Back in November 2006, I blogged about a new hotel proposed by Barrons Development for the corner of 18th and Sherman on Block 034-B. The project, now being developed by Sherman Properties, is slated to be residential. The developers are seeking a variance from the City Park view plane to allow the project to penetrate the view plane height restriction by approximately 90 feet. For the whole story, here’s an article, 18th & Sherman Developers Seek View-Plane Variance, by Vanessa Martin of Life on Capitol Hill (which is now available online!). Here’s a slightly larger version of the image from the article (courtesy of Cahen Architectural Group) showing the conceptual view plane variance:
Personally, I am in favor of the requested view plane variance. I certainly would be if I lived in the Portofino! Anyway, while I am generally in favor of view planes, I think this one from City Park need to be rethought. If a new building that would violate the City Park view plane height limit, such as the proposed 18th & Sherman project, does not block any view of the mountains but blocks, instead, only the view of taller buildings behind it, then I think it should not be considered to be a violation of the view plane.
The argument used in support of enforcing the City Park mountain view plane for a building that would block only a taller building behind it is that if, someday, those taller buildings to the west, like Republic Plaza or the Qwest tower, were removed, then the shorter buildings that were exempted from the view plane would then block the views of the mountains. While that may be true, I think we’ve got bigger things to worry about than mountain views if our Downtown skyline’s tallest buildings are going away and not being replaced. Besides, if you extend that logic, we should ultimately eliminate the entire Downtown skyline so that none of the view of the mountains is blocked from City Park.
To me, it is the view of the skyline (with a mountain backdrop) that makes the City Park view so special. The growth and evolution of our Downtown skyline should not be held hostage to a mountain view restriction from one particular site, when there are dozens of places all around the city where one can get an unobstructed view of the mountains. We must allow our Downtown skyline (and the view of it from City Park) to evolve over time, including every so often the construction of a “new tallest” that would perhaps block a bit more of the view of the mountains from City Park, but make our Downtown more dense, engaging, and dynamic as the premier urban center in the Rocky Mountain West.
Just 'in case' the Republic Plaza or Qwest were to ever be removed? What a hoot!
I agree Ken. What a load of BS. This tower won't hurt anyone's view, save maybe those in the Portofino who will miss their parking lot view on the lower levels and the near Denver skyline on the upper ones. If the owners of the Portofino were smart, they would fight hand over foot for the heightened tower! Unless they like the idea of a building wrapping around theirs like a suffocating commiebloc tower.
I am confident that the council making the decision to allow a plane view revison will make the logical choice here (one can hope!)
I agree that any building that will be part of the skyline as viewed from City Park should not have height restrictions. 18th and Sherman is part of downtown. I do agree that the downtown skyline enhances the view from City Park and creates a postcard perfect view of our city. But I do think that the view plane ordinance is necessary to prevent tall buildings between City Park and downtown and to the north of downtown. If anything, it will enhance the view of the downtown skyline from City Park. I also think this new massing design for the Barrons development is greatly superior to the original. It wont hurt Barrons either because I am sure the upper level condos and penthouses will now be more desirable.
It seems to me that the height limit massing is only being used to scare them into accepting the plan without the height limit. Ha! They should make a rendering from the view of City Park, to show that it doesn't block the view of the beautiful Republic Tower.
Quick math problem:
Current height restriction + 90 feet = __feet/approximate stories?
It's all in the article I posted as part of the blog:
"The second design shows the first floor retail and the three floors of parking wrapping around the entire site and a 16-floor tower for the condominiums rising only at the corner of 18th & Sherman. Cahen said this way the Portofino would not be cast in a shadow, but the design would violate the view-plane ordinance by 92'.
The view-plane limit at the site is 161' and the proposed tower’s total height would be 252'."
As someone who lives less than two blocks from the proposed project, I think the whole "view plane" arguement is dumb. The only thing this project will block is views of taller buildings behind it, which will still be visable above it.
I pitty the poor folks in the Portofino if the view plane waiver is not granted. They are doing everyone in the neighboorhood a favor with the "unauthorized" design, and I really hope the city sees that.
The view plane from the steps of the Capitol building make sense. The view plane from City Park makes as much sense as an ejection seat on a helicopter. That one needs to go away completly. In that area the taller building looks better. It's a nice transtition height to the taller towers in DT.
The drawing doesn't leave the impression that the tower will have the same interior volume of the wrap-around. Is that a trick of perception, or will the greater height make up for in per-unit sales price what it will lose to the number of units (as a lower price) of the wrap-around?
