In response to the request of the Lower Downtown Design Review Board to make the proposed Bell Tower appear “thinner,” the design for the signature tower planned for Block 242 & 044 in Lower Downtown has undergone a slight modification by Fentress Architects. To compare to the previous design, check out my blog posts from June, and for more information about the design changes, read John Rebchook’s latest article on the project from the Rocky Mountain News. The design of the small office building at 14th and Market has also been tweaked.
Without further ado, here are the new renderings in all their high-res glory. Don’t forget to zoom/expand to view them at full size. Image credits go to Fentress Architects and my thanks to John Rebchook for passing them along to me. A label on each image tells you the particular perspective shown.
I like it no matter what they do to it. Well as long as it isn't pink. When is the proposed launch of the building take off?
Cos..Denver
I must say I liked the previous design better. However, the office building is an upgrade. Lets just get this thing built
Are you kidding me? Just because Curt Fentress thinks he looks taller and thinner when he wears a pinstripe suit, doesn't make a fat, clunky design appear thinner. And then there is the whole thing about the "ruggedness" of the Rockies being interpretted in the "fractured" edge of the terraces. Sounds like a post facto explanation if I've ever heard one.
What would make this bad design better is a concept that isn't some hackneyed hodge podge stolen from Calatrava. The LDDRB asks for a feather and Fentress gives them stainless steel stripes?!?!?Tyler Gibbs and the rest of the LDDRB can do us all (and that includes Buzz Geller) a huge favor and ask for a total redesign. Or better yet, ask for a new architect.
Now this building is a bit more sensible! Still one for the elitist jerks, but sensible, and at a location that would make it stand out. I like the look of it, but still kinda hard to tell that it's changed. All in all, I would say that this land could have remained open space, and that this tower could have been moved over to where the proposed office building is. Though I suspect that doing so would violate the building height restrictions? Nice to see that parking will be underground. Anything but Beleza!
"I don't know how you could have any more open space and still have a building,"
Don't give me that line of crap! The site is restricted by the view corridors and the footprint size is restricted by zoning. Don't try and act like a hero for preserving the site as a park when you are required to do so.
Hey Curt! The less BS you try and shovel the more people might actually belive you.
Can we have the new tower with the old office building?
I want to like this building so bad. But every time I look at it, I just can't bring myself to get into it. Well, apart from maybe the North elevation, which is growing on me a little bit. I know I'm in the minority here, but I just don't get what people like about this building. And I'm usually a weirder-the-better kind of person. Oh well.
I really like this! Even better (the residential tower) than before! There seems to be a bottomless supply of rich people even in this recession so let's just build it!
If it gets going, this thing should be built in no time.
This one works complete opposite for me. The first time, I hated the renderings and warmed to the model. Now I hate the model and am warm to the renderings. I'm not sure what's going on. Maybe if the colors were more pronounced in the model, and hopefully in the construction?
And what's with the office building? Is the red brick block and response to all the whining about faux historicism? I'd rather the faux historicism.
is this thing actually leaning, or is it an optical illusion? I like the design, but will this kind of architecture stand the test of time?
Bring it on with this and the Beleza thingy. Anything to distract from the 13 shades of brown that dominate downtown.
Where is the parking going to be for the condos? Is it all underground?
I like it even better with the "pin-stripe" treatment. It tones the fractured design down a little bit. I think the red brick for the small office building is a good choice because it ties in it with Larimer Square better. I would like to see it in more of a Louis Sullivan style, however. My only complaint is that the condominium tower design is too incohesive and complicated. I am sure that no model or rendering can really relate the Architect's vision and the completed building will look awesome. Unlike some bloggers, I have complete trust that Fentress will create an amazing building. I am a big fan of his other buildings: Convention Center, 1999 Broadway, DIA…, and I do not think any other architect could have done a better job on those projects.
Corey
I didn't see the elevation renderings for the small office building when I wrote my previous comment. I like it better than what I saw in the model and I can't think of any changes to improve it. When this project is completed it will be a tremendous positive contribution to this area of downtown and an enormous success!
Corey
If we let things like this get built we would move more towards San Fran and NYC than Detroit or Cleveland. Denver should be doing anything they can to allow construction to begin soon as possible. City officials not only need to give it the green light now, they need to be expediating approvals and wining and dining anyone involved. Existing Denver architecture has been so horrible, even if you hate the design you have to admit it would make the City a more unique and special place. Isnt that what cities are all about. No more synthetic stucco and brown boxes. Time to step it up a bit. Anything that isnt more of the same is a welcome relief. Downtown doesnt need to be another Cherry Creek, it can be something much more special.
