Today, we have more good news in our efforts to rebuild Denver’s historic urban fabric. As I mentioned a little over a week ago, there were several Downtown districts like Ballpark, Arapahoe Square and Golden Triangle that were particularly negatively impacted by the parking-lot craze of the mid/late 20th Century. The area around Coors Field was definitely hard hit. On one hand, the number of vacant lots made it easier to locate the ballpark in that area in the first place, but on the other hand, it also left the stadium surrounded by vacant parcels. A key undeveloped site directly across from the stadium will soon be occupied by more residential development.
Alliance Residential will be breaking ground this summer on Broadstone Blake Street, a 6-story, 164-unit apartment building located at the corner of 22nd and Blake, across from the right-field corner of Coors Field. Here’s a GoogleEarth image where I’ve marked the project site:
Alliance Residential is already very experienced with development on this block. In the late 2000s, Alliance completed 2101 Market, the 226-unit apartment building across the alley that also incorporated the restoration and rooftop expansion of the adjacent Piggly Wiggly Building. This site was going to be a second phase to that project, known as 2120 Blake, but the financial crisis of 2008 intervened, so the Blake phase was put on hold.
Now that the economy is quickly recovering and Denver’s rental market has significant momentum, the Blake street project is back. While still technically a follow-up phase to 2101 Market, Broadstone Blake Street is really a stand-alone development in its own right. Alliance took the opportunity during the delay to redesign the Blake development to align with today’s Downtown market demands, with more studio and one-bedroom units aimed at young professionals. Broadstone Blake Street will be a separate apartment community from its Market Street neighbor, complete with its own line-up of amenities including a WiFi lounge, pool, fitness center, business center, and outdoor spaces. Another neat design feature includes ground-floor units along Blake Street with stoop porches to give the building a more pedestrian-scaled frontage.
Here are two renderings, courtesy of Andy at Alliance Residential. Top, the view of the 22nd and Blake corner; bottom, a view from near 21st and Blake. Click to embiggen.
Construction on the project should begin soon, with completion scheduled for early 2014.
The impact of completing the development of a block like this is profound. Not only will it give us several hundred more Downtown residents, which cannot be overemphasized, but it also represents another big step in restoring the building block urban forms in our city’s core. To quote myself from last week, “great cities are comprised of a tight-knit fabric of pedestrian-friendly buildings that frame public spaces used for mobility, access, and social interaction.” That is why this project is so important.
Alright,the good news keeps on coming ! I think the ground floor units is a nice touch,something a little different for that area . Now if we could only get that vacant land between 20th and 21st and Blake developed we would have a nice wall of buildings in that area.
It’s great that these blocks are being filled in… but seriously? Can we (the planning commission) try a little harder to consider the future of the city? The “infill” buzz word will only last for so long and in 10-15 years, these cookie cutter designs, stucco facades and “wifi lounges” will undoubtedly become the blemish in the city’s core. “It’s better than a flat lot…” right? :\
If the intent is to encourage additional pedestrian traffic, why isn’t there more commercial space being allocated to the ground floors of these developments? You’d think that being directly across the street from the ball park would be a pretty great spot for commercial space, cafes with sidewalk seating, butchers and bakeries or small boutiques filled with heritage brands and locally made products.
p.s. I like the stoops. Every city needs more of them.
Why would the “infill buzz” end in 15 years? Only if gas prices suddenly dropped back down and a new generation decided a new ring of suburbs even farther out than the existing ring is the ideal place to live, or the population dropped. I don’t see any of those things happening.
I’m with you on the need for ground-floor retail but I think happening with a lot of buildings in the ballpark area.
Why not add more retail, Rob? How much retail space that has been allocated in many of these types of developments is currently sitting empty? I would agree that retail would be nice, assuming there was the current demand to justify it. At this point, there’s no lack of retail spaces available in LoDo/Ballpark, and I don’t think the lack of retail in this project is harmful in the least bit.
There is once again no grocery store for all these new residents. Retail is needed but we need to be smarter on the type. Not another pizza or hot dog place. A market.
Chris there was a market…it was called Deans Urban Market…an actual grocery store. It closed last month.
The 20th and Chestnut project just a few blocks away, which includes a ground floor grocery store, is featured in a post that’s still on the front page of this blog.
Butchers? Who has butchers any more. Like I posted on the 2300 Walnut St development, retail has to be thoughtfully planned out. Like Aaron said, there are many commercial spaces that are still empty. We need more people followed by more retail, followed by people, etc. Ken, I believe, quoted that in a previous post as well.
Rob, I’m with you! I’m really getting tired of all of this stucco box style, its no longer cool (if it ever was) and honestly why is this city so hell bent on building the same building on every corner in every neighborhood?
Alex, I’m guessing that’s because that’s how development so often takes place. It’s the gradual replacement of existing structures (or infill) that adds diversity. Just look at Cap Hill: all Denver squares, then 40s walk-ups (that also all look the same), then the same 60s/70s mid-rises with balconies. You’ll get diversity–just wait a bit.
