HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/07/2015 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Work SessionPlanning and Zoning Board Page 1 August 7, 2015
Jennifer Carpenter, Chair Conference Room A
Kristin Kirkpatrick, Vice Chair 281 N. College Avenue
Jeff Hansen Fort Collins, Colorado
Gerald Hart 80524
Emily Heinz
Michael Hobbs
Jeffrey Schneider
Regular Work Session
August 7, 2015
12:00 - 5:00 PM
Consent:
1.) July 9, 2015, Draft Minutes
2.) East Ridge Amended ODP (Wray)
3.) PDOD 6-month Extension (Gloss)
4.) Salud Family Health Center Rezoning (Holland)
Discussion:
5.) LUC Revision: Seasonal Overflow Shelters Recommendation to City Council
(Shepard/Beck-Ferkiss/Frickey)
Policy and Legislation:
• Land Use Code – Summer/Fall 2015 proposed Changes (Shepard)
Board Topics:
• Poudre School District Facilities Master Plan (Brendan Willits)
• West Elizabeth Enhanced Travel Corridor (ETC) Plan (Lewin/Belmont)
• Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) (Stokes)
• Downtown Plan Update (Gloss)
• Old Town Neighborhood Plan Update (Wray)
• City Plan Design Issues – Boulder and Denver Test Cases (Gloss)
Planning and Zoning Board
Work Session Agenda
1
2
3
Boulder development 'strategy' rejected in
5-4 vote
By Erica Meltzer, Camera Staff Writer
POSTED: 09/16/2014 10:42:06 PM MDT | UPDATED: 11 MONTHS AGO
Ricardo Acosta, of ISA Construction LLC, works Tuesday to level an area for concrete to be poured at a development site
on the 28th Street frontage road in Boulder. (Jeremy Papasso / Daily Camera)
When City Councilman Sam Weaver's proposal for a moratorium on all new building
projects in Boulder met swift and fierce opposition, he replaced it Tuesday night with a call
for a broader development strategy.
But the council voted 5-4 against pursuing his proposed "comprehensive development
strategy process."
A major update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is already set to start in October.
The majority of City Council members said instead of the proposed development strategy,
they wanted to look at discrete issues such as whether the site review criteria are producing
enough "community benefit" for the concessions made by the city on height and density.
4
Boulder City Councilman Sam Weaver discusses a moratorium he had proposed on development during a study session on
planning policies Tuesday night. He backed off the moratorium, saying it became a "distraction" to the goal of creating a
long-range vision for development in the city. (Jeremy Papasso / Daily Camera)
Weaver, Mary Young, Suzanne Jones and Lisa Morzel voted in favor of the proposed
development strategy, which would have been designed to ensure future development
followed a path "that the citizens of the city believe to be in the city's best interests over the
next 20 years." Mayor Matt Appelbaum and council members George Karakehian, Andrew
Shoemaker, Tim Plass and Macon Cowles voted no.
Late in the night, the council voted unanimously to ask planners to bring information about
possible site review changes and other planning process changes that could produce better
building designs and better meet other city goals to the Oct. 14 meeting that will kick off the
Comprehensive Plan update.
Weaver said the more limited approach to a major community decision was not enough. He
said the development strategy process would inform the Comprehensive Plan.
"The reason a comprehensive development strategy is so important is that it connects the
dots between the aspirations in the Comprehensive Plan and the policies in our code," he
said.
Weaver said the city needs a much more robust public process to engage the public and that
the city needs to come up with "metrics" to look at the impact of development, whether that
is on services such as parks and libraries, on traffic, on carbon or on water use.
5
University of Colorado sophomore Jessica Sandoval walks past a development site Tuesday while walking home on the
28th Street frontage road in Boulder. (Jeremy Papasso / Daily Camera)
Morzel pointed to the north Boulder subcommunity plan process, which was a long, difficult
fight that has led to a vibrant community with a mix of office, retail and housing at a variety
of income levels.
"We only have one community, and we should build it right," Morzel said in seconding the
motion.
Members of PLAN-Boulder County and residents concerned about the direction of
development expressed dismay that the moratorium was off the table and said they want to
see the comprehensive strategy process move forward.