If you find anyone connected with the City of Denver that approved the garbage they are building in that area, formerly with great potential, that used to be called The Golden Triangle (now affectionately known as the Synthetic Stucco Ghetto Near the Jail") that is setting up anything that may viewed as a roadblock or obstacle to this project please let us know so that we can try to ensure they are no longer employed.
I like it, its pretty sweet!
there will always be bad criticism on any project in denver.
Yeah, what happened to all the promise of the Golden Triangle? That place sucks. I mean, at least plant some trees or something, hide those hideous buildings!
I think that a squarer version of the office building would have looked really good at the location across the Fontius(Sage Building) on 16th, at the site that is currently occupied by the Cottrell's building. Also, I would like to inform everyone that there is finally some activity going on at the Campa Center: That horrible awning has finally been removed!
Build it already. It's a beautiful thing.
I'm not tall….I just like buildings and mountains that are.
Someone get Anonymous 11:01:00 a tissue
You sound like some young designer working for someone else who wished you had your own firm because your s__t is so sweet and nobody ever gives you enough credit or recognition. If so then take a chance because your whiney little attitude and I have a major complex about myself is quite evident. Thus far you have offered nothing but cheap shots without any formal criticism or solutions. Go eat a pastrami sandwich and maybe you will feel better.
Whoa-ho-hoo! Hey somebody get me a tissue too because I concur with Anon 11:01.
And who wears pinstriped suits anymore anyway?
The problem with the vertical mullions is that they have nothing to do with the geometry the architect has already established. They are applied in the most straight forward and unimaginative way possible. As for a solution, I suggest playing with the angles of the glass – make shallower angles (as measured from the vertical), or just as easily, use the different colored glass to express verticality – have vertical shards that run down the building instead of cutting out clunky rectangles as is shown now. I'm thinking like superman's pad in the north pole, or antarctica or wherever.
And I guess I'll need a pastrami sandwich too, though I haven't a clue what that helps.
gosh…do we need this unprovoked type of nastiness? not sure what the point of that post is…can we remove?
This building would look so much better if there were some–no, if there were any–rhyme or reason to the positioning of the balconies or corners. It reminds me of a mouth full of broken teeth. It's no novelty if the thing is already crumbling like the Colloseum when brand new.
There are some things in the randomness of nature that appear organic and beautiful, some things that are the parts of nature we try to avoid in human-made design. You can use unusual angles and ribbed shapes to create a breathtaking sructure. But you achieve that by taking a curved organic shape and repeating it in patterns, like Brookfield Place in Toronto. You don't, for example, landscape your park by planting every third tree infected with disease, even though that might occur in nature. This building has too many irregularities and it seems as though mismeasurements and accidents are built into the system – which is why so many people will continue to oppose this building until it is toned down.
What happened to beyond dc??? I want that guy back. One of you jerks hurt our friends feelings and now I can't hear what dc has to say. Come back DC!!!!
Why does every open forum on the internet have to eventually turn into an uncivilized mess like this? This place used to be a rare oasis of civilization but no more.
Treat people on the net the way you would in person.
I'm glad Ken posts pretty much every comment that comes along on here, but please everybody, let's all make an effort not to be such awful internet trolls. I'm as bad as anybody else, so I'm saying this to myself too:
The fifty people who comment here regularly, along with the few hundred who lurkers, are people who are actively engaged in trying to make our city better. Period. I enjoy the fiesty debates here, but there's no reason to treat each other poorly or with contempt, sarcastic or not. We're generally people with similar visions for the directions in which the city should be moving.
I've said this before, but it would be awesome if people used their real name, a blogger account, or used a consistent screen name. Easily 80% of the over-the-line comments on DenverInfill are made anonymously, and it definitely gets a little bit annoying sometimes. See Exhibit A above. I feel like I've been a lot less of an offensive jerk since I started posting with a consistent screen name. It's kind of a built-in way to make posts more thoughtful and considerate. Anyway, that's my two cents.
Also, this tower looks a hell of a lot better after a bottle of delicious wine.
