New Project: 16th & Humboldt Apartments

A new multifamily development is under construction at the corner of 16th and Humboldt in the City Park West neighborhood. Consisting of side-by-side five-story buildings at 1570 and 1578 Humboldt, the 16th & Humboldt Apartments is being developed by Pando Holdings and features a total of 100 rental apartments. Below is a Google Earth aerial image with the project location outlined, and a Google Street View image showing the site prior to the start of construction.

The 100 homes within the project are high-efficiency units, sometimes known as micro-units, designed to maximize living within a small unit footprint. This housing type provides a cost-effective option for young people, seniors, and others seeking a more affordable and efficient lifestyle. The units will average approximately 325 square feet in size and feature uniquely tall ceilings, providing for plenty of natural light and storage opportunities within.

Here are two renderings courtesy of OZ Architecture, which extensively studied the micro-unit trend nationally and internationally to create effective unit designs for this project.

No on-site automobile storage is included in the development, providing people who don’t own a vehicle the opportunity to live in a place where the high cost of structured or underground automobile parking is not part of their rent. The project is located in a transit-rich neighborhood (one block from Colfax, the region’s busiest high-frequency bus corridor) and along the popular East 16th Avenue bike route.

In addition to the residences, 16th & Humboldt Apartments will also include 2,400 square feet of ground-floor commercial retail/restaurant space along 16th Avenue. A rooftop deck will provide residents with excellent views of downtown and the mountains.

Construction of the 16th & Humboldt Apartments will take approximately 12 months, with completion expected in the summer of 2018.

By | 2017-09-18T18:03:58+00:00 June 24, 2017|Categories: City Park West, Infill, Parking, Residential|Tags: |16 Comments


  1. Jeffrey June 24, 2017 at 5:06 pm

    There used to be buildings on that site. What were they like?

    • Ken Schroeppel June 24, 2017 at 5:45 pm

      I believe it was a two-story medical office building.

  2. James June 26, 2017 at 8:19 am

    Not a fan of the aesthetics – not sure what could be changed to be improved – color, complimentary angles, more interesting roofline? The rooftop view is cool though I guess.

    • Matt June 30, 2017 at 11:47 am

      I think all the angles are already free, if not included in the rent. I’m not sure how providing angles at no cost would improve the aesthetics.

  3. Jordan June 26, 2017 at 1:53 pm

    Very interesting! Retail/commercial on 16th seems a little challenging, but hopefully it can succeed. How does this work with the new parking exemption updates? I thought this would not be allowed under the revision…

  4. Citizen Kane June 26, 2017 at 2:28 pm

    Architecturally clean, no arbitrary angles or kitchy design flourishes. I like it. One of the more handsome buildings that’s been on this site recently.

    From an urban design perspective this is an important project. Everyone, I sure, is aware of the city-counsel hoopla that this project instigated – and their misinformed regrettable decision.
    Questions raised by a project like this are fundamental to what type of city Denver wants to be and what it will become.
    Do we want to remain a car-centric city? We’re already seeing the limits of this approach. Do you operate under the assumption that it’s your god given right to store your personal property on public right-of-way? Is it morally acceptable to require excessively high parking counts from developers, when doing so forces them to build expensive car storage instead of housing for people, knowing that this inflates the cost of rent? Why do so when the project is on a transit corridor?

  5. Susan Barnes-Gelt June 27, 2017 at 1:43 pm

    Citizen Kane,
    Sadly, 16th & Humboldt is neither transit-adjacent nor transit-oriented. Unless you consider the unreliable, generally filthy Cofax bus, transit. Our planning department approves lots of mediocre buildings. From that perspective, this one measures . . .down.

    • JC June 27, 2017 at 2:10 pm

      Susan — my wife and I lived one block away for 5 years. It was a great, walkable neighborhood with bars, parks, restaurants and a grocery store within walking distance. With the bike lane on 16th and the Colfax bus line, my wife and I were able to commute 90% of the time without a car. I biked downtown or over to S. Broadway and she rode the bus to the Anschutz campus or biked to her office in Capitol Hill. Maybe this location isn’t great for your preferred methods of travel, but it sure worked for us. Sure, the Colfax buses could you some cleaning (I’m assuming you meant the actual physical property and not the individuals that ride the bus), but the L worked for us and was generally on time. My favorite game to play is to listen to my colleagues who drive talk about how unreliable transit is and how the weather isn’t great for biking and then to see how an inch of snow or a hard rain squall makes them a half hour late for work, while our commutes by bike, bus and light rail rarely impact my arrival by more than five minutes. I hope that the tenants of this new build are hearty and understand that this can be a no-car lifestyle location.

