Downtown Denver’s Four Seasons Tower: The Model

Comments to this post from the previous Blogger version of the DenverInfill Blog:

Comments:
Argh! I cannot wait until fall for this thing to start! one less parking lot makes me glad.
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/24/2007 09:42:00 PM
Yes, it’s great to see this project finally come to fruition, but I’m surprised you had no commentary about how this building morphed into a rather drab high-rise from its early rendition as a truly skyline-defining spire. In this newest rendition the point at the top seems like an afterthought. The first design was a real eye-catcher and one that should have been retained for such a stately project as the Four Seasons. Of course, as with the vast majority of readers to this blog, I am thrilled to see more downtown infill. Is it too much to ask for a bit of a statement in our emerging skyline?
Permalink Posted by tc : 4/24/2007 10:04:00 PM
Thank god!! And it looks better than Seattles!! WOOHOO!!
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/24/2007 10:08:00 PM
Like everyone, I’m glad to hear more progressive news on the elimination of another parking lot. Not soon enough to show off for the DNC in ’08 though. A little depressed about the less ambitious scale minus just five floors, since in my opinion that little bit makes all the difference in creating a landmark feature. Seems like the new scale chooses to blend in with the highrise bulk of the area, i.e. the Brooks Towers will almost be the same height. If changes were due to financial reasoning, when did reasonable ever make a leader?
Thanks.
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/24/2007 11:39:00 PM
Yeah it is 100% better than the Seattle version. I like the way it looks. Of course I’m dissapointed that in the end it had to lose 5 floors, but that’s not really all that bad. What I want to see is how the Spire will look down the street. It’s only 4 stories shorter but a whole lot wider. I say woohoo and get the dirt moving!!
Permalink Posted by Aaron : 4/25/2007 05:42:00 AM
Of course, I’m excited about the building and the impact on the skyline it will have.

However, It looks like the building’s footprint takes up about 3/4 of the block, with the rest remaining surface parking lot. Does the 4 Seasons own the rest of the lot and are just choosing to make it surface parking? If so, that would be something of a disappointment — it’s great to have the infill but it’d be much better to have a street wall on all four sides.

I’m guessing that the 15th street side, at least, is probably owned by someone else. If so, we can hope that that owner will take the opportunity to give us some street-level retail on that side. Does anyone know the situation on that?
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/25/2007 07:10:00 AM
I truly hate to pass judgement on architecture until the building is done. It would have been nice to have the taller 60 story version…however, if the developers were going to get financing, they had to make sacrifices somewhere. I wish we could say this is Chicago or New York where very tall condo projects come with little risk, but this is Denver. As you might also note, the developers had to go OUTSIDE the country to actually get financing. I can just imagine what obstacles the developers came up against trying to sell a 60 story condo/5 star hotel to our own national and local lenders. I’m sure they were laughed at and brushed off. Like Ken said above, the developers deserve a pat on the back for taking a vision and turning it into reality!
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/25/2007 08:11:00 AM
Anon.. it will be significanlty taller than Brooks. 650 versus 420.
Permalink Posted by Aaron : 4/25/2007 09:34:00 AM
It’s hard not to get excited about the infill and skyline changes that the spire and this building are going to make. I too, am a little dispointed in the downsizing of the building’s height, but if the 1401 Lawrence project goes forward as scheduled, then it will be good to have those two buldings not be the same height. Denver will look much different two years from now.
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/25/2007 10:17:00 AM
I liked the old design and color scheme better, and even if funding required that 5 floors be cut, I’d rather see that take place while preserving the older (similar) design.

I’m also not too thrilled about the parking lot, and the boxiness of the base of the building. I’m assuming the building’s upper-class residents will tend to own cars, so parking spaces will be a permanent feature of this site. That means there probably aren’t any plans to cover up the exposed parking. The rendering’s inclusion of trees planted around the site means that the whole block is part of the intended design.

