For our next ‘Cherry Creek week’ update, we are heading a block east to look at the, now rising, 1st and Steele project. As a refresher, this is a 12-story, 185-unit apartment building.
The underground parking is now complete and the concrete strucutre has started to rise above street level. As of this weekend, workers were working on the second floor.
The 1st and Steele apartments are going up across the street from 88 Steele Creek, another 12-story apartment project which we will be visiting in our next update! The scale of the two buildings will be very similar, adding some great density to First Avenue.
Now that this project is above street level, we should see it rise fairly quick. Stay tuned!
Adding ‘great’ design to Cherry Creek would be good. But even better, adding mobility options/alternatives as we add density. As I recall, the principles of Blueprint Denver and the new code are framed by:
1. Add density to areas of change
2. Invest in infrastructure (and the pubic realm) as density increases.
Oops . . .
Cherry creek has several bus lines, its not far from the southern rail line and its on Cherry creek which is an amazing bike route. What else do you want? I don’t understand your stance. Do you want to turn University and 1st into a freeways? Maybe a double decker? Would that make you happy?
If we add density, you increase options inherently due to the way commons work. More people, better commons. If cherry creek gets dense enough I could see it being incentive to connect cbd with cherry creek more efficiently. Think Cherry creek Monorail or something.. Obviously I am dreaming. But at least its somewhat logical.
Being upset that the city didn’t tear down old down cherry creek for a new 10 lane freeway is silly. Also, you do realize, people who tend to live in condos/apartments in dense areas also tend to not drive as often. So it works out. Putting them all in open pastures just makes the overall freeway network more congested.
I think you are forgetting the alternative. Lastly, cherry creek is rich, pay for something you want on your own damn dime. You have plenty of businesses which could work together on a downtown feeder…
I don’t think anyone is advocating for expanding the streets any more. What Susan said was “adding mobility options/alternatives”; alternatives to roadway expansion. My understanding is that RTD’s policy is not to increase bus frequency until the ridership on that line js consistently over capacity (120% I think). Furthermore, the bus infrastructure is not necessarily in the best shape. Low frequency and unattractive infrastructure discourages ridership. What I see, and perhaps what Susan was alluding to, was that there is a lot of talk from the city leaders about the inevitable increase in density and the benefits that would bring, but not a lot of talk about improving the mobility alternatives to driving. Now, I have heard that the city council and other leaders has placed a stronger focus on improving the transportation alternatives, but you don’t hear a lot of talk about that. So the average citizen hears/sees new development and increased density but little on how those new people will move around. That lack of information encourages NIMBYsm.
I think part of the problem is the vagueness of a statement like “adding mobility options/alternatives.” I also read that as being about mass transit, but that’s just the thing… it’s hard to say exactly what that kind of rhetoric actually means to the individual saying it.
I’m happy that there is movement toward talk about mobility alternatives to driving as well, but it also would be prudent for all of us to be honest with ourselves about where Denver currently is at in regards to this. Just see the recent discussion about a potential re-do of Colfax. There are many points in the process where the planners and decision makers still want to pitch lower cost, lower capacity options after studying the costs and benefits. I feel that this HAS to be, at least in part, because the density (and by extension the ridership potential) simply isn’t in place yet along most logical corridors.
I think James is absolutely correct that increased density will increase demand, and voices of support for something like a connection from CC to Downtown. But the city also needs to pick its battles. A streetcar on Speer would be great, but considering that Broadway and Colfax studies are already well underway, I think we’re simply going to have to wait and see how those projects play out for now. Any talk of an expensive new transit line to CC simply isn’t a near term option. The bottom line though is that this reality is no reason to deny development projects that are simply operating within the framework of the master plan and zoning for the neighborhood.
We need lightrail to Cherry Creek!