This building rocks. If were proposed in another city our size then everyone in Denver would be stating "Why did they get this tower and not us ?" LOL.
^^ Ryan, the timing of your comment was perfect. I have been seriously considering requiring only registered comments. I enjoy the respectful debate and all the interest the blog seems to generate, but I am tiring of all the anonymity, particularly considering you can choose whatever screen name you want when you register anyway.
Don't do it Ken!! Besides for the occasional rant, it's mostly all good and it keeps the blogs creative and fun (again, mostly) – check out curbed.com for an example; those comments are posted immediately and that offers a great opportunity for an open, witty dialog.
Just my two cents!
I'll try to be nice too but I still don't like the vertical mullions.
I really dont understand the lack of symmetry remarks. I stared at it from different angles for 10 minutes and found lots of hidden symmetry gems. I could make a comprehensive list, but because of the complexity and because without seeing all angles everything couldnt be 100% verified and because spoon feeding what one think's is the answer only defeats the purpose, I wont try to list them all here. As with all quality modern art, isnt that the point (i.e., you have to stare at it for awhile and draw your own conclusions to what it means to the artist or develop your own meaning)? I think most ppl seeing this building if built would stop and stare at it for awhile. Some will love it, and some will hate it. How could anyone view a Class A building whose mere sight demands closer inspection and contemplation as a negative? If more buildings in Denver were engaging and complex as this one, can you imagine what a great experience taking a trip to downtown Denver could be? Now if we can get some decent shops and unique restaurants, we might actually become a real travel destination rather than a drive-by city to the mountains. Educated people of different nationalities, speaking different languages, and adding new life to the City; hell I might not want to move back to one of the coasts anymore.
I only hope the continuing changes required by the City do not cripple the artists ability to create the best product possible. Art censored by the government is usually not the best, and always leaves you wondering what could have been. Hopefully the architects can respond by continuing to keep true to faith, if not adding more hidden gems to play with the censors and get a few great points through the screening process.
I also am get upset when others comment whenever they say a unique design that it's all about the architect's ego and need to feel special and unique. In my mind, and egotistical architect trying to be special and unique and build a name for himself and area landmark deserves a pat on the back, not criticism. Architects can be so much more than mindless draftsmen churning out repeative product.
Starchetects and Sandwich Artists (yes the very same ones that made Jarod so thin) should be true to their art of making template buildings and the parking lots needed to hold them. Let us go back to being awed by the mystical magic spells that the Starchetects and Sandwich Artists (for that matter) cast upon us and be happy with that. And as one t-shirt eloquently waxed: "If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullshit." Sir you have indeed shit all over us with your slender, pinstripe design for we are mystified.
Do it, Ken! Anonymity doesn't encourage open and witty dialog, quite the opposite, it allows for a complete disconnect between a person and his/her words. There isn't the slightest shred of accountability, which, I believe, renders the words completely valueless… or worse.
This forum is way too useful to let it get dilluted (polluted?) with meaningless, anonymous rants.
Why do people think this plain brick building compliments Larimer Square? At least they could have made a vague attempt at Victorian business front architecture, like the couple of second empire buildings there already. That would have matched the Square. But this? Come on guys. It's interesting that such a boring structure can be planned next to such an… er… eye catcher.
Perhaps my comment was a little too accusatory but I felt really bad when someone put down beyond DC and then noticed that he hasn't made any posts. That guys is a nice person, he has sensible comments and his heart is truly here in Denver.
for 4:02's comment on 11:01 I don't really see how you derived whining, complaining or any major criticism. It sounds like you just heard that expression and are trying to find a context to use it in. If so, this was a very poor choice.
This totally unrelated… but this a good sign that downtown living is reaching a certain threshold.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jul/30/tonys-market-opening-store-denver/
Looks nicer than one Lincoln tower!
Can I get an AMEN!
Oh by the way my name is Sherman LOL!
Thanks for the kind words, Correa. I'm still around. I just tend to comment in chunks 🙂
And I agree that Ken should either require names on all posts, or moderate the trolls. Disagreement is fine, but there is a person or persons here who think it is appropriate to turn design discussions into repeated personal attacks. It's not conducive to good debate and gives the whole place an air of amateurism. That's unfortunate, because there are a lot of good people here with a lot of valuable opinions.
