DenverInfill Blog

Oh come on, does anyone think this will happen.
 

i wouldn't be shocked at all if this happened. in fact, i see this building being one of many future residential high rises lining both sides of speer blvd from the golden triangle to the cpv. once built out, this edge of downtown will be well-defined and will also look very impressive...especially from street level.
 

I would be seriously upset if I was Mr Geller and they decided not to let m ebuild my tower on that block. Especially after he graciously did the land swap for the new justice center. They owe him the right to build it if you ask me.
 

I think this building could help to visually tie Downtown in with the Central Platte Valley. It would be a good intermediate step between the tall towers in the Central Downtown area with the shorter towers of the Central Platte Valley when viewed from the North or South, especially along I-25. Since the tower is set a little bit outside the core of tall office towers, it reaches out to a new section of sky and, when viewed from a distance, makes this area seem as though it's part of the core - the buildings in between will be grouped with Downtown rather than as periphreal mid-rises. Thus it makes Denver's Downtown skyline seem to dominate a wider swath of the horizon.

That said, I think we do need to make a point to acknowledge Denver's height limits for the function they serve. Limiting the very tallest buildings to the center of Downtown keeps the skyline tidy to prevent the scattered, decentralized skyline that cities like Miami have. It doesn't prevent high-rise development, but rather, re-focuses it. Miami has one of the best collections of tall buildings in the country, but since they're spaced along the coast they don't form the picturesque cluster that becomes iconic to a city - it's skyline isn't nearly as identifiable on sight as the skylines of San Francisco, Seattle and most of all, Chicago and New York. Miami's skyline has some great features, but they aren't right for Denver. Lets hope Denver's height resctrictions are always reasonable enough to let the city grow but strict enough to preserve a distinct core.
 

hell yes! this will happen Mr. Geller has fought hard and long for this opportunity and he won, you nerd!
 

Matt P. is right on again, as is the anonymous poster who wrote about future highrises on Speer. Not only would a tower at this location act as a nice southwestern anchor for the skyline, it would provide continuity with the Golden Triangle's set of highrises. I've never liked the way the urban environment of Larimer Square peters out at 14th, with nothing but a bleak parking lot (longtime Denverites will remember that this lot used to be northbound Speer, before it was realigned south of the creek) to anchor the squares's southern end.
 

Are there any concerns about the building casting to much of a shadow on Larimer Square, particularly in the winter? Does Denver even take this into account when reviewing plans?

I like the project and the developer seems rather ambitious to get it going. It would be great to see some development take across Speer and realy push pedestrian connectivity between the two.

Better yet, bury Speer for a block or so (from between Lawrence & Larimer to between Market and Larimer. The Larimer bridge could be a pedestrain bridge. Probably a bit to ambitious, but it would be perfect, imo.
 

Similar to what Mr Mystery wrote, I think it's critical that subareas 02 and 03 get built out along with this skyscaper. I like the building in the rendering, but if those other blocks stay the way they are, the skyscraper will be awfully lonely out there. We need to get that fire station moved, and we need a strong transition between Larimer Square and the river!
 

AMEN! incorporate the river!
 

What I don't understand is Geller has so much land downtown, why is he fighting so hard in this one spot? Also on that note I wished he would spend some money on his Paradise Cleaners store at Colfax and Adams - if he builds new buildings like he takes care of that one then be very nervous.
 

The building may seem "lonely" now but remember that the proposed Four Seasons and the Great Gulf Tower would be only a couple blocks away, maybe even visible from the angle shown in this entry's photo.
 

"What I don't understand is Geller has so much land downtown, why is he fighting so hard in this one spot? Also on that note I wished he would spend some money on his Paradise Cleaners store at Colfax and Adams - if he builds new buildings like he takes care of that one then be very nervous."

Location, location, location. This parcel is probably the most desirable one at present to develop on. His other parcels can be considered to have future potential, but nothing like this one has at the present.