I don’t think anyone is advocating halting the incoming or future developments. I surely am not. The point I was trying to make is that city leaders are talking about the increased densities and the benefits that will come from it but they are not saying anything or very little about how the city is even thinking about how those people will move around the city. That lack of communication is one thing that gives the no-growth NYMBYs fuel for their rants. A counter-narrative needs to be established by the city and others who support the infilling of the city.
In regards to the Colfax-Connections study, the bus ridership is there that would support a streetcar. However, the parties involved (Denver, RTD, Aurora) were not happy with the ridership cost for a streetcar. Unfortunately that study only used the same predicted population growth to predict future ridership along the corridor for all three alternatives without taking into consideration how the redevelopment of the corridor would increase the population. The streetcar alternative predicted twice the development potential along a transit-rich corridor which would translate into a lot more potential riders. Considering RTD’s unwillingness to partner with Bridj’s expansion into Denver, it’s not surprising that they would prefer to stick with what they know best: buses.
Jerry G^
I don’t think you were suggesting we halt development altogether. I was more referring to the OP, and from a general sense of what people are thinking based on editorials, public meetings, and comments on this very website in regards to the developments in Lower Highland. There seems to be a sentiment that development shouldn’t be allowed without putting in the transit lines first. My point is that these investments need to be addressed separately from private development, and the timing of the projects won’t necessarily mirror real estate booms.
I get what you’re saying about communication/public relations. Frankly, from my point of view, the fact that the leaders keep pointing to buses and not streetcars is evidence that they are not yet being responsive to the kind of ambition people really want to see. And I certainly acknowledge cost/benefit is only on part of the analysis. And that the benefit of density is only one half of the cost/benefit equation. But as you said, the leaders ultimately still think the cost is too high for higher capacity transit options. And, personally, I have to think at least part of that is also political. Though there may be enough density to support ridership, congestion is not yet bad enough that people start yelling for a better solution. So the politicians and their staff keep choosing the easier, lower cost options.
Thank you Jerry –
How about dedicated bus lanes on both sides of Speer Blvd, from DUS to CCN? Multi-modal 2nd & 3rd aves -wide sidewalks dedicated bike lane on one or the other (separated from traffic by metered parking, Chicago-style?) Boulder-style vans and ONE car lane per Avenue
Be much better if we had bigger ROW. All the new begs (office & condo) in CCN are over-parked (structured) Imagine the gridlock . . . If people are going to use ‘multi-modes’ – needs to be easy, safe and fun. There is ample parking in Cherry Creek – underground, structured. What’s needed (among other things) is District-wide concierge parking, so that the under-used structures are occupied 24/7
Again, I have to take issue with the insinuation that Denver is not investing in its infrastructure, or that increased multi-modal mobility options is not actually an intended outcome of all this development. Haven’t you noticed all the posts lately about street improvements around town? 15th, Brighton, Broadway, Colfax… each of them requiring extensive study, public process and outreach, and funding options. I think most planners, and certainly us passionate urbanists, would absolutely agree that Cherry Creek could use some better transit options. Nobody is saying that density comes without added mobility, quite the opposite… good transportation is just about the #1 benefit advocated by urbansits (well, maybe right behind walkability).
But I would love for somebody to actually give a tangible suggestion for how mobility improvements can be coupled with new development. Does each new apartment building have to build a 1-block long streetcar? Or subway segment? And if so, where do these disjointed segments go when the city has no transit network to connect to? Perhaps you don’t mean trains… what about removing parking to add more vehicle lanes (duh, nobody wants that). Or more buses… except that there already is good bus service that will continue to increase along with demand.
The reality is that bundling transportation improvements to density increases just isn’t as easy as it sounds. This isn’t as simple as upgrading a water main from 3/4″ to 1″ in anticipation of a new building (something that can and does happen with almost every new project). Transportation is far more difficult. For one, as I said before, it cannot realistically be funded by any one real estate project – so it has to be collectively funded instead. Second, the best options (like trams or subways) are only financially feasible AFTER the density is already in place; not before. Third, and most important, is that transportation and how street ROWs is used is very political in nature and deserves a robust public process.
