water for any product or service in a capitalist system; a society’s innovative potential is not enhanced through encouraging people to support an inferior product, it becomes degraded (and true architecture and design become commoditized and automated) through pretending like we can’t tell the difference.
For those of you who defend the structure and pretend like it’s not a suburbanite’s wet dream, or that such criticism is invalid without specific technical or structural critiques, it’s totally appropriate to evaluate the aesthetic essence of a structure as a whole, not necessarily as just the arithmetic sum of its material components.
Just take a drive down I-25 and look at the developments off Hampden or the ones further south in the DTC. Ask yourself honestly if this structure looks more congruous in DTC / Centennial or in LoHi. This developer seems to have a preexisting “model” for an apartment complex of a certain size, and just imported it into this spatial footprint without regard for professional authenticity or the cultural location.
Not trying to be critical or argumentative here, but it seems like the public has higher expectations for the value potential of true architecture than the architects, urban designers, or the developers themselves.
I really enjoy great architecture too, but I’m not such an idealist that I think everything built within a city has to meet my heightened standards of design. And I’m not saying we should support banal (or incongruous) building features; I’m saying we should support the general wave of real estate development, from which we will ultimately see more admirable projects and forget all about the little apartment building shown here.
Some of the features here I really like too. For instance, I love the way in hugs the curved road. It’s a great use of an underutilized parcel of downtown land, and certainly not a stock design for this reason alone.
I appreciate your argument, but I’ll save my energy to get upset over more prominent buildings.
As an architect in Denver, you should all realize that there are budgets involved. 5 years ago, we could have built this project with metal panel, brick, stone, but now that all the contractors are so busy, construction costs have literally skyrocketed in our dear city. The project will still be awesome for what developers city-wide can afford to build and lease right now. Trust me. It’s crazy out there.
I am amazed by the number of people who criticize this project for looking to suburban bet yet point to no specific aspect of this project that a) make it look suburban and b) specific parts the need to be improved and c) how those parts can be improved. If you are going to criticize something, at the very least to foster a spirited debate, explain why you do not like the project. Otherwise you are merely arguing by assertion. Maybe you can show an example of a five story building that in your opinion does have character….
Amen Will. I almost replied again yesterday to state many of the same points, but wasn’t entirely sure it was worth the effort. A lot of the criticism thrown at this seems almost dogmatic in nature – like a knee-jerk reaction to the rapid change – rather than being well thought out or rationally argued.
For one, there is no way we can know what the materials will be from that rendering; and frankly, it doesn’t look like EIFS (“MBWP” used some sort of tile material for its white components, and some sort of precast colored concrete like what is on 1900 16th is always possible as well, and the rusty colored components almost look like copper to me). Further, none of these renderings show what 28th Ave. will look like – I assume it will need to have doors and fire accessible windows and such – all we are really seeing is the back side and amenity courtyard here, and some split-level basement windows as Ken pointed out.
In terms of massing and form and density; it has pretty much been spelled out by the zoning code ever since the recent revamp. I almost guarantee that traffic concerns and projections were taken into consideration when the area was designated an “area of change” in Blueprint Denver, and appropriate densities were assigned (this area is considered an “urban center”). If anybody moved into the area assuming that large vacant parcels like this one would be built out as fancy homes or townhouses, or that the neighborhood character west of Zuni would remain largely single-family, then they simply weren’t doing their due-diligence as buyers to research the local zoning and land use plan.
Sorry hit submit too fast again. That should have said east of Zuni.
I don’t think it requires much explanation… especially in regards to what “suburban” looks like. Also… there are plenty (PLENTY) of 5 story buildings all over the world that look great, and function appropriately for their location, etc. Density is not the issue to be addressed, but rather, scale, connectivity, materials, parking, etc.
Some things I do not think work very well, and in a few ways make the project seem more suburban.
