Skyline Discussion Thread (Denver, Colorado Springs, Golden: lofts, how much, high school)

[iknowftbll]

I think Denver has a very nice, as well as impressive skyline. It is much more impressive than a lot of cities that are much larger (see Phoenix, San Jose, Jacksonville, Memphis, to name a few) and there are some exciting projects rising now, as well in the planning stages.

So I was reading a few random blogs today about some of the development going on in Downtown Denver, and wondered what some of you guys and gals think about it all.

Here are some thoughts and questions for us to toss around:

-With the Spire and 4 Seasons, as well as a few additional mid-rises the skyline's density is increasing.

-4 Seasons will top out at 45 floors, instead of the 48 initially planned. Still because of its location, it will be taller than the buildings immediately around it and will nicely balance the skyline.

-Anyone foresee a new tallest in Denver anytime soon?

-Anyone care to discuss the possibility of a supertall ever being built in Denver?

Just some ideas. I can't wait until I can visit again to see the most recent additions!

[steveindenver]

San Jose. Jacksonville and Memphis are larger?

[iknowftbll]

Yeah, they are if you factor just the city proper. San Jose is hovering around 1,000,0000 right now, Jacksonville has around 800,000 and Memphis about 675,000. Denver has just under 600,000 but a larger metro area than Jacksonville or Memphis.

[denver_hacker]

Originally Posted by iknowftbll

Yeah, they are if you factor just the city proper. San Jose is hovering around 1,000,0000 right now, Jacksonville has around 800,000 and Memphis about 675,000. Denver has just under 600,000 but a larger metro area than Jacksonville or Memphis.

FWIW, San Jose just crossed the 1M mark, making it the 10th largest city in the country and third largest in California.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12267294

Great quote:

"San Francisco certainly is a beauty queen," the mayor said. "But if San Francisco is a beauty queen, we're the class valedictorian."

San Jose covers a huge tract of land (~180 square miles), as they went through a massive annexation in the 70s to become the LA of the Bay.

[movementarian]

I kind of like Jacksonville's skyline - they got some cool bridges, the river is a nice backdrop, there is some funky lighting, and the highway drive through it makes it seem pretty cool. I wouldn't consider Denver "much more impressive". Denver's is alright though - certainly no NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, or Atlanta.

[iknowftbll]

Originally Posted by movementarian

I kind of like Jacksonville's skyline - they got some cool bridges, the river is a nice backdrop, there is some funky lighting, and the highway drive through it makes it seem pretty cool. I wouldn't consider Denver "much more impressive". Denver's is alright though - certainly no NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, or Atlanta.

Fair enough. I did not start this thread to make fun of other cities' skylines. Never been to Jacksonville, but seen many pictures. I agree with you that it has an appealing skyline. Nice setting with the river and all.

Also, I don't believe that a city has to have a big impressive skyline to be unique. Just south of Denver is Colorado Springs with 415,000 people and the tallest building there is only 16 stories. But it is set on the backdrop of the mountains being literally across the highway from downtown. And Colorado Springs has an intimate downtown with several restaurants, lofts, and shops. Perfect for a guy like me who is married with 2 kids!

Let me add this. Denver's skyline is impressive enough considering the size of the city. Compare Denver's skyline to Los Angeles' skyline. It is true that Los Angeles has a larger skyline, but considering it is a city of 3.9 million people which anchors a metro of over 17 million, it should. Meanwhile Denver is a city of just under 600,000 and a metro which just passed 3,000,000 last year (congratulations). And its skyline is not significantly behind L.A's. 2 or 3 more towers and it would be right alongside L.A.

Again, I don't mean to pick on other cities. L.A. is just an example of how a skyline can be impressive (or not) when the size of the city is factored in.

[DenverAztec]

I can recall watching the United Bank Building (currently Wells Fargo), the Republic Plaza Building and Qwest being built in the 80s and watching them rise as I sat in my High School classes. I was so excited to see the growth and height and it was all complimented with the 16th Street Mall and free shuttles. I have not been as excited since then until last year when I heard of the building of the Four Seasons and the Spire. The 90s and much of this decade found little to no high-rise development downtown, while the DTC was growing. We have been stuck with the majority of our buildings remaining in that glass box style.

However, the infusion of low level development, LoDo, the stadiums, Six Flaggs a museum addition and basically all of the Golden Triangle has reignited the flame of downtown Denver. Retail is one of the few areas that needs significant improvement, but the residential living has been a huge draw. Though Donald Trump has come and gone with plans for a new tallest, his BK issues and the economy, there are currently no plans for another super tall to be built. I would have loved to have seen the Trango Tower, 89 stories, be built downtown or the Alliance tower, close to 100 floors, in the DTC. But neither panned out.
Though we grow slowly, we grow strongly with carefully thought out planning. Of all the downtowns you mention, we are certainly the most liveliest and most entertaining. You can even add Dallas, Houston and Phoenix to the list and our downtown is still much more impressive for draw with things to do and see.

Personally, I would love to see a super tall that would put us on the map for having a structure in the 80 to 100 floors levels. We always had Stapleton's height restrictions in the past, but that went away when DIA was created. We also have to contend with the regulation that no buildings block the view of the mountains from any Denver park. Some of the new designs were only approved when they narrowed the buildings. Currently there are no plans for a super tall, though there were in the past, the Donald pulled out a few years ago and would have loved to see the Trango Tower, 89 floors, built along with the Alliance Tower in the DTC, close to 100 stories.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by DenverAztec

. . . I can recall . . .

How much of this growth do we think is at least partly attributable to the RTD system?

Just KNOWING that I can get to a downtown WITHOUT having to drive would make me go there, for work or personal reasons.

[D-town 720]

You're right Iknow Denver's skyline is a whole notch (or two) above the cities you mentioned In fact one could argue pound for pound (city pop) Denver has one of the top skyline's(Seattle, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh also come to mind). We were blessed with an energy boom in the eighties that saw something like 20 high-rises built in several years time. There are 42 buildings standing over 300ft, 16 over 400ft, and 7 over 500ft, a total of 198 high-rises (buildings over 90 ft).

The density of the skyline is also quite impressive if you factor in the fact that the skyline is roughly one mile square incorporating most of its high-rises greater than 300ft.

As far as a new tallest I am not to optimistic. Tabor two is still on hold and is estimated at 612ft. There was once a trump tower planned at 715, one foot taller than republic one. But there really hasn't been any talk about a super tall or even new tallest. I think Hickenlooper and the city planners are really more concerned with the density of downtown, specifically residential high-rises which tend to add handsomely to a cities core in terms of foot traffic, new retail etc. I would like to see a new tallest but it may serve our city better to just keep adding 400-600 ft buildings.

Here are some density shots I like

[DenverAztec]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

How much of this growth do we think is at least partly attributable to the RTD system?

Just KNOWING that I can get to a downtown WITHOUT having to drive would make me go there, for work or personal reasons.

A significant amount for those in the burbs, but not so much for those of us within walking distance of downtown. Until Fast Tracks goes to the airport, I cannot use it, but I can use the next line to get to mom's, this will be the line going to Golden. Fast Tracks is still the most aggressive lightrail system in the country, most bigger cities already have one or are fighting development of it. Houstonians and Phonecians are known for fighting lightrails and this is reflected in the development of their downtown cores.

I would have loved it if we kept our trolley rails and cars. The cars use to cover not just downtown but they also went up and down Broadway and Colfax and to Park Hill, the Highlands and the Denver Country Club areas. Now all of that I would and could use daily!