"A number of you have basically pooh-poohed this and said this isn't a big issue," said Steve
Pomerance, a former council member, activist and Camera columnist. "It is a big issue, and
it's not going away. Right now, there is not agreement in this community about where we
should be going. The comp plan is not going to get us there."
Resident Kim Badgett said she decided to throw out her prepared remarks after seeing
developers and council members socializing in between the study session and the start of
the regular meeting.
"Please, keep ignoring us," she said. "Keep flaunting your lack of objectivity. It will only
open more people's eyes."
Sally Schneider, a Boulder resident since the 1970s, said she cries "tears of sadness" with
she drives past the Boulder Junction project at 30th and Pearl streets.
"Once a big, ugly building goes up, it never comes down," she said.
Weaver said explicitly that he does not oppose the Boulder Junction project and that his
proposal is not about any particular project but about ensuring larger development trends
meet the city's goals.
6
For their part, members of the business community and advocates for denser development
applauded the decision to withdraw the moratorium and said there was no reason to start a
separate planning process on the cusp of the comprehensive plan update.
Boulder Chamber CEO John Tayer said the business community needs certainty from the
city. Angelique Espinoza, public affairs director for the chamber, asked the city not to
"throw jobs under the bus," a reference to moratorium proponents who said too many jobs
create additional demand for housing and services.
Appelbaum said he sees no need for a large community conversation.
"The process mostly works pretty well," he said.
7
Boulder councilman proposes moratorium on new
development in city
Sam Weaver: 'It's really important to get
development right'
By Erica Meltzer, Camera Staff Writer
POSTED: 09/13/2014 06:48:12 PM MDT | UPDATED: 11 MONTHS AGO
A worker from wets down potential sparks from the demolition of the former Daily Camera loading
building in June. The site is being redeveloped into a large-scale mixed-use project. (Cliff Grassmick /
Daily Camera)
8
RELATED STORIES
If you go
What: Boulder City Council special study session on planning policies
When: 5 to 7 p.m. Tuesday; a regular City Council meeting follows
Where: Boulder Municipal Building, 1777 Broadway
Amid a building boom that has sparked a backlash from some residents, Boulder Councilman Sam
Weaver wants the city to stop accepting applications for new projects and instead focus on creating a
long-range vision for development that "the largest plurality" of residents can support.
In a message to Hotline, the Boulder City Council's public email system, Weaver said he may make a
motion Tuesday that the city stop accepting applications for projects that require site review or use
review — projects that require Planning Board approval -- until June 30. The city should then use that
time to come up with a Comprehensive Development Strategy that ensures future development serves
the city's long-term interests.
"In my opinion, Boulder planning has fallen short at the most strategic level - how much growth do we
want, of what type, where, when and under what conditions and requirements," he wrote. "We have a
wonderful Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, which is very aspirational and contains many worthwhile
guidelines, but does not provide direction regarding the trade-offs that are part of every specific
planning decision. . .This (Boulder Revised) code has some significant shortcomings and could use a
major overhaul."
In an interview, Weaver said the process he envisions would be similar to the Civic Area Master Plan
process, with multiple opportunities for in-person and online feedback and conversation. The city should
look at things like what the ratio of employment to housing should be, what the city's ultimate size
should be and what the impacts of development are on the city's need to provide services for residents
and workers.
9
Sam Weaver
"It's really important to get development right," he said. "I think going through a building boom with
those flaws in place gets us development that is not what we want to incentivize."
Ray Bridge, a board member of PLAN-Boulder County, which has called for a moratorium on new
development, said the size, design and sheer quantity of new buildings going up in Boulder has
generated a lot of community concern. He said it makes sense to take a break and look at the big
picture, rather than fighting over each individual project.
John Tayer
"As you've seen from a lot of letters to the Camera, lots of people in town are concerned about the
growth that we are experiencing because of the economic pressures and the attractiveness of certain
things to developers," he said. "I think it's time to have a community conversation about what we want.
We really need to figure out what kind of growth we want rather than having things grow because it
happens to be economically attractive to a developer at a particular time.
"(A moratorium) would provide an opportunity to do that, rather than suddenly have another couple of
dozen poorly thought out site plans put into the pipeline and fighting about each one."
