On January 10, a Concept Plan for a 30-story office tower was submitted to the Denver planning office for the undeveloped parcel at 1900 Lawrence (also known as 1901 Arapahoe).
Submitted by Chicago-based architecture firm Goettsch Partners on behalf of the developer, Chicago-based Riverside Investment & Development, the Concept Plan indicates the proposed development would include about 9,500 square feet of ground-floor retail space and parking for 630 vehicles.
The first step in the city’s development review process is the filing of a Concept Plan application with the Denver planning office. City planning staff review the project concept and have a conversation with the developer about feasibility, zoning and design issues, and other factors the developer will have to take into consideration before the project can move on to the next step. Project specifications at this stage are preliminary and subject to change. The property is currently owned by Paradise Land Company.
The site is currently occupied by a surface parking lot. On the Google Earth image below we’ve outlined the proposed development’s approximate building footprint:
Two projects have been proposed for this site in the past few years. Most recently in June 2019, a brief proposal for a 40-story residential development dubbed “Love This City Tower” was floated by developer Michael Eisenstein, but an application was never submitted to the city and the idea quickly died. And back in 2017, a two-tower residential development, 1901 Arapahoe, was submitted to the city and did begin its development review process, but never made it out of the ground.
We will keep tabs on this project as it works its way through the city’s development review process.
~~~
2020-01-16 edit: the developer is referring to this project as 1900 Lawrence, so the headline and text have been revised to reflect the new name. This also helps differentiate this office project from the previous residential proposals on the same site.
I’m still bummed out that 1901 Arapahoe didn’t go anywhere. Would’ve been nice to bump up the residential presence in that part of town. Here’s hoping this new proposal goes somewhere.
If this project happens, it would be a huge win for Denver! Riverside has built some of the more iconic buildings along the Chicago River in downtown Chicago, and I’m sure they would continue that trend on this project. Hoping for a modern, glassy building with a unique architectural design. Fingers crossed for some renderings soon!
What about the parking they are taking away? Add retail, businesses, etc. and no place to park.
As noted in our post, the project includes 630 parking spaces.
and there aren’t more than 200 spaces currently so a net increase of 400 or so. happy now?
Take away all the parking. We need a city for human beings, not cars.
So sad Denver has such a limit on building heights downtown that every tower is thirty stories. Oh wait there isn’t one. Sigh.
Dave, actually, there are height limits—three of them—in the Central Business District. Between 18th and 20th and between Broadway and Sherman(ish), buildings are limited to 400 feet in height, which is why this proposed new tower tops off at 396 feet. Between 14th Street and Cherry Creek, buildings are limited to 200 feet in height. In between, on the blocks between 14th and 18th, there is no height limit—except for the blocks between 15th and 16th, which technically don’t have a high limit per se but are regulated by a sunlight preservation ordinance that restricts the amount of shadow on the 16th Street Mall. Depending on the design of a project, the sunlight preservation ordinance could impact the height of a proposed tower.
Wow Ken, I wasn’t aware of this! Thanks for the great info & picture.
What is the reasoning behind the limitation at height area 2? At first glance I don’t see any reason why there should be a limit in that area
The reasoning for the height limits in both areas 1 and 2 is to create a pyramid shape to the skyline, with the tallest buildings in the center and it stepping down toward the edges.
Agreed.
Wasn’t aware of this either. And why I enjoy this blog. while I think it’s far too restrictive it is what it is.
I personally am not a fan of the 400 foot height limit. Two of Denver’s tallest buildings are non-conforming under these rules. And with the River Mile zoning looking to allow 50+ story buildings, the whole pyramid shape justification is moot.
I saw rendering on another website focused on Denver Business. Looks interesting.
Also I clicked on the link for the landowner and for the piece of land at 17th and Califonira and saw a fun video for a BIG ass tower designed by Davis Partnership. Here’s the link, I don’t recall seeing anythign about this project. https://www.paradiselandcompany.com/california.html
The proposed tower at 17th and California was covered here: https://denverinfill.com/tag/650-17th-street
Glad to see this is back and apparently moving forward again. Just looked at the conceptual rendering via 9News’ story on the project. Looks extremely similar (in both design, height and bulk) to the 500 West 2nd building (aka, Google Tower) in Austin. I take this as a good thing when it comes to its overall appearance even though it’s not quite a unique design concept. Might Google being eyeing a single, larger location for its Denver employees? Nothing more than gossip of course.
here’s the link https://www.9news.com/article/money/markets/real-estate/30-story-tower-proposed-for-downtown-denver/73-ebc95cc3-3bc3-447c-b93b-751262ac571c
I get a general sense that there’s not much anticipation for taller or new tallest buildings, with current zoning and what land is left. And literally ever since the unlimited height zone area is pretty confined to a small portion of central downtown with not much vacant land left within that zone. I’m also curious though about the signage now at 650 17th with the name Harbinger as if it might be for sale again? Harbinger had initially commented that their plans for that lot were for yet a only a 30-story building as well, which is far lower than 83 floors Greenwich Realty Capital had planned. So my assertion is that with transformation in city council and city planning departments, Denver’s ongoing downtown vision comes with an air of downsizing. Stepping back it’s pace from previous ideals and perspectives of contending nationally or globally or see itself as a large international city.
