The Confluence Update #16

Since our last update in October 2016, a lot has happened over at The Confluence project. Today, we are going to take an in depth tour and explore many different perspectives around the project site.

The tower has topped out at 34 stories, and the tower crane has since been taken down. The south side of the tower, the left side in the pictures below, features an all-glass facade which is quickly making its way up to the top. The grey metal paneling has also started to make its way up, going over the orange insulation and weatherproofing material.

Continuing around the tower, the western portion is starting to shape up with both the glass and paneling making great progress.

The Confluence takes many different shapes when viewed from varying directions. When viewed from Commons Park, you can see a lot of the tower’s features including a slender profile, setbacks and the illusion of a curved roof-line. The six-story portion of this project is also visible from this perspective.

Speaking of the six-story portion of the project, here are two photos of the attached building at street level. This building is nearly complete with the exception of balcony railings and a few panels.

The “bridge” between the tower and low-rise building will also feature residences on the first four floors. The roof of the “bridge” will also hold a rooftop pool and garden.

As far as the units go, the first 25 stories of the tower will contain studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units. The top nine floors, 29 through 34, will feature large penthouse units with direct elevator access and upgraded finishes. The Confluence is expected to be complete later this year.

By | 2017-10-15T10:01:48+00:00 February 7, 2017|Categories: Central Platte Valley, Infill, Residential|Tags: |26 Comments


  1. Bobby Mucho February 7, 2017 at 12:29 pm

    Massive win for the developer—being the only relatively tall building for a 5 block radius, with views and all—maybe not so much for the neighborhood or skyline.

    I still have no idea how this was;

    a) originally zoned for this absurd height near parks and surrounded by 2-7 story buildings.
    b) or perhaps, upzoned(?) to allow the developer to build an awkwardly tall condo tower on a river and park like this.

    If it were a strikingly unique massing I’d give it some praise, but this Ikea tower; nope.

    • Citizen Kane February 8, 2017 at 2:15 pm

      You couldn’t be more wrong or short-sighted.
      An urban core of a major city is an appropriate place for a tower. There is nothing awkward or absurd about it.
      A project such as this improves both the neighborhood and the skyline. Hopeuflly this project will be a catalyst and other will follow.
      Read up on the zoning – the information is available.

  2. Alan February 7, 2017 at 1:52 pm

    I’ve been waiting for this post. Liking this tower more and more as the days go by and it nears completion. It’s a great addition to the Denver skyline even though it’s not even close to being one of our tallest. And really liking how different views present us with a different appearance as mentioned in this post. I am curious if there will be any sort of night lighting involved. Any word on that? Given that there will be what appears to be a completely opaque crown/screen around the rooftop mechanical equipment (based on the renderings) I am thinking we will be unfortunately “blessed” with another really nice looking building during the daytime with nothing but red bulbs on top at night. Maybe (hopefully) I’m wrong on this assumption. Even an LED band across the top would be complementary given the tower’s location and surroundings. Please light it up at night! Denver needs more prominent night lighting.

  3. Derek February 7, 2017 at 2:32 pm

    Beautiful pics, Ryan! These angles make The Confluence look mighty good.

  4. August Rodello February 7, 2017 at 2:42 pm

    Density is good Housing is good Infill is good. The building looks beautiful. I love the project

  5. Vlad February 7, 2017 at 2:51 pm

    Great use of the space. Looks beautiful and fits into the neighborhood perfectly.

  6. Kyle February 7, 2017 at 3:37 pm

    I like that it is a tall tower. I feel it stands out from the other relatively mundane buildings and acts as a focal point. I think the architecture is also one of the better new projects going up downtown. Even the metal paneling that looked kind of cheap early on doesn’t bother me now. My only problem with this development is that it isn’t for sale condos. You can’t get much better in terms of location that this.

  7. ChrisA February 7, 2017 at 4:09 pm

    I was down by REI recently and walked up to this. Still disappointed in the metal siding. Bobby Mucho said it right that it looks like an Ikea tower. It looks really nice, but cheap. I have grown to like the metal siding more (Kyle sounds like we have similar thoughts), but it is still not superb. Nothing we can do. More praises then these mundane critiques I’m giving. Now if someone else could build a more slender tower, but taller in the core, that would be great.

  8. James J. February 7, 2017 at 8:10 pm

    I love the overall scope although it’s not Central Park proportions it’s pretty nifty being slender. Brings a sort of Cosmo to an otherwise REI urban stream culture. Too bad the Bell tower won’t add a string along high rise effect to the Speer vantage. More residents yay!

  9. JP February 7, 2017 at 8:37 pm

    I have to disagree with Bobby Mucho’s comment, besides the reference to Ikea. The cladding, esp. for me on the low rise section, could have been better.

    However, the height is not “absurd” or “awkward” by any stretch of the imagination. Why does it matter if it’s next to a park or river? It’s the downtown core of a major city. Riverfront has numerous buildings over 7 stories including GH at 23. Most of Union Station is between 12-23. What’s absurd is nimby’s in Denver thinking a tower like this downtown is absurd.

    Ken and DenverInfill has well documented the zoning and planning process for this tower which you should go back and read.

  10. Dutch February 7, 2017 at 10:27 pm

    I live in LA but miss my Mile Hi City. What a transformation!! Though we might not all agree on aesthetics, height, shape or location of different projects, the cumulative impact on the Denver skyline is impressive. Being a developer myself, I still pine someday to bring in a relevant “core” retail project that will honor the history, and the future of this dynamic city. Cherry Creek and CC North, while cornering the luxury market, leaves all sorts of opportunities for the millions of people that visit downtown, eat downtown, stay downtown, convention downtown and recreate here. Keep up the great work Ken. It is truly appreciated!

