Tennessee-based Southern Land Company has started site preparation for its first Denver project, a 302-unit apartment community located at the corner of 18th and Central in popular Lower Highland. Since the mid-1980s, the site was the headquarters for Mile High United Way, which moved last September to a brand new facility on Park Avenue in Curtis Park. Southern Land purchased the property from Mile High United Way in the spring of 2013 and arranged for United Way to stay in the building while their new headquarters was under construction. The L-shaped development site is outlined on this Google Earth aerial:
Over the past few weeks, the 1970s-era concrete-block building and surface parking lots have been undergoing demolition:
The new apartment project will feature two five-story buildings: one occupying the half block facing 18th Street between Central and Boulder, and the other located on a parcel on Boulder Street next to Highland Gateway Park and behind Prost Brewing Company. Here are two drawings, courtesy of Southern Land Company, showing the preliminary design concept:
Although the project’s details are still being finalized and may change, the development is envisioned to include approximately 330 spaces in underground structured parking, bicycle storage, a resort-style pool, rooftop decks, fire pits, and a high-end fitness center. Also proposed is approximately 9,400 square feet of restaurant and retail space facing Central Street. Here is the retail streetscape concept plan for along Central:
Finally, here’s a preliminary glimpse of the design from project architect EVstudio:
The 18th and Central Apartments project is planned for completion in 2016.
Thanks for the update Ken. Looks like it is going to be a pretty big project. Only concern I have is all the increased traffic on Central St. Pretty crowded now. Progress!
Downtowns are crowded… There are plenty of nice empty roads in Arvada, Aurora, Lakewood, Lone Tree, Commerce City, Westminster, and Thornton.
Tom,
All for the progress here. I actually live close to this location. Would not live anywhere else. You took my comment wrong. No biggie. I hope they continue to build new apartments, etc here in LoHi.
Whole lotta people in that building!
How cool would it be to have Prost Brewery as your neighbor? Then again, I would probably be drunk all of the time.
As far as the traffic goes, I think its a good thing to have our roads overly congested. Maybe that is what is needed before we can get a real inner city transportation system, like street cars with dedicated ROW.
Good point John.
Great update. Thanks for all the work.
Geez, how many parking lots are left in Lower Highlands? Seems like there is only a hand full left. Lets hope we can keep this momentum going!
The most high profile one has to be 16th & Boulder across from Lola.
I believe that site is restricted by a view plane, guaranteeing folks hooping in Hirshorn Park the right to enjoy unobstructed views of downtown. Here’s a handy map, which includes other view planes in Denver:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zQpAGd-stioU.khz0vCqDjURQ&msa=0
And a related PDF from denvergov.org:
https://www.denvergov.org/Portals/646/documents/Zoning/other_regulations/Hirshorn_Park.pdf
The view plane only affects a small slice of that site.
It will no doubt be condos. Should have unobstructed views too, considering the building in front of it is a 3 story historic building and very likely will never be torn down.
I’ve heard about a possible hotel going in behind that 3 story building on the adjacent parking lot and along 16th up to Amato’s Ale House. The rumor is 21c Museum Hotel which would be awesome. That would potentially impact the view from any future condos at 16th & Boulder.
Hi Richard,
I was aware of that rumor too but from the latest I’ve heard, that site is no longer in play for a hotel (of course, I could be wrong about that!)
However, there is a proposal for a Hotel Artisano for the vacant lot at the corner of 30th & Vallejo. The developers have met with the planning committee at HUNI a time or two, I believe.
I would think with the topography, that if a 5 story condo building was built to its maximum allowable height, and the hotel or another project materialized and built to its maximum height under the 5 story zoning, that the 5th floor and rooftop deck would easily see clear over anything in front of it.
There are plans in motion for that space. The block with Lola and the above mention parking lot are owned by the same development team.
Who owns the triangular piece of land in front of Prost along Central? That would make a great place for an outdoor beer garden.
That parcel was recently purchased. Hope to hear something soon.
The developers have cut down 5 large, mature crab apple trees in the right-of-way on Boulder at 32nd Ave. The trees were gorgeous and I photographed them often, in the fall when the leaves change and in the summer when the trees were in bloom. There doesn’t seem to be any reason for them to cut down these gorgeous trees. I’ve talked to several neighbors who all equally upset that they trees have been removed. It seems the developers / builders can do whatever they want with their own property (inside the gates on the land they own), however these were trees that were cut down were on public property. How did this happen? I assume the city of Denver has to sign off on something like this?
It was the city that allowed the trees to be removed. They cited that the trees were ashes and were threatened due to emerald ash bore – many neighbors do not agree with this assessment!
City of Denver Forestry comes out and takes inventory of the trees which includes assigning a value to each one. If the trees on the site are said to be worth $15k, for example, and the value of replacement trees is $10k then you pay the city the difference. In some cases the trees are protected if they are a certain size, age and species. The developer likely paid a pretty penny for these but was allowed to do it because of the species and their issues with disease.
