Denver-based Paradise Land Company and national developer Hines are working together in a joint venture to bring a mixed-use project featuring a proposed W Hotel, upscale condominiums, retail, and enhanced public space to two triangle-shaped sites along Cherry Creek between Market and Larimer streets in Lower Downtown. Below is a Google Earth aerial with the two parcels outlined, along with a bird’s-eye view of the site:
The project is early in the conceptual design stage and a development application has not yet been filed with the city. However, the development team’s preliminary plans include a proposed W Hotel with approximately 275 rooms, 30 condominium units, retail space facing Larimer Street and an improved Bell Park, and about 300 parking spaces on four underground levels. The project would consist of two buildings—one on each side of the creek—with a narrow connecting structure spanning across the creek featuring a bar and social spaces. This stacking diagram, courtesy of Paradise Land Company/Hines and HOK, the project architect, shows the conceptual vertical arrangement of uses on the site:
Long-time DenverInfill readers will remember this as the site of Buzz Geller’s (owner of Paradise Land Company) proposed Bell Tower, a thin glassy 34-story condominium planned in 2008 for the corner of Speer and Market with a companion low-rise office building along 14th Street. The evolution of Bell Tower’s design and the LoDo design regulations that permitted the tower is quite an interesting story, which you can read all about here at DenverInfill as we covered the project extensively. Ultimately, the recession nixed the Bell Tower project.
However, part of that story is relevant to repeat here. When the city created the new Lower Downtown Special Review District along Speer Boulevard (known as the Historic Urban Edge District) in 2007, they customized the height and setback rules for each block along Speer within the district. For Geller’s block, there were two options. Option A would permit a 375-foot tower (up to 400 feet with a spire) on the Speer side of the creek with a very small footprint (7,500 square feet) and a 55-foot high LoDo-style building on the 14th Street side of the creek, also with a fairly small footprint. Option B would allow a maximum 85-foot high building along the Speer side but with a much larger building footprint, while on the 14th Street side the same 55-foot height limit would apply but with a slightly larger building footprint. Here are two diagrams that show these options—the Geller site is labeled as Subarea 01 and Subarea 02:
The Bell Tower of the pre-recession era was the Option A project. Why not bring the Bell Tower design back today? The problem lies with the tower’s very small footprint. Bell Tower in 2008 was envisioned to have one condo unit per floor. That doesn’t make market sense today and, according to Mr. Geller, the tower’s small size and odd shape makes it unworkable for accommodating multiple units on a floor. Thus, the proposed W Hotel Denver project uses the Option B scheme instead.
The other important thing to note is the Old City Hall View Plane Ordinance that applies to the site. Right at the corner of 14th and Larimer sits a large bell from Denver’s old city hall building that occupied the site from 1883 until the 1940s. The small plaza where the bell is located is known informally as Bell Park (hence, the origin of the Bell Tower name). Bell Park is not an official Denver park and the property is owned by Paradise Land Company. However, an official city view plane from Bell Park does restrict development looking west toward the mountains. In the exhibits of the proposed project below, the view plane lines are visible in the ground-floor plan (left) and clearly evident in the 2nd level plan (center) and 3rd-5th levels plan (right):
Here are a few massing model images showing the proposed project looking northeast (left), from the Larimer Street bridge (center), and looking south (right). Keep in mind, the project has not yet been designed—these are conceptual massing models only.
A few closing thoughts…
This is very exciting project for several reasons. First, the partnership with Hines is huge. Hines is a national developer with significant expertise locally. The Hines team in Denver has not only recently completed 1601 Wewatta, but is currently under construction with 1144 Fifteenth, a signature 40-story tower going up just two blocks from the Bell Park site. Second, having HOK as the architect is also big news. HOK is an internationally renowned firm, so I’m looking forward to what they come up with as they take this concept and refine it into an actual design. The narrow span of the building over the creek gives HOK a lot to work with to elevate the design into something iconic.
