The first phase of Trammell Crow’s 1900 16th Street project in Downtown Denver’s Central Platte Valley has been under construction for over a month now. Phase 1 consists of a 17-story office building at 16th and Delgany, plus a parking garage along 15th Street. Phase 2 consists of a 13-story office building next to the Millennium Bridge, and Phase 3 consists of 8 levels of residential built atop the parking garage.
Here are three images that show in a very clear manner the three phases of this project.
Phase 1 – A 17-story office building and parking garage:
Phase 2 – A 13-story office building (right) next to the Millennium Bridge and to the northwest of the Phase 1 building:
Phase 3 – An 8-story residential addition on top of the parking garage:
Please note: I believe the architectural design of the buildings shown in the three images above is not the most recent, but the images still do a good job of showing the entire 3-building complex from several perspectives. For what I believe is the latest architectural design rendering, see my blog of October 12.
all these huge buildings… not sure the vibe it's going to create–or ruin. looking more and more like an office park.
I agree with anonymous 10:38.
This looks like something you'd see in the Denver Tech center – not lodo.
The phase 2 building seems to wreck the charm of Millenium Bridge a a centerpiece of the neighborhood; they're too close together. Phase 1 is far enough from the bridge to give the bridge some integrity; phase too is, what, 20 feet away?
All together, it looks like a hospital complex.
I agree with the above comments that the development looks like it belongs in the Denver Tech center, but I think that the surrounding environment will prevent that from being the case when all is said and done. No one will ever have the perspective portrayed in this model because, realistically, the bottom portion of the development will be blocked by surrounding buildings.
Whatever retail they end up with along 16th will hopefully help it feel more like an "urban" development. But I agree, this is looking a little office park-ish.
And Scott, this isn't exactly in Lodo. It's in the CPV, which obviously is still developing it's own identity as a neighborhood. Give it a few years and this thing will fit right in with the rest of the buildings in the neighborhood.
Anon 10:38, would you prefer the parking lot? Or perhaps more "open-space" ??
Matt and Anon 3:25, this is the CPV and these buildings are restricted by height limits, oh and yeh, they're office buildings..hence office park look. Yet this one has a little residential thrown in for good measure. Perhaps you were looking for stucco or brick?
At least this complex is under construction…I am still waiting for 1800 Larimer to get started!
I really like this design. It looks super dense, and I love the blue glass. I'm not quite sure why all of you are being such haters! The more infill the better right, if we leave more the block open are we not creating the same disgusting plazas that plague 1980's style buildings? I think this will be a lovely addition to the the CPV, and I can't wait to see all three phases built in a quick efficient manner.
It's not just that they're office buildings. There are plenty of mid-rise or even low-rise office buildings downtown that don't look like they belong in the Denver Tech Center.
The orientation of the buildings is one of the development's aspects that give it an urban-suburban look. They aren't alligned on a grid, and the three buildings clustered around an open area remind me of developments I've seen in Broomfield.
That isn't a problem in itself, and I point to another potential problem: the ground floor has no atrium or base that adds a pedestrian element to the development. Thtink of the Tabor center, which has several buildings above a common base. Would the Tabor center look "suburban" if the tower was only 100 feet high? No.
That issue could be worked out by ground-floor retail, but that doesn't show up in the rendering. And like I said in my first comment, all you will be able to see from a distance is the tops of these buildings because other developments will be clustered around them.
Still, my biggest problem with this development is how close the second tower comes to the Millenium Bridge, detracting from the bridge's charm as the centerpiece of the neighborhood. Phase 2 is taller than the bridge and just a few feet away – it would be like putting a 700-food skyscraper next to the Statue of Liberty.
I agree with MP on the closeness of tower II. Why not put tower II on top of tower I, oh yeah the CPV height limit thing. Height limits are trite in the downtown area, get over it already… Once a building is over 6 or seven floors it blocks out enough of the sky already from a pedestrian point of view. I can't wait to see the 1401Lawrence tower looming over the historic larimer block, now that'll be a vibrant urban mix!
Sincerely,
Not very patient about the Spire
I think that the millienium bridge is an icon for that neighborhood not for the city and that the people in the neighborhood appreciate the growth of the neighborhood.