I think there certainly could be more creativity in the design of some of these buildings but I also think its inaccurate and over the top to say there building the same building on every corner. Come on.
Eh, it’s pretty close. I worry that all this infill will look incredibly dated in a few years’ time.
Very good points!
So Alliance has figured out a way to build a 6-story apartment building next to Coors Field, and EWP can only pencil a four-story apartment a block from DUS…how does that math work?
Optimism tells Alliance rents will support a concrete/steel building outside of Lodo, or is it that pessimism tells EWP that rents will only support a stick built structure in CPV?
Just because I can’t take it anymore, our project is five stories tall, not four. 🙂
Chris
EWP
Yes we will miss the taller version of Cityhouse, but we realize (well most of us do) how the market plays on what development will take place. We look forward to you breaking ground on the project soon!
The EWP building is 5 stories.
Who cares if it’s 4 or 5 stories it’s still the biggest waste of land and underuse of a prime location since the 1 story federal reserve building was constructed on 16th street. And to boot, it will look out dated in 10 years. BOOOO alta city house
Ha Ha Ha. Tell us how you really feel about it.
My god, you guys need to lay off the crack a little. This constant b*tching and moaning isn’t going to get you anywhere, not to mention probably doesn’t exactly come across very well when there are members of the development teams who regularly peruse Denverinfill!
There are going to be a good number of taller structures around Union Station. Besides, does it really matter if an apartment complex is 10 stories tall or 5 stories? Don’t they both add greatly to the number of people living in the area? Do they not add many pedestrians to the mix? Do they not add more impetus to finally get that supermarket built in the area?
Sheesh…
Thank you! When we are even close to being rid of all the parking lots downtown should we be concerned about building high rises. Living in a high rise isn’t all that anyway. I do want to see some more unique residential buildings. However, the reality is very few, if any, of the commentators could afford to live in them.
Firstly, too many of you are apparently satisfied with mediocre.
2. Retail space downtown may have low occupancy rate right now, but if the city fills in the way people are hoping/ and projecting, it will be hugely necessary.
2b. Is potentially under utilized retail space worse than a “wifi lounge”?
2c. Building apts/condos doesn’t make a block pedestrian. It’s the availability of local amenities, such as bakeries, butchers, markets, etc. If what they need is in their vicinity, they will walk. Yes, walk. Otherwise drive.
3. Is Marczyks not a butcher / deli? Take a trip to another city and you’ll see plenty of them, all doing a great service to each neighborhood they’re located. Also… meat + grill + baseball = everyone loves to do it.
3b. @Rob C – More thoughtful consideration. Yes, that is my point is exactly. Space usage needs to be considered more carefully. I personally think that such a centrally located and busy neighborhood would do much better with retail than it would, a business center or a wifi lounge etc.
4. Let’s make a comparative post, outlining the last few years’ developments of similar sized structures in the downtown area. I’ll bet you see a lot of stucco, brick, community center stuff.
5. Height isn’t an issue. It’s an aesthetic fixation that people can’t stop fantasizing about. Build tall when and where it’s needed. Otherwise… 5 stories is more than enough in most cases, esp in such a small city, like Denver.
6. There are never enough markets. Small corner store markets serve most neighborhoods in other cities even more so than larger Safeway sort of stores.
Lastly, why should anyone care if members of the development teams peruse the site?! They should read these comments and react. There needs to be more of a dialogue in order to encourage smart growth, and infrastructural progress.
Yeah, I’m surprised by and disagree completely with the complaining. I LOVE to see parking lots disappear and can’t wait to see the changes and the area is visually more attractive and is full of a community of pedestrians. Denver is on the right track and I’m anxious to see more. Thanks again for all the updates! 🙂
Random comment…it’s great to see all this building again, can we now get decent shopping on 16th street? and do something about all the homeless!
Amen!
Agreed! And when are the new mall shuttles coming?
Are we forgetting that MOST cities in the world are made of cookie cutter buildings? Just doing a quick google image search… how many buildings in Paris look like this? http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3162/2769536216_2069a7de8d_z.jpg?zz=1 How many streets in New York look like this? http://b5media_b4.s3.amazonaws.com/61/files/2008/07/tenement-photo.jpg How many streets in London are made of endless rows of these? http://image1.masterfile.com/em_w/00/19/67/700-00196728w.jpg Do you think the pople of San Francisco ever complain that there are just too many of these in their city? http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2192/3544577543_55f460a4fe_z.jpg And the comment above about Denver’s historic single-family neighborhoods being sea’s of Denver Squares and Bungalows is a perfect example as well.
These deliberately matchy mid-rises are EXACTLY the kind of dense urban fabric that Downtown Denver is desperately missing. Once we are all out of vacant development sites we can worry about making each new building a masterpiece. We can even tear down some of these very buildings to make way for these masterpieces, much the way that New York City tenements (what I linked to above) are commonly demolished to make way for new glass skyscrapers. But to try to claim that Denver is somehow backwards or wrong for building unremarkable, matching mid-rises is to completely ignore the actual development history of the world’s great cities.
