Several of you have asked me over the past week or two, “What’s going on at 15th & Champa?” For those of you who haven’t been at that corner lately, here’s what I’m talking about (many thanks to Scott E. for the photos!):
The building in question on Block 130 is the warehouse for the old Woolworth’s that closed in the 1990s and was later converted into a data center. What I’ve been hearing is that the building is being remodeled to accommodate offices for the Social Security Administration. Now, don’t get me wrong; punching windows into this building and adding some human activity into it is better than a windowless data center. But I’d rather see the SSA lease some office space in one of the new office buildings under construction Downtown and, instead, have this dispensable building replaced with, say, a grocery store with a residential tower above, or a hotel or something.
Too bad Denver Infill wasn't around when this building was originally proposed. I'd love to read the 300 angry comments from the blog post.
At least nothing proposed lately has been quite this bad, possibly excluding the terrible government parking garage at Broadway and 14th.
any word if anything is happening with the ground floor?
Boy. Wonder how the SSA folks feel when they see what their EPA brethren received when they moved…
And what's up with 16th and Champa? Looks like whatever renovation they were doing is on hold and the building looks even worse than it did before (if that's possible).
And while I'm asking questions, has there been any updates on W Hotel on 16th and Market??
That would have been a perfect building to use for a grocery store or a department store. So much for those hopes.
As a tax payer I'm glad to see the SSA not springing big bucks for fancy prime office space.
Just a clarification: The portion of the building being discussed was part of the Woolworth's store, not a warehouse. For those not around before it closed, it was a massive two-story store with entrances on both 15th and 16th Streets. Having such a store downtown again would be great.
Thanks for the correction. I was thinking of their back storeroom area as opposed to a true warehouse.
Ken
As a taxpayer, I would be happy for the federal government to invest in the downtowns of cities across the country. It's better than a continued obsession with highways.
Anon 10:16,
Yeah, I was wondering about the Champa Center too! A couple months ago, they had a sign up that had an illustration of what it would look like when finished. It looked great and all. But now the sign is gone, and nothing has changed. Also, I noticed that the sign on the triangular building of block 193, in upper downtown, has also come down. The original sign had an illustration of what looked to be phase 2 of One Lincoln Park. I'd hate to jump to any conclusions, but I think its obvious anyways:(
The govt invest in downtowns? Do you mean like the 1960s urban renewal destruction projects? The billions that have been spent on museums and sports stadiums? All the money that's spent on transit, most of which revolves around downtown as a hub? Seems like they're already spending a lot.
RE: 16th and Champa, I was in Floyd's this week and theay said their grand re-opening was delayed a month. If you look through the fence the space is almost done, but I'm betting it's the exteriors that delayed the opening. But work is still going on. Maybe they scaled down the exterior finishes?
Get your head out of the clouds with all these candyland fantasies. No one will ever, ever build a grocery store (or a Target) downtown apparently. No matter how much sense it would make.
Could someone from Target, with a straight face, tell me that a new store somewhere near (or on) the 16th St. Mall wouldn't be enormously successful?? I would be in there at least three times a week, and thus not have to try to run errands after work.
So frustrating.
Ken, I just saw your new post on SSP. Great photos of some old buildings. I love modern architecture. But those well designed historic buildings are an important of our city. You didn't have picture of it, but the Equitable Bldg on 17th Street is my favorite historic building downtown. I think it is one of the most beautiful buildings anywhere.
The only downtown Target I know of is in Minneapolis. It's there for 2 reasons. It was heavily subsidized by the city and it's in Target's HQ. Downtown MPLS has 30,000 residents. IIRC downtown Denver doesn't even have 10k yet.
I agree with Ken that I'd rather not see the back half of the old Woolworth remain non-retail space. It was one of the largest potential retail spaces downtown. However, given that Media Play–a very large space too, and on a better corner–was chopped up into much smaller stores and restaurants is a pretty good indication of where downtown's retail market is right now. Media Play sat empty for how long until the landlord decided to carve up the space?
As for Target, etc., yes, a Target would make great sense downtown, as would a host of other retailers, like Apple, H&M, Barney's, etc.
