New Project: 7th and Grant Apartments

A new multifamily residential development is coming to Denver’s Capitol Hill district at the corner of East 7th Avenue and Grant Street. The eight-story building will contain 176 apartment units along with 213 vehicle parking spaces.

Here’s a Google Earth aerial showing the project location:


This new project—referred to for now as just “7th and Grant”—is being developed by Denver-based SmithJones Partners. The rendering below, courtesy of SmithJones, shows the proposed building looking southeast at the 7th and Grant corner. The one-story building behind on the left is the Trader Joe’s grocery store that opened in September 2014.


The 7th and Grant project is currently under development review with the city, so the project’s attributes and design are subject to change.

SmithJones Partners hopes to break ground on the project in early 2016.

By | 2016-12-01T17:52:57+00:00 December 19, 2015|Categories: Capitol Hill, Infill, Residential, Urban Design|Tags: |15 Comments


  1. Julio December 20, 2015 at 3:23 pm

    That’s unfortunate. There are some perfectly good older homes that will be torn down for another modernist apartment building. I don’t know why this city lets its history be flushed down the toilet so easily. Especially when there are many empty parking lots nearby that should be developed. Every historic home lost is a piece of Denver history lost and it’s just so sad to me.

    • Jerry G December 20, 2015 at 10:51 pm

      First, those older “homes” were not actually being used as homes, but as offices. Second, residential growth in the city was virtually halted through the 70s, 80s and even 90s. If that had not been the case, then these buildings likely would have been torn down and replaced with something larger decades ago, considering how this location is to downtown. Now it is finally happening. Third, “early historic homes” are almost everywhere and not all of them are worth saving. Trying to save every historic single family home does not bring back the larger mixed-use structures that were torn down, but saving the remaining larger, historic, mixed-use structures is worth it. Do that. Finally, the city cannot dictate what properties get developed and which ones don’t. Unfortunately, not all parking lots are for sell because the owners are making money from all those people who still drive. Push for better options to driving and keeping parking lots around will then become less profitable.

    • Anthony December 21, 2015 at 9:08 am

      I don’t think people on this blog will disagree with you that surface parking should be the low hanging fruit for redevelopment. I know I certainly don’t.

      If you consider that the location is the primary consideration in this building, which I believe it is due to its proximity to Cherry Creek and the 7th Avenue restaurants, there are four viable surface lots nearby. 7th and Sherman is owned and utilized by 7 News; they’re likely not willing to sell. The lot on Grant between 7th and 8th has two owners, the north half is DHA and the southern half is owned by the same entity who owns the building Bones is in and leases spaces to Benny’s. I agree this isn’t the best use of land here, but the owner probably thinks differently. The lot on Lincoln between 7th and 8th is partially owned by the same folks who own 789 Sherman. While parking on Sherman or 7th during the day is relatively easy (compared to after 6:00), it’s still difficult because people who live in the area walk, bike, or bus to work often. There’s no on-street parking on 8th at any time and closing the curb cuts on Lincoln would only create about 7-10 spaces.

      The lot on Logan between 7th and 8th is probably the best candidate as the southern half is owned by Governor’s Park Lofts and the northern half is owned by the State of Colorado. While neither is ever remotely full, the state may think they need that lot for the very rare (but high profile) events that take place occasionally at the Governor’s Mansion. Additionally, it’s on a very steep hill which I thought was a constraint at first but it could make excavation and the opportunity for an “underground” parking structure easier and cheaper.

      None of this is to say any of these lots are serving a noble purpose, or are performing at their highest and best use. It’s simply to point out that sometimes, for better or worse, people just don’t want to sell their land. Also, I haven’t heard anything in particular about the condition of those houses. I love them from the outside, especially as a little pocket of single family residential in an otherwise high density or commercial area, but the structural bones could be beyond repair for all we know (I doubt it, but I’m just saying we don’t know that).

    • Kylem December 21, 2015 at 9:29 am

      I agree with you Julio. The homes here are perfectly fine and it seems odd that they are tearing those down.

      • Alex tooke December 24, 2015 at 7:44 am

        As a former tenant of those offices I can tell you they were falling apart on the inside. We were sad to have to move but this is a great development. All of this homes were gutted and used as offices so nothing to be saved on the index as the exteriors fell in to disrepair.