If you go to Denver-cityscape.com you can see the site plan. There is PLENTY of ground floor retail proposed for all three buildings. Unfortunately, I do not agree with your comparison to the DTC. I do not see tons of parking surrounding and open space surrounding these buildings as the Union Station development will certainly give this development a nice closed in feel. Let's also not forget about the proposed Cosmo Club on 15th which will also help make this development more intimate. It will most certainly fit in well with the CPV, the Millenium bridge, etc. By the way, do the condos on the opposite side of the Millenium bridge take away from its "charm"? no, they don't. MP, I usually agree with you in your comments,but this time it seems that you are simply complaining just for something to do.
Height limits are not trite! I'm sure thats what DURA thought back in the day when they destroyed blocks upon blocks of 6-7 story buildings which were a lot more charming to the pedestrian than the soaring tinted glass boxes we have today. Screw height, give me scale thats appropriate to me as i walk downtown..not drive!
I think if you read my comments closer, they are nuanced and would be better characterized as critiques than as "complaints."
I RARELY have anything negative to say about any new development in Denver, but don't think there would be much point in this forum if we were shouting "WOO YEAH" to every planned development regardless of what it looks like. There would be no room to appreciate the really outstanding buildings if we treated everything like it was already great.
I'm not against this development. I agree with comments posted previous to my first comment here that it resembles the Denver Tech Center, but that is not a deal-breaker for me, because as I said, you won't even see the base of these buildings from the angle shown in the rendering when other buildings surround it. However, I think it is sad that the building is so tall and so close to the Millenium Bridge. Hopefully the rendering in this entry is a mis-portrayal of how that will look when it is built.
Unless I am mistaken, the condos on the opposite side of the Millenium Bridge are MUCH shorter than these buildings will be. They are 7 stories tall, and one story in a condo is not as high as one story in an office building. The condos don't detract much from the bridge because the bridge towers over them, but this rendering gives me the impression that the Phase II building will be taller than the Millenium Bridge.
I agree with your comments about height, for the reasons you listed and others. Height limits find my biggest favor in the fact that they keep tall developments concentrated in a smaller area where they make for a better skyline. I don't want to find a lone skyscraper somewhere far from Downtown on the far end of the Civic Center, nor do I want a tall skyscraper in the CPV. Height limits there push the taller buildings to central downtown, and we have all heard that one of the good things about Denver is that the Downtown area is centralized.
Matt, you're right. The 2 buildings next to the bridge are 7 stories each. But the lot across 16th from the tower you object to, is slated for a 14 story tower. If a 14-story tower ends up there, that will be even higher than the building you are "critiquing"! IMO, it doesn't make a bit of difference. The bridge will be just as "iconic" even if it isn't the tallest thing in the neighborhood. And lets get real, The Millenium Bridge doesn't fit this town anyway. It was out of place in Denver the moment the first rendering was made public! That thing belongs in San Diego, not Denver!!
Regardless of where the bridge belongs is irrelevant. I'm not trying to attack you Matt, because in many instances I agree with you and your summations of Denver architecture, etc.
I still cannot agree that this looks like the Denver Tech Center, but regardless, it doesn't matter now because at least it is under construction.
The permit for 1800 Larimer is still chugging along and I do hope that it will start construction soon.
As the years progress watching the Union Station development is truly going to be an exciting experience. How many years have we walked across the millenium bridge only to see blocks of dirt. Someday, there will no longer be dirt but people and buildings and activity. And the millenium bridge will still manage to be iconic for this neighborhood and for the city!
I think the Millenium Bridge fits the attempted theme in Denver, that goes along with DIA and Market Street Station and (hopefully) Union Station (I'm curious to see what the train room will look like irl).
But anyways, it doesn't need to be the tallest building in the area, or far away from another building. You'll still be able to see it looking down from the mall, nevertheless, and any other view plane really isn't worthwhile anyway.
Fischer Tower used to be the tallest building. Can you imagine if they didn't let anyone build anything taller than that? I'm all for the density, as long as we have a market for it.
The building itself I think fits the CPV theme. It's not that different than Glass House, really (at least I think that's what they were going for). As for a common atrium, I'd rather have several different buildings to walk past than a single one. The lack of the grid pattern is strange, but will make for an increased feel of density since it will block view planes from both the NE and SW.
