A new brownstone project called The Glenarm is planned for Block 179 in Denver’s Arapahoe Square district. The project, located at 22nd and Glenarm, would cover about two-thirds of the half block facing Glenarm between 21st and 22nd Streets. The site is currently a surface parking lot.
Directly across Glenarm from the project is the Clements Historic District and several quaint Victorian-era homes, so the scale and use of The Glenarm appears about right. Here’s an image of The Glenarm taken from the project website:
According to the project website (www.TheGlenarm.com) the sales office at the site will open in mid-June. The website doesn’t yet give any details about the project such as pricing, number of units, etc., but from the website’s looping video (note to developer: please ditch the annoying music), it looks like there will be around 24 units or so.
This seems like a good transition project from the single-family homes on Block 190 to the rest of Arapahoe Square to the north where higher densities will be more appropriate.
I'm really digging the design of this.
It looks classic and timeless. Some buildings will look dated within a few years, but this type project will never go out of style.
Isn't Arapahoe Square supposed to be a "high-rise" neighborhood? Good to see the city sticking to its guns as usual. Go cow town!
Most of the Arapahoe Square will probably be mid- and high-rise, but some transition to adjacent blocks with a lower scale. It's not considered good urban form to put a tower across the street from single-family homes in a historic district. This project allows for that transition to take place.
This will help the beautiful Clement's Historic District fell like less of an island in the great sea of parking and neglect that is currently this part of town. Being right across Benedict park from Uptown should also help that district's continued revitalization.
yeah…i agree with 'some' transition, but this has zero transaition and doesnt really respect the TALLER part of town…i think a better compromose could have been met by increasing height on the DT side of the project (welton place managed this pretty well i believe)
that said, i hope it's a success! but how is this a 'brownstone'…it's quite an abused term and shows the development team has never been to brooklyn to see a real brownstone.
Classic and timeless? To me it looks like a cardboard box, but I know that not every project can be a great work of architecture.
Thanks Ken, and what does having townhouses instead of high rises have anything to do with cow-town? They don't have townhomes in them there big cities?
There are 2 BMWs and 1 Mercedes in that rendering. Looks like that's the demographic that they're shooting for then, eh? This project could be a bit taller given it's proximity to downtown, but otherwise the design is good looking and I hope gets built. Better this than parking lots.
I think this is a great addition to a block with nothing now. Annonymous above who called this cow-town, doesn't realize that developers have the right to build as tall as zoning allows or shorter to accomidate his/her vision for the highest and best use for their land.
Boring and Ugly. I guess that's what timeless and classic means.
This would get you an F in Architecture School.
The failure of 1401 Lawrence should tell you that there aren't too many people interested in living in high rises. I am perfectly content to have mostly low rise residential development downtown and have the character of Paris or San Francisco than of New York, Tokyo, etc. More high rise hotels and commercial buildings downtown are always welcome, however.
FUGLY !!! eternally boring, cheap looking, conservative and unpleasing to the eye. Yeah, I guess it's timeless in Cowlorado.
I like it. In fact, I wish Denver had more "Brownstone" options throughout the city. They're great at creating density in a low-level neighborhood environment. Plus, they remind me of the streets back in Chicago, which has some of the best livable urban areas in the country.
yeah pretty boring… hate the strips of facade going above the top of the building. reminds me of denver 150 years ago.
wow you must be really old to remember denver that long ago.
Generally not an impressive piece of architecture, what with a facade that is full of elements that serve little function and are essentially two-dimensional. The balconies look like an after-thought.
again..those are not even CLOSE to being a "brownstone"…it's a large, brown sandstone quarried from new york that is used for garden / first levels of townhomes all over NYC. it's a pretty distinct look…and this is NOT even close.
Yes the cars.. but also the only people in the photo are white. You are right, it does seem clear who they are catering too.
Is development always good development?
Thumbs down !!! But if since it is not my decision, at least DO SOMETHING ABOUT THOSE BALCONIES, They look awful, like the Architect ran out of ideas and slapped one there, looks poorly planned and inconsistent with everything else!
Stucco stucco stucco! Talk about dated, we will all be ashamed of the rampant use of this hideously cheap building material in about ten years. That aside, I'm glad for the infill, but can we get some better design requirements from the city?!
Would you people lighten up, please!?! So it might not win an award based on your design criteria, I think most people will think it looks just fine (and it might when it's actually built – tough to go by this rendering) and it fills up vacant space and brings more liveliness to a downtown area that is essentially barren now. If you want to assure better design according to your standards, get the appropriate degree and then work for a design/architectural/development firm or become the head of the section of a city department that approves final design and hope you have the authority to have the final say on stuff like this. In the meantime, be glad Denver is not suffering quite so much as other parts of the country which are facing stagnation if not deterioriation in terms of development and redevelopment.
Anonymous 2:17, since many (most) of us live in Denver we can and should have opinions about the architecture of your city. That's a good enough reason, and we don't need to get a degree etc. as you suggest. Because it fills a parking lot is not a sufficient excuse to build something that looks like a two story version of strip mall. We care about our city, so we can express opinions like that.
Here's my positive bitch too! The strips of LAWN! Now that's suburban! Why not place flagstone,planter boxes etc. + + + More Xpensive you say? When you use water to water it and keep it green 6-7 months out of the year, what's more expensive now? Hey, why go to the park when you can sit right there next to your street leanin' against one of the trees, yippie! Isn't there an interior courtyard where the grass can go?
I saw an MLS listing for these yesterday. It says there will be 27 units. The listing was for a 1300 sq. ft. unit (2 BR/3BA, 2 Car Garage) for 456k.
Substitute "1800 Larimer" for "The Glenarm," and you have a near-perfect replay of the discussion that raged on this blog some months ago, even if the two projects differ in design, location, and use.
Yes, stucco is bad and will look terrible in 20 years. Yes, not all designs are award-winning, and some are downright derivative and bland. Yes, grass is suburban. Surely it would be better to cover over this green with nice gray concrete, a material that would increase this project's storm sewer run-off.
But for those of you who weren't around 150 years ago (when all of Denver was an open prairie, about to be wrested from the Arapahoe and Cheyenne by General Larimer and the Russell brothers of Auraria, GA), you have to remember that this part of town was originally developed as a suburb. Yes, a suburb. On Glenarm Street, in the downtown street grid.
That's not really all that relevant, except to point out that historically, the Glenarm fits right in, if you consider this project "suburban" (where are the swing sets and garage doors?). And Ken is absolutely right: it would be very wrong from the perspective of good urban design to put a highrise across the street from a row of wonderful old houses. This is what's wrong with Capitol Hill-lots of 1950s-1970s highrises hard by old Victorians, overshadowing their back yards and diminishing their beauty (I used to live in one of those bland highrises). Denver would be MORE of a cowtown if someone were to put up something at this location that was inappropriately scaled.
And one more thing: how can you judge this project's balconies by this rendering? They will probably be crappy, as too many are on new construction, but like all renderings, this one hides as much as it reveals.
No doubt there is an intended demographic here. At the same time, there's an interesting point about the cars/people shown in these images. It's probably not a conscious decision, but does point to a reality… Many of the CAD/3D software packages come with a really BAD selection of people to insert into the model. You're lucky if you can find any that don't look completely goofy. The cars are often either european or hot rods. Yes, there are sites where you can get better images but depending on the size of the firm and staff capabilities you often get what you get and the rendering needs to go out the door.
any update on this project? Is it actually going to happen?