The presence of the view plane also ensures that the corner of 14th and Larimer will remain open space. The concept designs show not only an enhanced plaza at the corner but an extension of the plaza terracing down to the creek. Add in the proposed restaurant/retail space facing the plaza, and the “new” Bell Park will really elevate the vitality and aesthetics at the corner.
Finally, this is one of the most important sites in Denver’s history. Denver started off in 1858 as the fledgling outposts of Auraria and Denver City, with Larimer Street on either side of the creek serving as the “main street” for the two towns. The first bridge over Cherry Creek was finished in early 1860 on Larimer Street and, on April 6 of that year, a celebration was held on the new Larimer Street bridge to commemorate the approval by voters to consolidate Auraria and Denver City into a unified community known as Denver. Thus, we should honor this site with something better than surface parking lots. This proposed project will do exactly that.
We appreciate Mr. Geller and his development team sharing their concept plans with DenverInfill. We look forward to tracking this project as it moves forward.
Denver really needs to think about what they’re going to do with cherry creek. south korea provides a firm example if you ask me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheonggyecheon
I don’t think anything is particularly wrong with Cherry Creek, at least in this area. I think this development can add some nice features to connect it better to Bell Park, but Cherry Creek works extraordinarily as a piece of transportation infrastructure. Especially this part of the creek, which divides pedestrians and bicyclists. I think the bicycling community would vehemently oppose something like Cheonggyecheon, which turns the creek into almost a public plaza. Cherry Creek trail (along with the Platte River trail) is basically Denver’s bicycle highway and we should be encouraging things like better way finding to make it an even better facility for bicyclists to use. That’s why I am glad that the “Plaza” like terrace for this project is designed for the eastern side of the trail, better there than disrupt a critical piece of transportation infrastructure.
also, Hines is a international developer https://www.hines.com/properties
I hope the bar/living area has a glass floor on at least part if it so people could have the feeling of standing over the creek
Yes! This is awesome news and will be exciting to follow.
cool, but disappointed to tower went away.
I am skeptical about the over-river structure. Cherry Creek needs to as open as possible. Bridges over the creek seem okay, but full-on buildings, no. I also think this could end up looking tacky.
According to these concept drawings, the width of the building spanning over the creek is narrower than the Larimer Street bridge.
This looks really cool! Right next to Larimer Square too.
I for one am thrilled with this. Time for this city to focus on quality and this has all the signs of turning out to be something signature. The integration with Cherry Creek promises for a one-of-a-kind design. Let’s do this! WOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
This is exciting. Realizing the significance of the site, I was concerned ~4 years back when the once green space was paved for more surface parking. So backwards thinking considering the trend of downtown infill. Good to know there was a bigger long term plan. It’s a critical connection between auraria campus and downtown. Infill will fix pedestrian scale and walk ability issues.
This is a really neat looking development. I’m happy they’re going to be handling their parking below grade. I’m curious how they will address Cherry Creek/14th and what the final architecture looks like. Given the firms involved, this could be an excellent addition to downtown. Let’s hope it lives up to its potential.
Thanks s looks promising. My question is about flooding from the creek. I know the Cherry Creem dam regulates the flow of the creek, but I have also seen the creek running high during heavy rains. Are there pumps in the parking garage?
Like most projects with underground parking near the creek, they will probably have a continuous dewatering pump system of some type.
Acknowledging that this is only a conceptual design, it reminds me slightly of the Watergate in DC. I’m curious: why are there fewer parking levels on the Speer side than on the 14th side? Given traffic patterns, I’d think it would make more sense to have more parking on the Speer side.
Mark, I’m not sure of the answer but I’ll take two guesses: 1. It allows the slow-turning ingress/egress vehicles to not be on the high-volume/speed Speer or Auraria Parkway/Market and instead puts that on the slow-moving 14th and/or Larimer. 2. It puts the parking closer to Larimer Square and the retail/restaurant (and probably the hotel lobby) facing 14th.
Thoughtful design concept with a bit of flair (the span over CC). Hope the really design does not get too contorted as some have.