As for his Paradise Cleaners store; I know that Geller was one of the first proponents of main-street zoning on Colfax, and subsequently watched his events shot down. Perhapes now that zoning has been approved he'll make a move on his property.
 

A and whats up with his parcel on the other side of downtown where his proposed hotel dream is in the making?
 

Alert: Please help prevent Denver from becoming the next Paris. I know, that might sound odd, what's wrong with Paris? It's an amazing city, right? Paris has long been a victim of urban sprawl. You all know what suburban sprawl is, right? Well, welcome to the new term of urban sprawl. It occurs when city planners, so fearful of the impact of tall buildings on the surroundings, that they squelch the plans and keep the buildings short. This has two negative impacts on the city they do not, apparently, consider in their zeal to supposedly ensure the city 'looks good'? (A) Land is consumed rapidly for projects that in the long-run will NOT encompass sufficient cubic feet to meet the demands of the site, (B) the city center becomes to large to be convenient. The whole point of a downtown center is high density living. This is to contrast Paris and Chicago for example. Chicago is arguably the nation's most liveable down town city. It's larger than Manhattan in size, but no much larger that one cannot walk from Hancock to Sears in less than half an hour or easily hop the bus or subway. Denver city planners are on the verge (with their latest 'bad' decision being the lower density Union Station proposal approval, of turning Denver into the nation's most unlivable city where people will not be able to easily walk from one end of down town to the other in under half an hour. They are approving project afer project of a grandiose 13 stores or 15 stories and saying "bravo" we just got rid of another surface parking lot and protected the views and the look and feel of the short buildings around the lot. This is a tragic mistake for which they may never pay, but their grandchildren will. Cities grow. Gone are the days of people living in fear of cities. In every major city in the USA people are flocking back to the down town areas for renewed culture, more environmentally friendly living, and the convenience. The generations of people that fled the cities due to urban school integration etc., don't share the same racist values of the past. Today's people want to live in a diverse, vibrant, flourishing community. This means urban living. This means we need to band together and actively work to persuade the Denver City Planning Commission to reject the 'short is best' philosophy that is threatening to turn Denver into a sprawling urban mess. If three developers are eyeing 3 surface parking lots for 10 story buildings, it's time for the city planners and the Mayor to step in and say, you three need to work together to design 1 30-story building, and the city will bank the other 2 lots for the future when three more developerse each want to build 15-story buildings. It is patently ridiculous as anyone who as ever been to NYC or Chicago or Seattle or Hong Kong for that matter to suggest that tall buildings ruin views or look out of scale. They only look out of scale in a city where the planners have prevented tall buildings for years due to a concern that tall buildings will look out of scale. Denver was the victim of Stapleton being too close to Downtown for decades and the FAA restrictions. That's no longer a problem. We can now allow buildings as tall as people are willing to build them. Right now, there is a flood of short projects because developers still find the land is not that scarce, so building up is more expensive than building out. Ah ha, that's the fundamental principle that drives suburban sprawl, isn't it? Well, if one studies the history of downtown Chicago, as I have, one would know that it began in the 1960s when people suddenly started to begin to move down town again. The Hancock building (the world's tallest condo building) was built. Most people at first felt it would never sell out. Condos at the time were relatively cheap. Now look at it! And now look at Chicago in general. I hope it's obvious I'm talking only about downtown Chicago, and not the sprawling urban mess of its suburbs which are no better than ours. But, our entire region will be as bad as our suburbs if we continue to allow our downtown to be graced with 10-15 story buildings all over the place. Because in another 10 years, there won't be any more places to build 10-15 story buildings except outside the current perimeter of what Denverites consider Downtown Denver. Which means there will have to be an expansion of that perceived perimeter and the construction of ever-more 10-15 story buildings to a point where, as previously stated, the distance between one end of the perimeter and the other will exceed the walking capacity of most human beings in 30 minutes time, which, in the opinion of this author, is a bad sign for a city's health and well-being. It makes a city unliveable unless, like NYC, there is an outstanding subway system which, unless someone has a very secret plan, Denver is never going to be able to have.