'I would hate to see opportunities be lost'
10
Matt Appelbaum
Members of the business community and developers, as well as advocates for alternative transportation
who have supported the trend toward a denser, more urban style of development, all said a moratorium
is a bad idea.
John Tayer, president and CEO of the Boulder Chamber of Commerce, said redevelopment serves the
city's environmental interests by allowing more people to live in Boulder and drive less and the city's
social diversity interests by creating housing for middle-income workers. If the city puts a complete stop
to new projects, it could have a long-term effect on developers' interest in investing in Boulder, he said.
"Uncertainty, which this kind of proposal creates, sends a message to the folks who are working to
achieve community goals through infill and redevelopment activity, that they cannot be sure that their
project will have an opportunity to move forward," he said. "And they make major investments based
on policy and direction from our City Council. If that changes from one day to the next, they are less
likely to make the kind of investments that our community wants to see."
Sue Prant, advocacy director for Community Cycles, said land use and transportation choices are closely
linked. Much of the new development is going in on former industrial sites and is designed in ways that
will encourage more biking and walking. Prant said she has lost employees because they had to live so
far away that biking to work became onerous.
"I would hate to see opportunities be lost and it's years and years before these areas become bike
friendly and people friendly," she said.
Prant said it's hard to judge new buildings when they are still under construction.
"To be looking at the wood or the beams, and it doesn't have any people living in it or any of the things
that are going to go in around it that will give it vibrancy, to look at that and freak out is really
premature," she said.
Developer Michael Boyer said it would be "a big economic mistake" to impose a moratorium on new
development. Boyer, who withdrew his proposal for the 22-acre Hogan-Pancost site in southeast
11
Boulder for more study of flood impacts after facing years of stiff community opposition and who has
another project on hold on University Hill after the City Council imposed a seven-month moratorium on
residential projects there, said the city already has a rigorous process.
"(A moratorium) stops good projects from happening, and our process generally stops bad projects from
happening anyway," he said. "We have such a rigorous vetting process already. In these good economic
times, we have a lot of opportunity to do good things in Boulder right now."
Boyer said he does not believe the moratorium will move forward.
"I believe that council has a lot more sense than to move this quickly on something this radical," he said.
Caution about a possible 'rush to judgment'
Weaver said he spoke individually with a handful of colleagues about the moratorium, but he does not
know if there are five votes on council to support the proposal.
The City Council is holding a special study session from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Tuesday on planning policies. No
formal action can be taken during the study session, but council members can make motions under
"Matters from the City Council" during the regular meeting that will follow.
Councilman George Karakehian said the proposal was "not very well thought out."
"We have the goose that laid the golden egg here in Boulder, and there are a small group of people who
don't like the golden egg," he said, noting that when delegations from other mid-sized cities visit, they
look on Boulder with admiration. "I hope we have enough members of council who are not that radical."
Boulder Mayor Matt Appelbaum said the problems with the development process can be worked out
without a moratorium. He said the trends in recent development are the result of guidance from past
Planning Boards and City Councils and don't, when looked at over a 5- or 10-year period, reflect a
significant amount of growth.
"All of this is worthy of a conversation, but I don't think it's worthy of a panic and a rush to judgment,"
he said. "The only rationale for an immediate stop is that the implications of not doing it are so horrible
for the community that you have no choice. I am hard pressed to see what the horrible outcomes are of
current policies, even as we look to revise some of them."
But Councilwoman Lisa Morzel said the fact that current development is the result of city policies shows
that those policies need to be revisited. She said she would not make up her mind on the moratorium
until after the discussion Tuesday, but she supports the idea.
The mid-rise apartment and condo projects the city has approved haven't provided more affordable
housing, she said, despite the promises.
"I guess the way that I look at it, we have X amount of land left for development, and shouldn't it be for
the broadest community benefit?" she said. "And in our new development, are we truly getting
12
development that houses our workforce? I don't think we are. I think there needs to be some sort of
pause."
Morzel said the right outcome wouldn't necessarily be less dense development; in fact, she would like to
see smaller units and four stories instead of three fit within the city's mid-rise buildings. But Morzel does
not see the current development trends creating what Boulder needs.