This makes perfect sense to me. I always think it’s best to defer to a forestry department on these issues. Those people usually know and care more about trees than just about anyone else out there, and they know what they’re doing. There was a problem like this up in Boulder that was very well publicized when the city replaced some ash trees on West Pearl… images of the Lorax actually showed up on the sawed-off tree trunks.
The reality, or course, is that there is much more that goes into good forestry management than simply protecting every mature tree at all costs. Species diversity is important, and so is a diversity of age. The root structures on these trees can also be huge, or be in the way or essential infrastructure. Disrupting the roots too much can kill the tree, and attempting to save the tree may require significant extra effort or even be impossible. This development appears it will have a good urban landscaping plan too, judging by the renderings.
I think it’s also important to remember that healthy urban forests should have new trees being planted basically annually, and this means that occasionally mature trees need to be removed to create room for new trees, even when they are still healthy. That’s okay – just look at places like Wash Park or CU’s campus in Boulder to see this practice in motion – regular pruning and occasional replacement actually produces the healthiest kind of urban forests. Saplings grow in quickly in relative terms (a decade or so), and will be vibrant for a long time. In a neighborhood full of mature trees, I think it’s best not to get bent out of shape about the occasional replacement of a few of them.
This makes perfect sense to you? I beg to differ…those trees were perfectly fine, having walked that block thousands of times. They *might* get a disease is double-talk for a lack of commitment to mature trees – a very rare and valuable asset for Denver. Unfortunately, the city and forester put more value in saplings. It’s quite sad. Next up? Do you think the Shademasters fronting Central St. will make it or will they find a reason to rip those beauties out?
Yes, it does still make perfect sense to me. I consider myself to be a pretty serious tree lover actually, maybe even too much so for most people. While I fully understand the impulse to become personally attached to an individual tree (I have done this myself in the past); I think it is important to understand that our job as a society is to be caretakers to the entire forest, not to individual trees.
A couple points. For one, I wouldn’t be so suspicious about the outlook for disease. The Emerald Ash Borer is real, and it is voracious. The outbreak started in Boulder and is quickly spreading to Denver. It has already taken out the majority of trees in my Westminster apartment complex. A Boulder forester told me they are expecting 90% or more mortality of Ash trees. It is unfortunate, because they really are beautiful, especially the ones that turn purple in the fall (which it sounds like these are). Unfortunately Ash trees were very popular in the 1970s, and were planted all over Colorado in spite of the fact that they have brittle branches that are susceptible to breaking in wind/snow. They also tended to be planted in large mono-cultures (as in every tree planted in a landscaping job), which make them highly vulnerable to mass die-off. So yes, I would say that a sapling IS more valuable than an ash tree, given the circumstances. These weren’t exactly 80 year old specimen Oaks.
I also disagree with your assertion that mature trees are “rare for Denver.” I would argue that Denver has one of the most mature urban canopies in the state. In fact, in some cases it is even overgrown. These older neighborhoods, with plenty of mature trees, are EXACTLY where young new trees can make the most impact. A constant supply of new saplings is essential to keep these forests healthy and vibrant. Watching saplings grow up, and watching the overall forest gradually evolve, is one of the simple joys in life for me. New trees are a blessing, not a plague.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that mature trees should be cut down just for the hell of it. Large, mature trees are of course the ultimate goal of landscaping. But I think there are circumstances that call for their replacement other than just their death or disease. Deliberate thinning, as is sometimes needed in urban parks, is one example. The construction of a major new urban structure such as this, I’d say, is also exactly such a circumstance. If well built, an urban building’s life should long outlast its landscaping. Looking at those trees on streetview, I’d say it’s almost certain that their root structure grows well into the area to be excavated and used as a foundation. If saving the trees poses a hardship to construction, then I think that justifies considering it a time to start anew with the trees on that block. And I honestly think this is true regardless of the health of the trees.
Only if a tree is EXCEPTIONALLY old, rare, or historic should hardship be placed on a development to save it. I’d say there are only a few dozen trees in any city that should be awarded that kind of status.
Im moving out of the Highlands, too much is too much.
Another cheap apartment building. This should go a long way to limiting the potential of this neighborhood in concert with a few other compromised projects just completed or under construction nearby. Great Denver. Real visionary. This is a pure for profit deal and entirely allowed for given current entitlements so I certainly understand the economic motivations. Construction defect laws certainly do not help.
I hate all of these apartments going up with no consideration for traffic flow and pedestrians. I am really starting to hate what this neighborhood as become. That plans for that 5 story monstrosity needs to go. Welcome to major traffic accidents and jams. Shame on the city for approving this. Sold to the highest bidder.
The project is one block from a major arterial (20th) and an interchange with I-25. It’s half a mile from the largest transit hub in the region, and easy walking/biking distance to downtown, where a lot of residents are likely to work. What kind of “considerations” for traffic flow do you have in mind exactly?