Cherry Creek seems to function as a linear park and obviously as an important recreation and mobility corridor. Why should citizens and users turn over public space for private development?
How does a narrow building bridge over the creek hinder the public’s use of the creek path/park below? And unlike a street bridge that is quite low over your head as you pass under it, the proposed building bridge will be on the 2nd floor of the building, a good 20 feet or more higher than street level.
The 2008 elegant tower was a far better design for this signature location. One more boxy ordinary building lacks the grace and importance of the tower. Of course, Geller wants to maximize revenue and so it goes . . . Another lost opportunity in Daddy Warbuck’s America. Geller had the opportunity for a legacy building on one of downtown’s key sites.
You do realize that this is an early massing model?
Ignore the troll that SBG is.
She’s about the biggest NIMBY in Denver to date.
I don’t know anything of her posting/nimby history, but she’s correct with her comment.
This is such a significant and prominent site. Denver’s phobia of high-rise buildings is hurting this city – and hurts this potential development.
A simple walk around the cherry creek area will allow you to realize how imposing a 9-12 story, fully street fronting building can be.
Whereas a walk around a city like Vancouver will indicate how personal and unimposing a 40 story point tower (with a 2-3 story street frontage) can be.
Denver’s zoning requirements are really preventing this city from realizing better architecture for important sites such as this.
SBG is correct that the tower that was previously proposed is a much more elegant solution for this important site. It’s a shame to see the Denver low rise box win out over a dynamic architectural proposal.
Agree. And how in the hell do they consider a (see above) small foot print a ‘problem’? You know any more I’m just fried over all this so called new approach to what is and isn’t urban and why the hell did or do high density downtowns get built in the first place if there might be an old historic building in the middle of everything that new buildings might block gives any reasoning to make up meanings for controlling density. One could simply say it makes sense and 20 people will nod their heads and makes it mean something? Really? We have constructed multi-layers of institutions to simply experts thinking and saying what IS or ISN’T and the whole world nods along. WOW! To me this is just nonconstructive gibberish.There’s no way to re-invent the wheel that is a designated area allowing for density merely out of the natural order of density as it goes. Don’t worry much about it anymore. I won’t live long enough to see any real change like we saw in Denver in the 80’s. So have fun going through your cycles of transformation down through the decades and centuries as the only thing certain is change. Do they still teach this in the nouveau school of thought in urban planning? What else I find funny in the re-invention of the wheel in that we are trying to re-create a downtown crowd of pedestrians, isn’t that it, put people on the street, or sidewalks like 1930’s? Well then it’s a much larger scope of issues than urban planning all together it’s really affording people the time to take a walk. Where is all that extra time afforded to walk around downtown like it’s an experience if people can’t afford the time after paying for the value of the ever escalating property prices. Well they might walk to work in a hurry knowing that their company sees them as disposable labor so gone is the smile on that chap as well….experience?
AGREE! I don’t think the creek needs to be walled off with mid-rises that are already prevalent throughout LODO. Being able to see the creek from both Speer (as a passenger) and from the Auraria campus would be more possible with the tower.
F the view plane. A whole lot of mumbo jumbo and anti-unique skyscraper planning with jargoned reasonability either way wording could be thrown together to support the opposite and it all really comes down to a small group of special people catering to other special people to plan a city to their own liking and not a larger general consensus, that Denver has become famous for. NIMBY through and through. Vibrant, Village, Pedestrian Scale could also be considered trendy adjectives for revamping in more residential urban areas, but then applying that to the regional core area is really less a vital to its best potential.