But I think a lot of the folks who regularly read this blog, and post responses (I'm guilty too) are seeing Denver as it *should* be, and as it may be ten years in the future once FasTracks is completed and there's another 10,000 housing units within two miles of 16th & California. And that's great, but…
Retail right now is suffering a major national contraction, with entire chains disappearing (like Sharper Image), some closing large numbers of stores (like Linens N Things, which is in bankruptcy, or Ann Taylor, and about 20 or 30 other national chains), and others just staying conservative until they can figure out where this country's economy is going next. Target, for its part, recently had a change of CEO, and it has been battered with weak same-store sales compared to its main rival, Wal-Mart, and compared with Costco, a store that appeals to a lot of the same customers that Target counts on. And it's really hard for a large-format retailer like Target to make an urban location work–it's a lot easier to open stores in places like Westminster or Arvada. Target has no stores at all on the island of Manhattan–and you know they would kill to be there. Downtown Denver is easier to deal with than Manhattan, but it's a lot more difficult than a greenfield site would be. I'm not saying they shouldn't try, just recognizing that it's hard to do, and the payoff for them has to be very big to justify the extra costs of building urban.
And there's Cherry Creek. Until that area fades away (give it about 50 or 100 years), downtown will always be a retailer's second or third choice for a Denver location, because they'll always chase the higher-income demographics, as well as the existing concentration of high-end retailers, and in that department Cherry Creek has it all over downtown. In the 1980s the Taubman Company came to Denver to build a mall. It looked at building one downtown, connecting Tabor Center, Writer Square, and several other properties down to Blake. It would have been a suburban-style mall, anchored by a Macy's, and it would have been built above street level (in fact, it would have blocked the sun from pedestrians on 16th). It was a terrible idea, and people rightly opposed it. Unfortunately, Taubman also built Cherry Creek, and despite having to negotiate with the neighbors (who could afford the best lawyers in town), it was an easy way for them to make millions. Its construction took the wind out of downtown's sails, and so far, downtown has been unable to recover. Cherry Creek Mall opened in 1990, so that's 18 years. Downtown's best hope: $10 gasoline. That will force a re-centralization of shopping, and a huge increase in demand for public transportation.
A Super Target downtown would make a killing. There's also this thought:
What's the final word on what's happening to the bus depot at 16th & Market, when that moves to Union Station? Seems to me that the glass, the wide spaces below, the location, would be ideal for a proper market, with fresh meat, fish, produce, etc.; the sort of things that real cities have.
allen: a quick google search finds that Target has developed mult-level urban stores in Brooklyn, New York City Glendale, Los Angeles, Chicago, Pasadena, California, San Diego, Washington, D.C., and Minneapolis.
I've heard that Target has Downtown Denver at the top of its list of places to put an urban store, but it's just a matter of finding the right developer, site, etc.
Finally, be careful in comparing the populations of downtowns between cities. There is no national definition of what a "downtown" is and every city's is a little different. There are about 10,000 in Denver's CBD but there is about 90,000 in Denver's "center city" districts. Where Minneapolis draws their line vs. Denver makes a comparison difficult.
I never understand the Cherry Creek bashing…
A great city is the summation of strong and distinctive districts. If Downtown retail can only be successful if there is no competition, what does that say about the vitality of downtown.
Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with Cherry Creek. It's a nice little neighborhood with its own flavor. What I see wrong is the lack of connectivity. Street cars from Larimer Square to CC would be nice.
Thank you, Ken, for correcting the bad info that's flying around.
i totally agree with you ken… although i'm sure this space was cheaper, it would be nice for them to take advantage of office space in a new building. especially in a time where there will not be as many people needing new office space.
Target has proposed an "urban" store for Belmar in Lakewood. The retail area would be constructed on the second floor, with parking, loading and the primary entrance on the first floor. (All of the parking/loading would be screened.)
It is proposed as a standard Target, not a Super Target.
It would seem like a similar footprint could be duplicated downtown.