Councilwoman Suzanne Jones said she was also inclined to consider a moratorium.
"I think we need some sort of community conversation," she said. "I think we've put off this whole
conversation about density for a long time, and I think we need to have it. And not have a simplistic,
polarized conversation but a nuanced one that looks at all the issues. Often what people say they want
is in conflict, and there are competing values."
Appelbaum said no public process will find broad agreement on development goals.
"There is a division in the community, and at some point the council needs to provide some leadership,"
he said. "There is not going to be consensus."
Contact Camera Staff Writer Erica Meltzer at 303-473-1355 or meltzere@dailycamera.com
13
Boulder eyes targeted code changes to
address discontent over development
City planners to look for ways to get more 'community benefit'
By Erica Meltzer, Camera Staff Writer
POSTED: 09/17/2014 02:31:06 PM MDT | UPDATED: 11 MONTHS AGO
University of Colorado sophomore Jessica Sandoval walks past a development site Tuesday while walking home on the
28th Street frontage road in Boulder. (Jeremy Papasso / Daily Camera)
Boulder planners will spend the next month going through the city's policies to look for
changes that would both more closely tie some notion of "community benefit" to approval of
new development and generate better building design.
The Boulder City Council settled on a relatively small-scale information-gathering process
late Tuesday night after rejecting, by a 5-4 vote, a process that would have led to a
citywide Comprehensive Development Strategy.
14
Councilman Sam Weaver pushed for the more ambitious planning process after
withdrawing a highly controversial proposal to impose a nine-month moratorium on all new
development in Boulder.
Weaver and council members Suzanne Jones, Lisa Morzel and Mary Young voted in favor of
developing the strategy, which would have included a "robust" community engagement
piece to determine what Boulder residents want out of development in the city, as well as
the creation of "metrics" to assess the impact of development on a variety of fronts, from the
need for city and school district services to carbon and water use.
They said the strategy would help inform the 2015 update to the Boulder Valley
Comprehensive Plan, a process that kicks off with a study session Oct. 14. That document
guides development throughout the region.
But the other council members —- Mayor Matt Appelbaum and Macon Cowles, George
Karakehian, Tim Plass and Andrew Shoemaker — said they did not want to enter into a very
open-ended public process when the comprehensive plan update was about to start.
They each identified areas where they thought the current planning process hasn't always
produced the best projects or the most community benefit, but they thought those issues
could be addressed either as part of the comprehensive plan update or as discreet action
items.
Questions for city planners
After the defeat of Weaver's motion, the council voted unanimously to support a motion
from Cowles and Plass that asked the planning staff to come back with answers to a series of
questions:
Do by-right developments result in better projects than those that go through
discretionary review? (By-right projects are those that comply with all the existing rules,
such that the owner has the right to develop them in that manner without special approval.)
Are there process changes that would result in more improvement to the "public realm"
and better building design?
Are there process changes that would lead to more predictability for developers as they
work with the city?
Are there changes to site review criteria (the criteria the Planning Board uses in
determining whether to approve a project ) that would result in better building design?
15
What role does "community benefit" play in whether projects get height, density and
other exemptions, and does that term need to be defined?
Would it be feasible to develop a 3-D model of the city's zoning capacity to
understand what future growth would look like under existing rules?
Getting more specific
Folded within those questions are several dozen specific policy issues identified by council
members in emails they sent to Hotline, the council's public email list, before the special
study session on planning issues that preceded the regular meeting Tuesday.
Those include:
Height modifications and their relationship to community benefit
Density bonuses, including how they are calculated, how they relate to other community
goals and how they affect aesthetics of buildings
Design and aesthetics of buildings
Growth management, and how effective it is and what exemptions exist
Fees and taxes, including how well they cover the costs of development
Smaller residential units, and how the land use code discourages smaller units that
might be more affordable
On-site affordable housing versus allowing developers to build off-site or even give cash
in lieu of building actual affordable housing
Preserving existing affordable housing, such as mobile home parks
Review the allowed uses, impacts and expectations that come from zoning
Council members in the majority said they didn't believe the planning process needs a major
overhaul, but they did feel that the city was getting "the least objectionable," rather than the
best, buildings.