“Adding mobility as we add density” sounds great in a highly theoretical way, yet nobody has said how they think this should really work. This isn’t the 1890s where each new streetcar suburb can just cheaply add on to an existing streetcar network on the developer’s dime. Quite frankly, this argument is beginning to seem more and more like a stall tactic by NIMBYS who think that they can use this Chicken vs. Egg problem to stop progress and development of areas altogether.
Oh, sorry for going on the diatribe without complementing you on your picture by the way! I’m trying to stay away from the architecture critique, but I for one actually think these buildings have turned out quite nicely. Though I’ll admit the parking podium treatment on this one still leaves a little something to be desired.
We can have everything we want if we just had the money growing on trees. Everyone wants streetcar and light rail, more mobility options (even bike lanes cost money), but until we are really willing to invest more tax dollars into it, we are stuck. I do a lot of driving around this city (sorry, yes, I am a car driver) and there are many areas of this city where our infrastructure is horrible, no curb/gutter, no sidewalks, no ADA compliant ramps, street surface crumbling, no room for bikes–we have A LOT of work to do in this city to get up to speed. Perhaps we will see another round of bond projects in the future that can really address our roads and sidewalks so that ALL mobility options can be addressed.
Steele Creek is a real beauty. I will bet both of these become for sale units as soon as they are able to navigate around the construction defect laws.
Ooops is right !! Soon there will be over 2,000 new residents and office workers at the corners of Steele, St. Paul and 1st.
Let me be sexist here for a minute. A typical scenario in Cherry Creek North. Let’s, for the sake of argument, say that in most heterosexual two-person couple’s home the woman usually buys the groceries. Let’s say that this late 50’s or 60’s year old couple has worked a long time and is successful enough to buy a beautiful million dollar townhome in Cherry Creek North. Do you honestly think this woman cares if the area is bike friendly or has walkability when she has to go to the market at Whole Foods or Safeway when its 5 blocks away? Do you think this woman is going to want to ride a bike or walk 5 blocks to the market and 5 blocks home in snow and ice, or 90 degree weather? What is wrong with everyone? Planners need to go back to basics, no one wants to walk or ride a bike to get groceries, just try it one time and see how great “walkability” is hauling four sacks of food home.
Why is it that people in Europe can do it? Or people in Manhattan or other dense cities can do it? I’m not buying it Susan. We need to get off our butts and out of our cars. Perhaps we don’t want to do it, but we should. And this is coming from a guy who drives a lot!!
Susan, I walk probably close to a mile to get my groceries and I am over 40. The difference is, I don’t go just once a month but rather once a week. Sometimes twice a week, depending on my needs. This way I am not having to carry that many bags of groceries each trip. The upside: I get a lot of exercise just from my grocery shopping.
Ooops is right – for Susan’s comment. Sexist? How about ageist? I know of zero 50s or 60s year old people who can’t walk five blocks for groceries.
And honestly, how many people in this area are cooking their own meals after buying a million dollar townhome in CCNorth? Rather, they are walking 4 blocks to a restaurant. I don’t hear complaints about that. My friends in the area enjoy their walk to the restaurant.
And FOUR sacks of groceries? In their 60s? Honestly, this makes no sense at all.
And the comment was made about a project at 1st & Steele – ACROSS THE STREET from Safeway! The 2K+ new residents are entirely concentrated on 1st & 2nd Ave. East-west blocks are 1/2 the length of north-south blocks. So we’re talking about a quarter mile stroll at the most.
Sorry, I don’t want to invest in infrastructure to help a million-dollar homeowner get her groceries.
There are PLENTY of bus routes in Cherry Creek – I ride them frequently, the service is fantastic. I don’t know what Susan is suggesting for a solution with her comment, but you can be certain it includes a never-ending use of our tax dollars.