Susan Barnes-Gelt is not a troll, and she most certainly is not a NIMBY. When she was on City Council in the 1990s and early 2000s (as an at-large representative), she was practically the only person on Council with a sophisticated understanding of architecture, design, and urbanism. I used to watch her in committee meetings on Channel 8 (the municipal channel, pretty boring most of the time), and distinctly remember her bringing up great ideas. When the city was planning to expand the convention center to its present size, it was she who strongly advocated to her rather unimaginative colleagues that the building incorporate housing, perhaps by putting towers on top of the parking ramps. Instead, we have a giant box that has exactly one function; had she been listened to, that corner of downtown would have had four more residential towers (with affordable housing!) than it does now. I also distinctly remember her advocating for better design for Commons Park West, that stucco apartment monstrosity that runs between 15th and 17th along Platte Street and forms the western wall to Commons Park across the river. Her criticism was that it looked suburban, and was a poor use of the site; she is still right about that. Commons Park West, despite its repainting some years ago (which improved it a little), is still more Thornton-esque than “true Denver/true urban,” despite its ground floor retail. I so hoped she would run for mayor when Webb’s time was up, but she didn’t. She pushes the envelope, because she wants her city (I think she grew up in Hilltop) to be the best it can be, and she clearly sees that most of Denver’s development community isn’t capable of producing the kinds of projects that continue to build upon Denver’s unique architectural legacy.
People may not like what Susan Barnes-Gelt has to say, but she’s sophisticated and intelligent when it comes to the city’s built environment, more so than a lot of people in this city. I hold out hope that this new project will prove her wrong, but I don’t think her preferring Geller’s 2008 conception to the current one is an indication that she is a troll or a NIMBY.
And no, I’ve never met the woman, nor do I have any kind of business or personal relationship with her. Oh, and by the way, only trolls use fake names. Susan uses her real one.
So she has great ideas that have never come to fruition because they are a) unrealistic or b) even more unrealistic? That’s brilliant!
She’s not a troll, but her criticism, while lofty and high-minded, doesn’t offer much as it’s often totally un-coupled from reality. Putting housing on top of the convention center garages is a wonderful idea, but getting the funding for such a thing is where the issues arise. The nitty-gritty is not where Susan excelled.
I’ll draw a comparison between Susan and another urban-minded Denver leader, Dana Crawford. Both have lofty visions for their city, but only one has made a lasting impact as she has compromised when necessary, and put it the hard work of bring plans to concrete completion to get her vision completed
RIP Bell Tower… The only exciting building proposal Denver has ever received. I have always held out hope this would come back and this market seemed as perfect as ever for it.
I will hold off on reserving full judgement until a rendering is provided, but in my humble opinion, no mid rise is going have anywhere near of an impact as the tower… they have some big shoes to full.
Agreed… The design ought to be far better than what we’ve been seeing downtown lately if this is to be yet another 8-12 story, full-block-width project. The bell tower wasn’t honestly my personal favorite in terms of design, but I appreciated the unique style it was hoping to achieve and I especially liked the idea of keeping some space on the lots as more of either a low-rise development or even just green space with a thin point tower to help liven things up.
While I think that a tower design would be more impressive, I also like the idea of establishing/expanding the street wall along Speer. Hopefully, this moves forward and the final design will make it an attractive street wall. However, I wish that there had been more than just the two build options. I think that shifting some of the upper mass (condominium portion) from Speer to Market (create a 14 story building?) would still have provided a street wall along Speer but also would have created some variability in that street wall.
Why does Speer NEED to be a street wall? Sometimes it’s nice to drive along speer or ride the path and look ‘OUT’ across the downtown scape and anything build low and squatty will block the view more than something tall and narrow. Or maybe it’s just that people who decide these things don’t really spend much time on Speer Blvd.?
Speer will never have a great street wall anyway, there are too many parks and open space near it. This is literally one of two lots left near downtown that could block the view of the creek from Speer, everywhere else is almost completely open. I think keeping the view of the creek from people speeding by on Speer is the least of the problems with this development.
I’ll wait for my thoughts until a full design is out. If they can add that iconic piece like you mentioned Ken this could be really awesome and provide something unique in downtown. If 1144 is any indication I will be pleased with the project.