They also said they felt there was too little connection between benefits to the community,
whether that was more affordable housing or more transit-oriented development, and
exemptions to the city's density and height requirements.
The planning staff will make recommendations Oct. 14 on what issues can be folded into
existing efforts, such as the Comprehensive Housing Strategy, Envision East Arapahoe and
the Comprehensive Plan update, and which would be separate efforts.
16
Proponents of a moratorium on development warned the City Council that half-measures
were not going to address the rising community backlash against too much development.
But Sue Prant of Community Cycles, who opposed the moratorium and the comprehensive
development strategy as likely to discourage denser, more bike-friendly development, said
the City Council might find consensus elusive.
"If council is going to take on this issue, you need to show leadership and be willing to say
no to certain groups," she said.
Contact Camera Staff Writer Erica Meltzer at 303-473-
1355, metlzere@dailycamera.com ortwitter.com/meltzere.
17
18 2
19 3
Denver Architecture: Why you
should email Jeff Sheppard
By Ray Mark Rinaldi Denver Post Fine Arts Critic
Architect Jeff Sheppard, who designed arguably the city's best structure of 2014 — the Denver Art Museum's Administra-
tion Building on Bannock Street — says the city is failing in its downtown building designs. (Cyrus McCrimmon, Denver Post
file)
It's a big deal when Denver's top architect publishes an essay saying this city is failing at
design downtown. That we are building one mundane apartment building after the next.
That we are wasting the opportunity to become a national leader and ruining the urban
landscape by putting profit above civic pride.
Jeff Sheppard said all that, though in more polite ways, in a guest editorial in last
Sunday's Denver Post. And we'd be wise to hear him and do what he's suggesting: Knock
it off immediately.
20
Sheppard
Actually, he said that part more nicely, too, proposing that we "pause and consider
whether there might be more appealing, innovative approaches to building a timeless,
dynamic residential urban core before it's too late."
My interpretation: No more blocky apartment buildings that create nearly flat, five-story
walls along our pedestrian streets, obliterating sunny sidewalks. No more structures that
ask people to live in shoe boxes with a bare minimum of windows and balconies. No
more quick construction of lofts-that-aren't-really-lofts, set along anonymous corridors
that dissuade neighborly interaction.
At least until we make a plan to encourage developers to do a little better. And we can,
as a community, do better than to erase our own past by tearing down important
buildings that tell the city's history, replacing them with nondescript structures that
increase our housing stock but don't improve it.
Now's the time, as they say. This city is experiencing a building boom unparalleled in
any era. The economy is strong and demand for housing will only rise because our
population is expanding rapidly. We can afford to slow down and think for a minute.
Developers won't shape up unless we make it attractive to them. Architects won't lead
the charge because they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them. They are a
notoriously silent bunch.
That's what makes Sheppard's essay so interesting. He's taking a business risk. Though,
he's not just any architect.
He's the official Colorado Architect of the Year, an honor recently bestowed upon him by
the state chapter of the American Institute of Architects.
He designed what was, arguably, the city's best structure of 2014, the Denver Art
Museum's Administration Building on Bannock Street.
21
His firm, Roth Sheppard, has a reputation for delivering beauty and economy; he's the
guy behind the Room & Board retail store in Cherry Creek, the luxe Sushi
Den restaurant in Platt Park, the Boulder Regional Fire Training Facility and Colorado
State Patrol stations from Fort Collins to Frisco.
In other words, he knows his stuff, and he's sounding the alarm.
Sheppard isn't exactly offering solutions, though he does want us to explore, as a
community, some good examples and he's willing to lead the discussion, inviting
interested citizens to join in. (He asks folks to e-mail him at
jsheppard@rothsheppard.com.)
Truthfully, solutions are hard to come by. In those cities where design is forward-
thinking — incorporating outdoor space meaningfully, encouraging residents to interact,
creating landmarks that stop passers-by in their tracks with their good looks or
innovation — the momentum comes from developers themselves. They are business
people who consider it their duty to keep their towns sharp and know they can make a
better buck in the long term by creating structures that stand out.