  2. Today’s Headlines | Streetsblog Denver December 21, 2015 at 9:06 am

    […] “Walkable” 7th and Grant Development to Have More Parking Spaces Than Apartment Units (DenverInfill) […]

    • Citizen Kane December 21, 2015 at 11:59 am

      Apartment buildings such as this one have a mix of unit types – studio, 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, and sometimes 3-bedroom. The parking count is a ratio (most likely 1:1 or so) based on the number of bedrooms, not the number of units.

      • Ken Schroeppel December 21, 2015 at 12:04 pm

        The city uses parking space/unit (not bedroom) ratio as its primary metric. The ratio can be expressed as parking spaces/bedroom, but in my comparison I’ve used spaces/unit for consistency across all projects. Even if Ascent has a higher percentage of two- and three-bedroom units than other projects nearby, it is still too much parking for our city’s most pedestrian/transit-focused area.

        • Citizen Kane December 21, 2015 at 12:36 pm

          Most certainly the city uses the space/unit metric, and I understand you using it accross all projects – it’s a much easier comparison to draw as unit mixes are often not readily available.
          But, city requirements and developer requirements concerning marketability and livibility are two different things. In my experience, pushing the ration below 1:1 per bedroom is an undesirable characteristic. Sure, a 1:1 ratio results in parking counts that look high, and technically are from a zoning/code standpoint, but result in a more livable/marketable project from the developer’s standpoint.

  3. Mark smith December 21, 2015 at 12:14 pm

    Old houses are no more history than old cars. Modern apartments mean more people can utilize the space than a fmaily of two or maybe three.

    The real tragedy here is that grant is a 3 lane one way.

  4. Citizen Kane December 21, 2015 at 12:40 pm

    Now. Even though I understand the developer requirements for parking, I would love to see lower parking ratios accross the board.
    Hopefully as driving and parking become more cumbersome and expensive, and as public transportation and biking infrastructure improve you will see fewer people driving and fewer people owning cars.
    I think Denver is moving in that direction, but progress is slow.
    For now, the car still rules.

  5. Monique Lovato December 21, 2015 at 2:49 pm

    And no mention of how many units will be affordable, at what level????

    • Julio December 22, 2015 at 11:03 am

      We can assume none of them will be affordable Monique. These developments are only for the upper middle class “new Denver” not for any of us who have lived in the city for generations and can barely afford to live here any longer. As you can see from most of the commenters, they don’t want anything to do with the “old” Denver be that historic buildings or its people being able to afford to continue to live in this community.

      • JerryG December 22, 2015 at 12:47 pm

        An historic single family home that is in good shape but resides in a hot, in-demand, neighborhood will be no more affordable than a new condo in the same location. Recall the old adage “location, location, location?” Affordability is not just about new versus old, it’s also about desirability of location. I am certain there are much more affordable single family homes in Denver, but not necessarily in the most desirable locations. Addressing affordability in Denver is about increasing the diversity and number of housing options and making those ‘less desirable’ locations more practical for living: improved transit, walkability, increasing retail/grocery options, etc.

      • Jorge Gonzalez December 23, 2015 at 9:55 am

        Yes, Julio is definitely accurate on affordability. I know with new construction condos (which unfortunately there are so very few right now), the city requires developments of 30+ condos to have affordable units where the city basically places caps on price, annual appreciation and income levels who can apply for those condos and you will see a few affordable for sale condos for example in the East West Partners development at 17th & Wewetta for example and I do know there is 1 affordable apartment project that somewhat recently got completed by Union Station, but in general these high demand locations that you see under construction between Cherry Creek & the Highlands for example don’t have anything affordable about them.

        Conversely, there are some locations within central Denver (Glendale is 1 example), where you can find more affordable condos or apartments to rent relative to what rents are doing in nicer buildings and these locations above that I mention. This is a huge topic of discussion with local governments and will certainly continue, but basically to find more affordable complexes with rents, you will have to target older buildings that don’t have all the amenities or upgrades compared to these new construction buildings or will have to move further and further away from central Denver to certain parts of Aurora, Thornton & Northglenn for example (just to name a few).

Comments are closed.