I hate adding to the negative/criticisms, but I’ll do it anyway… Disclaimer, this is a rant regarding the construction in Denver in general, not specifically this project…
It’s quite simple: this is a “city”, and “cities” have towers. I’m not suggesting EVERY development in Denver needs to be a tower, but at what point does the city decide to stop building these ridiculous 8-12 floor, block-wide shoeboxes? You can argue that this development is more than a rectangular box, but let’s be honest, that’s EXACTLY what it would have been if the property wasn’t essentially two triangular lots side-by-side, separated by Cherry Creek. Personally I’m fed up hearing about the city’s precious “view planes”, seriously, you can’t see the mountains when you’re walking right next to even a two-story building so why don’t we just limit all new development to 1-2 stories total???
Another thing to consider is developers could be potentially hurting their long-term value… Two point towers built upward with ample space in between on the same half-block could potentially yield far more revenue over time than a cheaply-made 12-story mammoth that has to cover every possible inch of surface/land area in a given block. It’s also a wasted opportunity to have your architecture stand out and be more unique (regardless of how safe or dramatic said architecture may be).
I moved to Denver because the growth factor is inherently very exciting and I’m genuinely interested to see how great the city can be and what it will grow into… More and more, however, we’re seeing uninspired designs and way too much repetition in place of something that could add true variety and character to an emerging city. Please note: I understand the rendering above is just a massing wireframe, however I must admit I’ve grown pessimistic at the state of construction projects here lately, and in the future when Denver turns out to be a big concrete nothing because of the same, poorly made recycled structures, people like me will have no reason or desire to stay in Denver due to an abundance of wasted potential and the city’s chances of growing into a true neighborhood/community oriented city will be hurt. A concern of mine is the sheer number of natives who have called me out on being a transplant so I “can’t possibly care about Denver” the same way as those who were here long before me… this is far from the truth. Denver deserves better than what we’ve been getting and I’m holding on to a shred of hope that 1144 Fifteenth (and to a lesser extent, 1401 Lawrence) are potentially the start of something better and more dynamic.
Here’s to hoping developers start taking advantage of the updated zoning in Arapahoe Square… if that area sees another development by Trammell Crow on top of the current Alexans being built (yes, multiple, sigh…) then we’re probably all doomed.
Agreed, guess were screwed until zoning changes.
I’ll agree and well put. Beginning to wonder what if any vision for the future of downtown the planning and zoning department has. It’s as if they are using other city examples as guides to their planning. Cities such as Portland or Boulder We could give it a term…. the ‘Denver Downsize’.
The developers/owners have a choice: build tall and narrow or not. Before, they opted for the tall and narrow option, now they are planning around the other option. The tall and narrow option is still open; no one is stopping them from using it.
I was excited for this until I saw the old renderings for Bell Tower. Another missed opportunity in Denver for game-changing architecture and more people living downtown. Why does one condo unit per floor not make market sense? Residential prices are above pre-2008 levels. If that truly is the case why not change the design a little to accommodate multiple units per floor or do half hotel?
Looking at the massing of this proposed building, I’m thinking, what is it? A hospital? Mid-rise housing? An office park special? An educational edifice? Oh, now I see it! — a hotel/condo, like we see along the beaches of Kauai — where nothing taller than a palm tree is allowed! Perfect! — for beach architecture. For Downtown in a city? Hmmm… Since the builder has just two massing options, maybe it’s time, not just to toss out ridiculous view planes, but the very restrictive, complicated zoning that appeases every constituency, and satisfies no one. Way too many cooks in the kitchen, too many review boards and city planning hurdles. When everybody has a say, we get bland buildings like this. And we get the “General American”-looking city that Denver is, with very little that’s unique or spectacular.
So sad that another unique site ends up being whittled down to nothing special.
A couple of thoughts about view planes…
If you have block after block of 4-10 story buildings, there are no good views. Anywhere. You can’t see over your neighbor.
Picture instead, 1/2 block, 2-3 story bases for street frontage with slender, point towers – arranged in a way that each and every tower has views in one direction or another. Views exist around other point towers. This affordd higher density, better street presence (because the bulk of the building isn’t full block), and better views. It’s a win-win-win across the board.