Anyway, I don't feel the need to rehash the same arguments about the tower again. Everyone here knows that I think deconstructivism is an unfortunate fad that will lose its luster the second it ceases to be shocking. To the extent that the building is thinner than before I think that's good, because as a rule thinner is generally better for towers, but I still think two parks is one too many. I also hope the pinstripes on the model come through in real life more than they do on the renderings, because the emphasis on verticality helps – the building is too blocky if the horizontal lines dominate.
My real question at this point is what happened to the office building????
They totally redesigned it, and it is much worse. Not that the new version is all that bad, just that it's unremarkable, and the previous version was very good. It's really disappointing to see the original version discarded.
Let the masses rant! Free up Ken's time to do more of the important work he's already doing!
that is good news 12:46 – too bad it isn't in the new lincoln tower, or somewhere else downtown, but 9th isn't too bad.
DC was too opinionated to give up that easily correa – they'll be back. Maybe it was me who upset him because i said the office building looked like it belonged in DC because it was so formal and conservative. But that was when I was anonymous – Jellyneck would never say such a thing.
Hey Sherman LOL, AMEN!!
Have a nice day.
I Love Tall Buildings.
And I really love this one.
The entire site is governed by a PUD. It has three options. We have only been shown option 1. It is the tower, office building, and open park. Option 2 allows about 85% of the entire site to be developed with buildings ranging from 55 to 85ft in height (horrible but easy to design and sell). Option 3 allows for the whole entire site to be a parking lot, and that includes the park that is there now. We all need to support the tower concept in my opinion. The Rocky poll has almost a 80% approval for the designs–just like last time.
I used to post under a Google screen name but I said something arrogant one day on denverinfill, and rightly got slapped for it, so then I decided to just post anonymously because I was so embarrassed at my own arrogance. But now I don't remember my password. But I'll sign my posts.
Anyway, I just have to disagree with those who say that the older design of the office building is better than the new one. A low, anonymous-looking building like the new design is a great backdrop for a wild design like Bell Tower. And you may not agree with me (and I know beyonddc wouldn't, and I miss his comments too), but historicism on a building built in our time in this setting next to a historic district is unwise. Larimer Square and the nearby blocks of LoDo are filled with wonderful historic treasures, and they are diminished when something is built nearby that apes their features without having the level of craftsmanship available that makes the older buildings so beautiful. It's classier to build a simple, clean-looking building that allows a nice transition from the theatrical tower to the historic buildings nearby.
Historymystery.
Follow up remark… the whole thing is so Le Corbusier. It may look a little contrived in 10 years as so much other stuff seems to do in this town because things are done in a piecemeal fashion.
Well here's a non-anonymous comment. I like the new tower design..I think it's awesome.
I have no issues with the smaller office tower. It could be red brick, grey brick, granite, whatever…it's not the centerpiece of the development.
Also, I appreciate the respect to the Bell Tower view plane and the addition of green space adjacent to the Creek.
Beyond DC should remain in DC. No hard feelings or anything (he's actually a good guy), but I tire of pandering to people who feel that they are the only ones with a "valuable" opinion on architecture and design. I moved here from NY almost 7 years ago…I could care less what happens there now as this is my home. If NYC were to build a hideous tower…well good for them. But I'm not going to go about grading every one of them and give my design change suggestions. Art is subjective. Hence the word art can be spelled from the word Architecture. It's all about what pleases YOUR eye. 10 people may hate it, 10 may love it…that's just the way it goes. I would just be so happy to see another parking lot gone and replaced with uber wealthy residents spending their dollars downtown. 🙂
I liked the old office building better. This re-model looks like it belongs in the DTC, not downtown.
Since every comment already must be approved to show up on the site, it would be easy to just not approve comments that include personal attacks.
I would say that anything too mean or catty to get into the letters page in a newspaper is too mean for this site. That doesn't mean being as picky about content or intelligence, but it means this forum doesn't have to be a personal brawl space.
There ya go, see how much more civil that is?
As for the building in question, I'm not real fond of the design, but I totally support new, big construction downtown. And hey, if they keep the bell, I'm happy.
Would you all agree this design is deconstructivism? And One Lincoln Park, same "school"?
I do approve all comments and I don't approve the ones with personal attacks but sometimes a few slip through.
I've pretty much decided to require registration to post comments. It won't eliminate the possibility of troll-ish behavior but at least we won't have to deal with the ubiquitous "anonymous" label anymore.