Denver does have its models of well-planned residential design. There's one called
Lumina going up now at West 33rd Avenue and Navajo Street, designed by Tres Birds
Workshop and clad in a series of cut stainless-steel panels so attractive the Denver Art
Museum purchased one for its collection.
But more frequently, and especially in downtown, developers build structures that max
out their lots — up, down and out — to create the most square footage allowed.
No one can make laws that force better design. Would we really even want that? But we
can collectively encourage it by forcing developers to think about what they're doing and
by inspiring that civic pride that seems to come naturally in Portland, Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Seattle.
A few suggestions:
1. Create a real design review board at the municipal level with the authority to review
proposed buildings of a certain size or budget and recommend ways to make into
projects better neighbors and genuine contributors to the city's aesthetic style.
Developers aren't bad people — they make the world go around, create jobs, give us
badly needed roofs — they just don't always consider the possibilities.
22
2. Rewrite the city's rules that require 1 percent of the budget of public building projects
to be spent on art so that it can be spent on better design. Too often, this art is an
afterthought, jewelry purchased to glitz up bad buildings. If the cash could go toward
design elements or toward more-qualified architects, we wouldn't need the art to begin
with. Government could set the example.
3. Deal with this as the consumer issue it really is. People wouldn't build ugly
apartments if other people didn't rent them.
I get it: There's a housing shortage. Any apartment can seem like a palace in 2015. But
that's a temporary situation and shouldn't affect structures that will define our city for a
century or three.
The AIA could well serve its community by launching a public-awareness campaign to
educate housing customers about why good design makes for better living. Design
education should be part of arts education, starting in the schools.
4. Similar to LEED certification, which recognizes buildings for environmental
sensitivity, create a certification program that recognizes buildings that demonstrate, as
Sheppard put it, "an embrace of the concepts of outdoor living and social interaction
while responding thoughtfully to context."
5. Offer some form of tax incentive for buildings that demonstrate good design. This is a
difficult concept: What is good, and who is to say? But if people can come together so
easily on what's unattractive, they can reasonably decide what's desirable, too.
Maybe developers could apply for a tax discount, with only so many available each year.
Make it competitive; that's something deal makers understand.
These are just ideas, and there are surely better ones out there — ideas that reward and
not punish, inspire without demanding, respect property rights, keep government
intervention to a minimum,
Jeff Sheppard wants to lead the discussion. I suggest we join in.
23
OPINION
Denver is a great city, so why the bad
buildings?
By Jeffrey Sheppard
David Baker Architects, a respected California-based firm, designed an affordable senior housing project in San Francisco
called Armstrong Senior Housing. (Provided by Roth Sheppard Architects)
The rapid growth of Denver's residential urban core is on most everyone's radar today, yet
as our city's unprecedented development boom continues unabated, a troubling shift has
begun to reveal itself to all but the most casual observer.
As downtown Denver has become increasingly densified with block after block of repetitive
five-story, stick-framed rental apartments stacked on top of (or connected to) massive
concrete parking structures, banality has begun to quietly replace the well-designed historic
buildings that once populated our urban core. Meaningless, uninspiring structures that
feature mere surface variation rather than genuine innovation seem to be the zeitgeist of the
day.
We're talking about a huge volume of housing here. In April 2014, the Downtown Denver
Partnership stated in its Downtown Denver Economic Update for 2014 that "residential
development in downtown Denver and the City Center Neighborhoods continues to thrive
with 7,170 rental units and 1,173 for-sale units under construction or planned."
24
Urban planner Ken Schroeppel puts it in perspective at DenverInfill.com: There were
approximately 10,500 residential units built within Denver's center city from 2000 to 2009,
while about 5,000 units were added to the downtown core from mid-2012 to mid-2014.
That's roughly half the total from the entire first decade of the 21st century — not including
any recently completed units or projects planned for 2015 and beyond.
Schroeppel concludes, "Assuming all of the developments under construction will be
completed, then a total of 7,388 new residential units will be added to downtown Denver
from January 2012 through mid-2015 (without including proposed projects). That
translates into roughly 11,000 new residents and approximately $1.5 billion of residential
investment in downtown Denver."