This complex does look a hospital. Phase two is especially ugly. I think it would be more interesting if the buildings each had different color glass to give them distinct identities. The other common design elements would still tie the complex together. Phase 2 does crowd out the bridge too much. And Anon 2:32, why does'nt the Millenium Bridge fit in Denver? Show me a regionalist bridge anywhere in the world, especially a modern one. Why does this bridge scream "San Diego" to you anyway?
kcollins–
relax, baby… we're not haters, just making observations. we all make 'em. as for your comment "The more infill the better right"–totally disagree. if you want to have something nice in the end, you have to do it right. just "filling it in" isn't necessarily good. from my perspective, of course…
So just out of curiosity Anon 2:32 how do you decide what belongs in Denver and what belongs in SD? Is there a book that we should purchase telling us what things can be built in which cities?
I agree with anon 2:32 that the bridge looks like it belongs in San Diego. Not sure why exactly. Maybe because it looks just like a sailboat?? I think if the mast were a differnent color, it wouldn't be so aquatic. At least there's a stream nearby…
Anon 3:48, you hit the nail on the head. It does look like a sailboat! I never thought it was appropriate for Denver, but couldn't put my finger on why that was. I figured that once it was surrounded by buildings, it would find it's place. And actually, I still believe that will be the case.
I don't feel attacked, I just decided that, based on the feedback I was getting, my first message wasn't getting across as I intended, so I wanted to clarify.
I'm not against buildings that are taller than the millenium bridge, I'd just rather them be at least as far away from the bridge as the bridge is tall (so I guess that puts us at about a 100 foot radius). Phase I looks great – maybe not in this rendering; in a rendering on an earlier entry it was absolutely gorgeous, though.
But phase II does crowd out the bridge. Though I think a few tall buildings that seve to expand or heighten the skyline are good for Denver, I have been reading comments on this blog for a while now and have come to agree with those who say great cities are not defined by height. Great cities are defined by the open spaces within the city and what the surrounding city looks like from within those open spaces. The images of Denver that are going to be easily captured and packaged to make the city look appealing to those abroad are going to be images based on a few really distinct icons. I saw a potential for a powerful and captivating open space around the Millenium Bridge bridge, and though this building adds some nice height and color to the neighborhood, it's sad to see that space go. Who knows, maybe a good phogotrapher will still catch the scene from the right angle, and maybe the building won't detract too much from the bridge; I just don't see it yet.
I apologize up front if I get blasted for posting a non-specific email. Basically I am curious on folks thoughts as to whether the lion share of this proposed development will even kick off any time soon with all the sky is falling talk about housing and a so called luring recession.
The economy isnt doing as well as we would hope, true. Will the housing issues carry over to commercial development? Meh, it's possible. There are plenty of people on both sides of the block saying yay or nay. Nevertheless, many (almost 90%) of the proposed developments that have either been listed here or in the paper or on the skyscraperpage forum have gone to permitting. That's not a bad rate. I do realize that things take a little longer here in Denver to get going, but we're seeing a real nice building spree going on right now. Will it last? That's anyone's guess or speculation.
All I know is that I've seen a lot of new buildings go up in the surrounding Denver neighborhoods in the 6 years I've been here. And, I just hope it continues.
Thank you everyone for your respectful debate on this, and other, issues. After several 12-hour work days in a row, I'm now on the road for over a week traveling on business. Consequently, please forgive me for the lack of blogs… I look forward to getting back up to speed once I return. Keep the conversation going and thank you for your interest in helping Downtown Denver become an even greater urban place.
Ken
I always that the bridge look contrived. It didn't go anywhere. More density around it will improve it's appearance IMO.
Not to get off topic here, but since there is no other place to ask… I noticed riding in on the train both yesterday and today some activity at the Spire. Yesterday they were either lowering or raising something to the top of the crane, and today a guy in a hardhat and JE Dunn truck walking around with a big set of plans. Does anyone know if construction is starting back up finally?
We'll just have to agree to disagree about height limits. I think that when you're discussing the science of pedestrian scale in relation to a city's core area it plainly all boils down to opinion disquised as 'school of thought'. And all those schools of thought compounding over the last 2 or 3 decades have really done is created more red tape to strangle would be investments. Personally I feel that the experience of being in the downtown of a city the larger buildings the perspective I get is how small I truly am compared to something that's measuring up into the sky. Then to comment on keeping the taller buildings clustered together like they need to be in some corner away from the pedestrians that really defeats the iconic scale and grand view perspective of a wonderfully designed tower. For example look at the Wells Fargo tower and how it's complemented by the 1775 Sherman tower and the silver Amoco bulding on Broadway which are half it's height. I don't think it's poor planning or bad design to have towers on the fringe of the pinnacle of downtown zones. It's my opinion that it's good to mix things up more and that's what truly gives an urban area more depth and perspective. As far as 'planning' goes, think of it this way: What's the solution going to be when the zoning ceiling is at buildout within downtown Denver's solidified boundaries and we have a solid massive pyramid looking cluster, in say 2050? How's that keeping a fancy perscpective for a skyline against one of the most beautiful 'sky-scaped' regions in the world? Not that I don't love Boulder…I grew up there, but let's not Boulderize Denver.