Also, glad to hear about the ground floor retail. I live a half-block away and pass those parking lots several times a week on foot. Hope it'll be something useful, or at least diverting 🙂
As for my opinion (as if you asked) I like the tall tower better. Looks better all-around and I'm always happy to add to the skyline. The developer seemed confident that his building would look great, whereas the CHUN association representative sounded kinda nanny-pants. An aversion to progress for nothing more than fear of the new, and possibly exciting.
Related, I wasn't aware that the El-Jebel was being fixed up. Is that going slowly? The exterior surely needs more work. And what about the 1750 Sherman? No interest from any able parties on that front at all?
"…make our Downtown more dense, engaging, and dynamic as the premier urban center in the Rocky Mountain West"
Uh…. we have to do anything to be that? Denver could do bupkiss for 30 years and still have the premier urban center in the Rocky Mountain West. Or do people really think that Provo, Casper, or Albuquerque are going to mount a serious challenge?
^ Allen, I think you're misreading that. I'm saying that new construction will make downtown more dense, engaging, etc. AS the premier urban center in the West.
So that slight change in intent changes things? Is it not still hyperbole to talk about Denver as being the premier urban center in the Rocky Mountain West? After all, it's not like there is any real competition out there.
I think there is confusion about the purpose of this particular view plane. Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't it supposed to protect the view of the moutains AND the downtown skyline from city park? It's not designed for the case where those buildings go away, its intended to avoid having buildings between city park and downtown that obscure the downtown skyline from city park. In that sense, it is different from the view planes in downtown, and I think it makes a lot of sense.
The question is whether this building is part of the downtown skyline or obscuring the skyline by being in front of it. I think it will be approved because it's really part of the skyline.
^^ talk about lowering the bar…i realize you're not advocating it, but we can't stop working for a more urban center and city-close neighborhoods.
denver is not nearly urban enough, dense enough, shopper-friendly enough or funky enough. let's raise the bar and strive to be more like seattle, SF, philly or even chicago.
Allen, do you have an actual point?
Clearly, Ken is discussing a concept that he feels would improve Downtown Denver. Whether or not Denver has "competition" from other Rocky Mountain West cities is irrelevant. There is always room for improvement. If you feel differently, you are the one whose view plane is obscured by hyperbole.
Allen: let's use a metaphor. Let's say you live in the biggest house on your block. But for your own enjoyment – you decide to upgrade your kitchen. Afterward, you still have the largest house on the block, but hopefully you will enjoy your house even more because of the newly installed granite counter-tops. As a result, you're more apt to hang around the kitchen, admire it, and make some nice flap-jacks for everyone. This is what Ken is trying to convey.
The point of moving Denver toward greater density with infill developments is that we ultimately become more dynamic, engaging, and consequently, we all benefit with more flap-jacks in the end. It's really that simple.
The height limited building has a better street wall. The shape is more appealing as well, even if it's annoying to the residents of the adjacent tower.
Something to consider:
If the city makes an exemption for this project, it may have its hands tied into making exceptions for other projects as well. If they decide to change the rules for this project they had better come up with clear reasoning for why it applies in this particular instance but not in all other instances where a developer wants to go higher than ordinances permit.
^^
that would fine. they have clear reasoning just as they would for any other mid/highrise that may get proposed for Sherman between colfax and 20th.
I thought the potential "reasoning" was clear: the proposed building is essentially downtown, would fit well with other adjacent buildings downtown, and would not block views of the mountains because those views are already blocked by nearby buildings.
Let's say nay to natural development and go with some bureaucrat's contrived image of what Denver should look like, rather than what it's becoming on its own. Part of what makes the Pinnacle towers nice is that it reminds you City Park IS an urban park, same with all the towers along Cheesman for that park. What's the point of protecting downtown's view if we're just going to force it to stagnate? I'd rather see a healthier and more bountiful skyline from City Park, myself.
Although I believe I agree with saint's conclusion, I don't think it's fair to characterize the view plane as "some bureaucrat's contrived image." It was the policymakers of this city who established this view plane, for better or worse. (Not some random bureaucrat.) If people don't like this policy, they should organize themselves and convince the policymakers to change it.
That's the thing, it's not like the people rose up and lobbied the all-knowing planners to establish a view plane. We didn't ask for it; they decided given their knowledge it was the best thing for everyone. If they're going to make that decision, they should be ready to live with some people being snarky about it.
Okay okay, some bureaucrats' contrived image of what Denver should be. Better? 😛
Do view planes have to be established by city council ordinance, similar to zoning?
Well, each political generation has the ability to change the zoning based on what their constituents desire. If there are enough people that want the current zoning codes to change, they will push for it. Whether that happens in our lifetime is a different story.
Nah, it's easier to complain idly about "all-knowing planners" than to do anything constructive like talk to the actual decision-makers (city council).