In other words, the 1.5-mile radius that includes Denver's urban core is being transformed
before our eyes. In fact, the massive investment being poured into our city to turn it into a
major residential market is beyond comprehension for most. Yet, critical conversations
about how this dramatic shift is fundamentally changing downtown Denver's design
aesthetic, or how such an unprecedented number of renters condensed into such a small
area will impact residents' ownership of and engagement in our city, are not taking place.
This is the time for those who care about the long-term viability and vibrancy of our great
city to pause and consider whether there might be more appealing, innovative approaches to
building a timeless, dynamic residential urban core before it's too late.
Somehow, while we were weathering the recent recession, the valuing of innovation,
offering people viable choices, improving the lives of occupants, enhancing the
environment, and reaching beyond the notion of duplicating what others have already done
seems to have been forgotten in Denver.
Other cities, architects and developers — both in the U.S. and abroad — have been actively
questioning this formulaic approach to housing for some time by reimagining local housing
solutions and reaching beyond the simple quest of maximizing net leasable square footage,
and catering exclusively to young professionals.
Because great ideas relative to high-density housing often come from other countries before
making their way to one of our coasts, eventually showing up in Denver, four very different
multifamily housing projects come to mind as recent examples.
25
One is in Seoul, South Korea (micro-housing); the second and third are in Copenhagen,
Denmark, and in Manhattan (both multifamily housing); and the fourth is in San Francisco
(affordable senior housing). What is most compelling about these projects, however, is the
special care the architects took to respect context, integrate social spaces throughout the
buildings (not merely at street level), and maximize useable exterior space.
Unlike some of the most recent five-story apartment boxes built in downtown Denver, these
projects embrace the concepts of outdoor living and social interaction while responding
thoughtfully to context. Through innovative approaches to unit stacking and shape,
redefining the ground plane, integration of the car, and the exploration of vertical
neighborhoods, these projects have successfully begun to reimagine what 21st century
housing can be.
For example, The Mountain multifamily project in Copenhagen designed by the Bjarke
Ingels Group (BIG), incorporates L-shaped units with outdoor protected courtyards
terraced vertically to allow each unit full sun exposure, privacy and its own private
courtyard. A similar project by BIG on West 57th Street in Manhattan utilizes a unique,
warped pyramid form to preserve existing views and maximize natural light.
David Baker Architects, a respected California-based firm, designed Armstrong Senior
Housing in San Francisco. Avoiding additional planning themes that often lead to the
downfall of projects of this type, the exterior is vibrant, fresh and dynamic, reflecting the
neighborhood's African-American population through the tradition of African textiles. The
residences — predominantly studios and one-bedroom units — are built over commercial
space that houses shops, senior services, a library and community center, and wrap around
a large private courtyard, contributing to residents' sense of connection to their community.
Finally, the Songpa Micro-Housing project in Seoul, designed by Jinhee Park and John
Hong, uses connecting stairways as social space, introducing a linear micro café and an
amphitheater, for example. Hallways function as collaborative areas that seamlessly
transform from private to semi-private to open space, allowing residents to either claim a
single unit or combine units to create larger configurations on a temporary or permanent
basis.
These projects represent a few of the newest and best examples of innovative, contextual
design within the multifamily sector. While each originally began with a standard program
with specific goals relative to unit mix and size, the architects ventured far beyond what was
expected, ultimately exploring opportunities that broadened both client expectations and
the traditional concepts of housing, individual units and one's connection to community.
26
Denver's planning department, developers, investors, builders and architects must begin
asking whether the economic success of repetitive, five-story wood apartment boxes is
enough. Housing solutions that enhance our environment, strengthen our urban condition
and bring a sense of permanence and longevity to our collective future must be seriously
pursued before it's too late.
Downtown Denver could be a leader in generating multigenerational, diversified, innovative
housing. We could easily compete with Portland, Vancouver or some of the more innovative
parts of cities around the world. Yet, along with the recent surge in rental apartment
construction, we have experienced a simultaneous decline in unit types, variety and quality
— not to mention a serious lack of design innovation.
Is the building of repetitive, banal housing solutions the best we can do? If your answer is
"no," contact me at jsheppard@rothsheppard.com. Perhaps we can come together to initiate
a long-overdue conversation in our city.
27