In our first post about the new 32-story office tower proposed for Downtown Denver’s Block 162 by the Patrinely Group, I mentioned I would have a follow-up post that provides some background on the redevelopment efforts for this key block in central Downtown. Here it is.
First, if you’re not familiar with the saga of Block 162, check out some of the 29 previous posts I’ve published about the block (Fontius Building Part 1 and Part 2 are particularly informative), plus a few oldies from the original DenverInfill website, such as my post of November 13, 2005 and several from June 2006 (including my rant of June 8). Also of note is my Inside the Fontius special feature. However, the single best source for the story of Block 162’s redevelopment through late 2007 is my friend Joel Warner’s excellent Westword article, Evan Almighty.
I recently met with Evan Makovsky, as I have done periodically over the past few years, to discuss the latest in Block 162’s redevelopment. Shortly after Mr. Makovsky assembled the properties on Block 162 and completed the beautiful restoration of the Fontius into what is now known as the Sage Building, the US economy tanked. The Great Recession put a major hold on Mr. Makovsky’s plans for any new construction on Block 162.
During the recession years of 2008-2011, there was still planning work that could be done until the economy improved. Makovsky’s team evaluated various development concepts and explored different design alternatives for the block, most of which were based upon a core vision that included office and hotel uses. Additionally, several development scenarios incorporated an urban Target store onto the site. As the economy strengthened into 2012 and beyond, negotiations with Target continued for a potential store on Block 162. However, during this time, Target was also reevaluating the configuration and size of their urban stores. Consequently, Makovsky and Target went through numerous rounds of design iterations spanning several years. Ultimately, however, a deal with Target for Block 162 did not materialize.
Meanwhile, Mr. Makovsky also explored another scenario that would have incorporated a public observation tower into the redevelopment plan. His team explored different design, phasing, siting, and program options for an observation tower on the block, but the options that proved to be financially desirable had drawbacks in other areas that would not have resulted in the best plan for the overall development.
Even developing hotel and office towers concurrently on the site is a challenge. Hotel and office developments have different financing requirements, construction schedules, and other characteristics that make it difficult to coordinate them into a single project. Therefore, instead of possibly missing out on the current strong economic conditions by trying to combine both towers into one development, Mr. Makovsky decided the best way to make progress on the block’s redevelopment was to split the office and hotel towers into separate components and let other developers pursue the vertical development, with Makovsky mostly participating as the land owner. That’s where the Patrinely Group comes in, which has an option on the office component.
The future hotel tower at 16th and California is still in the conceptual stage, and which firm or firms would develop the hotel tower remains to be seen, with several options under consideration. Integrating the hotel tower with the historic McClintock building at 16th and California will require significant collaboration and consensus with the city, the historic preservation community, and others. Potentially, the hotel component could advance to a point where it and the office tower could be built more-or-less at the same time. Alternatively, the hotel tower could be developed later as a stand-alone project from the office tower. Either way, the conceptual design for the block creates synergistic relationships between the podiums of the two towers and a unified aesthetic to the block, regardless of whether the towers are developed concurrently or separately.
The story of Block 162’s redevelopment will continue to unfold over the next several years. Fortunately, the local economy is booming and demand is strong for both hotel and office uses, so the future for Block 162—featuring one of the largest gaps in Downtown’s urban fabric—looks pretty good.
Since Mikes Camera moved out last year, are there any plans for what is moving in? The sign in the window stated “Tavern Hospitality Group”, which leads me to believe another Tavern restaurant. And since their original idea of re-building and incorporating housing/hotel in their Uptown location didn’t materialize (at least not yet – from what I hear were historic building reasons), are they taking over the structure?
I doubt that Mr. Makovsky would miss out on a booming economy, in splitting the components. I hear mixed use does pretty well everywhere else across the country and Denver seems pretty consistent in it’s growth and long term growth opportunity down the line. In my opinion this would be the developers opportunity for a hallmark design for not only downtown but the region.
Joel Warner’s Westword article, “Evan Almighty” is a must-read, and great dish on the ruthless property owners/parking lot business culture of Denver. And it helps us appreciate just how many “players” there are in the development game — including Ken.
Nothing’s easy, at the crossroads of Downtown, and this proposal’s recent announcement is very encouraging. It can trigger a wave of other projects, the kinds of buildings we’re all waiting for. Warner’s history of Block 162 — clear back to the Arapahoe Tribe’s original campground — gets at the endless struggles over land ownership and land use, in the heart of our ever-changing city. It will evoke flashbacks of your own encounters around this block, if you’ve spent real time in Denver.
Fingers crossed this is a Go, and a re-boot on the tired 16th Street Mall.
Again, let’s focus on the parking lots and not the historic buildings that really make Denver and the 16th mall a great pedestrian and historical experience. A historical building like the McClintock Building give Denver much more character and interest than many of the recently built modern structures that are frankly looking tired already.
Are you not aware that this project will be built on what is currently a massive parking lot? Are you under the impression that the McClintock Building is going to be demolished or something? What do you mean by “let’s focus on”? Are you telling Ken and Ryan what to write about or are you telling developers where to build? I can’t make heads or tails of your comment.
The office tower is being built on a massive parking lot behind the McClintock and Sage buildings. This hotel development according to this very post may be “Integrating the hotel tower with the historic McClintock building at 16th and California.”
I would like to encourage developers to focus on developing parking lots before they are “integrating” hotels into a historical building, although that would be better of course than the simple demolition of the McClintock building. In this post Ken says there are “several options under consideration.” Is the demolition of the McClintock building one of those options? Is integrating it into a hotel tower? Is leaving that building alone entirely and only building the office tower on the parking lot behind the building?
Looking at the previous post on this block it looks like from some of the conceptual renderings that perhaps building the hotel will come at the expense of the McClintock building (https://denverinfill.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016-01-09_block-162-rendering3.jpg)…to the left of the image is the hotel going all the way to 16th Street where the McClintock Building now stands. Another image suggests (although it is hard to tell) maybe using the McClintock Building as a kind of facade for the tower (https://denverinfill.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016-01-09_block-162-rendering2.jpg). Obviously conceptual so we do not know for certain what the plans are…which is exactly why those interested in historical preservation should quickly push back against plans that would hurt a perfectly good historic building.
As Dan mentioned earlier, developers have been quite willing to destroy historic buildings when developing the parking lots behind them as the Tavern Building development on 17th and Pennsylvania attests. Fortunately, it appears historic preservation may allow the Tavern Building to be saved or at least “integrated” into the new building design.
In my opinion, it would even be better if developers focused on the parking lots and left alone the historic buildings that give Denver so much character.
I think it’s fairly unlikely that the City would approve the complete removal of the McClintock, and the renderings do show the new hotel rising above from slightly behind the McClintock. A common way this usually happens is to save the historic building’s first 25 feet or so on the sides before the new tower rises up.
I hope you’re correct Ken. However the city did approve the complete removal of the Tavern Building, which may be only saved because historic preservations activists fought against its destruction.
One big difference though is that the McClintock Building is a member of the Downtown Denver Historic District whereas I don’t believe the Tavern building had any historic preservation protection of any kind.
It appears the massing of the block goes to more buildings and shorter than other plans such as this one from years ago where both buildings were combined into one –
https://imageshack.com/i/hlrspvAGj
The architect for the spec building is Gensler –