Still, this is exciting for Denver, bringing some very wealthy residents Downtown to boost demand for retail and increase the general GDP of the neighborhood. I can’t complain about what has happened, but it’s much less exciting than what we saw before.
Permalink Posted by Matt Pizzuti : 4/25/2007 11:52:00 AM
I must say, although I am very glad to see this project finally moving forward, I am EXTREMELY disappointed this project has been down-sized. It is not going to be very skyline defining at all, and it’s just another bulky box. I mean it when I say that if Denver doesn’t get a real skyscraper soon, I’ll move! I guess our only hope now is 1401 Lawrence…which is barely tall enough to compare with the skyscrapers we already have. Meanwhile, Chicago is about to get a glamorous, tallest- building- in-North America skyscraper. What ever happened to Trango Tower? Now that skyscraper would have really let us compete with top-tier cities like Chicago and New York. But once again, Denver stays 2nd tier and gets left behind.
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/25/2007 03:53:00 PM
Anon 8:11, it’s probably significantly easier to get European financing given the exchange rate advantage, especially from London, where it’s almost a half off deal.

And have you been walking over there lately? At the base floor of the performing arts center garage is what appears to be the future sales center.

Oh, and the Spire seems to have broken ground. Bye bye surface parking lot!
Permalink Posted by saint : 4/25/2007 03:54:00 PM
I’m a little disappointed too, but in balance, you’d have to say this design will still rank among the top 3-4 skyscrapers in Denver.
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/25/2007 05:10:00 PM
Anon 3:53, I think its lame to say your going to move if Denver doesn’t get a taller skyscraper. You can’t just wish a skyscraper would pop up, there has to be demand for it. And as for competing with Chicago and New York? We aren’t even on the same playing field. What kind of competition is that anyway? Skyscrapers aren’t what make cities great.
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/26/2007 08:26:00 AM
Regardless of height, the design has devolved fairly significantly from the first renderings. This is much simpler, less interesting, and less unique to Denver than the original plan.

… But it’s still an attractive building, and a step up from the shoeboxes of the 80s.
Permalink Posted by BeyondDC : 4/26/2007 08:26:00 AM
Thanks Anon 3:53. If you’re gonna go, go already! Why wait?
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/26/2007 12:39:00 PM
Let’s vote. Is this actually going to happen? …and on schedule?
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/26/2007 01:57:00 PM
I think the last anonymous emailer is right. Until the groundbeaking happens It still just a dream. Denver always takes the safe non-risky approach to everything when it comes to downtown development. From the Union Station decision to the revision of this building and the downsizing of the 1401 Lawrence building from 55 to 51 stories, but with all that said “IF” the 1401, Four Seasons and the Spire project are REALLY complete by 2010 Denver’s skyline will look completely different. Keep in mind NO PROJECT has begun breakground yet!
Permalink Posted by Kendell : 4/26/2007 05:24:00 PM
If you’re going to switch your city allegiance because of a skyline 3:53, then I figure your heart was never really in Denver anyway.