    • JerryG June 27, 2017 at 10:34 pm

      Susan, I agree with you that there have been some very mediocre looking buildings built recently. However, the planning department is not a design review board like they have for the Lower Downtown Historic District. If people want better looking buildings, then they should pressure the city to establish a citywide design advisory board and for each neighborhood (or subdistrict of a neighborhood) to establish their own design guidelines that are specific and unique to their neighborhood.

    • Philip June 28, 2017 at 10:07 am

      Susan, your comment on this particular development illustrates the laziness of the typical American. Transit is located within a roughly 3-minute walk of this residential project. While that may not be “transit-adjacent” by the definition you’re using for this discussion, it’s still mighty close for those with the gumption to spend a few calories and interact with their neighborhood. (For those with mobility issues RTD does offer an alternative to the regularly scheduled bus.) The Colfax buses are frequent, and in my experience quite reliable–in part because of the high-frequency service. By nearly any knowledgable definition the 15-Line qualifies as transit. “Filthy”? That’s your pointed judgement.

      For me, the aesthetics of the structure are better than most of the recent developments, but it’s not among the best. But I think it’ll serve its purpose well by giving the residential market as whole, and the center city specifically, something it truly needs.

    • Citizen Kane June 28, 2017 at 2:22 pm

      Susan – your response is disheartening in many ways.
      You demonstrate a lack of understanding and a lack of respect for public transportation – and its users.
      As JC outlined, this site is in an area that is rich in non-car transit options. Whether this makes this development ‘technically’ transit oriented or transit adjacent is is matter of semantics and irrelevant.
      Of course, the planning department approves mediocre buildings – it’s not their place to evaluate architecture. But the fact that this one “measures … down” (whatever that means) certainly demonstrates your lack of architectural acuity. This project is mature and understated. It’s actually quite refreshing to see in a city that is full of irrational architectural exuberance.

  6. JerryG June 28, 2017 at 10:29 pm

    In regards to the aesthetics of this project, it is better than a lot of the more recent projects. I have significant issues with the overly abundant use of EIFS panels, including this one here, as I prefer brick or other masonry since the city was built using brick and brick just seems more organic. Provides detail at multiple scales. However, I will say that this project is using ‘small’ tiles, which provides more detail and is more interesting to the eye of a pedestrian walking by. Unlike the affordable housing project on Welton that uses large panels, which may make it interesting to the eye of a driver moving past at 30 mph in a car.

    • Citizen Kane June 29, 2017 at 11:44 am

      I’m going by the rendering only (as that’s all I have to go on), but this appears to be a largely masonry building…

      • JerryG June 30, 2017 at 6:49 am

        Unfortunately, that’s not true. If you go to Denver’s ‘Site Development Plans’ map (publicly available), than you click on and view the plans for this development. The exterior of the upper floors of these buildings are identified as ‘painted fiber cement’ panels. The link is below.

        If those had been brick or some other masonry, then I think this would turn out to be a nicer looking building or, at least, fit in more with the surrounding neighborhood.

        • Jesse July 11, 2017 at 11:39 am

          Really appreciate all of the dialog here. For whatever it’s worth, the siding material will be a combination of cementitious shingle products and metal. The shingles are meant to be an ode to many of the historic homes in the neighborhood that have shingles upon them. There aren’t a lot of examples of this to be seen in Denver (there are many beyond our lovely city) but there is a recently constructed project to refer to here:

          • JerryG July 12, 2017 at 12:50 pm

            There may be shingles on historic homes but those are single family homes and not multifamily homes. All multifamily homes, that could be considered historic, have brick facades. I stand by my earlier opinion that, if this building had a brick facade, it would fit in more with its neighbors.

Comments are closed.