That is the approach we should be taking in this city. Projects such as this one (and Alta City House is one that stands out as the biggest missed opportunity in a sea of missed opportunities), are following a path down a crappy paradigm.
It all comes down to zoning. Does anyone who matters (ie sets policy) actually read this blog? Maybe they will start to understand that change is needed.
Completely agreed, CK… Now this reply is also directed to Ken Schroeppel – do you and the rest of Denverinfill have any direct contact with the people in charge of things like view planes / zoning / etc.? I’ve personally reached out to Jeff Sheppard regarding the state of updated view planes and design reviews…and to the best of anyone’s knowledge, there are “talks of improvements” which, unfortunately, means nothing. Are you or Ryan, etc. able to determine that the right people in charge of this stuff are listening and aware of the populous’ concerns? (as opposed to only catering to special interest groups which I suspect are holding Denver back from its potential)
The developers/owners have a choice: build tall and narrow or not. Before, they opted for the tall and narrow option, now they are planning around the other option. The tall and narrow option is still open; no one is stopping them from using it. The developers made the decision not to use it and the city had nothing to do with the choice the developers are making at this time. However, I do not like that there are only two choices, but that’s how it is and that is the only thing the city and city planners could change.
I do NOT like the idea of private development bridging the creek. We’re going to lose quite a bit of sunlight from the multi-story buildings, themselves, as it is, but that’s the “price” we have to expect to pay for “progress”. The best analogy for how this would feel is either Vasquez Boulevard under I-70 or Stout Street under the Convention Center, and it’s not good . . .
And to further iterate, and I’m sorry if this might sound negative but it is within the criteria of public opinion and the blogisphere. It’s not just the Bell Tower that’s my case in point here. Look at the downsized plans for Block 162! Here again Denver ‘has’ had an opportunity to go ‘signature’ with a new tallest as it had originally planned for this block but by using a form of mumbo-jumbo double speak with insurance- this & that code. Personal opinion, sounds like more of city planning political shyness and intimidation than a real builder insurance issue. Another example would be the Trango tower which would have come to be also. I upon a chance seen plans for an incredible tower on the Block 162 of at least 70 stories and I won’t name names but is was at an architect’s office on Cherry Creek Blvd. South. The artistic rendering had dark glass exterior and white exterior (marble or granite?) columns running up both sides of the tower all the way up above the building into an arch over the top with what looked like a 30′ glass orb inside of an opening at the top of these sculpted arches. Definitely one of the most extraordinary architectural designs that I’d ever seen and especially for Denver. It looked like something that would have been built in Dubai! Anyhow this was unbelievably exciting to see the possibility of a building like that which would of course redefine the skyline and the entire city. But I suppose that was too much for the locals and then was shelved for the latest incarnation of the two ‘extremely’ boxy characters now planned. Denver unabashedly as usual too intimidated and too timid to be this bold!
With all due respect, ‘james’, your comment makes it sound like the Denver, the city or city planners, are to blame for the decisions that the owners/developers of those parcels have made regarding what they want/plan to build. If you were criticizing the lower height zoning of the Union Station neighborhood, then I might agree with you. However, the zoning of those two parcels has not changed since the previous plans were proposed; just the thinking of the people who own the land. They made the decisions to propose higher rise buildings then and they are also making the decisions to propose lower rise buildings now.
Does the City of Denver (CoD) have the legal authority to permit Paradise Land Company and Hines to construct a building (i.e., bar and living room) over property they do not own? Someone help me out here….I’m not an attorney. If yes, do you think that the CoD will permit me to build a ‘bar and living room’ that extends from my house over my street or alley?
This is not merely a private corridor over a public corridor that only allows people to walk between two buildings, its a private business over a public corridor. What will the property taxes be on a privately-owned building that is constructed over public property? No property taxes? Something smells fishy here, but Cherry Creek does not support fish.