Denver ’til the DEATH!!
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/26/2007 05:26:00 PM
The original design was a little more Empire State Building-ish, but I think the new design for the tower is just fine, and not ho-hum at all, as others have commented (for true ho-hum, look at several of our 1970s-1980s shoeboxes on 17th and 18th). However, I don’t like what I see at the base: apparently the developer has eliminated all of the retail facing Lawrence, and kept the area as surface parking! In the original plans, still posted on Denverinfill.com, the footprint of the building touches both Arapahoe and Lawrence–now it stops short of Lawrence. What a shame.
Permalink Posted by Mark : 4/26/2007 05:49:00 PM
According to Jeff Selby, they “did not want the building to be an imitation of the Chrysler Building or the Empire State Building”….well, I guess they succeeded….(evidently, though, it was it OK to imitate all of the square flat topped buildings in downtown Denver!) I know, I know, there are (currently) 2 indentations at the top of the box (that’s right I said BOX) – is that the architectural design element that is supposed to make the building “classical, yet modern and timeless? I think they need to get a new dictionary . . . and architect!
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/26/2007 06:57:00 PM
Even though I feel like the revised scale is more of a ‘settle for’, I can really appreciate from this plan that the base and two walls of the building are flush with the street corner, one of the great urban characteristics that distinguishes downtown Denver from say the competing DTC area. In my opinion the downtown street canyon effect walled with buildings of various heights lends more to an urban esthetic than say buildings that are ‘set back’ away from the sidewalk. Question in response about the parking lot and trees, isn’t this the result of the artist imposing the rendering over an original picture of a treescaped parking lot, not adding or subtracting any new images to the leftover property?
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/26/2007 08:31:00 PM
I agree with Kendell! I was disappointed with the Union Station decision, and now Great Gulf is getting smaller too. It’s true that Denver needs to be a tad more risky with these kind of things.
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/27/2007 04:44:00 AM
This blog is dissappointing to read. Maybe Ken should have a design progect on here for an area of land and that way everyone can shine and stop complaining about everything. These buildings are great buildings and yes they are 40 to 50 sotry buildings, why are we really upset? For everyone above that is a better architech, designer and can do it all while keeping costs down, then submit your drawing on here and explain how you do it. Come on Ken start a competition for all the complainers on here.
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/27/2007 08:44:00 AM
KEN: congrats on winning an award from the Downtown Denver Partnershp!
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/27/2007 09:18:00 AM
Denver needs to be more risky?!?!?! How about you go tell that to the lenders who finance these projects first. Perhaps all of the commentators on here should pool their unlimited funds to build a new tallest in Denver. And lets see what happens to your investment when the market fails. It’s obvious that many people who post on this blog know nothing about development or the financing aspects of getting something like this built!
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/27/2007 09:24:00 AM
If I look at the 15th street area on the darker picture, it seems that walking down from the 16th Street Mall towards this building, the approach crossing 15th street is completely uninviting. A parking lot ending in a blank wall. Very strange.
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/27/2007 09:47:00 AM
this is bordering on ridiculous…how is the ‘denver not being risky’? denver has shown, historically, an amazing ability and willingness to invest in large capital projects. does a highrise count in that regard? sure, and the city provides TIF financing all the time…this has nothing to do with the city…but basic market economics – there are less rich, less urban people, and less demand in Denver than the ‘majors’….we should be thanking our lucky stars…and thanking these developers for putting MILLIONS of there own dollars on the line to make this happen…that said – i thnk if the building had just a 1 foot setback on all four sides for the top 2/3…we’d have something really really special – now we just have really special. good luck on grounbreaking!
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/27/2007 09:49:00 AM
I would say to everyone who bemoans the shortening of this project (and others) due to developers’ economic considerations: get over it. This is Denver. It’s not Chicago or New York. It’s not Shanghai or Dubai. There’s lots of money in those places for super-tall buildings.

Far more important is whether the building contributes to Denver’s quality of life at the sidewalk level. The aesthetics of skylines when viewed from a distance are entirely subjective–my favorite building will never be yours, and vice versa. But if I feel a little bit safer and a little bit more engaged when I’m walking from Larimer Square to the DCPA, then this building will contributing in a real way to Denver.

Anyone who wants to make this building taller: hold a bake sale and donate your funds to Jeff Selby and his partners–it’s their money.
Permalink Posted by HistoryMystery : 4/27/2007 09:55:00 AM
ha ha ha ha, everybody on this blog is funny, first off, yeah for all of us because we will be getting a new four seasons denver, which will put us as a city on the map a little bit more, so now some of the big boy’s and girls have a place to rest in denver when they come down from aspen and play in the new and upcoming BIG CITY OF THE FUTURE, be glad, but what we need is some where downtown for them to spend there money! retail,restaurants etc. big names.
another thing if this building would of been only 20 stories and then grew to 45 stories then we would all be excited and praising the architect and planners, and the building in its own way is gorgeous, and it will stand out, there are no buildings on that side of downtown that will be taller then it, and if you remember it would have been the tallest building in denver by only 34ft at 752′ if you subtract the 5 stories which are from 10 to 12ft each it should be around 682′ which would make it the 3rd tallest in the city, rejoice you who love skyscrapers- rejoice.
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/27/2007 10:49:00 AM
This is great news. Think of where Denver was 15 years ago… and look at it now. Infilling and growing.