(from the person who "bashed" Cherry Creek):
I agree, Cherry Creek North is a nice, walkable district, although it doesn't have the broad appeal it had just a few years ago when the Tattered Cover was still there (I speak as a former employee of that store). Most of the stores cater to the $200K and up crowd. The problem is the mall: it's suburban in character, no matter how much they've tried to open it up to the street with some storefronts on 1st Avenue. More importantly, it's such a good location for retailers that they won't look elsewhere, if they can manage to get in there. It's too formidable a competitor to downtown, at least in terms of high-end chain retail. Downtown, on the other hand, has a lot going for it that the Cherry Creek Mall doesn't–its history, its great buildings, and its full range of humanity. The problem is convincing retailers of this. Ideally all of downtown's retail space, on 16th and elsewhere, would be placed under a single entity. Individual landlords would still be paid rent from their tenants, but there would be just one entity that retailers would go to to find the most appropriate space for their store. A single entity would have a better ability to market downtown as a whole than any individual building owner could ever have. The Downtown Denver Partnership ought to do a request for proposals, and sign up the individual landlords to participate in such a scheme, once a "super landlord" is chosen. It would be funded by a percentage of the lease payments for any tenant it brought. Or some such–I'm no broker.
Another argument that supports a downtown Target: the Glendale SuperTarget is one of the top 3 stores in their entire chain. Most retailers suffer when they self-cannibalize (see: Starbucks–it's going to close its EPA and DNA locations on either end of downtown), but a downtown Target would siphon off Capitol Hill, Uptown, Golden Triangle, and Highlands residents, and make Glendale an easier place to shop (try negotiating the aisle between pharmacy and grocery on a Saturday afternoon). In other words, Target has nothing to lose by opening a store just four miles from Glendale, because that store can stand self-cannibalization.
As a Highlands resident, if Target built downtown, I'd keep going to the Sloan's Lake location, which would remain bigger and easier to park at. I think if the case for a downtown Target were as clear cut as we'd like it to be, it would already exist.
Regarding the notion of an urban Target being built at Belmar: possible, but doubtful. Apart from Whole Foods, most people are not doing very well there at all. Once the 5 year leases start coming up for renewal, it's going to be an exodus.
As much as we'd like Denver to be a "real" city, it's hampered in that regard severely by its lack of residents. And downtown has never really had all that many residents, because there are no geographical boundaries to the city at all. New growth has always extended outward. That's starting to change a bit, but it's important to keep it in perspective
To Annon at 12:08:
The Target in Belmar is an actual proposal. Plans have been submitted to the City for preliminary review.
This is a stupid location for government offices. It is such a shame that this eyesore of a building is kept standing when it would be perfect for a mixed use retail and residential complex. Doesn't the Denver Planning Department have any power to prevent non-productive projects like this? It seems the Federal governmnent and, on occasion, the State government just do whatever the want without any consideration of being a positive force in redevelopment (Federal Reserve Bank building, 14th and Broadway parking garage,…). This project should still be stopped before we are stuck with it for at least 30-40 years.
Corey
The pronlem with government tenants for landlords of new buildings, is the other existing tenants do not want them in the buildings. When signing a lease in a class "A" or "B+" building, a tenant will demand a clause letting them out of their lease at their choice if a government tenant moves in.
This Social Security office probably chose to move to this property at 15th & Champa because it's just one block away from the existing Social Security office, on the fourth floor of the Champa Center at 16th. When you're moving a government office that has a high level of interaction with the general public, it makes sense from a service point of view to keep the office in the same general vicinity. Eight years ago when I started my current job, my employer required that I produce my actual Social Security card-no one had asked for that before, and as my original card was from 1974, I had no idea where it was and had to get a replacement. So I went down to the Social Security office in the Champa Center, and was blown away by how awful an office it was. The space was far too small to serve the number of people that were there that day, there was no place to sit, it was noisy, etc. Like getting a new driver's license, only somewhat worse.
So this move makes sense from that point of view. It also makes sense because the space is surely a lot cheaper than say, a 17th street highrise. The number of people that interact with this office is probably so great on a daily basis that no 17th Street landlord probably wants to deal with them anyway. However, I do agree with everyone else-a redevelopment of this non-historic portion of the old Woolworth would be the best outcome. But a city's buildings have to accommodate all kinds of uses.
Have you seen the advertising banners that now adorn this building and the Champa Center? I guess they fit within the new theater district aesthetic, but I'd rather see something less blaring and in your face (and less commercial?).