Building Height Restriction in Colorado Springs: Good or Bad? (neighborhoods, buy)

[iknowftbll]

More discussion on ideas to improve downtown Colorado Springs.

First, I think Colorado Springs has a very nice downtown, but that they have a lot of untapped potential. With some tweaks to existing neighborhoods, and some redevelopment of others (as I've outlined on my UFL thread), Colorado Springs can have a great downtown that would rival any city of comparable size.

So how should the city tap into their potential?

The city currently has height restrictions on buildings downtown. They were ready to waive these regulations for the 22 story Cooper Tower, a project that was eventually shelved due to financing and the economy. The 20 story Pikes Peak Place is on hold due to economic reasons, but I cannot find any info on how tall this structure is supposed to be. They may be able to fit it under the current restricted limits.

My question is this: Should Colorado Springs repeal its height restrictions? Or at a minimum, expand it another 100-150 feet? Or should they maintain what they have, in the interest of preserving views of Pikes Peak?

[iknowftbll]

Since I posed the question, I'll be one of the first to answer it.

Ultimately, I fit somewhere in the middle. I do not want to see Colorado Springs building 50+ story towers downtown, but I would favor a modest increase in the current height restriction. Certainly no more than 400 feet maximum height.

More important than actual height, I would concern myself with two other aspects:

1) Design. If a building is well designed, it is pleasant to look at regardless of how tall it is. I spend some time living in San Diego. The tallest building there is about 34 stories and 400 feet. Many criticize the San Diego skyline as not being "tall enough" for a city its size (1.3 million). I say it doesn't matter. It is a good looking skyline with many well designed buildings. I think it is one of the most pleasant looking skylines in the country.

2) Street-level amenities. Many people who go downtown will not have any reason whatsoever to go to the 40th floor of an office tower. If the object is to bring more pedestrians downtown, we can accomplish this just as effectively with less expensive developments that are 3-4 stories tall. Shops, restaurants, clubs, etc... are all usually on the ground level. I consider this an important aspect when considering any development downtown.

With these considerations in mind, I think that a skyline with several buildings in the 8-12 story range, supplemented with a few in the 18-20 story range is ideal. I am not against high rises, but a great downtown does not need high rises to be great. It can do it by creating a vibrant street-level atmosphere where people want to be.

Colorado Springs can accomplish this with the current restrictions, or a modest increase in the limits on the restrictions.

[Mike from back east]

One of the reasons DC is considered so lovely is the height restrictions, generally about 13-14 stories inside the city.

I don't like the height of Cooper Tower. The city needs a cap on how tall, else you get a race to have highest, biggest, etc.

If we get a bunch of downtown towers, it plays hell with commuting patterns, and we get into the east coast style "hub and spoke" traffic flows where it's all "inbound" in the morning and "outbound" in the evening; IMO the root cause of gridlocked roads. Having been through 40+ years of that sort of mess in both Baltimore and DC, believe me, hub and spoke is a nightmare for everyone; commuters, road and traffic planners, police, etc.

[iknowftbll]

It's interesting that you mention D.C. because that city's downtown with all the low-rises is sort of where I developed my idea for this thread. Now Colorado Springs is not D.C. (thankfully). But taking the concept of several 12 story towers would bolster downtown and preserve the dramatic backdrop of Pikes Peak.

I didn't mind that they raised the limit for Cooper Tower. If I'm not mistaken it was only 10 feet taller and I believe the city council viewed it as a springboard to other projects downtown. I maintain hope that the project can be revived when the economy swings around.

[CTownNative]

I don't really like height restrictions for building skyscrapers in cities. But Colorado Springs isn't the largest populated area. I feel like a skyline should reflect the actual population of a city. In Colorado Springs' case I don't think they would need a building any bigger than what you said iknowftbll around 400 feet. And I think the idea of building up is good. Honestly this city doesn't need to sprawl much more than it already has. There is plenty of room for this city to grow in population in the land area it already has imo. Though I wouldn't expect anything soon with the way the economy is right now. Right now the main focus needs to be how to create jobs in the city and all over Colorado. We don't need a bunch of vacant 12 to 30 story buildings downtown till we actually have companies to move into them.

[iknowftbll]

I don't necessarily buy into a skyline reflecting the size of a city. Cities are a product of their geography and the generation in which they grew. Over on the "city vs city" page there are constant arguments over what city has a better skyline for all sorts of reasons. Does it really matter?

I bring this topic up so we can discuss methods of infill in downtown Colorado Springs that will enhance the city without ruining it. I think even 400 feet may be too high a limit, maybe 300 would be better. I know I must sound really boring. Sorry.

And as you alluded, none of this is going to get off the ground in this economy. At this point it's just discussion while we weather the storm.

[Josseppie]

The height restrictions are gone for part of downtown Colorado Springs after the city passed the form based codes.

I found this on line:

Colorado Springs’ Downtown Form-based Codes has now been in effect for over one year now. The changes in the code for Colorado Springs were beneficial modifications for neighboring property owners, downtown visitors, users and developers. Not only is the downtown form-based code now more appropriate for downtown, which formerly allowed conventional suburban development to impose itself in a pedestrian setting, but the process and predictability are now much greater.

The link: form-based code « Olson Planning & Urban Landscapes

[iknowftbll]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

It might be on their web site but I am told its as good as dead.

I took the time to email the contact on their website. He confirmed that the project is on hold and not canceled. Maybe your sources that "told you" otherwise know better. You would think that if Nor'Wood had canceled a project that somebody would tell their spokesperson!

As we say in the military, "trust, but verify"

[iknowftbll]

While the post on the Form Based Codes is interesting, I don't see how it lifts the height restrictions. This seems to allow for a more fluid process from office to retail to residential in buildings downtown. While it is a "no-brainer", and makes for better use of existing structures, it doesn't lift height restrictions.

Unless this link related to one out of several new codes.

[CTownNative]

Originally Posted by iknowftbll

I don't necessarily buy into a skyline reflecting the size of a city. Cities are a product of their geography and the generation in which they grew. Over on the "city vs city" page there are constant arguments over what city has a better skyline for all sorts of reasons. Does it really matter?

I bring this topic up so we can discuss methods of infill in downtown Colorado Springs that will enhance the city without ruining it. I think even 400 feet may be too high a limit, maybe 300 would be better. I know I must sound really boring. Sorry.

And as you alluded, none of this is going to get off the ground in this economy. At this point it's just discussion while we weather the storm.

I think a skyline like Albuquerque's would be a good model for Colorado Springs, do you agree?