Denver will never be a New York or San Fran… but it can and will be a major city with first class amenities with little around it geographically to compete with. Hooray for Denver!
Permalink Posted by mark : 4/27/2007 12:23:00 PM
Previous comment: It’d be the 4th tallest 🙂
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/27/2007 02:54:00 PM
Okay, so maybe I won’t go to such an extent as to actually MOVE from Denver, I’m just really frustrated. One must admit, it is a little sad that Denver, a major U.S. city with the potential to be so much greater than it already is, hasn’t completed a major skyscraper since 1985-almost a quarter of a century! That is according to denverskyscrapers.com. Allow me to quote the paragraph:

“Not one major skyscraper has been constructed in downtown Denver since 1985, setting a new national record. Every major city in the United States has completed a high rise more recently than Denver, including the rust belt cities of Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis.”

And anon 8:26, I do believe that skyscrapers are PART(not all) of what makes a city great. Face it, the first thing that stands out to someone who sees downtown are our skyscrapers. Thus, they will judge us on our skyline. New York and Chicago pride themselves on having beautiful skylines,so we should be able to also.

Although Denver does have the Rocky Mountain Region’s tallest buildings, they do seem to resemble shoeboxes and have reigned our skies too long. It’s time we get a new tallest that’s architecturally profound. Let’s see…I’m 14, so I wonder if that will happen in my lifetime. I won’t hold my breath…IT’S DENVER!
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/27/2007 04:49:00 PM
Skyscrapers a great city do not make. Its the street life and dense not necessarily tall buildings with ground retail will help create it.

Case in point. Houston has lots of newer skyscrapers but little street life (at least what I found). Not a great place IMHO.
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/27/2007 05:26:00 PM
Anon 4:49 buy a one way ticket to Coruscant already and stop the whole bipolar love/hate affair with Denver. Either love or leave it!
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/27/2007 08:43:00 PM
Kendell, drive down 14th Street sometime. The Spire has broken ground. Also, to the anonymous who’s considering moving – the 37 story Denver Hyatt was completed in 2005. I know it’s only one building, but make sure your info isn’t out of date before you quote it.
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/27/2007 08:43:00 PM
To anon. at 4:49 PM:

You write well for a 14 year old. I’m impressed.

Skyscrapers are exciting and impressive at first glance, and I am a fan of bigger and more skyscrapers as well. But consider this: the most famous cities in the world; Rome, Paris, and London, do not have notable skylines. London is only beginning to allow the classical business district you find in the U.S.. Meanwhile, on this side of the pond, some huge sun-belt cities with greater populations than Denver, like Phoenix, San Diego and San Jose, have neither impressive skylines nor nearly as centralized development as Denver. On the grand scheme of things, Denver is holding its own.

Skylines are nice, but I do think streets are more important than what the city looks like from a distance, in agreement with this website’s emphasis on eliminating parking lots. Besides, Denver’s skyline is not bad in relationship to its population. Denver, with half a million people, cannot expect a nation-leading skyline when Chicago has three million and New York has eight million.

Aside from that; do we really want Denver to be some kind of worldwide metroppolis? I don’t. We talk about having a “world class city;” and that’s a great goal to strive for. I think Seattle or Vancouver are good models to emulate, but I don’t want to see some sort of sprawling megolith that destroy’s Colorado’s unique environment and changes its character. Mid-sized cities can have the class of a big city while retaining some charm and character – good growth is about doing it intelligently and uniquely rather than getting huge and setting records.
Permalink Posted by Matt Pizzuti : 4/27/2007 08:48:00 PM
anon 4:49:

First of all, you’re quoting denverskyscrapers.com, a website that hasn’t been updated in 5 years. The 37-story Hyatt certainly qualifies as a high-rise, and last time I checked, it has been completed. Second, the Glass House, Spire, One Lincoln Park, and other buildings have been built or are under construction, making the denverskyscrapers claim moot.

But, despite all of that, you’re missing the most important lesson of all: skyscrapers alone do not a great city make.

Yes, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and a few other cities have great towers. But those cities became great only because they first had a consistent and exceptional base of low- and mid-rise buildings that covered 100% of their urban landscape which created an exceptional street-level environment. From that base, their signature towers rose above.

Decades–centuries–of human experience has shown that it is what happens at the street level that makes a city great. Under your definition, London, Paris, and Rome are pathetic losers of cities.

Our first task in Denver in becoming a great city is to re-establish the 100% street-level urban environment. Then we can focus on upgrading certain sites to signature towers.