Vibrantvision
The parking garage is across 15th from the MCA. World-class.
The parking garage will be wrapped with retail. So what?
To "vibrantvision"
Height limits are a very long-term and slow-changing feature, but still fluid. A city is not a 1-shot project that is eventually "finished" and stops growing when every empty block is filled. If you look at Denver in 1920, you find that only the the tiniest fraction of builidngs appearing then still exist; yet, downtown lacked parking lots and seemed a lot closer to "complete" then than it does now. When Denver's core area reaches "buildout," (at, in the example you gave, 2050), the city will look so different that every plan we have now will be up in the air – some of the smaller and less-fancy buildings being constructed up until this day will be considered old and expendable – and aside from that, it's most likely that current height limits will change. I forsee the highest CBD area eventually expanding northeast towards Curtis Park, but stepping down to mid-rise residential pretty quickly around Park Avenue. But I don't think the CBD would or should expand northwest towards the highway.
As much as we like tall buildings, do we really want a 700-foot tower on the West side of I-25? Think about how awkward that would look. Zoning and height control are good things that allow downtown areas to exist in the first place when automobile-based infrastructure makes diffuse planning more likely to naturally occur. Look at cities that formed or re-designed themselves since the auto-culture began; Phoenix, Los Angeles, Miami and Las Vegas all have very different kinds of urban feeling.
Chicago once had a 6-story height limit to prevent city streets from looking like a "cave;" when later streets were built wider and building designs changed to be less ominous, the height limit was relaxed. Denver's CBD was limited by flight paths from Stapleton airport until 10 years ago. We don't know how the next trend in technology and design will change things, but they will doubtlessly effect the issues related to tall buildings and prefered height control.
I haven't been keeping up reading this discussion, so this is in response to something that was brought up a long time ago. How does the buildings orientation make it look suburban or like a hospital? Phase 1 and 2 push all the way up to their property lines on 16th street extending the street wall, and providing more ground floor retail (since it is a "mall" after all). The parking garage also pushes all the way to the 15th street sidewalk and includes retail with space for sidewalk cafes.
The breaks between the buildings are really only slightly larger than what alleys create, except in this case they're landscaped and more attractive than an alley. But at the same time it appears that auto traffic will be directed to the interior plaza similar to what an alley does. This means nothing but pedestrian oriented retail and possibly the office and condo lobbies along 15th 16th and Delgany.
I also disagree that Phase 2 crowds out the bridge. I don't think that space was ever intended to be permanently open, and city zoning laws probably require development to push all the way up to the CML. When the CPV is built out, the train tracks will be almost completely hidden since all the Riverfront Park buildings, and I'm guessing all the Union Station Neighborhood ones as well, will be built right up against the property line.
My only concern (and I can't see in the rendering), but:
Will there be retail in the garage?
That would be smart as well as attractive so we'll see. They at the very least did a good job of camoflaugiing the south wall with cladding similar to that found on the convention center garage.
Being an architecture student, I think that the pedestrian scale, especially on huge buildings in a downtown area, needs to be a primary concern. We can still have huge skyscrapers, but they could also respect the pedestrian environment a little more. Instead of feeling small, smothered and claustrophobic, one could feel as if he is passing by a five or six story building instead of an 80 story building. This is much more likely to attract the pedestrian to enter or otherwise interact with the building than a 1,000 foot straight extrusion would. For instance, walking next to the Empire State Building in Manhattan, you'd never guess the city's tallest skyscraper was standing feet away. However, once you get blocks away from it, you can see it in its huge massiveness. This building respects the pedestrian scale while maintaining an iconic building that enhances the skyline from afar. Set-backs can be amazing, and is one of the things that we could learn from art-deco era buildings and is also one of the things that disappoints me most about the Four Seasons final design. Good architects need to be more sensitive to the different scales involved in a building instead of assigning a general urban or suburban scale to a project.