The project is across the street from the new Central Street Promenade and is situated in an urban neighborhood complete with sidewalks, crosswalks, etc., and has great pedestrian connections into Downtown. What kind of “considerations” for pedestrians do you have in mind exactly?
Since when is 5 stories on the edge of the downtown of a major city a “monstrosity”? The zoning allows for buildings of this size and is totally appropriate for the location.
Why more traffic accidents? What would cause people in this development to have more traffic accidents than anyone else? And if traffic is moving slowly around the project due to congestion, then that means there will be a lower likelihood of accidents, as the rate of accidents increases with traffic speed.
What do you mean by “shame on the city for approving this”? The property owners have a use by right to develop their property. The city must approve it as long as the project meets all of the various zoning requirements and other city regulations, which clearly they have.
What do you mean by “sold to the highest bidder”? A developer purchased the property in a fair market transaction from a private seller and is now building exactly what the zoning for the property allows. What is wrong with that? Isn’t that American capitalism?
“The project is one block from a major arterial (20th) and an interchange with I-25. It’s half a mile from the largest transit hub in the region, and easy walking/biking distance to downtown, where a lot of residents are likely to work. What kind of “considerations” for traffic flow do you have in mind exactly?”
Tell me you are not this naive to believe this? I am a 15 year resident, pedestrian, and bicyclist of this intersection and you definitely take your life in your hands navigating the drivers trying to beat the lights and other cars to get past the intersection. City traffic study?? Please, don’t insult my intelligence, from what’s published online they must have done the studies on Sunday’s. It only takes 4 cars to back this up from either Central/20th or from Osage/Navajo, and throw in 3 major bus routes (6, 10, and 52). You can’t possibly believe that a higher percentage of residents are going to happily walk or bike downtown to work everyday. The city has already admitted (when they allowed Lumina to build)they will need to blow up and somehow reconfigure this intersection, another 2 year construction project and this pedestrian friendly?
I am not anti-development/growth but the city has done a crappy job managing the land grab, including many projects owned by out of State developers like this one. From a historical perspective (being built in the 1800’s and one of Denver’s oldest neighborhoods) the neighborhood itself has lost it’s soul and will become a parody of itself when people move on to the next big thing. Notice the term ‘neighborhood’, this isn’t just another block of downtown Denver, it was designed as a place away from the city but allow access. The M.O. here is to build first then figure out what to do when traffic and pedestrian issues arise.
I completely agree. The real problem was the re-zone that took place back in 2010. I sat in on one session and developer bullied the process. It now appears that we are stuck. All we hear is that it meets the zone code. I also think it is naive to think that people who can afford the rents are going to give up their cars. And according to HUNI no traffic studies have been done. Finally you need to remember that this is a pro-developer web site.
I am not a fan of all the apartment complexes coming up either. They truly are an “eye sore”. A lot of apartment renters are leaving the highlands because they only have one parking spot per resident and most of the rents are too high for one person. That leaves your roommate or partner to struggle daily to find parking. It will be virtually impossible to find any parking once that huge complex is built. I think there eventually is going to be an apartment bubble because these huge complexes are going up everywhere. The demand for these luxury apartments is not as high as these developers think.
You answered one of your own questions.
Yes, rents are high, due to demand outstripping supply.
In theory, rents will come down eventually, but I would argue that demand is still building.
Regarding the parking, Ken hit it on the head here:
“The project is one block from a major arterial (20th) and an interchange with I-25. It’s half a mile from the largest transit hub in the region, and easy walking/biking distance to downtown, where a lot of residents are likely to work. What kind of “considerations” for traffic flow do you have in mind exactly?
The project is across the street from the new Central Street Promenade and is situated in an urban neighborhood complete with sidewalks, crosswalks, etc., and has great pedestrian connections into Downtown. What kind of “considerations” for pedestrians do you have in mind exactly? “
1. There has already been a parking study done for this area that determined that there was ample street parking supply. You can look it up yourself on the city’s website. Anyone who complains about parking in Lohi either knows nothing about the neighborhood or is unwilling to walk 2-3 blocks in a worst case scenario to find a spot. To you I would say, “You live in a city!” This isn’t Highlands Ranch.
2. If you don’t like the apartment buildings, and you hate the neighborhood, please leave. You can make a killing on your property if you own it, and if you don’t, surely you can find cheaper rent somewhere else.
3. traffic=a safer pedestrian experience
4. Obviously, a lot of people like what is happening to the neighborhood and like the buildings as evidenced by the migration into the area, and the fact that most people who live here love it.
5. This building an eye sore? Did you see what was there previously? A crappy cement block building and a surface parking lot.
Great points Jeff. I totally agree. I am all for the growth down here in LoHi. Lived here since early 2012 and feel very fortunate that I was able to get my condo when I did. Sure, it can get a little “loud” on weekends, but hey, we don’t live in the mountains so I expect the noise.