1) Massing. It’s terrible for this location. It’s too bulky and does not match anything that distinctly represents the unique nature of the neighborhood; e.g. two-story family homes, mixed use brick buildings, etc. Creating more of a visual break between sections could help create a more inviting and harmonious aesthetic all together.
2) Connectivity to the street space. A single-entry style building is pretty bad for any successful residential environment like this—especially one that consumes an entire block. This design puts the garage door where a series of stoops could be, a cafe, or anything at all that connects people who are inside, to the outside. Even the pool—respectively, the only outdoor space—is raised and disconnected from the street.
3) Landscaping. Denver [architects] generally set properties back 10ft or so from a sidewalk to create more separation, privacy and greenspace (not sure why, or if it’s code), but an entire block near such a large structure creates dead space. It’s an inexpensive-ish way to address height issues (shadows etc) unfortuantely, but more consideration to how the building works with the street, sidewalk and neighboring structures would go a long way.
4) Windows. Doors. Trees. Traffic. On-site community facilities… Where are they, if at all, and why.
Overall, the seemingly intentional disconnection from the street, coupled with the overtly blocky massing, and the faux public/green space are more akin to a 1960s suburban approach to residential, or office park design, than that of successful urban-residential, or urban-mixed-use.
I could go on, but I’m tired.
Given that the developer paid over $10m for the property, I’m willing to bet it’ll be a high quality build. It’s really hard to tell from the rendering. The pool is well located since that will be open to the south.
First off, it shows 4 and 6 story buildings when in fact the buildings will be 3 and 5 stories, so who knows…
If you look carefully, you can see it’s really 5 and 3 on the west end of the project but the parking level is built into a slight grade change which on the east side looks like a fourth and sixth floor.
From a zone perspective since it looks like these are separate building will the top of the 3 story building facing Vallejo be lower then the top of the 3 story build facing Wyandot? Also, with the re-zone that occurred a few years ago does HUNI have any say on how the look of this project fits into the neighborhood plan? I think I remember a few years a go a project in this same area going to the Colorado Supreme court because it HUNI rejected it (could be wrong on the court).
oh, you’re right!
I live in a condo building directly adjacent to this site. My rooftop deck currently has unimpeded views to the south and Sports Authority Field, AND I am so happy and in favor of this project. Now I don’t think everyone in the building feels the same way, but there are a lot of YIMBY’s in Lohi who you don’t ever hear that love the density.
The school and parking lots are eye sores and frankly I am happy the kids aren’t smoking pot and littering all over our stoop anymore. As a taxpayer you also have to question bussing kids in from all over the metro area and the far northeast to go to a charter school that is not anywhere close to their neighborhood. Never made any sense to me.
More residents=more people, more businesses, more people on the street= better neighborhood!
I’d also like to see more street activation with patios and whatnot, especially since it is practically an urban cul de sac and the streets aren’t busy with vehicular traffic in this little area, so you might actually use your patio, as opposed to say the ground level patios at 2828 zuni that front zuni…
What makes it feel suburban is the landscaping at the back of walk, how the building addresses the street, the lack of activity such as doors and patios at street level and the inward focused architecture. That said,I am judging this development on a single rendering that is not fully refined. I am hopeful that this project will continue to refine some of these elements. The density and massing are great for the area.
Thanks for clarifying that. This building is unique in that both the front and back of it are facing roads as oppose to one side facing an alley. I agree that the landscaping looks pretty bad and patios not the ground unit levels would be a nice addition.
More luxury apartments (seems like we have more than enough of those) or will these be for regular working folk who dont make 6 figures?
“luxury” is a marketing term and pretty subjective. Most of these buildings aren’t necessarily luxury in their finishes and materials, but they are well located, have some amenities like on-site management, pool, common areas, and due to market demand are garnering expensive rents. This one will probably be no different. There’s probably only a handful of truly “luxury” apartment buildings in town.
It’s like the word “custom.” Everything is custom these days even if it is off the shelf. It’s just a marketing term.