Ted, I agree completely. This is what I have been preaching for a long time now. I don’t mind people commenting on architecture, but it does seem like people can get themselves so worked up over a building’s facade, that they lose sight of the big picture.
I totally get what you’re saying Ted… but let’s not akin Brown Stones in NY, Parisian row homes or San Francisco Edwardian’s ( i live here now and people bitch about them all the time btw ) to stucco in Denver. Definitely a valid point about large mass development being needed to grow core of the city… but let’s aim for some tact. My main point is that there is a HUGE opportunity to improve the walkability of downtown Denver with more pedestrian focused amenities and I’m not seeing a ton of that thinking unfold in some of the recent designs, esp in this one.
I think it is appropriate to express our concerns about projects in our city on this blog. There is a reason why there is an option to comment on Ken’s posts. I know we are just a small percentage of the Downtown population but we also represent a public opinion. Ken has provided us a very exiting website to see what is happening to our city and is available to everyone. I think most good developers, and I know a lot who do, look at this website to see what is going on but also see what peoples reactions are. As long as people are not making personal attacks on other people and keep it focused on the project at hand, I see no reason why we wouldn’t express our gripes about a particular project. The more honest feedback the better.
The problem that most people have with these new apartment designs is that they look very generic and have very weak design. yes Paris, New York and San Fransisco have areas with similar styled buildings but what separates those is that those buildings have a unique character. When you see those pictures of Paris, New York and San Fransisco, you immediately know where those pictures where taken. I have no problem seeing residential areas with a street occupied by Denver Four Square houses because it is representative of Denver. These new apartment buildings could be located anywhere and have very little character and value other than their location. All I am asking is that Downtown have quality designed buildings so that we will have a stronger identity like Paris, New York and San Fransisco.
+1
As one of the developers who does peruse the site, I just want everyone to know that we love the feedback. I’m looking forward to being able to publish some new renderings of our projects as we progress through design.
One of the things I would note, though, is that apartment renderings are much different than those you see for office buildings or condominiums. For the offices and condominiums, we spend a lot of money on renderings. We make them truly photorealistic – see http://goo.gl/Yj0nI for examples – and we carefully choose camera angles and render details. We do this because we have to market the projects in advance of their construction. We also carefully set the buildings in their actual settings.
With apartments, you’ll notice that all of the renderings are taken from the same perspective. They also all lack significant detail. As an example, the renderings that Ken posted of our City House project (http://goo.gl/vriJk) do not show any of the brick coursing of which there is a lot, the window wells, the interiors, or, really, the shadows. They are quick renderings that merely give a sense of the projects. You’ll notice in each of them that there is no context, either.
The rendering of Zocolo’s project (http://goo.gl/b9dyY) has a grass field in the foreground. There’s going to be a whole system of gardens and bus station exits and god only knows what else in the foreground. It also has, essentially, no background. For example, you can’t see some giant new building that some Fortune 500 company is building and Glass House would not be see in a picture taken from this location
This applies to all renderings of apartments. Why? Because we won’t be trying to get anyone to sign a lease until we’re done building them.
Hopefully that helps some.
Chris
EWP
And of course it is possible to design a building that absolutely everyone adores.
Love the project, but question the comment “now that the economy is quickly recovering.” Apartment construction is up because the economy is soft, which makes the rental market stronger. If you love infill projects (and who doesn’t), you’d best hope that these new ones break ground before Europe falls apart and our debt crisis is fully exposed.
I’m an optimist!
To me, the main problem with this project is the ground-level “walk-up” units. Remember, this is right across the street from the baseball stadium. Are rowdy, possibly drunk, baseball fans going to be sitting on your front steps? Are these units really going to be safe? Personally, given such concerns, I would never live in one of these units.
I hope the stoops are not problematic at that location. I would love to see them on more buildings. They are very urban and nostalgic.
I do want to chime in on the architectural chatter. I agree with everyone who has chimed in on this. It does pain me a bit to see some of the bland, bargain materials being used to create new projects in the city. Being that design is so completely subjective, I can see why some people here do and don’t agree on the topic. I do hope as we move forward, we aim to be harsher on design guidelines which infuse our neighborhoods with more character and long-lasting appeal, but I suppose that’s not completely realistic. You win some, you lose some! At the end of the day, we have a couple hundred more people downtown, and at least that’s feeding into more critical mass for the time being.
Chill!! That’s all I got to say. There are plenty…I mean PLENTY of vacant and underutilized lots strewn throughout Arapahoe Square, Ballpark, Curtis Park and Uptown. I do not envision that every development going forward is going to be nothing but stucco. Sorry, I just don’t. Look at 2300 Walnut, that design is pretty awesome. I also don’t see every project going forward to be just rentals. The real estate market is cyclical. We will see condo projects again. I guarantee it. I also feel that soon enough we might even hear an announcement about a high rise. I don’t know any specific news, so don’t bother me. Just a feeling I have. I was the one that predicted Tabor 2 wouldn’t get built, InfillJunkie knows!. Maybe I’m channeling a spirit from the skyscraper beyond!