An architecturally fabulous tower surrounded by dead surface parking lots is Houston, Las Vegas, and Charlotte. Are those the cities to which you’d like Denver to aspire? Personally, I’d rather aim for London or Boston.

Denver is growing the best way it possibly could: organically. Given our city’s plethora of surface parking lots and undeveloped sites, we’re much better off with five 10-story buildings than one 50-story building. I love skyscrapers–don’t get me wrong. But our best path toward becoming a great city, a San Francisco or a Paris, is to cover as much ground as possible with street-level-intensive buildings first. Skyscrapers are the icing on the cake.

I suggest you read “The Life and Death of Great American Cities” by Jane Jacobs.
Permalink Posted by Ken : 4/27/2007 09:33:00 PM
This is anonymous 4:49 again. I’d like to say(especially to anon 8:43) that I do not have a love/hate affair with Denver at all…I completely love it here. That’s why I get flustered when beautiful buildings are never constructed. Moving was a bit of an exaggeration, I’ll admit though.
2nd of all, Matt Pazzuti thanks for your comments, and I am starting to understand your point of view. Yours too, Ken. I thought denverskyscrapers.com was a little outdated myself, but now it’s been confirmed for me. I guess it is a good idea to cover street-level area first, and I appreciate your hard work to make sure that happens. Speaking of which, I passed by the Fontius building on the 16th Street Mall yesterday…GROSS! We need to get that building fixed up fast before the Dems come to town in ’08. And congrats on your Downtown Denver Partnership Award! It’s well deserved. I’ll try to read that book, too.

As for now, all we can do is wait to see how these big new projects will look. I guess I can settle for our Rocky Mountains for now…they’re our REAL skyscrapers. They put any other city’s skyscrapers to shame anyday!
Permalink Posted by Anonymous : 4/27/2007 10:23:00 PM
I think it’s lovely to see such a building of this scale move ahead to construction. Sure it’s not as grand as the buildings of the east, but those cities do not have natural skylines (the mountains). If I wanted tall and congested I would move to Hong Kong, but I want a vibrant city that has natural beauty.
Permalink Posted by Kcollins : 5/03/2007 01:37:00 PM
As a newcomer to this blog, let me first state that I am glad I found it, because i am absolutely rabid about urban development/streetscapes, and city skylines. Having the opportunity to finally live in a legitimate (albeit not in the same class as Chicago, or New York) city, I have searched fervently for news regarding Denver’s future development as well as statistics about existing structures. I also feel a bit of impatience on the subject of Denver’s skyline growth, owing in part to the fact that some sites seem to go through several cycles of we’re going to build it-wait, now we’re not (El Jebel Tower-Trump Tower?). I also agree that the other side of the coin is proper street-level development, but why can’t both aims be accomplished with inspired and well-thought out mix-use skyscrapers? I would have to say that all things unique to an urban environment fascinate me, but a well-defined skyline, one that is visible for miles out so one can proudly say- “that is where I reside”, is essential. I am willing to exercise some patience, however, I would like to see the skyline bumped up slightly after this latest round (Four Seasons, 1401 Lawrence. etc.) gets established. If the Denver area can support these projects, than it would be nice to see a couple of 800-1000 footers within the next 10-20 years. Oh, and for those that hold up Houston as an example of why merely tall buildings do not improve a city’s allure, well, Houston is a city with no established zoning, so that might factor in also. On the ground-level, I am not aware of the most recent plans for the Civic Center area, but something needs to be done soon. “Design by Committee”, or whatever has been taking place needs to be swept aside. A landscape architect of some kind of renown needs to be courted and hired (I am not sure who is on the project, if anyone), a few general recommendations and wishes communicated, and step back, let the professional work. Like I stated, I haven’t checked recently on the status of that undertaking, they might have something underway now, but the history of the project’s planning efforts was less than inspiring.
Permalink Posted by Eric : 6/03/2007 09:08:00 PM
Post a Comment

Links to this post:
uber-riche denver
images from denverinfill aiming high with construction starting this summer and opening in 2009, the four seasons tower looks to include some of the most lavish over-priced residences in the city, and exclude most of the city’s …
posted by archaalto @ 5/01/2007 11:56:00 AM