Does Denver need a new Tallest? (Boulder, Center: apartment, living in, cost of)

[KaaBoom]

Originally Posted by iknowftbll

I know a lot of people here on C-D rag on Denver's parking lots downtown, but here's a thought: they really serve a purpose. The thing about filling in parking lots is that you have to replace them with something. People come downtown and need to be able to find a place to park. Presumably if you are building a new high rise, then a parking structure would accompany it. But would that parking structure be for the exclusive use of those using the new high rise? Remember, Denver has 3 major sports venues and a performing arts complex downtown. Public transportation is not going to do it all. Filling in parking lots without replacing them in some capacity is not wise.

1. Parking lots do not serve any purpose Downtown. They are not a viable use of land in any major Downtown area anywhere. Especially surface lots are 100% not cost effective in a successful Downtown area. To make a surface parking lot economically feasible in a successful CBD with decent land values, the parking rate would have to be about $100 per hour for each space.

2. Public transit is the only solution for a successful Downtown area. Trying to provide infrastructure for people to drive a densely developed urban area, will ultimately cause even the public transit alternative to fail, due to congestion and slowness caused by the volume of traffic. To see an example of this look at San Francisco. Which while it has some highest use of public transit in the US (about 32%). Yet also has one of the slowest public transit systems, due to congestion.

3. Surface parking lots in a Downtown Area just look bad. Downtown Area + surface parking lots = FAIL.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by iknowftbll

Neither have I. Those street level lots sure do come in handy, do they not?

I don't think I've ever parked in one. If I drive downtown, I always park in the Pavillions garage.

[zenkonami]

Originally Posted by BruceTenmile

Would you care to explain further what you mean by 'same 3 color medium height box buildings with "fins"' and '"modern CPV / LoDo" look'?

Absolutely.

http://denverinfill.com/blog/wp-cont...-Chestnut2.jpg

[BruceTenmile]

Originally Posted by zenkonami

Absolutely.

http://denverinfill.com/blog/wp-cont...-Chestnut2.jpg

Ah riteo. Well that looks nice, but I don't think that style'd suite something more than 10 stories.

[zenkonami]

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

1. Parking lots do not serve any purpose Downtown. They are not a viable use of land in any major Downtown area anywhere. Especially surface lots are 100% not cost effective in a successful Downtown area. To make a surface parking lot economically feasible in a successful CBD with decent land values, the parking rate would have to be about $100 per hour for each space.

2. Public transit is the only solution for a successful Downtown area. Trying to provide infrastructure for people to drive a densely developed urban area, will ultimately cause even the public transit alternative to fail, due to congestion and slowness caused by the volume of traffic. To see an example of this look at San Francisco. Which while it has some highest use of public transit in the US (about 32%). Yet also has one of the slowest public transit systems, due to congestion.

3. Surface parking lots in a Downtown Area just look bad. Downtown Area + surface parking lots = FAIL.

I agree. Improved downtown transit can facilitate larger numbers of people with less congestion. If we could replace those surface lots with buildings, then we could actually improve the people-centric nature of the downtown area rather than clogging it with an auto-centric nature.

Just consider for a moment how much space we waste / use up accommodating cars that could be used on housing, retail, office, small industrial, recreational, educational, artistic and other purposes. Instead, we require a lot of asphalt for moving vehicles around a moderately dense area and then require even more square footage of asphalt for storing those vehicles while WE (the ones that actually DO things) get out and participate in our economy and culture. It is not efficient.

Replacing these lots with ANY reasonably sized building could be a great improvement if done carefully and with foresight.

[zenkonami]

Originally Posted by BruceTenmile

Ah riteo. Well that looks nice, but I don't think that style'd suite something more than 10 stories.

While, I think it's a tired look myself, but I do agree with you that it would not suit something taller than 10 stories. I'd like to see building that look like they would stand the test of time. All this glass seems so temporary as the dominant building block of our taller structures. While I certainly approve of windows, I wish we had more in the architecture that looked like it might be around in 100 years.

[insightofitall]

Originally Posted by BruceTenmile

Anyway, the 3 tallest buildings of Denver have been the same since the 80s.

Pardon the intrusion here from a total outsider, but don't feel so bad about those 3 tallest buildings in Denver. They're each close to, or just over, 700' in height. But look at Cincinnati. For 80 years, the tallest building there was only 574'. It wasn't until this year that the new tallest opened...and it's only 665'.

So don't sneeze at what you have there in Denver.

[davidv]

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

Sorry thats an interesting theory, but that is not a valid reason why skyscrapers get built. Nobody, and I mean nobody builds a $2 billion building just to put a TV transmitter on top. It's not necessary. You don't need a building for that. The tallest structure in North America is the KVLY-TV mast. And it is not on a mountain or on top of a building. It sites in a cow pasture in North Dakota. Its way taller then any skyscraper and costs a fraction of the price.

As a matter of fact, I can't think of any cities other the NY and Chicago that have transmitters on top of skyscrapers (though I'm sure there are more). And in those cases, I think it is more a matter of land value, then it being the best place for a transmitter. Just sayin.

You'll notice I said ONE reason to have a very tall skyscraper is for antennas. The skyscraper exists because of the high land values that exist in the CBD. But, a builder can be convinced to design a taller building if he can generate more revenue by leasing the roof to tv and radio stations. These contracts are very lucrative and last for a significant amount of time. In addition to tv and radio, many other tall buildings have cell phone transmission antennas on the top. This is a common practice, as NIMBYism often prevents stations from build tall radio/tv masts in the areas around cities.

[BruceTenmile]

Originally Posted by insightofitall

Pardon the intrusion here from a total outsider, but don't feel so bad about those 3 tallest buildings in Denver. They're each close to, or just over, 700' in height. But look at Cincinnati. For 80 years, the tallest building there was only 574'. It wasn't until this year that the new tallest opened...and it's only 665'.

So don't sneeze at what you have there in Denver.

No intrusion at all, you live far closer to Denver than I do. I guess it's not really about what height the tallest is, it's about the lack of change. Cincinnati clearly has a far greater lack of change, but I really love the Carew Tower so that doesn't bother me, but I don't absolutely love any of Denver's 3.

[insightofitall]

Originally Posted by BruceTenmile

No intrusion at all, you live far closer to Denver than I do. I guess it's not really about what height the tallest is, it's about the lack of change. Cincinnati clearly has a far greater lack of change, but I really love the Carew Tower so that doesn't bother me, but I don't absolutely love any of Denver's 3.

Oh, I feel like a doofus......I thought you were in Denver. I guess I need to do a better job of looking at someone's location under their join date.

I think Denver's tallest towers were built at a time when simpler building designs were popular. Thus they don't have the cutbacks and other ornate features that you see with art deco buildings such as Carew Tower. But I've always liked the Wells Fargo building. Whenever I saw it, I instantly recognized it was in Denver.