  11. Sam February 8, 2017 at 7:25 am

    I disagree with Bobby Mucho & other discontents. This is one of the very few new apartment structures in the center city area that makes any design gesture at all. I rather like the minimalism. To everyone who hates metal siding: welcome to 2017, this is what gets used for buildings these days. I can think of 8 or 10 projects making unsophisticated use of the same material under construction or through planning. This isn’t one of them.

    As the land/building cost matrix keeps showing us, multicolored 7 story rectangles with flat sides are so much easier and cheaper to build. I’m impressed with this structure, and I hope that it becomes a test case for what designers/builders will start doing once we run out of room to park any more barges.

  12. COtoOC February 8, 2017 at 1:48 pm

    I’m still amazed by this building. Mainly for the height and location when you’re driving in to downtown from !25 on Speer.

  13. Kori Wamser-Berce February 8, 2017 at 2:24 pm

    Do we have any information about the infill at La Loma Restaurant. The block is leveled.

    Also do we know what is going on at 29th and Sheridan. The former Gas and Go is gone and digging is underway.

    Appreciate any info.

  14. Ed M February 8, 2017 at 7:55 pm

    I think this is a very attractive architectural statement although I would have liked it even more if it was closer to the height of the other tall buildings in the area such as Glass House. The attached six story building does help to “ground” it in it’s surroundings. As a side note, this building is the same height as the building under construction at Country Club Gardens. A buildings footprint makes a big difference. Although the same height as this building the Country Club Gardens building has a far more significant impact (I believe negative) on its surroundings by virtue of its enormous length.

    • Tony February 9, 2017 at 8:30 am

      I live right next to the new country club towers, and am really excited about it. Although the shadow it is casting on the properties north of it is pretty serious (there is still snow and ice on the ground). I’m really interested and excited to experience the impact of all these new residents on the neighborhood. Aside from the shadow and the developments effects of on street parking (which is already a battle royale), this should be a huge boost to the neighborhood.

  15. Ed M February 9, 2017 at 5:21 pm

    I pointed out the snow and ice problem with the shadow a few weeks ago and, except for one commentator who took offense at my comment and said it wasn’t an issue, nobody made a comment. And this is a very light snow year. I’m afraid that the bias of the majority of j participants on this website in favor of high density, seemingly everywhere, is unfortunate. And I am in general a fan of increasing density in appropriate parts of Denver or I wouldn’t be a fan of DenverInfill.

    • Freddie February 9, 2017 at 7:47 pm

      I can only speak for myself but I admit my judgment is likely clouded by an irrational, fanatical love of skyscrapers. 🙂

    • J February 14, 2017 at 2:26 pm


      I think maybe I disagreed with your snow and ice comment. No offense, just don’t agree. The shade in the summer in my opinion positively outweighs any negative at a building where a) sidewalks are cleared well and ice melted by the in site staff b) Denver only averages 57 inches a year, and 300 days of sunshine so it melts off quickly. Just not an issue.

      I think the bias of people on here is for good development, repairing the urban fabric, filling in missing teeth, etc. Both the confluence and country club tower fit those criteria. You seem to imply that your opinion of where density and height is appropriate is somehow “correct” whereas other people’s opinion of the appropriate locations is “incorrect.”

  16. Richard February 9, 2017 at 9:58 pm

    I love this building especially the views of it from inside Commons Park. Other good views are from behind the Union Station midrise cluster from the Park Avenue flyover and looking down 15th St

  17. RevClay February 10, 2017 at 10:30 am

    A little late to the party but I will have to concur with a lot of people’s thoughts on this being one of the better developments going up in Denver. The point tower form works very well from the street and provides a great addition to the skyline at a key entry point to downtown. I’m still not a huge fan of the metal paneling as it looks a tad cheap but I’ve warmed to it as the tower has gone up. Also, I agree context is a really important consideration when discussing building design and height. This project is blocks away from 20+ story buildings and has been designed to minimize the casting of shadows on adjacent properties. If we don’t encourage height with a thoughtful design in this sort of context, I’m not sure where we should allow such a building.

    On a side note, it’s always nice reading the thoughtful comments on this website without descending into petty name-calling. Keep up the good work, Ken and Ryan, and thanks for everything you both do.

  18. Darin February 10, 2017 at 11:33 pm

    Awesome job on the pictures Ryan. You will have to come by when we light it up for night, the countdown is on!

  19. mckillio February 15, 2017 at 3:44 pm

    Will the six story building open sooner than the tower?

  20. Tom February 16, 2017 at 5:37 pm

    Out of scale to neighborhood/surrounding buildings. Overshadows the park. Developers certainly get thier way in Denver.

    • Freddie February 17, 2017 at 1:49 pm

      The developer originally proposed something shorter. They planned on maxing out the zoning with a massive, broad “land barge.” The neighborhood turned against it in part because it would block views for many in the neighborhood. So the developer worked extensively with the neighborhood and eventually came up with a compromise: something taller and much more slender that would be less massive and imposing, and wouldn’t block so much of the view or cast so much shade. Everyone was satisfied. Literally no one complained. You’re trying to create the narrative that the developer shoved something down our throats that the neighborhood didn’t want, but you don’t know what you’re talking about. This is a skyrise building in the downtown of a big city. You see, downtowns of big cities have skyrises in them. If you don’t want to live near skyrise buildings, then I would suggest living somewhere other than the downtown of a big city.

Comments are closed.