James, you continue to post the same comments over and over that the city council or the planning office is somehow discouraging developers from building tall towers in downtown. This is the FOURTH time I have replied to you that you are not correct about this. Have you not read my previous comments? Like this reply to you back in May 2019:
It is the DEVELOPER that decides how tall they want their project to be, based on market demand, financing, and other issues, within the constrains of the existing zoning on the site. They are NOT obligated to build to the maximum height allowed by zoning. If a developer wants to build a 30-story building on a site that is entitled to go as high as 90 stories, that is their choice, not the city council’s or the planning office’s. Denver’s downtown zoning between 14th and 18th has no height limit and is only limited in total square footage by Floor Area Ratio, which is quite generous. The fact that developers haven’t been building supertalls in Denver’s CBD has NOTHING TO DO with city council or the planning office. It has to do with developers, so far, deciding that building a supertall in Denver isn’t financially feasible from their demand/financing/profit perspective. If anything, the Denver planning office is pro-density and enthusiasts of downtown development.
This ⬆️
Ken, I appreciate your response and I can easily say I’m not the only one who posts the same type of messages over and over. There seems to be a lot of head nodding on this forum which also all sounds the same. Does everyone know each other here or is there true blogger anonymity? Disagreeing with a majority of commentators who all seem to agree is just another stimulating part of blogging or conversing. Unless you only want agreement…Respectfully, I think you misunderstand my point wasn’t as much about the why and when of a supertall, or a new taller or tallest as I mentioned. Nor that city council has control over developers but in my opinion the new council seems to have a vision of a human friendlier more downsized future for downtown. BUT I also probably could have added that with these quaint and small zoning areas in my opinion I do think the areas are too small for a regional competitive enduring city center. That mapping it does come from the planning office? So with this zoning there seems to be opportunity for maybe two or three of those taller or new tallest buildings and lets forget planning too far ahead, Unless possibly there’s so much incredible demand that eventually the zoning allows for it and planning why that’s just for the not so distant future. Sorry I get a bit zealous. From most opinion I have sort of tolerated, residents want Denver to be done with all this tedious change. I’m not sure that would be nice even if it were possible.
James, diverse opinions (including yours) are certainly welcome here and I think there are quite a few topics where there are differences of opinion among commenters, although I’d say that most of the people who comment here are urbanists in general. While there are some members of city council that I think are not necessarily supportive of higher densities in various parts of the city, I’m not aware of any council member who has expressly said they want to decrease the allowed density in downtown proper (feel free to provide evidence of that). The current zoning in downtown with the unlimited height between 14th and 18th and the two Height Areas of 400′ and 200′ (as shown in the map above, which does come from the city’s Zoning Code) has been in place since the 1990s and has been largely unchanged since then. However, if you think that, for example, the two Height Areas should be modified or eliminated to provide more opportunities for very tall buildings in downtown, then that is a perfectly valid position to take. Since it is market supply/demand and financing/economics that drive downtown development (and the height of buildings), as more undeveloped sites like this one at 1900 Lawrence are developed, that makes the value of the remaining ones even higher, which increases the likelihood that a developer will put a taller building on those sites (assuming there is demand for all that extra space). So, in time, I believe we will see more taller buildings in downtown and with that, the possibility that the zoning could be changed to provide more opportunities for greater densities.
Ooh a fight. Let’s see if I can fan the flames. If that last statement was true, Denver’s skyline would not be dominated by three office buildings built in the early 1980s. Pro density? I still see a skyline that looks more appropriate for the likes of Cedar Rapids. Can Stan take any longer to break ground on River Mile? The whole family is an embarrassment to Denver. This city has multiple billionaires with the means to solve the homeless problem and make the city into something more than a parking lot riddled nightmare. No matter where you are, you can walk three blocks and find terrible blight. That doesn’t even include the financial capabilities of the Broncos…you’ll probably end up saying the city is pro tree because they put in 15 trees that will most likely die before they even reach five feet…
Ken’s last statement is absolutely, objectively true. You’re not accepting reality for some reason. Denver’s planning office is, in fact, pro-density, and are, in fact, enthusiasts of downtown development. This is an objective truth that is out in the open for everyone to see. Your denial of it and your “assertion” Ken responded to, amounts to a conspiracy theory.
The vast majority of the CBD skyline (including Denver’s three tallest) was built during one massive building boom during the late 70’s and early 80’s – the likes of which never happened in Denver before or since. (And remember, our current boom is spread out throughout downtown’s peripheral neighborhoods – many of which are much hotter markets that the CBD – much unlike that boom of several decades ago.) Since then, there have been plenty of whole-hearted, desperate attempts to build a supertall in Denver. They all tried their best but, to put it simply, no one would give them the money. It’s extremely difficult to finance a supertall in a medium-sized market like Denver – which is why it almost never happens. Such a prohibitively risky project would need to have a certain proportion of office space pre-leased or a certain percentage of condos pre-sold, etc., and that’s not an easy thing to do considering how long it takes to bring such a massive (both in terms of cost and scale) project to fruition. Who is going to put money down on a condo that won’t actually be available for 5 or more years, and likely (based on how well such pie-in-the-sky proposals have fared in Denver’s past) won’t ever be built at all? What company would plan on expanding, so far into the future, into – for all intents and purposes – theoretical space? These projects you’re hoping for are extremely expensive – not just overall, but on a per-square-foot basis. They simply don’t pencil out well in smaller markets. Denver will get one eventually; I have no doubt – but it’s going to require exceptional circumstances such as a massive Fortune 500 company moving its corporate headquarters to Downtown Denver, or a major NYC developer (not like that last clown) with “deep pockets,” and extraordinary vision, that sees something in Denver that they don’t see in Orlando, or Minneapolis, or Portland, or Tampa, or any other of Denver’s burgeoning peers.
This is also not the first time I have replied to you. I’m beginning to wonder if you’re even willing to accept any possibilities other than what you are, by all appearances, zealously (and irrationally) committed to.
Check!
C’mon fellow James. Realistically, what could a government body do to force the market to produce supertalls? In recent years, the city has shown firm commitment to transit-oriented density in Union Station, Rino, Arapahoe Square and elsewhere. It could all be taller (or slimmer in the case of Welton’s land barges), but I’d love to see any of us commenters try to finance a 50-story office building. You’ll just have to accept the fact you don’t live in Miami or New York or Hong Kong. Denver just isn’t a city that focuses on height at the moment and that’s okay. Why is that such an issue? The city could spend all the time in the world offering incentives for supertalls to force us onto the world stage but I’d like to think they focus on more pressing issues that make Denver a good place to live, especially at the street level. Even if that means debating camping bans for years because the city’s billionaires don’t seem to care. You’re on to something there. I digress, there are plenty of ugly, non-historical buildings in the CBD that can be demolished and replaced with supertalls. There’s so much room to grow, I personally see no need to worry about Denver reaching the world stage for skyscrapers (or at the very least, unique and engaging skylines). My one concern is that developers won’t take advantage of that huge parking crater at Broadway and 19th st. Anyway, Mile High CRE just reported that the city secured funding to expand 113 tree planting areas. How many have you planted lately?
Although we aren’t constructing the same number of skyscrapers that Austin, SF, or NYC might be, I’m excited for how Denver is urbanizing on the whole. We have a massive rail system with exciting projects, such as the Gates District, Market Station, 38th and Blake, and McGregor Square, that will greatly enhance the urban feel of the city.
There is no shortage of “world class cities” without skyscrapers: Washington DC, Boston, Paris, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and on and on. The quality of a city is subjective and complex. I’ve lived in DC, NYC, Boston and now Denver. For me (I live in the CBD) Denver is my favorite.
Agree with Scott – but Paris has a ton of Skyscrapers. https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-view-towards-grande-arche-de-la-defense-paris-downtown-141192233.html
I really appreciate the posts and updates on this site. Denver is becoming denser and bigger. This is evident not only downtown, but also at DIA – that entire area is in a boom and soon the boom there will have a trickle down effect into downtown. We are a major metropolitan area. We have all the major sports teams, beautiful mountains, no hurricanes, no earthquakes or floods and get those random 4 foot snowstorms that us technology folks love because they give us work from home days. I have been back to this site year after year – thank you! And I do believe that we could have some tall buildings in our future, I wouldn’t bet against it – and I get butterflies in my stomach when I read about that area of downtown east and south of the Cash Register. With the growth along the foothills, I wonder if one day I will see a Hollywood sign plastered on the mountains north of where the School of Mines M is located and south of the flatirons!
Go Denver!
Not going to make the same argument that city councils should be blue to compel developers to build taller buildings, but I still strongly contend that height limits within walking distance of mass transit are antithetical to urbanist principals. Sunlight, sightlines, skyline shape—these are silly arbitrary standards that have zero bearing on what should be the goal of modern, efficient, walkable living in a world without cars. I’m thrilled someone wants to build a 30-story structure on a parking lot. I just fail to see why it’s more desirable for that plot of land than a 40-story structure. I wish there was a stronger movement to abolish these outdated guidelines. Our city would solve a lot of its problems if it were to build more density where it already exists.